Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I've not seen it personally but I think that's the letter Dad has had from Overdales. I'll see it tomorrow. It states balance: zero
    • Agreed as you clearly have little faith in your star runners, mind you - I have less - conditional on the welcher clause I defined being part, and that we are talking about the three defined candidates: Tice Farage and Anderson - not anyone anywhere as reform might (outside chance) get someone decent to run somewhere. If any of the three dont run - they count as a loss.   welcher clause. "If either of us loses and doesn't pay - we agree the site admin will change the welchers avatar permanently to a cows ass - specific cows ass avatar chosen by the winner - with veto by site on any too offensive - requiring another to be chosen  (or of course, DP likely allows you can delete your account and all your worthless posts to cheapskate chicken out and we'll just laugh) "
    • This is the full details, note they have made an error (1) in that paragraph 5 stated 14 days before hearing not 7. Surely a company of their size would proof read and shouldn't make basic errors like that 1) The Claimant respectfully applies for an extension of time to comply with paragraph 5 of the Order of Deputy District Judge XXX dated XX March 2024 i.e. the evidence upon which the parties intend to rely shall be filed and served not later than 7-days before the hearing. 2) The Claimant seeks a short extension of time allow them to further and properly investigate data provided to them by Royal Mail which is of importance to the proceedings and determination of the Claim. 3) The Claimant and Royal Mail have an information sharing agreement. Under the agreement, Royal Mail has provided data to the Claimant in respect of the matters forming the basis of these proceedings. The Claimant requires more time to consider this data and reconcile it against their own records. The Claimant may need to seek clarification and assurances from Royal Mail before they can be confident the data is correct and relevant to the proceedings i.e. available to be submitted as evidence. 4) The Claimant's witness is currently out of the office on annual leave and this was not relayed to DWF Law until after the event which has caused a further unfortunate delay. 5) The Court has directed parties to file and serve any evidence upon which they intend to rely not later than 14- days before the hearing i.e. by 4pm on 6 June 2024. Regrettably, the Claimant will have insufficient time to finalise their witness evidence and supporting exhibits as directed. We therefore respectfully apply to extend the time for filing/serving evidence so that the evidence upon which the parties intend to rely by filed and served not later than 7-days before the hearing i.e. by 4pm on 13 June 2024. 6) This application is a pre-emptive one for an extension of time made prior to the expiry of the deadline. In considering the application, the Court is required to exercise its broad case management powers and consider the overriding objective. 7) In circumstances where applications are made in time, the Court should be reticent to refuse reasonable applications for extensions of time which neither imperil hearing dates nor disrupt proceedings, pursuant to Hallam Estates v Baker [2014] EWCA Civ 661. 😎 It is respectfully submitted that the application is made pursuant to the provisions of CPR 3.1(2)(a) and in accordance with the overriding objective to ensure the parties are on an equal footing when presenting their cases to the Court. The requested extension of time does not put the hearing at risk and granting the Application will not be disruptive to the proceedings.   They have asked for extension Because 2) The Claimant requires additional time to consider and reconcile data received from Royal Mail which is relevant to these proceedings against their own data and records in order to submit detailed evidence in support of this Claim.
    • i was merely pointing out if the OP did put in an N244 it required a bundle. as for what they need to do now.... it might be an idea to post a link to your thread then the OP can read it and understand where your guidance is coming from and the ongoing process he will have to follow... dx
    • The notes entered into circulation yesterday and are proving popular with collectors, who will be hoping to snap up examples with low serial numbers.View the full article
  • 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

JC/Moriarty unknown claimform - old Sky debt


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1759 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

Please could you help?

 

It would appear that my partner's historic debts have been sold off as this is the second issue in as many months...

 

On 28th December we received a Final Demand from Moriarty Law for an alleged debt to Sky for approximately £200.

This was the first letter we had received.

 

On 2nd January we sent the SAR and £1 as recommended by CAG.

 

Today we have received a letter stating the following:

 

Please be advised , we are unable to supply copy bills or statements of account.

To obtain these you will need to log into the Sky portal using your Sky ID for online services.

 

With regard to your request for a copy of the credit agreement relating to this claim,

we can confirm that this debt is for services provided by Sky and not for credit and the Consumer Credit Act 1974 does therefore not apply.

 

Consequently, please find enclosed a refund cheque for £1....

 

Can they request money with no proof and have we sent the wrong letter in the first place??

 

Any help would be gratefully appreciated as I'm not sure how to respond.

 

Many thanks for your time

JT

Link to post
Share on other sites

sar is free

cca is £1 but they are correct it doesn't apply.

 

who are moriaty's client please

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 would be interested who Moriarty Law's client is...

And They do have to supply bills etc to validate the debt...

 

Be interested to see if this does go further - Keep the letter - If they suddenly magic up a bill if it goes through a claim... Then it can be held that they may have been acting dishonestly...

 

We could do with some help from you.

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

**Fko-Filee**

Receptaculum Ignis

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

should have ignore them jerry.

 

never seen a sky debt litigated upon here.

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

Thing is DX - If its with Mor Law - I think it will go legal - I think JCI bought a BH debt once and litigated on that if I remember rightly...

 

We could do with some help from you.

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

**Fko-Filee**

Receptaculum Ignis

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

think what you like...its a threat-o-gram. that should have been ignored.

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

until/unless you get a PAP letter of claim from their pet solicitor

but no need to panic over anything.

 

tell us about the sky debt please

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

The letter we have is the final demand before proceedings and the debt was carried over from after my partner and I split up. She apparently stopped paying everything!

At the moment it's for £227 plus costs but this is the first I've heard of it.

Still just sit tight?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't remember who signed with Sky and if I now contact Sky, will that be admitting some element of liability?

 

I have been away from there since October 2015 and my ex left there August 2016 so I don't know what, where or when this accrued or if I ever even entered into it!

 

It tended to be my ex that arranged this sort of stuff so I'm left holding the baby!

Link to post
Share on other sites

nothing to do with sky now they've sold the debt

so quite safe to enquire.

 

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

Good - You should have enough time to get all the info back...

Lets see how this goes... As DX mentioned it is unheard off for this to go Legal - But with Mor Law - They are a Legal Solis for Hire...

 

If it does go to court then we can help defend if need be... Just keep your wits about you and come right back if you get a Letter Of Claim or something titled similar...

 

Id also say that their response about logging to a Sky Account to get bills etc - they have to validate it on paper... They can't just claim money and not justify it / quantify it.

 

We could do with some help from you.

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

**Fko-Filee**

Receptaculum Ignis

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

Please could you help.

 

I posted before but the trail went dead for ages and I thought it had gone away, but I received a letter to say that they were going for Judgement on a case I know nothing of!

 

OK so, Moriarty Law for JC International  (Sky)are chasing an alleged debt I actually know nothing of!

 

They contacted me in December 2018 and I have requested to see the credit agreement which they have not been able to provide.

On my previous, old thread, you advised me to try to establish what Sky held on me but as I have no knowledge of this debt, I couldn't get through security and so failed to get anywhere.

 

After receiving a letter from Moriarty to say they were going for Judgement, have reported to the Court that I Acknowledge the Service and that this was the first letter I had had.  I don't even have access online because I have not received the password info!!

 

They now need my defence but can I defend a debt I don't know anything of?!  I am presuming that my ex may have put my name down but I don't ever recall signing anything.

 

Can I get rid of these lecherous parasites!

 

Any ideas please?

JT

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

so you had/have? a claimform now?

 

threads mereged

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

so you didn't ever send that sar as advised but rang sky?

 

so who got the claimform? your ex

and its in joint names?

 

are you in contact with her?

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

  • dx100uk changed the title to JC/Moriarty unknown claimform - old Sky debt

I sent an SAR and a CCA.

 

Moriarty told me to ask Sky but Sky wouldnt help because I can't get through the security questions because I dont know anything about it.

 

I must have received the original claim form but I can't locate it.  All I know from the information I do have is that I mention that I am defending the whole claim.

 

They are just going for me and yes I'm in contact but she can't remember  anything about it conveniently!

Link to post
Share on other sites

sar should have gone to SKY.

 

https://cse.google.com/cse?cx=partner-pub-8889411648654839:3134625398&q=JC%2FMoriarty&oq=JC%2FMoriarty&gs_l=partner-generic.12...97796.97796.0.98878.1.1.0.0.0.0.141.141.0j1.1.0.gsnos%2Cn%3D13...0.0...2.34.partner-generic..1.0.0.XMMrWGVk_Bc

 

use the general defence from one of the above that best suits you situation.

have you sent CPR 31:14 if not do so. also

 

post the defence up here

as long as you know the claim number you can file by email we'l give that later

that should hold them up

 

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

SAR went to Sky on 20th January but they would not assist.  They requested I call them but when I called, they would not allow me through security.  I will read the above.... thanks

 

sorry computer crashed"

 

I sent this... think this was wrong one.  Will try to find if I sent the CPR 31:14 if not I will send

moriarty cag1.pdf moriarty 2 cag.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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

sorry computer crashed"

 

I sent this... think this was wrong one.  Will try to find if I sent the CPR 31:14 if not I will send

CPR 31:14 typed.

 

Is this defence ok and do I send it now please?

 

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 r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.

 

1. The Claimant claims £xx is owed

I did not recall the precise details or agreement and have sought verification from the claimant and the claimants solicitor by way of a CPR 31.14 request who are yet to fully comply.

 

2. The Claimants statement regarding the assignation of the debt is denied.

I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served on the defendant from the Claimant Jc International acquisitions.

 

3. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to:

 

(a) show the nature of the breach and evidence by way of a Default Notice pursuant to sec 88 CCA1974

(b) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and

© show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;

 

4. On receipt of this claim I requested, by way of a CPR 31.14 request, copies of the documents referred to within the Claimant's particulars in order to establish what the claim is for. To date the Claimant solicitors, Moriarty Law have failed to fully comply with this request.

 

5. As per Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.

 

6. 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 crediticon Act 1974.

 

7. 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.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...