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.
      • 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

Old debt taken over by Nautilus Investment Holdings LTD


Binxy2
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2287 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

 

I'm wanting some advice on an old debt from 2012.

 

I ordered blinds through a company called UK HOMEMAKER which I wish I never had. They totally messed up the order got blinds that was too short and rails that didn't work/fit properly. They took the initial deposit and said they would take faulty items back and replace. A direct debit was set up but they never came back with the new items. Tried calling them on several occasions but was always told they will come next week time and time again. I told them i wouldnt be making any payments until the items got sorted.This was in August 2012 by December I gave up and never heard anything from them till now.

 

Fast forward to today and I receive a letter from Nautilus Investment Holdings LTD stating they now have the debt of £375 and have outsourced it to a company called Direct Collections Bailiffs ltd. A quick Google search on this company has now got me really worried. I've not had any correspondent with anyone regarding this loan since the last telephone call I made back in December 2012.

 

I've tried extremely hard to rebuild my credit score over the years. Checked my credit file and can't find this debt now. I would start paying it off but I really don't want to be paying for something I didn't fully receive.

 

Any advice on next step to take would be gratefully received.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you please tell us when you order the blinds in 2012 and when they were delivered and you discovered that they were incorrect. How much money did you pay them?

 

Presumably don't have any court judgement against you on this – in which case I'm not sure that there is very much that the debt collection company can do

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your reply.

 

The blinds where ordered at the end of July along with a £50 deposit when they came to measure up. They came some time in August to fit (Not sure what date now) and noticed the problems right away. Told the fitters who said someone would be out to inspect them.

 

Someone came a week later and agreed they was some faults and blinds cut to wrong length so took them away and said fitters would be back to replace.

Out of 8 blinds ordered only 3 where correct.

 

The fitters never came back no matter how many phone calls I made or the amount of times I waited in for them not to show.

 

Oh and also no court judgement like I said not heard anything until now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you. How much evidence have you got of any of this. Do you still have the blinds?

 

Please can you tell us how much you paid – how much they say you still owe them – and how much, if anything, have you had to pay to remedy the situation

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the problem as it's nearly 6 years ago now unfortunately for me I've not got any of the original paper work.

I think I stupidly thought nothing would come of it after this long so didn't keep anything.

Also as they never sent any letters until now don't have anything.

 

I don't have the blinds anymore they have all been replaced so I have receipts for the new blinds which cost about £200 for everything.

 

The original cost was £425 with £375 outstanding after £50 deposit which I paid.

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

You needn’t worry to much about the DCA, they are just noisy teenagers.

 

Can you remember when you made your last payment?

Or did you only pay the deposit?

When exactly was that?

 

Hang tight, experts will be along to advise....

Edited by dx100uk
quote/spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the issue is almost statute barred. By my reckoning, in July this year it will become legally unenforceable – assuming that they don't have some kind of judgement against you which I'm afraid to say is possible.

 

The sum is less than the £600 needed for transfer up – unless in some claim which has magically been mis-addressed, the amount of money alleged to be owed has been bumped up by the addition of charges and interest. If this is the case then it could be transferred up for enforcement by HCEO. If it is less than £600 then if there is a judgement then it would stay in the County Court. At the correspondence which you have received they have told you that the debt is £375 so it sounds if they haven't done anything to it. On the other hand, they must realise that it is nearly statute barred and they may be considering doing something.

 

You could either sue them – but there is little to be gained, or watch out for the arrival of a claim form and then respond with a defence and counterclaim.

 

I completely agree that there is no point in starting to make any payments. It seems that they are clearly in the wrong and looking at the Internet for UK Homemaker, I see that they don't seem to have a very good reputation.

 

What you might like to do is to send them an SAR to see if they've got anything about you. Do you know if Nautilus are simply acting on behalf of them or if they have bought the debt?

 

Maybe you would like to put up the Nautilus letter here in PDF format.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for all the replies.

 

From my understanding from the letter Nautilus are now the creditor and they are using Direct collection Bailiffs to recover the debt. They state all contact and payments to be made through direct collection Bailiffs and have included there contact details and bank details for payments.

 

The letter is dated 2nd March and includes a notice of sums in arrears (the £375) and a default notice.

 

The letter also states "We are aware or a previous period of non-compliance, whereby a notice of sums in arrears was not issued when your account status met the appropriate threshold"

 

I will try and get a copy up.

 

Also in the statement they made adjustments to the account in Sept 2017 I think it was charges they have removed. Will that go against it going statute barred?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No just what was uploaded and some FCA leaflets on arrears and default.

 

Ok. It might be worth waiting for the real knowledgable folk but seeing as they claim to have purchased the debt you could try a CCA request on them.... see if they have the original agreement....

 

Wait and see what other folk say...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Should I send this letter to them? Also would this be classed as section 77 as it was a Loan?

 

 

Sorry for all questions.

 

Should it be sent directly to Nautilus or direct collections bailiff?

Edited by dx100uk
merge
Link to post
Share on other sites

ignore them

its all bogus

they cant default your file

and dcbl are simply powerless DCA's in this instance.

 

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

How did you order.....internet or shop ?

 

Did you sign a credit agreement ?

 

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

I believe I did but honestly can't remember it's been so long.

 

It was through a doorstep company called UK homemakers they left a leaflet so called them.

 

They came to the house to set it all up and the only other time I've had contact with them was when I was phoning their head office to try and get the faulty items sorted.

 

Should I just ignore it & see what they send next or should I send CCA request asap?

Edited by dx100uk
merge
Link to post
Share on other sites

So as stated its coming up to being statute barred...hence the parasites coming out the woodwork.

 

August 2012 and they issue a default notice dated 2nd March 2018 :-)...they issue a Notice of Sums in Arrears (that to allow them to claim interest from Aug 2012) :-) DCAs cant issue either...only the Original Creditor

 

Ignore them and forget it..... and only post back here if a court claim is issued.

 

 

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

also worthy to note

Nautilus Investment Holdings

are not FCA registered as far as I can see so cant act as a creditor...

 

they reside on the isle of man...opps busted..

no wonder DCBL are involved as they think they can make their fake unicorn feed tax on this too.!!

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...