Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • why waste money on scammers? all you need in law is to prove something was sent. use a 2nd class stamp and get free proof of posting from any po counter. dx  
    • Tracked is NOT necessary. 1st or 2nd class will suffice. Just make sure you obtain free proof of posting and KEEP IT SOMEWHERE SAFE...
    • I've given it a try, I expect alot of work required so will give my eyes and brain a rest as I'm getting word blind.. and I'll come back later following your initial bashings Thanks IN THE ******** County Court Claim No. [***] BETWEEN: LC Asset 2 S.A.R.L CLAIMANT AND [***] DEFENDANT ************ _________________________ ________ WITNESS STATEMENT OF [***] _________________________ ________ I, [***], being the Defendant in this case will state as follows;   I make this Witness Statement in support of my defence in this claim.   1. 1. I understand that the claimant is an Assignee, a buyer of defunct or bad debts, which are bought on mass portfolios at a much-reduced cost to the amount claimed and which the original creditors have already wrote off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income as confirmed in the claimants witness statement exhibit by way of the Deed of Assignment. As an assignee or creditor as defined in section 189 of the CCA this applies to this new requirement on assignment of rights. This means that when an assignee purchases debts (or otherwise acquires rights under a credit agreement) it also acquires certain obligations to the borrower including the duty to comply with CCA requirements (such as the rules on statements and notices and other post-contractual information). The assignee becomes the creditor under the agreement. This ensures that essential consumer protections under the CCA cannot be circumvented by assigning the debt to a third party. 2. The Claim relates to an alleged Credit Card agreement between the Defendant and Bank of Scotland plc. Save insofar of any admittance it is accepted that the Defendant has had contractual agreements with Bank of Scotland plc in the past, the Defendant is unaware as to what alleged debt the Claimant refers. The Defendant has not entered any contract with the Claimant. 3. The Defendant requested a copy of the CCA on the 24/12/2022 along with the standard fee of £1.00 postal order, to which the defendant received a reply from the Claimant dated 06/02/2023. To this date, the Claimant has failed to disclose a valid agreement and proof as per their claim that this is enforceable, that Default Notice and Notice of Assignment were sent to and received by the Defendant, on which their claim relies. 4. The Claimant claims a Notice of Assignment was served on the 22/02/2022. This is denied. 5. The Claimant claims a Default Notice was served on the defendant. This is denied. 6. The Claimant is put to strict proof to verify and confirm that the exhibit *** is a true copy of the agreement and are the true Terms and Conditions as issued at the time of inception of the online application and execution of the agreement. 7. The Claimant further claims that the documents are sufficient to pursue a Judgement and are therefore copies of original documents in their possession. 8. Point 3 is noted and denied. The Claimant pleads that a default notice has been served upon the defendant as evidenced by Exhibit [***]. The claimant is put to strict proof to verify the service of the above in accordance with s136 and s196 Law of Property Act 1925. 9. Point 5 is noted and disputed. 10. Point 6 is noted and disputed. The Defendant cannot recall ever having received the notice of assignment as evidenced in the exhibit marked *** The claimant is put to strict proof to verify the service of the above in accordance with s136 and s196 Law of Property Act 1925. 11. Point 11 is noted and disputed. The Defendant requested a copy of the CCA on the 24/12/2022 along with the standard fee of £1.00 postal order, to which the defendant received a reply from the Claimant dated 06/02/2023. To this date, the Claimant has failed to disclose a valid agreement and proof as per their claim that this is enforceable, that Default Notice and Notice of Assignment were sent to and received by the Defendant, on which their claim relies. 12. Point 12 is noted, the Defendant doesn’t recall receiving contact where documentation is provided as per the Claimants obligations under CCA. In addition, the Claimant pleads letters were sent on dates given, yet those are not the letters evidenced in their exhibits *** (dates are wrong) 13. Point 13 is noted and denied. Claimant is put to strict proof to prove allegations. 14. The Claimant did not provide a true copy of the CCA in response to the Defendants request of 21/12/2022. Conclusion 15. Without the Claimant providing a valid true copy of the executed Credit agreement that complies with the CCA, the Claimant has no grounds on which to enforce this alleged debt. 16. The Claimant has been unjustly enriched at the expense of the Defendant by purchasing bulk debt at a greatly reduced cost and subrogating for the original creditor in trying to recuperate the full amount of the original debt 17. The Defendant was not given ample evidence to prove the debt and therefore was not required to enter into settlement negotiations. Should the debt be proved in the future, the Defendant is willing to enter into such negotiations with the Claimant. On receipt of this claim I could not recall the precise details of the agreement or any debt and sought clarity from the claimant by way of a Section 78 request. The Claimant failed to comply. I can only assume as this was due to the Claimant not having any enforceable documentation and issuing a claim in hope of an undefended default judgment. Statement of Truth I, ********, the Defendant, believe the facts stated within this Witness Statement to be true. Signed: _________________________ _______ Dated: _____________________
  • 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

Gemini/gladstones claimform - Windscreen PCN Queens hosp Romford - P+D ticket !***Claim Dismissed***


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2146 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

  • Replies 202
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

good,

hopefully Romford actually read the file and put it in front of a judge regarding the failure to show a cause for action and make a case management order to force Gemini to either put up or shut up.

 

No guarantee of this but Gladdys reputation goes far and wide

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the court staff are doing their job they should pick up on it EB,

 

Gladdys might have some more egg on their smarmy duplicitous faces then.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 1 month later...

Claimants WS in above post

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

Claimants WS in above post

 

 

 

Thank you Dx.

 

Can I just point out that the pictures on page 12-15 are NOT of the area where the vehicle was parked.... but are of the contractors parking area outside the ambulance entrance at a different part of the hospital - the green triangles on the Birdseye view of the hospital.

The parked area is the blue dots.

 

 

Also, are they allowed to redact the contract document so heavily ?

 

I can’t see any ‘observed’ time on any of that document or a copy of the original screen ticket ? This is after all a pay and display space they claim, at a hospital with no change machines ... so would be reasonable to have to go get change ? With a disabled badge on display this would imply it could take longer than an able bodied person .... discrimination?

 

Also, their photo of the signage shows no relation to scale and how high up the posts the signs are..... conveniently cropped.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I've just skim read this (very familiar) Robostatement. And a couple of points that I've picked up on to help you pick it apart.

 

Under "The Defendants Liability" at..

 

Para 6. The Register Keeper (the Defendant) failed to nominate who was driving the vehicle prior to these proceedings which is required under paragraph 5(2) of the Act.

 

Now, unless they have a completely different version of the POFA 2012 to everyone else. Paragraph 5(2) says...

 

Sub-paragraph (1)(b) ceases to apply if (at any time after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice to keeper is given) the creditor begins proceedings to recover the unpaid parking charges from the keeper.

 

No where in there does it say that the Recorded Keeper is required to name the driver.

 

 

And under the same part of their WS. Para 7. Elliot v Loake. Really??? I'd know that this was Gladrags shoddy work even if it wasn't in the title of the thread.

 

 

"The Charge"

 

In ParkingLie v Beavis the Supreme Court certainly DID NOT say that any £85 charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable. What they said was that IN THAT CASE and/or IN THAT CAR PARK and with THE SIGNS THAT WERE IN PLACE AT THE TIME that Barry Beavis parked there, that the charge was legitimate.

 

That only really stands for that very particular set of circumstances. ParkingLie pay the landowner a rent to operate in that car park. So in that case, they had the rights to charge that amount.

 

This really doesn't mean that any PCN from any cowboy outfit is just as legitimate.

 

 

Under the item headed "the contract" and under the sub heading "Unauthorised" there is a list of scenarios where a vehicle will be issued with a PCN.

 

No where there does it say "not parking in a blue badge bay while displaying a blue badge and not buying a P&D ticket" So, irrespective of what it may or may not say on their signage, you've not broken any of the terms that are in their contract that would mean that your vehicle was "unauthorised" and was issued a PCN.

 

 

Obviously and clearly the pictures of the signage and the wider pictures of where that signage is placed do not match the pictures of your vehicle and where it was parked.

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gladrags really have fired off too early on this then.

 

No need to rush with your WS, you have until 28th May (by my working out) to submit your WS to Gladrags & the Court.

 

It's important that you leave it to the last possible moment, that way Gladrags can't tailor anything (last minute) to counter what you're saying in your WS.

 

Sit on your hands for now and await ideas :thumb:

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims track (Hearing)

 

District Judge E G has considered the statements of case and directions questionnaire filed and allocated the claim to the small claims track.

 

Unless the Claimant does by 4.00PM on the 15 May 2018 pay to the court the trial fee of £25.00 or file a properly completed applicaiton (i.e one which provides all the required information in the manner requested) for help with fees, then the claim will be Struck out with effect from 15 May 2018 without further order and, unless the court orders otherwise, you will also be liable for costs which the defendant has incurred.

 

The hearing of the claim will take place at ..:.. am on 15 June 2018 at ... and should take no longer than 1 hour.

 

(the trial fee is fee 2.1 in the current Civil Fees Order).

 

1) This claim is allocated to the Small Claims Track and the parties are referred to Part 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules and the Practice Direction of that Part for guidance on how the hearing of the claim will be conducted.

 

2) The claim will be heard at on a date and at a time which is set out on a notice attached to this Order, or which will be sent to you later. The court reserves the right to change the place and/or time of the hearing.

 

3) From the available papers, it is estimated that the hearing will take one hour. If a party is aware of a reson why this estimate might be substantially inaccurate, that party must notify the court immediately.

 

4) The parties are encouranged always to try to settle the case by negotiation. The parties are encouraged to contact each other with a view to truing to settle the case or narrow the issues. The court must be informed immediately if the case is settled.

 

5) The following paragraphs set out the Judge's directions for preparation for the hearing. Failure to comply with the directions my result in the case having to be adjourned and the party at fault having to pay costs.

 

The Following Directions Apply to this Claim:

 

6) Each party must deliver to the other party and to the court office copies of all documents on which that party intends to rely at the hearing no later than fourteen days before the hearing.

 

7) The orignal documents must be brought to the hearing.

 

8) In cases of this tye, the documents and information sent to the court and each party should, where available, include:

a) the letter making the claim and any reply;

b) invoices and estimates for repair;

c) agreements and invoices for any care hire costs;

d) the Police accident report;

e) plans and maps which should be agreed if possible;

f) photographs of the scene and of the damage which should be agreed if possible.

 

9) The judge may refuse to consider a document or take it into account if a copy of it has not been sent to the other party as required by this Order.

 

10) The documents to be sent to the other party and the court must include the statements of all witnesses (including the parties themselves)

 

11) Witness statements must:

a) Start with the name of the case and the claim number;

b) State the full name and address of the witness;

c) Set out the witness's evidence clearly in numbered paragraphs on numbered pages;

d) End with this paragraph: 'I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.' (or words to that effect); and

e) be signed by the witness and dated.

 

12) If a witness is unable to read the statement in the form produced to the court, the statement must include a certificate that it has been read or interpreted to the witness by a suitably qualified person. If a witness who has made a statement is to give evidence or be cross-examined and is unable to do so in spoken English (or Welsh if the hearing is in Wales), the party relying on that witness must ensure that a suitable independent interpreter is available.

 

13) The judge may refuse to hear the evidense or consider any statement of any witness whose statment has not been prepared and copied to the other party and the court in accordance with the paragraphs above.

 

14) Neither party may rely at the hearing on any report from an expert unless permission has been granted by the court beforehand. Anyone wishing to rely on an expert must write to the court immediately on receipt of this Order and seek permission, giving and explanation why the assistance of an expert is necessary.

 

15) Because this order has been made without a hearing, the parties have the right to apply to have the order set aside, varied or stayed. A party making such an application must send or deliver the application to the court (together with any appropriate fee) to arrive within seven days of service of this Order.

 

If your claim has been struck out, it will no longer exist. The hearing will be vacated, unless a counterclaim surbes the claim being struck out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

don't need to keep typing things out we know what a NOA looks like don't waste your time

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

Also, unless you hear otherwise before hand. Make sure that you check MCOL on 15th May and if they haven't paid the hearing fee, ask that the claim be struck out as per that order :thumb: It probably won't be, but it's always worth asking :wink:

 

It also shows that you're taking an active interest in the case and that you're not going to be some muppet that Gladrags can just walk all over.

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Get a screenshot of that if you haven't already. Make 3 copies (1 for Gladrags, 1 for Court and one for your evidence bundle). Refer to it in your WS.

 

That web page and Gemini's own contract should sink their claim without a trace, but let them waste their money on paying the hearing fee first :smokin:

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Get a screenshot of that if you haven't already. Make 3 copies (1 for Gladrags, 1 for Court and one for your evidence bundle). Refer to it in your WS.

 

That web page and Gemini's own contract should sink their claim without a trace, but let them waste their money on paying the hearing fee first :smokin:

 

Have it screenshot from when I found it

And sure I also printed it too :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Just logged in and this is the list of transactions ...

Does this mean they have not paid the Fee ?

 

 

Claim Status A claim was issued against you on 04/12/2017

 

 

Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 07/12/2017 at 14:15:39

 

 

Your acknowledgment of service was received on 07/12/2017 at 16:01:58

 

 

Your defence was received on 05/01/2018

 

 

DQ filed by claimant on 12/01/2018

 

 

DQ sent to you on 15/01/2018

 

 

You filed a DQ on 30/01/2018

 

 

Your claim was transferred to ROMFORD on 30/01/2018

Link to post
Share on other sites

ring the court

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

If the claim was transferred to ROMFORD on 30/01/2018...over 3 months 2 weeks ago you should have revived the N157 Notice of Allocation with the trial date.... courts directions and what dates you must complete them by.

 

Failure by any party to not comply with directions can lead to the claim/defence being struck out.....the N157 also states the date the claimant must pay the hearing fee by.......get on the blower to Romford first thing in the morning and ask where is your N157 ?

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the claim was transferred to ROMFORD on 30/01/2018...over 3 months 2 weeks ago you should have revived the N157 Notice of Allocation with the trial date.... courts directions and what dates you must complete them by.

 

Failure by any party to not comply with directions can lead to the claim/defence being struck out.....the N157 also states the date the claimant must pay the hearing fee by.......get on the blower to Romford first thing in the morning and ask where is your N157 ?

 

Andy

 

 

Hi Andy

 

Wasn’t that what I typed up on the post recently ?

 

Also, they paid the fee on 17th ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...