Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the 02/01/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
    • Monika the first four pages of the Private parking section have at least 12 of our members who have also been caught out on this scam site. That's around one quarter of all our current complaints. Usually we might expect two current complaints for the same park within 4 pages.  So you are in good company and have done well in appealing to McDonalds in an effort to resolve the matter without having  paid such a bunch of rogues. Most people blindly pay up. Met . Starbucks and McDonalds  are well aware of the situation and seem unwilling to make it easier for motorists to avoid getting caught. For instance, instead of photographing you, if they were honest and wanted you  to continue using their services again, they would have said "Excuse me but if you are going to go to Mc donalds from here, it will cost you £100." But no they kett quiet and are now pursuing you for probably a lot more than £100 now. They also know thst  they cannot charge anything over the amount stated on the car park signs. Their claims for £160 or £170 are unlawful yet so many pay that to avoid going to Court. When the truth is that Met are unlikely to take them to Court since they know they will lose. The PCNs are issued on airport land which is covered by Byelaws so only the driver can be pursued, not the keeper. But they keep writing to you as they do not know who was driving unless you gave it away when you appealed. Even if they know you were driving they should still lose in Court for several reasons. The reason we ask you to fill out our questionnaire is to help you if MET do decide to take you to Court in the end. Each member who visited the park may well have different experiences while there which can help when filling out a Witness statement [we will help you with that if it comes to it.] if you have thrown away the original PCN  and other paperwork you obviously haven't got a jerbil or a guinea pig as their paper makes great litter boxes for them.🙂 You can send an SAR to them to get all the information Met have on you to date. Though if you have been to several sites already, you may have done that by now. In the meantime, you will be being bombarded by illiterate debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors all threatening you with ever increasing amounts as well as being hung drawn and quartered. Their letters can all be safely ignored. On the odd chance that you may get a Letter of Claim from them just come back to us and we will get you to send a snotty letter back to them so that they know you are not happy, don't care a fig for their threats and will see them off in Court if they finally have the guts to carry on. If you do have the original PCN could you please post it up, carefully removing your name. address and car registration number but including dates and times. If not just click on the SAR to take you to the form to send to Met.
    • In order for us to help you we require the following information:- [if there are more than one defendant listed - tell us] 1 defendant   Which Court have you received the claim from ? County Court Business Centre, Northampton   Name of the Claimant ? LC Asset 2 S.A R.L   Date of issue – . 28/04/23   Particulars of Claim   What is the claim for –    (1) The Claimant ('C') claims the whole of the outstanding balance due and payable under an agreement referenced xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and opened effective from xx/xx/2017. The agreement is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ('CCA'), was signed by the Defendant ('D') and from which credit was extended to D.   (2) D failed to comply with a Default Notice served pursuant to s87 (1) CCA and by xx/xx/2022 a default was recorded.   (3) As at xx/xx/2022 the Defendant owed MBNA LTD the sum of 12,xxx.xx. By an agreement in writing the benefit of the debt has been legally assigned to C effective xx/xx/2022 and made regular upon C serving a Notice of Assignment upon D shortly thereafter.   (4) And C claims- 1. 12,xxx.xx 2. Interest pursuant to Section 69 County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from xx/01/2023 to xx/04/2023 of 2xx.xx and thereafter at a daily rate of 2.52 to date of judgement or sooner payment. Date xx/xx/2023   What is the total value of the claim? 12k   Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? Yes   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? N/A Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Credit Card   When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? After   Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? Online   Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes, but amount differs slightly   Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. DP issued claim   Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? Not that I recall...   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Not that I recall...   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? Yes   Why did you cease payments? Loss of employment main cause   What was the date of your last payment? Early 2021   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? No   -----------------------------------
    • Hello CAG Team, I'm adding the contents of the claim to this thread, but wanted to open the thread with an urgent question: Do I have to supply a WS for a claim with a court date that states " at the hearing the court will consider allocation and, time permitting, give an early neutral evaluation of the case" ? letter is an N24 General Form of Judgement or Order, if so, then I've messed up again. Court date 25 May 2024 The letter from court does not state (like the other claims I have) that I must provide WS within 28 days.. BUT I have recently received a WS from Link for it! making me think I do need to!??
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2623 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

@Bazz, Its as if the meeting never happened. That's what the solicitor himself said when I once asked him what is meant by Without Prejudice clause pronounced at the beginning of those meetings. I was sent an email in second week of December about date of hearing. That't the first formal record of motion.

 

Also informal discussions and without prejudice conversation, Does one need to attach any value to them unless they are made official.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 160
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

@Bazz, Its as if the meeting never happened. That's what the solicitor himself said when I once asked him what is meant by Without Prejudice clause pronounced at the beginning of those meetings.

 

It is as if the meeting(s) never happened with regard to any subsequent legal proceedings between yourself and the company.

 

You have evaded the (relevant) question I asked (presumably as you don't want to face up to either answering and/or the consequence(s) of an answer).

I asked: "More to the point : what will you tell the insurers it was about, if asked?"

 

Do you plan to lie & say there was no meeting?

Lie and says there was a meeting but no mention was made of a disciplinary?

 

With regard to taking out insurance expect to be held to the standard of "utmost good faith" regarding disclosure, rather than "what can I get away with".

 

What will you do if the reply to the SAR comes back showing your enquiry regarding getting a later date stated to make it that the insurer must pay out? Was that discussion on a "without prejudice" basis, and (even if so), do you think that "without prejudice" holds if you have asked them to undertake a potentially unlawful act??

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fwiw and ignoring Bazza's suggestion not to advise [sorry Bazza :(]

HB

 

I said I wouldn't advise. That won't stop me asking (hopefully relevant!) questions, nor should it stop others advising if they choose to do so!.

I just won't waste the energy on translating the answers (if the OP bothers to answer) into advice.

Others might do so.

 

So, no apology necessary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the spirit of nobody giving any advice, I shall just observe that what the OP is intending to do is criminal fraud.

 

And the employer will be required to provide a truthful statement that there was no possibility of a termination at the date that the insurance was taken out, something which they cannot do since they MUST admit that consideration was being given to termination.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the spirit of nobody giving any advice, I shall just observe that what the OP is intending to do is criminal fraud.

 

I said I'm not advising.

I'm not saying others shouldn't (nor am I saying they should!).

 

I speak only for myself (well, most days, anyhow).

I respect the right of others to choose, and unless I have reason otherwise, my default will be to respect their (informed) choice too.

 

So, just to make my position clear, I don't think there should be a "spirit of nobody giving advice", only a spirit of "some people" (maybe even many people, but each decides!) "feel there is no point in offering advice to that OP, on that subject".

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had the same thought about utmost good faith, Bazza.

 

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the insurers look very carefully at the timing of events if there's a claim, because newlyn seems to have taken out the policy about the time that the problems started at work, rather than when they joined the company.

 

ETA: post #39 refers.

 

HB

Edited by honeybee13
Addition.

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember that employers always keep records of everything.

There's no such thing as off the records.

In my company they call it holistic file, different and more detailed than official staff file.

The company keeps on denying the existence of such files, but while defending many colleagues, some stuff "off the records" came up.

In many occasions even words of advice from a manager in a non official meeting, but in a chit chat at the coffee machine.

This can only mean that they do keep records of everything, official or not.

So be careful if you intend to make an insurance claim; in reality you were aware of pending disciplinary, so I wouldn't even start a claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But is there a proof to what was discussed in the meeting.

 

I actually have two policy from the same company.

One I took one year back but that does not cover disciplinary and another one this September.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But is there a proof to what was discussed in the meeting.

 

I actually have two policy from the same company. One I took one year back but that does not cover disciplinary and another one this September.

 

It does not matter whether there is proof of what happened at the meeting:

 

(a) The concept of "without prejudice" is an awful lot less of a protection for information that most people (including you) assume it is.

 

(b) YOU know about the meeting, and therefore any statement that you have made or will make about not knowing about a potential termination is a LIE

 

© You are expecting your employer to collude with you in that lie - that is an unrealistic expectation

 

(d) The question framed by insurance companies is very broad - even IF the employer decided not to mention the meeting, there will be records of all sorts of other discussions and the employer KNOWS that they intend to take disciplinary action. None of those records or the knowledge are "without prejudice"

 

(e) Having two policies is not going to form any protection. They are still going to wonder why you took out a second one, with this specific inclusion not in the previous policy, and then miraculously and entirely by coincidence ended up without employment. You appear to think insurance companies are stupid. They are not.

 

I would remind you that insurance companies routinely share information for the purposes of preventing fraud. That means that if you make a fraudulent claim on this policy and then get caught, every company you hold insurance with, and every company you might want to hold insurance with, will know about it. You will be unable to insure ANYTHING! Do you drive? How will you drive when insurers refuse to insure you? Own a house? What mortgage company will touch you if you can't get insurance? You are lining yourself up to lose a lot more than your job. Even if they only come to suspect that you may have committed fraud, what do you think the chances are that they will record that somewhere? And that other insurers might also see those records? Because I am betting the odds are not in your favour.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I accept the SA, will it still be a problem with my second policy? If I get email from employer confirming that there was no motion against me ever, that will make me safe, I believe.

 

You can't lie to an insurance company to gain compensation.

Well you can, but then you have to face the very possible consequence described above.

Personally I would never lie to an insurance, when they catch you they destroy your life.

Imagine having no car!!!

How do you taxi the kids around???

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I accept the SA, will it still be a problem with my second policy? If I get email from employer confirming that there was no motion against me ever, that will make me safe, I believe.

 

I believe I covered that in ©. You are asking your employer to lie for you. Even if they agreed to provide the email, the insurance company will contact them directly. And the employer is going to lie? Not going to happen. I realise that this is a hard concept to grasp. You took out that policy AFTER you knew that you could face dismissal due to disciplinary action. That was an INTENT to defraud. Luckily for you, that intent is not actionable in law. ACTING ON THAT INTENT IS AGAINST THE LAW! At the very best you may never get insurance again. You may end up in court. You could go to prison! Fraud is a criminal act.

 

It really does not matter what emails, letters, tape recordings or other FALSIFIED evidence you get. You are asking people here to assist and support you in undertaking a criminal act. People are trying to explain to you that that you are proposing to embark on a dangerous course of action. A very dangerous course of action. That could ruin your life. Insurers are not idiots. They have dealt with people a lot cleverer than you. If you are very lucky, the worst that will happen is that your claim will be declined. Are you seriously willing to risk your entire future on that hope???? Right now, the worst that can happen is that you end up unemployed for as long as it takes to find other work. If you are correct about your skills, that won't take long.

 

In my opinion you have made some poor decisions over the last few months. If you really want to turn down the agreement and fight, I believe that will be another one, but you need to do what you feel is the right thing. But you cannot seriously believe that this is the right thing. If you do, there is something very wrong with your moral compass. Committing fraud is not a moral, ethical or legal thing to do. And you know that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I accept the SA, will it still be a problem with my second policy? If I get email from employer confirming that there was no motion against me ever, that will make me safe, I believe.

 

You haven't replied to my question in post #141, but given that we don't have all of the information on what has gone on at work, nor the exact wording of your insurance policy, I don't think we can confirm that you're safe. It would be guesswork, I'm afraid.

 

As I said earlier today, I would expect the insurer to be sceptical about the timing of your claim so soon after you took the policy out.

 

HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do informal discussions count? Can I not say that I don't need to attach any importance to anything that is not formal.

 

Why should anyone take informal communication seriously?

 

 

You need to adhere to both the letter and the spirit of your agreement with insurers. Stop trying to be a wide boy!

Never assume anyone on the internet is who they say they are. Only rely on advice from insured professionals you have paid for!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do informal discussions count? Can I not say that I don't need to attach any importance to anything that is not formal.

 

Why should anyone take informal communication seriously?

 

Of course they do. Of course you can't.

 

And since this is "informal communication" why are you here if you don't take it seriously?

 

Which part of "fraud is not moral, ethical or legal" did you not understand?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do informal discussions count? Can I not say that I don't need to attach any importance to anything that is not formal.

 

Why should anyone take informal communication seriously?

 

*

You need not attach any importance to it

No one need take notice of any informal discussion.

 

In fact, as soon as someone hears informally there may be a disciplinary, and knowing that they can never do ANYTHING wrong, but that their employer is bound to not see how perfect they are, they should rush to take out insurance before they hear formally.....

 

They also can't dismiss the OP

If they try the OP can go straight to issuing proceedings (ACAS?, smay-cash!), and the employer will fold, paying a gazillion to avoid the exposure and shame a tribunal will bring.

If the employer (whose legal advisors are idiots) foolishly decides not to settle, it'll go to a tribunal in days, it will be stress-free for the OP and they will win, being awarded gazillions

*

 

Anything between the *'s is made up, and would only apply in an alternate reality.

However, the OP isn't likely to stop until they hear what they want to hear: now sorted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You forgot the bit about how, in the meantime, the insurance company will pay up without question; the OP will have insurers lining up for their business so will never need to visit the Meerkats again; and will not end up with a criminal record.

 

It's a shame they won't be able to get any 2 for 1 cinema tickets any more.

 

It's sad for me to say this, but the more the OP says, the more insight I get into what the employer thinks of them and why.

I hate it when that happens.

I'm not naive.

Not all of our members are as pure as the driven snow.

 

 

Occasionally, some of them are people I would never otherwise want to meet, never mind represent.

But the actions of the OP and their approach displayed here don't feel like desperation.

They feel like something less explicable and calculated.

 

 

I really hope that I am wrong, and I hope that the OP is able to detach themselves from this long enough to take a long and objective read of the things they have said on this thread.

 

In their shoes, I think I would want to draw a line firmly under this terrible episode and get on with life - hopefully without ever being driven to suggest resorting to criminal acts and revenge motivations again.

 

Newlyn- go back to the employer, and say that you agree to their terms if they will throw in an agreed reference for future employers.

 

 

Don't even think about asking them to lie to your insurers, or they will quite possibly take the whole deal of the table.

 

 

Get your backside down to some employment agencies and get any job that you can do for the interim so that you can pay your way.

 

 

Use the breathing space to find the right job for you.

 

 

And - and this is a big ask - try to think objectively about how you ended up in this situation and learn from the experience.

 

 

Even by your own version of events, it is fairly clear to pretty much everyone except you that you have contributed to getting into this pickle.

 

 

You could have done things better.

 

 

And here's a starter for ten - when your manager tells you that they would like you do do things better/ differently, just do it.

Don't argue.

Don't tell them you are doing a great job.

Just do as they ask.

 

 

When you are the manager, you can manage as you wish.

But you have to last long enough in an employment to become a manager.

And whatever the rights and wrongs of any employer, you don't do that by going your own way and ignoring your managers advice.

 

(Sorry, for some reason the first part of my post posted and the rest didn't!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...