Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I'm still pondering/ trying to find docs re the above issue. Moving on - same saga; different issue I'm trying to understand what I can do: The lender/ mortgagee-in-possession has a claim v me for alleged debt. But the debt has only been incurred due to them failing to sell property in >5y. I'm fighting them on this.   I've been trying to get an order for sale for 2y.  I got it legally added into my counterclaim - but that will only be dealt with at trial.  This is really frustrating. The otherside's lawyers made an application to adjourn trial for a few more months - allegedly wanting to try sort some kind of settlement with me and to use the stay to sell.  At the hearing I asked Judge to expedite the order for sale. I pointed out they need a court-imposed deadline or this adjournment is just another time wasting tactic (with interest still accruing) as they have no buyer.  But the judge said he could legally only deal with the order at trial. The otherside don't want to be forced to sell the property.. Disclosure has presented so many emails which prove they want to keep it. I raised some points with the judge including misconduct of the receiver. The judge suggested I may have a separate claim against the receiver?   On this point - earlier paid-for lawyers said my counterclaim should be directed at the lender for interference with the receiver and the lender should be held responsible for the receiver's actions/ inactions.   I don't clearly understand that, but their legal advice was something to do with the role a receiver has acting as an agent for a borrower which makes it hard for a borrower to make a claim against a receiver ???.  However the judge's comment has got me thinking.  He made it clear the current claim is lender v me - it's not receiver v me.  Yet it is the receiver who is appointed to sell the property. (The receiver is mentioned/ involved in my counterclaim only from the lender collusion/ interference perspective).  So would I be able to make a separate application for an order for sale against the receiver?  Disclosure shows receiver has constantly rejected offers. He gave a contract to one buyer 4y ago. But colluded with the lender's lawyer to withdraw the contract after 2w to instead give it to the ceo of the lender (his own ltd co) (using same lawyer).  Emails show it was their joint strategy for lender/ ceo to keep the property.  The receiver didn't put the ceo under any pressure to exchange quickly.  After 1 month they all colluded again to follow a very destructive path - to gut the property.  My account was apparently switched into a "different fund" to "enable them to do works" (probably something to do with the ceo as he switched his ltd co accountant to in-house).   Interestingly the receiver told lender not to incur significant works costs and to hold interest.  The costs were huge (added to my account) and interest was not held.   The receiver rejected a good offer put forward by me 1.5y ago.  And he rejected a high offer 1y ago - to the dismay of the agent.  Would reasons like this be good enough to make a separate application to the court against the receiver for an order for sale ??  Or due to the main proceedings and/or the weird relationship a borrower has with a receiver I cannot ?
    • so a new powerless B2B debt DCA set up less than a month ago with a 99% success rate... operating on a NWNF basis , but charging £30 to set up your use of them. that's gonna last 5mins.... = SPAMMERS AND SCAMMERS. a DCA is NOT a BAILIFF and have  ZERO legal powers on ANY debt - no matter WHAT its type. dx      
    • Migrants are caught in China's manufacturing battles with the West, as Beijing tries to save its economy.View the full article
    • You could send an SAR to DCbl on the pretext that you are going for a breach of your GDPR . They should then send the purported letter of discontinuance which may show why it ended up in Gloucester and see if you can get your  costs back on the day. It obviously won't be much but  at least perhaps a small recompense for your wasted day. Not exactly wasted since you had a great win  albeit much sweeter if you had beat them in Court. But a win is a win so well done. We will miss you as it has been almost two years since you first started out on this mission. { I would n't be surprised if the wrong Court was down to DCBL}. I see you said "till the next time" but I am guessing you will be avoiding private patrolled car parks for a while.🙂
    • It is extremely disappointing that you haven't told us anything about the result of the hearing. You came here at the very last minute and the regulars - all unpaid volunteers - sweated blood trying to get an acceptable Witness Statement prepared in an extremely short time. The least you could have done is tell us how the hearing went, information invaluable for future users. Evidently not.
  • 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

Opus credit card. Default registered (debt of £0) but no notice given.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2753 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

Only for £80 which is nothing compared to some on this forum,

but just wanted to share my personal *win* with knowledge and foresight provided by this site

 

For some time i had a Citi/Opus credit card and kept it in a manageable level.

 

At around May 2012 I left my family home at the start of a very bitter divorce proceedings.

The details are unimportant other than at the same time to this I thought I had paid off the Credit Card completely and even destroyed it.

 

Unfortunately due to the bitter divorce, letters that Opus had been sending me were not passed on (destroyed?) by my wife.

 

My first hint of a problem was that I received a letter from Lowell informing me that I now owned them over £80.

 

I immediately asked them for details , not a formal Prove it letter as I wanted to seem a bit naive .

This resulted in a copy of statements from Opus going back to about October 2012.

 

The problem was that every statement consisted only of late payments and interest adding up to about £50 of the £80 demanded. Not a single mention of the original debt

 

There then followed many rounds of politely asking for statements going back to the original debt, with a response of either 'pay us' letters, copies of the part statements or even the original agreement at one point ( even though I hadn't even asked for it)

 

This came to a head when they managed to find my telephone number and called.

They made the mistake of saying that if I wanted the original debt statement that it would be my responsibility to to submit a SAR to Opus and 'its not their problem'

 

I then sent them a heavy hitting letter,

pointing out their statuary responsibilities,

their onus of proof,

revoking any contact by telephone etc

and refusing to respond any further unless they provided either original debt proof, or started court action.

 

They caved immediately and i received a No Further Action in the post today

 

And that original debt?

I still don't have the faintest clue what it was for.

But extrapolating back it must have been for less than £5

 

Thats a 1600% overcharge fail for Opus/Lowell in the bag

Edited by dadtaxi
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

Received a letter from Opus informing me that they had registered a default with credit reference agencies

 

The top of the letter shows the line "Outstanding balance: £0.00"

 

even says that they are required to notify me before registering a defauly, but due to a systems error, this did not take place

 

go on to excuse themselves by saying that it was filed correctly

because "it is the account status that drives your the registration process, not the giving of filing of notice"

 

Background. I had a Opus Credit card and paid it of fully ( or so I thought).

 

I was only contacted by Lowell at a later stage with the purchased debt, of which the statement only showed multiple fees and late payments which had risen to a level of about £100 .

 

I disputed this with them stating that I had paid the Credit card off off and insisted that they show the original "debt" rather than just the late fees.

 

This, after many letters back and forth, they were unable to do and eventually after a "take me to court then" letter they then wrote off the debt

 

Now, I obviously want to dispute this. What is my best course of action at this stage?

 

(if you need a letter scanned i'll do this later if necessary)

Link to post
Share on other sites

old and new threads merged and moved to the citi forum.

 

 

so, is there a default on your credit file?

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive got to say, that's quite impressive - linking to my last post on this from over 2 1/2 years ago! Wow

 

Anyway - Ive done a ClearScore and have 10 positive factors, 0 negative. No changes in 2016

 

Does this mean the default was not filed, or that it hasn't had time to register?

Link to post
Share on other sites

or that the debt was defaulted more than 6yrs ago and has been removed

issuing a supposed new default cant make it come back

 

 

just for reference

you are the 2nd person to say they've got a strange letter from opus re a default that's going to be registered [again] recently...

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it wasn't more than 6 years ago.

Off the top of my head it was somewhere in 2013.

I don't know exactly as ive only ever corresponded with Lowell's and have received no correspondence with Opus until this single letter. So I don't think this is an "again" letter.

 

It does seem strange that they think they can file a default on a debt they've sold on and also state is for an outstanding balance of of £0.00

 

Any thoughts as to how to respond?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its an admin error

they certainly cant retro issue a default

and certainly not for a £0 bal.

 

 

easily sorted via the ICO IF something does happen.

 

 

keep an eye on your Credit file

 

 

pers i'd not respond

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...