Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • just to clarify one matter everyone....   the statement that 'all road markings within any private land/carpark are mere tarmac graffiti is quite correct.   for dedicated use bays - there has to be a clearly visible sign(s) if one parks in those bays, which must be covered by the relevant council planning permission for poles+signs and elsewhere there must be a sign that details their usage conditions/contract.   dx
    • Don't worry, we're getting there bit by bit.   Tomorrow evening I'll try to deal with your questions.   The photos you've taken are superb - they show the signs as tiny and not illuminated.    
    • Good thinking! I only requested the telephone hearing (in the body of the email) and will send the further note tomorrow to cover all bases!
    • @FTMDave i am attaching the photographs of the Alama park please have a look. Checking your previous post where you corrected some line and suggest some but i could not understand. Is it possible if you edit and delete irrelevant lines.    I have edited little bit but not sure what to add and what to look for   Mr XXX, of xxx and I am the Defendant against whom this claim is made. 1.1. I was the registered keeper of the vehicle XXX. 1.2. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge they are true to the best of my information and belief.   INSUFFICIENT & CONFUSING SIGNAGE  This is likely to be one of your aces so will need a lot of work once you get photos.  The fleecers have also shown a plan where they claim there are signs (their WS post 12, PDF page 15 which you need to confront).   2. I confirm that i was the registered Keeper of the vehicle which is in question in this case and the vehicle was parked in Alma leisure centre Chesterfield. The vehicle was parked there because the driver went to McDonald’s for eat in (the bank statement proof exhibit 1).   3. There were no clear signs at the entrance nor in the car park, it was night time and weather was not clear as well.   3.  Even if the driver had seen the signs, they would have been extremely confusing.  A car is normally allowed to be parked for five hours, yet after midnight this is changed to one hour.  This begs the question for how long a motorist entering at 10pm for example is allowed to stay.  Is it for five hours until 3am or until 1am?   3.1. The PCN/NTK states "period of parking 00:02:05".  It is common sense that a couple of minutes was needed to enter the complex, find McDonald's and find a parking space, before the period of parking began, so it was likely the car entered the car park before midnight allowing the driver to park the car there for five hours.   4.  Even if the driver had seen the signage - they did not - the mention of a £100 charge is literally the last word on the last line of a long board of text.   4. I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all and this is my Witness Statement in support of my defence as already filed.     UNFAIR TERM   4.  In an interview with the local newspaper (exhibit XXX) Ms Ellie Berkeley, HX PCN administration team leader, said: “The five-hour maximum stay prevents workers from close by abusing the land and parking there for free, without using the shops on site" which makes sense.   5.  This therefore begs the question of why this limit is cut by a massive 80% after midnight when the cinema and eateries are still open.  The driver indeed ate at McDonald's.   6.  Ms Berkeley continued: "Five hours is sufficient time to visit the cinema and also eat at a restaurant".  Certainly five hours are sufficient.  One hour is not.    7.  I would maintain this is an unfair term under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 part 2 section 62 (6) ""A notice is unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations to the detriment of the consumer".  Such a term has absolutely nothing to do with efficient management of a car park and everything to do with trying to catch diners or cinema-goers out and thus have an excuse to issue PCNs.   NO KEEPER LIABILITY   5. The Particulars of Claim do not clarify in what capacity they believe I am liable but state that the Defendant is “liable as the driver or keeper” of the vehicle. This appears to be “fishing” for liability.  Is this really in the PoCs? - you need to look and find out. Where to look on PCN letter?   The rest of your section is about the use of POFA at airports which is completely irrelevant.    Adapt LFI's suggestions re POFA and keeper liability -   First is the fact that they must have a parking period and it is quite clear that entering and leaving the car park does not constitute a parking period since some of the time the motorist is either driving around looking for a parking spot then leaving the spot and driving to the exit. All that takes time so that is one fail.   The other fail is in their wording when they are trying to transfer the liability of the alleged debt from the driver to the keeper. They are supposed to include at Schedule 4 s9 [2][f] this "(if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)". That in itself makes it non compliant but the fact that they haven't got a parking period means they haven't met the applicable conditions.   PROHIBITION  This deals with no stopping cases.  Yours in not no stopping so it is completely irrelevant.   LOCUS STANDI   You have quoted a different contract in a different place with a different PPC.  You need to read and try to find holes in the contract they produced (post 12, page 15 of the PDF for anyone looking in). What shall i add here   Adapt LFI's suggestions -   Looking at their contract, the names of the signatories and their positions in their respective  companies have been redacted. You do need strict proof of who actually signed. There is no specific authorisation from the Client to allow Court action in pursuit of non payers. In section 11 which is like an addendum it states" the Company shall provide parking control" but doesn't state if that includes legal pursuit as well and it does not appear to be signed.   ILLEGAL SIGNAGE   8. After checking, I have found out that there in NO planning permission granted for said signs, therefore making them illegal as lack of planning permission is a criminal offence under the Road Traffic Acts 1962 and 1991 and no contract can be performed where criminality is concerned.   LFI's suggestion -   They are supposed to comply with the Law and the IPC code of Conduct and they have done neither. The new Private Parking Code of Practice  draws attention to it as well  s14.1 [g]  "g) responsibility for obtaining relevant consents e.g. planning or advertising consents relating to signs."   ABUSE OF PROCESS  I've cut some bits out as the CoP hadn't been published when the fleecers went after you.  Are you sure the Unicorn Food Tax in the PoCs is £60? ( I couldn't understand this)   9. The Claimant seeks recovery of the original £100 parking charge plus an additional £60 described as “contractual costs and interest” or “debt collection costs”. No further justification or breakdown has been provided as required under Civil Procedure Rule 16.4.    9.1. As part of the provisions of the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019, on 07/02/2022 a new Code of Practice was published by the government, designed to prevent these “rogue” traders from "ripping people off" (the minister's words) with extra charges, which have been deemed unfair (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/privateparking-code-of-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice).    9.3. Section 9 of the new Code of Practice, regulates the matter of recovery costs: “The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued.”   9.2. Even before publication of the government’s Code of Practice, Parliament intended that private parking companies could not invent extra charges. PoFA Schedule 4, paragraph 4(5) states that “The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper is the amount specified in the notice to keeper” which in this case is £100.    9.4. Previous parking charge cases have found that the parking charge itself is at a level to include the costs of recovery ie: Parking Eye Ltd vs Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 which is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85) was held to already incorporate the costs of an automated private parking business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that an alleged “parking charge” penalty is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover all costs. The case provides a finding of fact by way of precedent, that the £85 (or up to a Trade Body ceiling of £100 depending on the parking firm) covers the costs of the letters. Since 2019, many County Courts have considered claims in excess of £100 to be an abuse of process leading to them being struck out ab initio. An example, in the Caernarfon Court in VCS v Davies, case No. FTQZ4W28 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated ‘’Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates [...] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued, he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared [...] the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.’’    9.5. In Claim numbers F0DP806M and F0DP201T, Britannia vs Crosby the courts went further in a landmark judgement in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain HamiltonDouglas Hughes GC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of Wight & Wiltshire. District Judge Taylor echoed earlier General Judgment or Orders of District Judge Grand, stating ‘’It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''    9.6. The addition of costs not previously specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.     Statement of Truth    Alma Leisure.pdf Alma leisure centre.pdf
    • One thing I forgot to mention is I'm in Scotland, does the process change or is it then same? 
  • Our picks

Mortimer Clarke - Old yorkshire bank credit card


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 928 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 everyone,

 

I need help with Yorkshire bank I have recently fallen behind with my payments, when I say fallen behind I have been about £40 short of the minimum payments, so I phoned the bank and made a arragement with them, however I am still getting on average 15 calls a week from them I have sent in the letter stating that I believe that they are harrasing me and that I request that my phone number be removed from their records.

 

I have recieved a reply today stating that I am only getting the phone calls as I am in arrears and that phoning me is easiest method to contact me. And that they believe the phone calls do not amount to harrasment.

 

Then they go on to say that they have set up a arrangement for me (which I had done already) but this arrangement has now been increased by a extra month - don't know why.

 

What do you think I should do now?:?

Datxman v Lloyds TSB 2006 ** WON** 27/2/2006

With no conditions

Datxman v Capital One 2006

S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) letter sent - July 2006

Non-compliance letter sent - 11/09/2006

enforcement letter sent - 11/09/2006

Statements finally received - 27/09/06

Prelim Letter - sent 28/09/06 - £540

Lowell has bought the debt and I have asked them to wipe it clean due to lack of funds

Datxman v Barclaycard 2006

Won no conditions

 

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]Time is running out for the banks :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

have they got online banking?

if so

change your numbers to all 0's

works a treat!

 

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

No I don't I am going to reply to their letter to state that they have harrased me and that I think I am owed a apology at least.

 

What do you think?

 

p.s. thanks for your reply

Datxman v Lloyds TSB 2006 ** WON** 27/2/2006

With no conditions

Datxman v Capital One 2006

S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) letter sent - July 2006

Non-compliance letter sent - 11/09/2006

enforcement letter sent - 11/09/2006

Statements finally received - 27/09/06

Prelim Letter - sent 28/09/06 - £540

Lowell has bought the debt and I have asked them to wipe it clean due to lack of funds

Datxman v Barclaycard 2006

Won no conditions

 

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]Time is running out for the banks :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Hi everyone,

 

I am currently in the process of taking YB to court, however they have issued a notice of default stating if I do not pay with a certain date I will be defaulted and proceedings taken against me. I have sent them a letter stating to pay up or else we go to court, but I am not sure were I stand.

 

:shock:Please help

Datxman v Lloyds TSB 2006 ** WON** 27/2/2006

With no conditions

Datxman v Capital One 2006

S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) letter sent - July 2006

Non-compliance letter sent - 11/09/2006

enforcement letter sent - 11/09/2006

Statements finally received - 27/09/06

Prelim Letter - sent 28/09/06 - £540

Lowell has bought the debt and I have asked them to wipe it clean due to lack of funds

Datxman v Barclaycard 2006

Won no conditions

 

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]Time is running out for the banks :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the DN being issued solely for bank charges? If it is, check out the library for the templates on dealing with this

"Evancosmo" is short for the evanescent cosmopolite.

 

THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE :rolleyes:

 

1st Credit: CCA request sent

Cabot: failed to provide CCA - s.10 DPA letter sent

Capquest#1: failed to provide CCA - s.10 DPA letter sent

Capquest#2: failed to provide CCA - s.10 DPA letter sent

Abbey: on going

Equifax: "attributable data" CCJ removed - Aug 09

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Thanks I will have a look at this, however just recieved a letter from solicitors asking for all the money back so going to give it a try anyway.

Datxman v Lloyds TSB 2006 ** WON** 27/2/2006

With no conditions

Datxman v Capital One 2006

S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) letter sent - July 2006

Non-compliance letter sent - 11/09/2006

enforcement letter sent - 11/09/2006

Statements finally received - 27/09/06

Prelim Letter - sent 28/09/06 - £540

Lowell has bought the debt and I have asked them to wipe it clean due to lack of funds

Datxman v Barclaycard 2006

Won no conditions

 

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]Time is running out for the banks :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hi everyone I have issued court proceedings to yorkshire bank however I am still getting phone calls and treatening letters asking me for all of the outstanding amount from a DCA on the behalf of YB. what can I do I have nowhere to turn.

 

Can they still ask me for the money despite the full amount being in question, I thought they had to wait to see what happened at the court case, we have not had a stay put on it yet, but we are expecting one being requested pretty soon.

 

Thanks in advance:confused:

Datxman v Lloyds TSB 2006 ** WON** 27/2/2006

With no conditions

Datxman v Capital One 2006

S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) letter sent - July 2006

Non-compliance letter sent - 11/09/2006

enforcement letter sent - 11/09/2006

Statements finally received - 27/09/06

Prelim Letter - sent 28/09/06 - £540

Lowell has bought the debt and I have asked them to wipe it clean due to lack of funds

Datxman v Barclaycard 2006

Won no conditions

 

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]Time is running out for the banks :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Please can anyone help me with this, the account has been passed over to a company called Marlin. I have asked them to send me proof of debt using the template from this site. They have sent statements covering three months a default notice and a agreement (although it appears to be a application form) if you look at the application form / agreement it is very unclear you can make out some of the words but a lot of it is faded.

 

What can I do about it?

 

Please help me out here, I have 5 working days to arrange payment and I dont have it.

 

 

 

 

 

Datxman v Lloyds TSB 2006 ** WON** 27/2/2006

With no conditions

Datxman v Capital One 2006

S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) letter sent - July 2006

Non-compliance letter sent - 11/09/2006

enforcement letter sent - 11/09/2006

Statements finally received - 27/09/06

Prelim Letter - sent 28/09/06 - £540

Lowell has bought the debt and I have asked them to wipe it clean due to lack of funds

Datxman v Barclaycard 2006

Won no conditions

 

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]Time is running out for the banks :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

Firstly, an application form can be an agreement so long as the prescribed terms are contained within the document (either front or back)

 

Secondly, how the hell are you supposed to read that piece of rubbish. It is very blurred and faded. I would be writing back for a clearer copy.

 

Oh yes, the link you posted above still doesn't work.

 

If they are demanding full payment, tell them what you can afford-once they have supplied what you want

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your reply,

 

We have asked for a clearer copy but they told us that it is on Microfiche and thats as clear as they can get it.

 

What are prescribed terms?

 

Regards

 

Datxman8-)

Datxman v Lloyds TSB 2006 ** WON** 27/2/2006

With no conditions

Datxman v Capital One 2006

S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) letter sent - July 2006

Non-compliance letter sent - 11/09/2006

enforcement letter sent - 11/09/2006

Statements finally received - 27/09/06

Prelim Letter - sent 28/09/06 - £540

Lowell has bought the debt and I have asked them to wipe it clean due to lack of funds

Datxman v Barclaycard 2006

Won no conditions

 

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]Time is running out for the banks :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

please dont feel threatened by these muppets

 

they are a dca, they have no legal powers and can do nowt to you.

 

your are under no legal obligation to meet their deadline nor to converse with them, particularly on the phone.

 

can you give us a bit of history on the debt and your last financial in/out on it.

 

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

Hi DX

thanks for your reply.

 

This all started about a year ago when a company who I shall not name but you will proberly know them contacted us saying they can reclaim the charges on the account and that the contract may be unenforceable. we got instructed to stop paying, which was music to our ears as we did not have enough money to pay it as I was out of work for 7 months and times were very tight as we have five children.

Anyway we got notification that the claim was going to court and that we would hear something soon, anyway about 4 months after that we recieved a letter saying that this company had been wound up and that the file would be sent back to us.

We then started to panic as we did not have the cash to pay for this. any about a month ago we got a letter from Marlin saying that they have had the debt assigned to them now and that we needed to start paying, so I asked for proof of debt and we got sent three months statements a default notice and the un-readable application form.

I then requested them to send another copy of the application/agreement form as I could not read the one that they had sent me. And the reply I got back was that was the only one they had, and it was a bad copy as it is stored on microfiche.

These muppets have told us that they have proven the debt and have closed the complaint down and that we need to contact the FSO if we want to take it further.

 

I do not know which way to turn, the debt is 9K and I do not have the money to pay this.

 

Any idea what I can do next.

 

I am trying to post this link again I do not know why it is not posting.

 

 

Datxman v Lloyds TSB 2006 ** WON** 27/2/2006

With no conditions

Datxman v Capital One 2006

S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) letter sent - July 2006

Non-compliance letter sent - 11/09/2006

enforcement letter sent - 11/09/2006

Statements finally received - 27/09/06

Prelim Letter - sent 28/09/06 - £540

Lowell has bought the debt and I have asked them to wipe it clean due to lack of funds

Datxman v Barclaycard 2006

Won no conditions

 

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]Time is running out for the banks :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

Hi everyone,

 

Can anyone help me with what needs to be included in a credit agreement?

 

This is for a credit card pre 2007

 

Thanks in advance

Datxman v Lloyds TSB 2006 ** WON** 27/2/2006

With no conditions

Datxman v Capital One 2006

S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) letter sent - July 2006

Non-compliance letter sent - 11/09/2006

enforcement letter sent - 11/09/2006

Statements finally received - 27/09/06

Prelim Letter - sent 28/09/06 - £540

Lowell has bought the debt and I have asked them to wipe it clean due to lack of funds

Datxman v Barclaycard 2006

Won no conditions

 

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]Time is running out for the banks :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Can anyone help me draft a response to a rejection letter asking for a full and final settlement letter.

 

I asked YB to accept a full and final settlement of my credit card account but they sent me a letter back saying they would accept 80% of the total.

 

What can I do now? what letter do I need to send?

Datxman v Lloyds TSB 2006 ** WON** 27/2/2006

With no conditions

Datxman v Capital One 2006

S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) letter sent - July 2006

Non-compliance letter sent - 11/09/2006

enforcement letter sent - 11/09/2006

Statements finally received - 27/09/06

Prelim Letter - sent 28/09/06 - £540

Lowell has bought the debt and I have asked them to wipe it clean due to lack of funds

Datxman v Barclaycard 2006

Won no conditions

 

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]Time is running out for the banks :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I have contacted CCCS and they have done a budget sheet for me, I sent this with a letter offering £10 per month they have cashed the first cheque, but not the second. now I am getting letters from Mortimer and clark saying I have not contacted them and that I have chose to ignore their requests to offer a arrangement to pay this debt.

 

Can anyone help me please.

Datxman v Lloyds TSB 2006 ** WON** 27/2/2006

With no conditions

Datxman v Capital One 2006

S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) letter sent - July 2006

Non-compliance letter sent - 11/09/2006

enforcement letter sent - 11/09/2006

Statements finally received - 27/09/06

Prelim Letter - sent 28/09/06 - £540

Lowell has bought the debt and I have asked them to wipe it clean due to lack of funds

Datxman v Barclaycard 2006

Won no conditions

 

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]Time is running out for the banks :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 8 years later...

Hi all,

 

I am looking for some advice after receiving a letter from Mortimer clarke solicitors on behalf of ME III for an old credit card.

 

Over four years ago I had a letter from MC and I sent in a income and expenditure form and offered £10 per month as payment. I have been paying this without fail but today I got a letter saying that they think I can afford more and that if I do not phone them they will take legal action.

 

My family offered to lend me £1500 towards the debt but the debt is £8800 and they refused it as full and final settlement but accepted the £10 per month. They kept sending me letters saying they would clear the debt for 50% of the outstanding amount but I am unable to get any loans etc.

 

I can't afford to pay anymore and I will not phone them.

 

What are my options - shall I just chance it and go to court? Shall I offer the £1500 again (I will need to see if my family can still help me with this) 

 

I am just so worried.

 

Thanks in advance

Datxman v Lloyds TSB 2006 ** WON** 27/2/2006

With no conditions

Datxman v Capital One 2006

S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) letter sent - July 2006

Non-compliance letter sent - 11/09/2006

enforcement letter sent - 11/09/2006

Statements finally received - 27/09/06

Prelim Letter - sent 28/09/06 - £540

Lowell has bought the debt and I have asked them to wipe it clean due to lack of funds

Datxman v Barclaycard 2006

Won no conditions

 

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]Time is running out for the banks :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

why are you blindly paying a DCA anyway?

 

send them a CCA request

 

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

Hi DX100uk,

 

These people are a nightmare, I am not sure what I am looking for in a CCA which would make it legally binding etc.

 

I will try anything to prevent these from getting anymore from me, I have been honest with them and always paid.

 

What should I be looking for in the CCA

Datxman v Lloyds TSB 2006 ** WON** 27/2/2006

With no conditions

Datxman v Capital One 2006

S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) letter sent - July 2006

Non-compliance letter sent - 11/09/2006

enforcement letter sent - 11/09/2006

Statements finally received - 27/09/06

Prelim Letter - sent 28/09/06 - £540

Lowell has bought the debt and I have asked them to wipe it clean due to lack of funds

Datxman v Barclaycard 2006

Won no conditions

 

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]Time is running out for the banks :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

get the cca running 

if they rurn anything 

scan it up to PDF

and we'll check it.

 

ive merged a few old threads

seems like all they had in the past was an application form and you wrre told so then to stop

but you appear to vanish everytime and never comeback again for years having not taken the advice given 10yrs ago and several times since

 

this would have been statute barred by now if you'd stopped paying rather than being a DCA cash cow.

 

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

Here you go

mc letter.jpg

Datxman v Lloyds TSB 2006 ** WON** 27/2/2006

With no conditions

Datxman v Capital One 2006

S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) letter sent - July 2006

Non-compliance letter sent - 11/09/2006

enforcement letter sent - 11/09/2006

Statements finally received - 27/09/06

Prelim Letter - sent 28/09/06 - £540

Lowell has bought the debt and I have asked them to wipe it clean due to lack of funds

Datxman v Barclaycard 2006

Won no conditions

 

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]Time is running out for the banks :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes without fail

Datxman v Lloyds TSB 2006 ** WON** 27/2/2006

With no conditions

Datxman v Capital One 2006

S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) letter sent - July 2006

Non-compliance letter sent - 11/09/2006

enforcement letter sent - 11/09/2006

Statements finally received - 27/09/06

Prelim Letter - sent 28/09/06 - £540

Lowell has bought the debt and I have asked them to wipe it clean due to lack of funds

Datxman v Barclaycard 2006

Won no conditions

 

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]Time is running out for the banks :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

cash cowed.

 

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

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...