Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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: _____________________
    • eh?...no you are simply telling them you have moved...
    • I agree with you. You and the company are separate legal entities so the company property that you damaged is third party property as far as you are concerned..  Get the company to write to you holding you formally responsible for the damage to their fence with the quotations for the repair. Send it by post (proof of posting) to Prima and ask them to confirm they will deal with the the third party directly. Best that someone other than you writes on behalf of the company! I suspect this is simply lack of knowledge by staff on customer service desks who don't understand the concept of companies and their shareholders being separate legal entities. If Prima still make difficulties use their formal complaints system until either they agree to cover the TP claim or issue a deadlock letter. You can then go the FCA.
  • 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

DCA continue to chase "debt" after losing in Court


ITmanrichard
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2480 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

they haven't done anything - no -one has sold the debt on again....

 

 

you've simply responded to a phishing letter without doing the necessary research.

 

 

MKDP were purchased by Hoist Portfolio Holdings 2 Ltd in 2015

robbersway and just another trading name of HPH2 hoist.

 

 

all the same lot.

 

 

ignore

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 that's nothing to do with the owners now

bc defaulted you upon sale.

 

 

if that's not correctly registered then go talk to bc.

 

 

when did she miss her third due payment?

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

She didn't?

It was paid in full by the time BC sold it to 3rd Party

- 3rd Party registered it as default straight away without any opportunity to pay

 

what do you mean nothing to do with owners?

There iwas no debt to own in the first place?

 

 

They own nothing, that is the point here which with all due respect I think is a point you are missing?

Link to post
Share on other sites

a debt buyer cant default a credit file

all they can do is mirror the date that the original creditor registered in their own entry about the account they now own.

 

you need to understand how credit files work.

 

for the original creditor to take £8k of an £11k PPI reclaim to settle the outstanding balance, then there must have been a debt.

 

unless she had never missed a payment to that date then you are correct. no default should be registered.

 

if she had missed payments, to be correct the 3rd time, then under the information commissioners rules and guidelines they were entitled to default the debt

but the DATE of the default must be the correct one - the date of the third missed payment, not when they sold the account on.

 

I understand what you are saying . but you need the correct data to challenge the original creditor and

get them to correct the defaulted date ,

 

so have you all the statements?

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

Hi there, thanks for responding again, I don't want you to think that I am not grateful:

 

I briefly touched this earlier on in the thread

- my wife was admitted to hospital for quite some time

- she was late (not missed) one payment

- I had to get her to sign a document giving me the right to deal with the matter,

 

 

I called them and whilst she was in hospital they agreed a reduced payment schedule which we stuck to exactly

- then shortly after she came out of hospital we learned that they had defaulted her despite saying that if we kept up the payments they would not do this.

 

They told us at the time she didn't have PPI which is why with a job that didn't pay sick pay, we struggled with the payments (and others too).

 

 

At a later date we requested to check for miss-sold PPI and found out she did indeed have PPI all along, we didn't actually click on at the time that she should have been paid out whilst in hospital, and then she would of never missed any payments or had a payment plan.

Despite sticking to this plan they defaulted her and immediately sold the debt.

 

 

Yes they did "mirror" the default but its on the credit file from BC and MKDP LLP concurrently and the number of defaults is listed as 2.

Experian said this should not happen, but told us to contact BC to sort out who never did.

 

This was from 2011 which is why it "drops off" her file later this year;

Robinson Way actually told us this??

 

 

Like I said they have been informed it went to Court and MKDP LLP (HPH2 Ltd) lost,

they have been provided with the Court date, location and case number.

 

 

they know she only has a default until December, they know there was a Court Case in which it was proved she did not owe a penny, yet still they chase.

 

Despite it not being RW who lost in Court they have all the details yet continue to harass and make vexatious claims - surely this is wrong on so many levels, and surely a judge wouldn't be impressed?

 

Sorry for the rant but when you paid a debt off years ago how long can you be chased for that debt without getting extremely annoyed, I cant say on here what I really think.

 

We don't have all the statements but at some point we sent SAR and have therefore got a printout of everything.

 

Hey hold a minute,

so if MKDP LLP, HPH2 Ltd and RW are all part of Hoist surely there is no excuse for not knowing that MKDP lost this in Court already?

 

 

So WHY are they chasing, surely this is just not legal?

Link to post
Share on other sites

prove she didn't default then and demand bc removed the default and seek compensation.

 

 

but as I said earlier..

 

 

for the original creditor to take £8k of an £11k PPIlink3.gif reclaim to settle the outstanding balance, then there must have been a debt.

 

unless she had never missed a payment to that date then you are correct. no default should be registered.

 

if she had missed payments, to be correct the 3rd time, then under the information commissioners rules and guidelines they were entitled to default the debt

but the DATE of the default must be the correct one - the date of the third missed payment, not when they sold the account on.

 

 

late/missed sadly makes no odds.

 

 

having 2 defaults for the same debt does not harm you more than one.

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...