Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • get the FOS done and see. i have a feeling you might not need to do the latter.    
    • Noted, thanks re-draft it is then 🙄    If it does go to FOS and its upheld can I also go for the throat and apply to set aside the suspended judgement (consent order) based  CCA  sections 86E not providing default sum notices 86(5) not entitled to enforce agreement  87(1) and 88(2) leading to unlawful repudiation of the credit agreement. Just an idea. 
    • CB ....this conclusion is true.   as for PB, i can assure you that user most probably ( well i know but shouldn't say} holds the record here for the most reported posts by users as well as from those of the site team concerning his posts. if you hold on someones username further info can be seen.   however , a bit like say vodaphone or virgin media , very large companies with millions of customers will get the most complaints made against them...and that equates to posting levels here too. as for 'royalties account holder' that again merely points, by a default label in the software package we use, to the number of posts made.   one could further this by noting were we to agree with all their posts they would be on the siteteam... i will leave you to understand why not .....       don't think anyone did?    regards  DX
    • Is it just that? Oh I thought it was because of all the effort he and others made to rightly bring DCBL to court. But he just got lucky there I suppose. Lucky he didn't bring his complaint to this forum first because if he had of done, he'd be £10K poorer right now. And for something that Peterbard describes as benefitting from being newsworthy, I am struggling to find all the news reports that refer to it.       Confucius  say "he who backpedals, falls off bike."    I'm not surprised in the least that you, a gold account holder on this forum, would adopt a dismissive attitude to this well deserved victory in court against DCBL, however I'm curious as to why you opted to reduce the issues at stake to being 'simply' about ' the EA fell foul of the regulation which defines "relevant premises".   That certainly wasn't any argument that Iain Gould furthered and he's a civil actions lawyer whom, dare I say it, know a hell of a lot more about trespass and misuse of private information than you do.   The judge never mentioned "relevant premises" either. Not during the hearing or in his judgement. And you never mentioned it either prior to know. In fact, in the original  in the original 2018 thread you even went so far as to suggest that whatever address was on the writ was irrelevant because, "interestingly, if the address is not  a requirement it would not be possible to sue the bailiff for wrong attendance under section 66."   Not that your wrongfully held opinion that non debtors are also subject to the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 matters, because as I had already pointed out in the first video because the claimant wasn't suing for wrong attendance under section 66.   He sued for trespass. Part 66 never applied to him because he was not the debtor and never had been. You and the likes of DCBL can disregard that obvious point as much as you like, but bailiffs do not have a blanket immunity from trespass.   Have a look at the article Iain Gould has written on his blog about the case. It might help you understand the tort of trespass in some small way, and might help you adopt a more balanced approach to those poor sods who owed no debt and have had their homes raided and their privacy breached by EAs, and then - to add insult to injury - they come to you looking for help.   What makes it worse is that your defective understanding of when an Enforcement Agents action can give rise to trespass is backed up by your site team members who think it's their job to echo your mistakes not by justifying what you say - because they can't - but by making defamatory remarks at the expense of those who give the 'correct advice'.   Unlike you and your team members I don't hide behind the protection of anonymity. Nobody can hold you to account if you get it wrong, or heaven forbid, if it turns out you  have been working for a firm of debt collectors all along. To add to this, you don't seem to care much about removing libellous remarks from your forum when a legitimate complaint is raised.   To respond to Bank Fodders comment that "At some point in the video it has screenshots of this forum and the narrative suggests that some people agree that an enforcement agent has the power to enter into a property to check on identity. I think that it is intended that the CAG is associated with this belief."   Seriously? I have to point it out to you.   Maybe it has something to do with key members of this forum smearing me on the original thread by saying how wrong my narrative was and then implying I was a Freeman of the Land.   Maybe it had something to do with Gold Member Peter Bard leaving this comment on the same thread that stated:   "The point I was trying to make is that the EA will not be as interested in paperwork as in physical proof that the debtor does or does not live there.   As said there is no requirement for an address on a warrant, in fact the debtor may live at several addresses and the bailiff may attend to serve at any of them. The warrant is against the debtor, not the debtor at an address. It requires only enough info to identify the person.( see CPR wherever it is).   The bailiff will be much more interested in getting in and checking for clothes in wardrobes, sleeping accommodation, letters etc."   I'm sorry if that wasn't enough for you to justify me bringing that point up in the video. I did consider coming here before I completed it and asking those members if they intended to maintain their position that the Enforcement Agent had acted within the law but strangely the forum account I had used to make my first and only posting on this forum in 2018 - to counter the smears - would not allow me to sign in.   Far be it from me to draw any conclusions about my input not being welcome here, I figured Peterbard and some of the key members here would use their creative skills at providing a blanket immunity from civil liability for all EAs by misinterpreting key legislation in their behalf.    It looks like I was right about that also. Unfortunately I have given in to temptation, and am choosing to respond, even though I know how utterly futile it is.
    • There was another poster (Hammy1962) who understood (#3) the distance selling point you were trying to make, but you may have inadvertantly put him off in your subsequent post.  He may still be following this thread.  Wonder if he has any ideas that could possibly help you?    I'm concerned about how you continue if the TS route is not helpful...
  • Our picks

    • @curryspcworld @TeamKnowhowUK - Samsung 75 8K TV - completely broken by Currys. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/426151-samsung-75-8k-tv-completely-broken-by-currys/&do=findComment&comment=5069075
      • 5 replies
    • @skinnyfoodco Skinny Foods. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/426130-skinny-foods/&do=findComment&comment=5068996
      • 8 replies
    • I’m in desperate need of help
       
      I bought some clothes online in may through Evans and paid through PayPal
      returned them all seven days later
       
      I waited the 14days for my refund and no refund came
      I put in a dispute through PayPal but I didn’t get any emails to escalate the case - PayPal closed it. 
      evans said they couldn’t refund the money because PayPal have cancelled the refund because of the open dispute
       
      I contacted PayPal
      they said the dispute had been closed but Evans at no point had attempted a refund.
      fast forward to today
       
      I’ve got copies of numerous messages sent to and from twitter messages as it’s the only way I can contact them
      I’ve also contacted their customer service too
      all I get is PayPal have cancelled refund because dispute is still open.
       
      I have proved that the dispute is closed
      I have got an email saying that if Evans sent the refund they would accept it
      but up until the date I got the email they have not once attempted a refund .
       
       I have sent them a letter before court email
      I have even offered to have the full refund as a gift card just to get this sorted !
       
      I’m literally at the end of my tether and don’t know where to turn next !
       
      i suffer with mental health issues and this is affecting my health and I’d saved the money for a year to buy these clothes as I’m on a low income .
    • In desperate need of help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/425244-in-desperate-need-of-help/&do=findComment&comment=5067040
      • 29 replies

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 696 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Name of the Claimant ?PRA Group (UK) Limited

 

Date of issue – top right hand corner of the claim form – this in order to establish the time line you need to adhere to. 26/10/2018

 

Date of issue XX + 19 days ( 5 day for service + 14 days to acknowledge) = XX + 14 days to submit defence = XX (33 days in total) - 28/11/2018

 

^^^^^ NOTE : WHEN CALCULATING THE TIMELINE - PLEASE REMEMBER THAT THE DATE ON THE CLAIMFORM IS ONE IN THE COUNT [example: Issue date 01.03.2014 + 19 days (5 days for service + 14 days to acknowledge) = 19.03.2014 + 14 days to submit defence = 02.04.2014] = 33 days in total

 

Particulars of Claim

 

What is the claim for – the reason they have issued the claim? Please type out their particulars of claim in full (verbatim) less any identifiable data and round the amounts up/down.

 

The Claimant claims the sum of £425 for an outstanding debt owed. On 11/06/09 the Defendant entered into an agreement with Provident Personal Credit Limited for a Bank Loan under reference *********. On 4/11/2013 the Defendant defaulted on the agreement with an outstanding balance of £430. On 26/08/2014 the debt of £420 was assigned to Aktiv Kapital Portfolio AS, Oslo, Zug Branch, who itself assigned the debt to PRA Group (UK) LTD on 31/12/2014. Notices of assignment were sent to the Defendant in accordance with S136 Law of Property Act 1925. Adjustments have been made in the sum of £0.40 AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS 1. The sum of £425

 

Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ?

 

2 identical letters were sent claiming to be "Letter before Claim as required by the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct & Protocols contained in the Civil Procedure Rules"

The first of these letters was dated March 2018 & the second in September 2018.

 

What is the total value of the claim? £510, incl court fees & legal fees

 

Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Doorstep loan - not a Bank Loan as claimed in the POC

 

When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? 2009

 

Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes

 

Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. Original creditor

 

Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? No memory of such but as sent back to OC, prob not applicable

 

Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? No letters marked Default

 

Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Default sums” – at least once a year ? No

 

Why did you cease payments? Had to give up work to become full time carer for disabled wife.

 

What was the date of your last payment? Not sure

 

Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No but seeing as OC has already obtained CCJ's for 2 other loan a/c's, it seems particularly odd that they have come for such a small amount & after such a long time.

 

Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management planicon? No

 

What you need to do now.

 

Answer the questions above

 

If you have not already done so – send a CCA Request to the claimant for a copy of your agreement Posted 30/10/18

 

 

 

 

=======================================================

 

Hi, a dear friend has asked me to help him as he got court papers this morning & he's in a panic. He doesn't have access to computer or scanner so everything will be uploaded/discussed via myself.

 

Since 2017, the only paperwork received has been:

 

1. Account summary, dated January 2018 and letter marked "not a demand for payment"

2. LBC dated March 2018 incl account summary

3. Letter marked "Not a demand for payment" incl letter offering to accept reduced sum in full payment

3. LBC again dated September 2018 incl account summary

4. N1 claim

 

There is no paperwork saved before Jan 2017 so a CPR 31.14 request for the original agreement, assignment & reassignment letters as well as the default notice will be posted tomorrow.

 

His only income is Income Support and Carer's allowance & he already has 3 CCJ's of which 2 are to PRA re Provident which they secured in Feb 2017. He pays each of them at £5 per month.

 

In view of the fact that their paperwork doesn't appear to be in order, I wondered if he had a chance of successfully defending the claim. Your opinions would be helpful.

 

I have uploaded all the documentation. Interestingly, every piece of paperwork has his correct address on it apart from the September LBC & the actual N1 claim ! Ok, so it's only the last letter of the postcode they got wrong but it strikes me as odd that it's been right up until now - my cynicism alarm bells rang when I noticed it, lol

Not a demand for payment .jpg

LBC Sept.jpg

Account summary Jan 2018.jpg

Claim form.jpg

Settle account reduction.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just been on the phone to him & he doesn't think he's paid anything toward this debt since 2010 so it seems to me that they are out of time & the debt should be SB. Since a SAR would take him over the 33 day limit, what can he do ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

go ring provi and ask last payment date

 

if its outside of 6yrs then file our SB defence.

 

find out 1st

 

 

urm..PRA group doing a provi doorstep loan claim..thats unusual.

 

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

Thanks DX

 

Been reading the SB defence letter to DCAs. Should he use the same letter to the OC via the N1 ? Is there anything else he needs to do in the meantime other than to ask for CCA & CPR 31.14 ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

nothing to with the letter no

and CCA/CPR is pretty immaterial if the debt is SB as it doesn't really matter what they hold unless theres a statement of account that they try and prove its not SB'd.

 

get the info first from provi.

 

did not the existing paperwork he says he has give a clue

nor his credit file?

 

one quick phonecall is all that's needed.

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

I'll tell him to ring Prov in the morning. He doesn't have any paperwork earlier than 2017 - he says he binned most of the letters. He feels fairly sure he hasn't paid anything since giving up work in 2010 but can't prove it. I'll get him to check his credit file when he gets round here in the morning. Hopefully it's SB & all this can then go away.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Credit file shows nothing other than below

 

Interesting to see two Defaults were recorded yet no letters of Default have been received.

 

He rang PRA to ask for last payment date.

They said there was a payment on 12/06/2014 for 39 pence but that there had also been payments of £2 also in 2014.

He got them to email me a copy of the payment schedule from 2011 showing erratic payments of sums he has no recollection of making.

 

He acknowledges he was trying to make payment but categorically denies making payments of 39p a month at any time.

I guess since he admits to making the £2 payments, there's no denying the debt nor is it SB.

 

He asked for the initial loan balance but nobody appears to have that information.

 

I'm stuck for ideas now so please, any and all help is welcome :)

 

Ultimately if he has to accept a CCJ,

it'll be another £5pm on account of his limited income.

CallCredit.jpg

Payments.PNG

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

yo were told to get him to ring provident NOT the fleecers.

 

now go do it please.

 

the fleecers will say anything.

 

these £2 payments..who did he make them too and HOW?

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

He's gone back home to get his wife up & dressed but he remembers making the £2 payments by standing order years ago. He has absolutely no recollection of any 39p payments ! He won't phone from his house because he doesn't want his wife getting stressed but he'll be able to phone when he comes back round to me.

 

He's going to ask his bank for copies of his bank statements for the period 2012 - 2015 so he'll be able to confirm/deny with evidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok well if he did pay then sb is out the windows.

but it worries me he already has 3 CCJ's and they could easily claim payments from those to this account on their system which is why he needs to phone provident and find out if he paid them on THIS Account

do not trust anything a fleecer says or sends you on their headed paper from their system.

if I were to be honest I think all the CCJ's are suspect.

I gather he simply didn't defend any of them.??

 

he should NOT ever be phoning the fleecers or their dogs!!

 

this looks like he had numerous consecutive doorstep loans the next refinancing the previous and he could well do an irresponsible lending claim again the lot and get them wiped and get money back .

provident have been severely punished by the authorities over these loans of recent ...10'000 of people have gotten moneyback and provi are in dire straights financially over it.

 

 

so lets treat this as a std claimform then:

 

pop up on the MCOL website detailed on the claimform.

.

register as an individual

note the long gateway number given

then log in

.

select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box.

.

then using the details required from the claimform

.

defend all

leave jurisdiction unticked.

click thru to the end

confirm and exit MCOL.

.

get a CCA Request running to the claimant

leave the £1PO blank and uncrossed

.

get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors

.

type your name ONLY

 

no need to sign anything

.

you DO NOT await the return of paperwork.

you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform.

 

 

ENSURE HE UPDATES MCOL WITH HIS CORRECT ADDRESS

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

Thanks again, DX

 

CCA & CPR requests posted today. Told him to get proof of posting & send first class.

 

Will do MCOL when he comes back.

 

If I'm honest, he probably wouldn't have the fight for an irresponsible lending case.

 

I mentioned a DRO to him & he seemed quite interested in that - it would take the pressure off him but I made sure he knows he has to deal with this first.

Link to post
Share on other sites

no real point unless he is swimming in other debt, it wont remove the ccj's that are there.

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...