Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi all   Firstly, thanks for all the helpful threads on here. Whilst there's a lot to read and get through, it's both helpful and reassuring to see so much great advice and support to others in similar situations.   I've received a letter and a Claim Form from Moriarty for an ADCB CC debt. I'm presently in a DMP for existing UK debts and (probably like many others) I truly don't know the best way forward, as time is clearly of the essence - but I don't feel I've 'up to speed' yet on all the other threads, advice, lingo etc. to respond accordingly.   I'm looking at drafting the PAP and getting it of tomorrow, but just want to get into the other threads to see if it's the right thing (and get more info on similar cases).   Please feel free to comment with any advice - all gratefully received of course. Thanks again for anyone that's posted in other threads and great to see so many kind and generous respondents helping others.
    • nothing you can do can product against the very rare judge lottery syndrome.
    • not sure why you added the blue line I've highlighted? that's no in the we gave you.   as for your question... PRAC's roboclaim computer knows when the account was taken out, after all it raised the claim and checked everything carefully first before issuing the request via northants bulk courts equally inept roboclaim computer... 
    • I've been researching in preparation of compiling my particularised defence/WS.    I'm none too happy that some judges still seem to be siding with DCAs and seemingly brushing aside anything that we have assumed to be "necessary" for DCAs to have a winning case.    Reading a recent "summary" from another poster (another thread with case similar to mine - very old, illegible application form, no default notice, reliance on their own software to prove it was ever sent) and the judgment made in favour of the DCA and even suggesting that there was no "agreement with the DCA, they simply owned the debt, not the agreement"  Makes me very nervous.    Especially if cases like this will be judged on "probability" - the probability that if I signed the original application form, then I must have taken out the credit card and racked up the alleged debt as shown in statements enclosed in their WS (and dated some ten years later).   Is it ok to post some "evidence" I've found from elsewhere?    This is in line with my fears that regardless of how hard one tries to rebut the "lack of evidence" produced by DCAs for chasing these very old "alleged" debts, it does appear to come down to the luck of what judge you get on the day and how much they can be swayed by the DCA solicitor.    A quick Google search produced the following - from one case - this related to a credit agreement - which resulted in someone being made bankrupt - that person appealed the bankruptcy order on the grounds of defective credit agreement and default notice and this was the appeal judge's decision:   The necessary formalities for the entry into the regulated consumer credit agreement (which related to the debt in issue) were not complied with; The default notice served in respect of that credit agreement was defective.   The First Ground The Appellant argued that she did not receive the terms and conditions when she entered into the credit agreement and, accordingly, section 61 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (“CCA”) had not been complied with and the agreement could not be enforced. The agreement had been entered in 1995 and, whilst it had provided a microfiche copy of the front page of the application, the Respondent had been unable to provide a copy of the terms.   Despite the terms not being produced, the District Judge had found that, in the circumstances, it was very likely that such terms existed and would have been provided to the Appellant when she entered into the Agreement. Mr Justice Mann held that this was a finding that the District Judge was entitled to make.   Further, Mr Justice Mann found that it was implicit from the District Judge’s findings that she considered that the terms and conditions not only existed but had been subscribed to by the Appellant’s signature and, consequently, the requirements of section 61 CCA were fulfilled. Mr Justice Mann held that this was also a justifiable finding which should not be interfered with on appeal.   The Second Ground The Appellant also argued that the default notice upon which the Respondent relied did not comply with the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notice) Regulations 1989 because it stated the full balance of the account rather than the total of the missed payments. The Respondent argued that, as a result of the missed payments, it was contractually entitled to the entire balance subject to the service of the appropriate notice, a requirement which was fulfilled by the default notice itself and, consequently, the sum required to remedy the breach was the entire amount.   Mr Justice Mann agreed with the Respondent and the District Judge, holding that: “If by the time the default notice is served circumstances have arisen which entitle the lender to recover not merely sums which might be regarded as arrears, by which I assume is meant accumulated minimum payments, but also the whole of the sum, then they are entitled to claim that sum, and the sum to require to remedy the breach for non-payment of that sum is the payment of the whole sum due. The bank is not confined, at that stage, to claiming merely the amount of arrears if it has an accrued contractual right to have the whole of the sum.”   Do judgments like these not mean that a lot of what you guys do on here (and for which I and many others are VERY grateful) somewhat redundant. What is happening to judges just accepting "well, the terms must have been there if you signed it" -    Feeling quite nervous now.
    • we know it wasn't done to avoid enforcement we understand completely. but that doesn't take from away the fact that it happened   you can't appeal the pcn's on the basis that 'it was not his vehicle to levy upon'. the law clearly states otherwise.          
  • Our picks

SavoyTruffle

EMC car sales of Bagshot - 30 Day Right To Reject - Vehicle Casualty Report

Recommended Posts

Thank you for the advise and screen shot I will make a claim and inform insolvency so hopefully they get investigated and never be allowed to trade again under any name. 
 

I hope everyone gets there money back 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you go down the mcol route ensure you use crown motor direct ltd and none of the trading as names, if you paid any or all of the purchase price with finance or credit card contact them straight away and ask for a section 75 claim form you must have paid £100 o more on your credit card for this type of claim and they are them responsible for the full purchase amount not just the amount you paid on your card. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I won my case. Decided after an hour of court. Only myself and the judge were present.

 

The money claim is against the owner of EMC, which the judge changed there and then. I'm imagining that this is going to cause me a whole new set of problems, seeing as how EMC are not trading anymore. So although the main battle is won, I still have this carry on to deal with. 

 

Let's see what happens over the next few weeks. if they had just accepted my right to reject, it would have saved me a ton money and time. They're are also having to pay much more to me than the purchase price of the car, so they're out of pocket too. 

 

EMC, over to you to do the right thing. This will not just go away, and I will get what's owed to me..

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice one mate so is it against the ltd company or the owner himself. 

 

Did they send any kind of defence to the court. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The owner himself. He sent a defence in, but it was a 1 page fairly poor effort full of half truths and lies.

 

The judge was saying that the EMC paperwork does not really mention CMD, so better to go after the owner.

He was very, very helpful and 100% behind me.

 

Now to find this elusive owner.

I have all of his details so the challenge is on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just waiting for the court to issue a CCJ now against CMD. Their reply to the court, admitting that they owed the money, they said that they were now trading as Chobham Central Garage. A Mr Dave Cohen is the manager. 

 

Send any correspondence to Mr Ahmed Alwaheeb (the listed owner of CMD) care of Mr Dave Cohen at Chobham Central Garage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice one if you go the high court enforcment route I can recommend Penham Excel they may not have got a result for me due to the admin error by me, but kept me informed all the way through the process. And made the whole thing really easy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Use the sheriffs officers

 

 


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...