Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Please see my comments in orange within your post.
    • no i meant the email from parcel2go which email address did they send it from and who signed it off (whos name is at the bottom)
    • I understand confusion with this thread.  I tried to keep threads separate because there have been so many angles.    But a team member merged them all.  This is why it's hard to keep track. This forum exists to help little people fight injustice - however big or small.  Im here to try get a decent resolution. Not to give in to the ' big boys'. My "matter' became complicated 'matters' simply because a lender refused to sell a property. What can I say?  I'll try in a nutshell to give an overview: There's a long lease property. I originally bought it short lease with a s.146 on it from original freeholder.  I had no concerns. So lender should have been able to sell a well-maintained lovely long lease property.  The property was great. The issue is not the property.  Economy, sdlt increases, elections, brexit, covid, interest hikes etc didn't help.  The issue is simple - the lender wanted to keep it.   House or Flat? Before repo I offered to clear my loan.  I was a bit short and lender refused.  They said (recorded) they thought the property was worth much more and they were happy to keep accruing interest (in their benefit) until it reached a point where they felt they could repo and still easily quickly sell to get their £s back.  This was a mistake.  The market was (and is) tough.   2y later the lender ceo bid the same sum to buy the property for himself. He'd rejected higher offers in the intervening period whilst accruing interest. Lenders have a legal obligation to sell the property for the best price they can get. If they feel the offer is low they won't sell it, because it's likely the borrower will say the same. I had the property under offer to a fantastic niche buyer but lender rushed to repo and buyer got spooked and walked.  It had taken a long time to find such a lucrative buyer.  A sale which would have resulted in £s and another asset for me. Post repo lender had 1 offer immediately.  But dragged out the process for >1y - allegedly trying to get other offers. But disclosure shows there was only one valid buyer. Again, points as above. Lender appointed receiver (after 4 months) - simply to try acquire the freehold.  He used his powers as receiver to use me, as leaseholder, to serve notice on freeholders.  Legally that failed. Meanwhile lender failed to secure property - and squatters got in (3 times).  And they failed to maintain it.  So freeholders served a dilapidations notice (external) - on me as leaseholder (cc-ed to lender).   (That's how it works legally) Why serve a delapidations notice? If it's in the terms of the lease to maintain the property to a good standard, then serve an S146 notice instead as it's a clear breach of the lease. I don't own the freehold.  But I am a trustee and have to do right by the freeholders.  This is where matters got/ get complicated.  And probably lose most caggers.   Lawyers got involved for the freeholders to firstly void the receiver enfranchisement notice. Secondly, to serve the dilapidations notice.  The lack of maintenance was in breach of lease and had to be served to protect fh asset. Enfranchisement isn't something that can be "voided", it's in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 that leaseholders have the right to buy the freehold of the property. It's normal, whether it is a "normal" leaseholder or a repossession with a leasehold house, to claim this right of enfranchisement and sell the property with said rights attached and the purchase price of the freehold included in the final completion price. That's likely what the mortgage provider wished to do. The lender did no repairs. They said a buyer would undertake them. Which was probably correct. If they had sold. After 1y lender finally agreed to sell to the 1st offeror and contracts went with lawyers.  Within 1 month lender reneged.  Lender tried to suggest buyer walked. Evidence shows he/ his lawyers continued trying to exchange (cash) for 4 months.  Evidence shows lender and receiver strategy had been to renege and for ceo to take control.   I still think that's their plan. Redact and scan said evidence up for others to look at? Lender then stupidly chose to pretty much bulldoze the property.  Other stuff was going on in the background. After repo I was in touch by phone and email and lender knew post got to me.   Despite this, after about 10 months (before and then during covid), they deliberately sent SDs and eventually a B petition to an incorrect address and an obscure small court.  They never served me properly.  (In hindsight I understand they hoped to get a backdoor B - so they could keep the property that way.)  Eventually the random court told them to email me by way of service.  At this point their ruse to make me B failed.  I got a lawyer (friend paid). The B petition was struck out. They’d failed to include the property as an asset. They were in breach of insolvency rules. So this is dealt with then. Simultaneously the receiver again appointed lawyers to act on my behalf as leaseholder. This time to serve notice on the freeholders for a lease extension.  He had hoped to try and vary the strict lease. Evidence shows the already long length of lease wasn't an issue.  The lender obviously hoped to get round their lack of permission to do works (which they were already doing) by hoping to remove the strict clauses that prevent leaseholder doing alterations.  You wouldn't vary a lease through a lease extension. You'd need a Deed of Variation for that. This may be done at the same time but the lease has already been extended once and that's all they have a right to. The extension created a new legal angle for me to deal with.  I had to act as trustee for freeholders against me as leaseholder/ the receiver.  Inconsistencies and incompetence by receiver lawyers dragged this out 3y.  It still isn't properly resolved. The lease has already been extended once so they have no right to another extension. It seems pretty easy to just get the lawyer to say no and stick by those terms as the law is on your side there. Meanwhile - going back to the the works the lender undertook. The works were consciously in breach of lease.  The lender hadn't remedied the breaches listed in the dilapidations notice.  They destroyed the property.  The trustees compiled all evidence.  The freeholders lawyers then served a forfeiture notice. This notice started a different legal battle. I was acting for the freeholders against what the lender had done on my behalf as leaseholder.  This legal battle took 3y to resolve. Again, order them to revert it as they didn't have permission to do the works, or else serve an S146 notice for breach of the lease. The simple exit would have been for lender to sell. A simple agreement to remedy the breaches and recompense the freeholders in compensation - and there's have been clean title to sell.  That option was proposed to them.   This happened by way of mediation for all parties 2y ago.  A resolution option was put forward and in principle agreed.  But immediately after the lender lawyers failed to engage.  A hard lesson to learn - mediation cannot be referred to in court. It's considered w/o prejudice. The steps they took have made no difference to their ability to sell the property.  Almost 3y since they finished works they still haven't sold. ** ** I followed up some leads myself.  A qualified cash buyer offered me a substantial sum.  The lender and receiver both refused it.   I found another offer in disclosure.  6 months later someone had apparently offered a substantial sum via an agent.  The receiver again rejected it.  The problem of course was that the agent had inflated the market price to get the business. But no-one was or is ever going to offer their list price.  Yet the receiver wanted/wants to hold out for the list price.  Which means 1y later not only has it not sold - disclosure shows few viewings and zero interest.  It's transparently over-priced.  And tarnished. For those asking why I don't give up - I couldn't/ can't.  Firstly I have fiduciary duties as a trustee. Secondly, legal advice indicates I (as leaseholder) could succeed with a large compensation claim v the lender.  Also - I started a claim v my old lawyer and the firm immediately reimbursed some £s. That was encouraging.  And a sign to continue.  So I'm going for compensation.  I had finance in place (via friend) to do a deal and take the property back off the lender - and that lawyer messed up bad.   He should have done a deal.  Instead further years have been wasted.   Maybe I only get back my lost savings - but that will be a result.   If I can add some kind of complaint/ claim v the receiver's conscious impropriety I will do so.   I have been left with nothing - so fighting for something is worth it. The lender wants to talk re a form of settlement.  Similar to my proposal 2y ago.  I have a pretty clear idea of what that means to me.  This is exactly why I do not give up.  And why I continue to ask for snippets of advice/ pointers on cag.  
    • It was all my own work based on my previous emails to P2G which Bank has seen.
    • I was referring to #415 where you wrote "I was forced to try to sell - and couldn't." . And nearer the start in #79 .. "I couldn't sell.  I had an incredibly valuable asset. Huge equity.  But the interest accrued / the property market suffered and I couldn't find a buyer even at a level just to clear the debt." In #194 you said you'd tried to sell for four years.  The reason for these points is that a lot of the claims against for example your surveyor, solicitor, broker, the lender and now the receiver are mainly founded in a belief that they should have been able to do something but did not. Things that might seem self evident to you but not necessarily to others. Pressing these claims may well need a bit more hard evidence, rather than an appeal to common sense. Can you show evidence of similar properties, with similar freehold issues, selling readily? And solid reasons why the lender should have been able to sell when you couldn't.
  • 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 
        • 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

Arrows/Dryden Claimform - old MBNA card debt


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1490 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

Name of the Claimant:

 

sols: Drydens Limited

 

Date of issue:24th Feb 2020

 

Particulars of Claim

 

What is the claim for – the reason they have issued the claim? 

 

1. The claim is for the sum of £5300 in respect of monies owing to the defendant on a credit agreement held by the defendant with MBNA under account no **************** upon which the defendant failed to maintain payments.

 

2. A default notice was served upon the defendant and has not been complied with.

 

3. The balance owed was assigned from MBNA to the claimant, and the defendant has been notified of the assignment by letter.

 

What is the total value of the claim?£5800

 

Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC ( Pre Action Protocol) ?No.

 

Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? Yes.

 

Did you inform the claimant of your change of address?No.


Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account?  Credit Card.

 

When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? Late 2006.

 

Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? Don't Recall, Likely By Post.

 

Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/ Equifax /Etc...) ? No.

 

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. Debt Purchaser

 

Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? Not sure if I received the Notice of Assignment, I have had a few letters from Dryden Ltd but just the same letters that i've been receiving.

 

Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Unsure. it was 12 years ago.

 

Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? Yes.

 

Why did you cease payments? I didn't know know until this morning that i had,  I have a seperate account that i've have been making £1 a month from to 4 different creditors, every month I have a payment of £15 that goes into this account, i was expecting there to be over £1000 in the account but after regaining access to the online banking today i have discovered that the bank has been adding charges to the account that has been absorbing all of the £15 every month since March 2018, i haven't received any letters stating that i've stopped paying from ANY of my creditors.

 

What was the date of your last payment? March 2018

 

Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No.

 

Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? Yes.

 

Brief background: Shortly after my 18th birthday I went to 2 different banks (Lloyds and Barclays) to request a VISA DEBIT card and was told that i wasn't eligible, i could only have a VISA ELECTRON (which was useless at the time), but with only 1 more click my details could be forwarded to Barclaycard where I may be accepted for a credit card, My initial limit was £1,750.

 

After a few (very irresponsible) years I was living off my credit cards till my minimum payments exceeded my wage, at that point I was in nearly £20,000 of debt, I contacted step change and after doing a financial assessment they told me to setup a £1 a month payment to each of my creditors, that was about 15 years ago. 

 

I have less than £1,000 of savings and very little disposable income after paying the mortgage and other bills, I do not drink or smoke and live a fairly modest lifestyle with an 11 year old car.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to Arrows/Dryden Claimform - old MBNA card debt

another person who's had their life screwed for 15yrs by poor advice from stepchange but that also shouldn't blindly pay debts for years without checking things. pers i'd stop all payments to everyone. but write to each debt owner with your new address re ref number xxx from your stepchange page upon who now owns each debt now as they'll have all been sold on.

 

who's the claimant...arrows?

 

if they've yet to reply to your CCA/CPR then use our std holding/no paperwork defence in most card claimform threads 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

there isn't one...didn't say there was 

I said search for and read any card claimform thread here

 

use our custom google search box.

if you cant see it

hit our top squares logo 

 

but post it here 1st!!

 

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

  • 3 weeks later...

I have been trying to get onto the MCOL site for several days now, it keeps saying that the password is wrong and i haven't been able to get to talk to someone on the phone, i have prepared a defense and its ready to email, just realised today is day 33.

 

Here it is for your considderation, thank you.

 

1. The claim is for the sum of £5300 in respect of monies owing to the defendant on a credit agreement held by the defendant with MBNA under account no **************** upon which the defendant failed to maintain payments.

 

2. A default notice was served upon the defendant and has not been complied with.

 

3. The balance owed was assigned from MBNA to the claimant, and the defendant has been notified of the assignment by letter.

 

1. The claim is for the sum of £5300 in respect of monies owing to the defendant on a credit agreement held by the defendant with MBNA under account no **************** upon which the defendant failed to maintain payments.

 

2. A default notice was served upon the defendant and has not been complied with.

 

3. The balance owed was assigned from MBNA to the claimant, and the defendant has been notified of the assignment by letter.

 

The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim vague and are 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.Paragraph 1 is noted; I have in the past had financial dealings with MBNA. I am unaware of the alleged
agreement the Claimant refers to having failed to adequately particularise its claim and have therefore sought
clarity from the Claimant by way of a Section 78 request and a CPR 31.14 request.

 

2. Paragraph 2 is denied. I am unaware of any service of a Default Notice (s) pursuant to section 87 of the
Consumer Credit Act 1974 by the original creditor MBNA. I have sought verification from the claimant regarding
this matter and they have been unable to comply.

 

3. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed
to provide any evidence of breach requested by CPR 31. 14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:
(a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and
(b) show and evidence any cause of action and service of a Default Notice or termination notice; and
(c) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;

 

4. After receiving this claim I requested by way of a CPR 31.14 request and a section 78 request, copies of any
documents referred to within the Claimants' particulars to establish what the claim is for. To date they have failed
to comply to my CPR 31.14 request and my section 78 request and remain in default with regards to this request.

 

5. As per Civil Procedure 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 82A of the consumer credit
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.
I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have added their poc in your above post for clarity.

 

you need to address para 3. 

 

bump point 3 forward down 1 number and add in:

 

3. Paragraph 3 is denied as I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served in yyyy by either the claimant or the original creditor . 

 

if mcol is still flaky ….

 

MCOL is only one way of responding to a claim. 
.
If you are having problems logging in, or would prefer not to use MCOL
you can fax, email or post your response to the Court instead. 

If you send your response by e mail 
please send it to [email protected] and ensure you quote “Claim defence response” and quote the claim number in the subject field. 
.
neither by email nor MCOL do you need to inc

I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.

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...