Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Absolutely for the agreement they are referring to.... puts them on notice that this is going to be a uphill fight.   Andy 
    • Particular's of claim for reference only 1. the claim is for the sum of £6163.61due by the defendant under an agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974 for hsbc uk bank plc. Account (16 digits) 2. The defendant failed to maintain contractual payments required by the agreement and a default notice was served under s 87(1)  of the consumer credit act 1974 which as not been compiled with. 3. The debt was legally assigned to the Claimant on 23/08/23, notice on which as been given to the defendant.  4. The claim includes statutory interest under S.69 of the county courts act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of issue of these proceedings in the sum of £117.53 the Claimant claims the sum of £6281.14. Suggested defence 1. The Defendant contends the particulars of the claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.3 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. The claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre action protocol) failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st of October 2017. It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant 7.1 PAPDC. 3. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have in the past had financial dealings but do not recognise this specific account number or recollect any outstanding debt and have therefore requested clarification. 4. Paragraph 2 is denied. I have not been served with a default notice pursuant to the consumer credit act 1974. 5. Paragraph 3 is denied. i am unaware of any legal assignment or notice of assignment. A copy of assignment was sent by Overdales solicitors when acknowledgement of receipt of CPR request was received, but this was not the original.   6. Paragraph 4 is denied. Neither the original creditor or the assignee have served notice pursuant to sec86c of the Credit Consumer Act 1974 Notice of Sums in Arrears and therefore prevented from charging interest on debt regulated by the CCA1974. 7. The defendant submitted a request for a copy of the alleged agreement pursuant to s78 CCA 1974. The claimant has acknowledged receipt of request but has failed to comply. The claimant has failed to provide any evidence of balance or Default Notice requested by CPR 31.14 8. It is therefore denied with regards to defendant owing any monies to the claimant. therefore the claimant is put to strict proof to:  a.  Show how the defendant has entered into an agreement with HSBC. b.  Show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a Default notice pursuant to section 87 (1) CCA 1974. c.  Show and quantify how the defendant has reached the amount claimed for. d.  Show how the claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity  to issue a claim. 8.  As per civil procedure rule 16.5 (4) it is expected claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 9.  Until such time the claimant can comply to a section 78 request he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement 10. 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.     .
    • OK, well rereading the court orders from March, in the cold light of day rather than when knackered late at night, it is quite clear that on 25 June there will only be a preliminary hearing about Laura representing her son.  Nothing more. It's lazy DCBL who haven't read things properly and have stupidly sent their Witness Statement early. Laura & I had already been working on a WS, and here it is.  It needs tweaking now after reading the rubbish that DCBL sent and after all of LFI's comments.  But the "meat" is there. Defendant's WS - version 1.pdf
    • Morning, I purchased a car from Big Motoring World on 10th December 2023 for £14899.00. On the 15th December I had a problem with the auto start stop function of the car in which the car would stop in the middle of the road with a stop start error message. I called the big assist and the car was booked in for February. The BMW was with them for a week and it came back with the auto stop start feature all fine and all error codes cleared on the report from big motoring world. within 5 days I had the same issue. Warning light coming on and the car stopping. I called big assist again and the car was again booked in for an other repair in May. Car was taken back in may, they had the car for a week and returned with the report saying no issue with the auto stop start feature and blamed my driving. Within 5 days of having the car back it broke down again. This time undrivable. I had the rac pick my car up and take to Stephen James BMW for a full diagnostic. The diagnostic came back with the car needing a new fuel system as magnetic swarf was found.  I have sent big motoring world a letter stating all the issues and that under the consumer rights act 2015 I have asked for a replacement vehicle. all reports from Stephen James BMW have been sent over to big motoring world. Big motoring world have come back and said they will respond to my complaint within 14 days for the date of my complaint letter. I am not feeling confident on the response from them, what are my next steps?   Thanks in advance. 
    • That is really good is that a mistake last off "driver doesn't have a licence" I assume that should be keeper? The Court requested me to send the Court and applicant proof of my sons disability from their GP this clearly shows he has Severe Mental Impairement, he is also illiterate.  I naively assumed once the applicant received this that they would drop the claim.  It offends me that Bank has asked the Judge to throw the case out at the preliminary hearing and to make us pay up.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

First Trust Bank sold my 2005 debts to Asset Link Capital


pete263
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2485 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

Hi, In 2005 I developed long term illness and had to give up working.

 

To cut a long story short I owed my bank (First Trust) approx £300 (I cant remember the exact figure) for a couple of direct debits that came out of my current account at the time.

 

I also had a credit card (again with First Trust) and the balance on that was approx £600.

 

I contacted the local Citizens Advice, got a payment plan set up with a token payment of £1 per month for the current account and credit card. ( I have paid every month ever since)

 

At the time the Bank agreed to charge no interest on either the credit card or current account, although sadly I do not have this in writing anywere.

 

The bank has now sold the debt onto Asset Link Capital and I have had a letter from them asking me to setup a payment plan with them but the £300 current account debt has now grown into a £1100+ debt!

Its obvious the bank has been charging interest on this account all along.

 

Interestingly, the credit card debt has not had any interest added to it.

 

Im at a total loss as to what to do about it and would be very grateful for any help.

I do not mind paying off genuine debt that Im responsible for but to charge that amount of interest is criminal.

 

PS. After reading through some other cases is it feasible for me to request a CCA for the Credit card debt and I dont think a CCA would help with a current account?

 

Thanks in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignore debt collection communications.

 

Send a Data Protection Subject Access Request to First Trust for copies of all records on the current account and credit card.

 

 

In the request letter, ask for copies of all file notes, all statements of accounts and in particular any records regarding to an agreement made in 05/06 for no interest or charges to be added. If you click on subject access request there is a link to the standard template letter.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply,

 

I have a Subject access request from October 2014 from them ( a friend at the time was advising me on financial matters) and I can find nothing in the notes regarding interest or charges being frozen. To be honest I cant make much sense of them as its a printout of 150 so pages titled CACS report, I did find the name of the person from the CAB who dealt with this back then but after ringing them she no longer works for the CAB.

 

Should I request another SAR? Sorry if I seem a bit confused but my illness makes it very difficult to process information at times.

 

If worst comes to the worst what is my best course of action for resolving this, CCA the credit card and token payment for the current account?

 

Thanks again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, no point sending another.

 

You could write to the Bank asking them for confirmation that back in 2005/06 following intervention from Citizens advice that interest/charges were removed and no longer to be added to the account.

 

Don't mention the debt being sold and the issue.

Get the Bank to confirm what they agreed at the time.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

so you received a letter of assignment.

Did the bank continue to send out annual statements before selling the debt on?

Does the new demand have a breakdown of how the debt is formed?

 

With a SAR it is supposed to be intelligible so what you received didnt meet the requirements on a SAR as they are supposed to send explanatoty text with their reams of figures.

 

 

That is a stick to beat them with but they wont be sending you it now but you have good grounds for a complaint when you ask again and get the same type of data.

 

 

That should get them a ticking off and hopefully a refund of your tenner (I know but even a small victory is still a victory).

 

you can ask Link for a breakdown of the amount and they will have to chase it up with First Trust or they wont be going anywhere enforcing the debt.

 

 

So, ask link for a breakdown first and then SAR to First Trust if they cant provide anything meaningful

 

I bet some of the original charges were unlawful so you will be able to reclaim these from Link.

 

 

They wont have paid that much for the debt so if they have to pay you say £100 that is probably more than the debt cost them and they have no way of wriggling out of it, the liabilites go with the benefits to them.

 

 

If you are lucky you get back the charges plus interest so the end result is that they will owe you more then the origianl amount, your debt is cleared and you get some cash. Wouldnt that be a result.

 

For the moment you pay the £1 a month if the assignment is real as per the original agreement. they will ahve to go to court to vary that and they might not have the correct paperwork to back up their decision.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks so much for your answer, its a weight off my mind.

 

 

Found the exact figures for the debt and the current account was £417, the credit card £661 so on the current account there has been nearly £800 interest.

 

The SAR is pretty unitelligible as you mentioned, no explanatory texts or anything, just a bunch of codes and figures really.

 

By the way, I had PPI and insurance on the credit card so I dont know why it was never settled through the insurance.

 

The bank never sent me annual statements and the new demand from Link only has a total figure, no breakdown at all.

 

I'll follow your advice now and firstly ask link for a breakdown and SAR the bank,

 

 

should I offer to pay Link the £1 per month immediatly or wait until they give me a breakdown? Also, when I get the SAR back how do I know what charges are unlawful?

 

Thanks for your patience and for the advice :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

cash cowed blind

quite honestly id just stop paying both of them

 

 

link never own enforceable debts anyway.

 

 

a DCA is NOT A BAILIFF

and has

NO SUCH LEGAL POWERS.

 

 

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

also 1st trust were an irish bank

are you still in Ireland?

why are you blindly paying a English DCA for an irish debt???

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

doorstep hassle?

 

they are NOT BALLIFFS!!

 

where this come from...

not been talking to these muppets have you

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

Thats true dx and I'll keep that in mind :wink: Going to try it re: ericsbrother and see how I get on..

... I'll keep you's posted and let you know how it plays out.

 

 

Just finished the letter asking for the breakdown so that'll get the ball rolling.

Cheers for the advice everyone, it IS appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, I also have a copy of the agreement for the credit card and PPI is included in it, is it worth my while contacting the original creditor about this or should it be LINK?

I didnt have the card for very long so cant imagine Id be owed very much.

Link to post
Share on other sites

always the OC

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...