Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • No DWP is in denial, the Errol Graham case has caused much concern   https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/errol-graham-coroner-pledges-to-press-dwp-on-safeguarding-review/   Something is amiss with the procedures, Capita and the PIP Assessments seem to go against what a claimant's doctors say quite often, as do the UC Work Capability Assessments
    • oh don't you just love fleecers out to make a buck out of people they think are just mugs..
    • Useful link, BN.   The article mentions that the National Audit Office said that the DWP isn't learning anything from its mistakes.   HB
    • 1.     The Claimant claims £9,240.52 for monies due from the Defendant.   2.     This debt was pursuant to a regulated agreement(s) between the Defendant and The Student Loans Company Limited.  Each agreement had an individual account number as follows: 01xxxxxxxx, 00xxxxxxx, 97xxxxxxx, 96xxxxxxx.   3.     The Defendant failed to make payments as per the terms resulting in the agreement(s) being terminated.   Notice of such is served by a Default or Termination Notice subject to the terms of the agreement(s).   4.     The debt was assigned to the Claimant on 22/11/2013, with a notice provided to the Defendant.   A new master reference number xxxxxxxxxxxxx was also applied upon assignment.   5.     The Claimant has complied with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims   DEFENCE ……………...   The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature.  The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR 16.5(3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.   1.     Paragraph 1 2 is noted and denied accepted . I have had financial dealings with The Student Loans company in the past.  I do not recall the precise details or agreement and have sought verification from the claimant who has not complied with my requests for further information.   2.     Paragraph 2 is noted and accepted.  I did take out 4 student loans with the Student Loans Company.   2.     Paragraph 3 is noted and denied.  The Defendant never agreed to make payments to the Claimant, terms of the original Student Loans Agreement have been adhered to and thus repayments of loans are not due.  The Claimant is put to strict proof that an agreement(s) to make payments was made and a breach of agreement(s) occurred.   Paragraph 3 is denied as The Defendant maintains that a default notices were never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof that default notices were issued to, and received by the Defendant    3. Paragraphs1 & 4 are denied.The annual income of the Defendant has never exceeded the published limits for deferral since graduating in XXXX. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly provided by the Claimant pursuant to the LoP Act 1925.   4.      On receipt of this claim I requested (Royal Mail signed for) on 14/02/2020 a CPR 31.14 from the Claimant's solicitor and a section 77 CCA from the Claimant, to which both have failed to respond to,  It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant;  the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of credit agreement/assignment/balance/breach requested by CPR 31.14, and remains in default of my section 77 CCA Request, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a)   Show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement(s) (b)  Show how the Defendant is in breach of agreement(s) (c)   Show why the Claimant has terminated agreement(s) show the nature of breach and service of Default Notices and subsequent Notice of Sums in Arrears in accordance with the Consumer  Credit Act (d)  Show how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed for and (e)   Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.     5. On receipt of this claim I requested (Royal Mail signed for) on 14/02/2020 a CPR 31.14 from the Claimant's solicitor and a section 77 CCA from the Claimant,  for copies of the documents referred to within the Claimant’s particulars to establish what the claim is for. To date the Claimant has failed to comply to my section 77 requests and their solicitors, Drydens Limited, have refused my CPR 31.14 request.    6.     The Defendant has supplied the Claimant with a deferment letter and evidence every year that their income is below the threshold for repayments, by way of Royal Mail signed for and proof of postage has been kept. As per Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.      7.     The Defendant has done everything required of them to qualify for deferment as per the original agreement(s) with The Student Loans company.  The Claimant has only once acknowledged a deferment letter on 16 September 2014 whereupon they granted their request to defer repayments for that year. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82 A of the consumer credit Act 1974.    8.The Defendant therefore fails to see how they are in breach of any agreement(s) and deny the Claimant's claim of £9,240.52 or any other sum, or relief of any kind. 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        ……………………………...   delete the red add the blue.    
    • Is this better?   In the Bristol Civic Justice Centre   Claimant name and address xxxxxxxx xxxxxx xx xxxxxx xxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxx xxx   Defendants name and address Nissan Motor (GB) Limited, The Rivers Office Park, Denham Way, Maple Cross, Rickmansworth, Hertfordshire, WD3 9YS.   Brief details of claim Damages   Value £225   Particulars of claim 1. The Defendant is a Data Controller within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 2018 and is responsible for the processing of data of which the Claimant is a Subject.     2. This claim is in relation to three breaches of the Data Protection Act (2018) by the Defendant. (a) Failure to comply with the statutory time limit. (b) The Defendants data disclosure was incomplete. (c) The Defendant sent the data to an address which was not the address of the      Claimant data Subject.    3. The Defendant has failed to comply with the statutory time limit and is therefore in breach of the Data Protection Act (2018). (a) On 09 January 2020, the Claimant made a request for to the Defendant for a statutory data disclosure.  The statutory timeframe for compliance was 10 February 2020.    4. The Defendants data disclosure is incomplete.  (a) The Defendant has provided data disclosure on 25 February 2020.  However, the data disclosure that has been provided by the Defendant is incomplete.    5. The Defendant sent the disclosure to an address that was not the Claimant’s. (a) The Claimant provided the Defendant with the correct address to send the Subject Access Request to on 10 January 2020 and again on 19 February 2020.      6. The Claimant has made a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) asking for a statutory assessment to be carried out.  The ICO has offered a preliminary view that the Defendant has breached their statutory duty in failing to comply with the statutory time limit.    7. By virtue of the Defendant’s failure to comply with the Subject Access Request the Claimant has suffered distress.
  • Our picks

jotty

JP Morgan/Rooftop Arrears fees- The saga continues.

Recommended Posts

pers I think that's a win

and the visit fees to cone I bet...!! good work.

 

dx

 


please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks DX, yes seems like a lot of hard work to get to roughly where I wanted to be 12 months ago. 

 

Did learn a hell of a lot though from the way the Judge directed his questions and need to up my game when it comes to the type and amount of evidence in my application. He didn't criticise but did make suggestions which I found very helpful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you very much indeed for this update. I'm terribly sorry that you didn't have an outright win. I can't imagine they will come back for the £500 – but if they do then let us know and in principle don't pay it. At the very least I think we could plead that there is an estoppel.

Well done on the costs. I'm sure that these contractual terms by which they seek to have a potential claimant or defendant indemnify them for legal costs is unenforceable because what they are effectively doing is getting you to contract out of the court procedure rules in respect of costs.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, if they referred to their contractual term in respect of costs in any future hearing, I think that your proper response is to point out to the judge that this contractual term seeks to undermine or usurp the authority or discretion of the court to award or not award costs and in that respect it is completely unenforceable. Tell the judge that effectively they are trying to force the judge to make an award of costs


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks BF, that was basically what the Judge said to the Solicitor who was caught unawares that I would be on to it, so yes its very good advice.

 

Its not unlike the bank charges fiasco, we know we are all right but the Judges will always fall back on the law rather than try and change it in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also it's a shame about the judge's reliance upon the ombudsman's decision.

The ombudsman's remit is apparently to arrive at a solution which is "fair to both sides". However if you look at all the FCA regulations, they talk about – treating the customers fairly – communicating with the customers fairly – having the customers interests in mind when making a decision. In other words, in my view, the ombudsman remit is at odds with the statutory duties of banks and financial firms generally.

If we had thought about this, we could have briefed you on it and you could have raised this is an objection to the judge. The judge really had no business following the ombudsman's decision. The judge was bound by the regulations set up by the FCA under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 – but who knew?


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thinking back, the judge did concede that the ombudsman’s decision was not binding on the court but he certainly used it as the basis for his decision. I doubt if he would have ignored the ombudsman.He did make comment that any issue of this kind should be resolved by a court which I took to mean in other words dont bother with the Ombudsman.

 

He made no mention as the level of charges and if they are justifiable, but again this was because the Ombudsman had already said they where.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that it is most unlikely that he knew about the FCA fairness regulations. If his attention had been brought to them then he would have been obliged to read them and then to take them into consideration. Unfortunately we didn't anticipate this and didn't brief you in.

I'm sorry


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No problem we live and learn.

 

Now that my claim is has been struck out, does it stop me in the future trying again with a better argument ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I think so. At the very least you would be at risk of costs if it was considered to be frivolous. I suppose you could appeal on the basis of the FCA regulations – but best to leave it alone rather than risk some humiliation in the face of a smirking opponent

  • Thanks 1

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...