backdoor CCJ Aktiv Kaptial - set aside - whats next?

[AndyOrch]

Excellent Batty ....

 

Perhaps provide a little out line of your day in court for others ?

 

Well done

 

Regards

 

Andy

[batty69]

will do,

when I sober up a donation will be winging it way CAG aswell.

 

But briefly,

 

Judge tore them a second,

 

In polite legal speak she called them liars and fraudsters.

 

She also paid homage to the death of Beryl Brazier and thought it was disgusting that the same company was still engaging in the same practices.

She also made reference in her judgement that the company concerned is still breaking the OFT sanctions against them.

 

I will give full a report shortly,

but as referenced earlier in the thread,

 

THIS IS GOING FURTHER! I might need to be a bit restricted in detail I give.

[citizenB]

Oh this is excellent news Batty. Look forward to a full update

[batty69]

Oh this is excellent news Batty. Look forward to a full update

 

My POC for damages from mental distress was dismissed for being unquantifiable and unprovable,

 

then the Judge imposed her own damages for said point.

 

Didn't realise a judge could do this!

 

Oh forgot to mention I was battling Aktiv capital and our old friends from IND

[DonkeyB]

Excellent.

 

Maybe now you can tell the rest of the story (I already know it, luckily). Aktiv are indeed still under OFT sanction for exactly this kind of thing. The OFT will be very pleased to hear from you. May even be worth getting a transcript of the case for them.

 

I still believe some elements of the press would like your story, because you did not actually have a debt at all, and they continued to go after you even though they had been told this.

[DonkeyB]

Here’s the OFT press release.

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk/news-and-updates/press/today?prid=755221#.UjM1CGSkemA

 

Each transgression could cost Aktiv £50,000. Go for the buggers!

[citizenB]

My POC for damages from mental distress was dismissed for being unquantifiable and unprovable, but then the Judge imposed her own damages for said point. Didn't realise a judge could do this!

 

Yes, the Judge can do that - Nice Judge

 

Oh forgot to mention I was battling Aktiv capital and our old friends from IND

 

I kind of assumed that earlier in the thread.. So very well done indeed.

 

I will amend your thread title to reflect your success

[batty69]

Here’s the OFT press release.

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk/news-and-updates/press/today?prid=755221#.UjM1CGSkemA

 

Each transgression could cost Aktiv £50,000. Go for the buggers!

 

The Judge used that in her summing up to impose the punitive damages!

[citizenB]

You must let the OFT know about this - at the very least if it costs them a further £50,000 it will be a job well done

[batty69]

Thanks for responses Peeps,

 

Before giving my day in court, I guess I need to give a full history of the debt as I didn't do so in my OP.

 

It all started over 10 years ago, I was going through a bad time and developed depression, this led to me losing my Job, eventually my home and all of my worldly possessions (hence I had no documents).

 

In 2004 I had started to get back on my feet, was given a council bedsit but I had very few possessions and just £50 a week to live on. One day a letter drops through my letterbox saying that an" Olympia Capital ASA" had now bought my debt from Barclaycard and for me to phone thames credit

 

On Phoning them, they were very aggressive, demanding that I paid the alleged debt off in full, various methods were given to me, such as taking out a loan (My credit record was clean), borrowing from family etc. Told them this weren't going to happen and that they were free to bankrupt me as I nothing they could take from me.

 

I was then told, unless I start making payments they would go after my benefits and have them stopped via an attachments of earnings. This was a threat I did take seriously as I had just come out of period of homelessness and was beginning to recover from the mental illness I was suffering from.

 

Stupidly I agreed to start making payments, my thought processes at the time was to put off this threat of court action, and then come back to it when I was more informed.

 

At this time I had no internet except that at the local library and advice from the CAB, I was told you need to ask for docs/proof of debt. No docs/proof no debt.

 

I then challenged Aktiv on this and their response was, "It doesn't matter about documents now, you've started paying back and now owe the debt. Even if the debt didn't belong to you, you now legally owe the debt since you have made payments as this constitutes admission of the debt"

 

I then sought further advices, and was pretty much told at the time that since I had no documents and I had started making payments I was pretty much stuffed.

 

Roll forward a few years, my health has recovered, I went back to university, got a degree, then got a good job. The job required a financial credit, I sweated on the results but nothing came back.

 

After starting the Job I heard about people getting dismissed for getting into a mess with their finances. Worried about a tap on the shoulder and being called into my managers office at any moment I decided I needed to clear this debt one way or the other.

 

I approached Aktiv and we quickly came to a settlement deal which seemed reasonable, however the operator stressed on the phone "If you fail to make the payment we will substantially increase your debt"

 

I waited and waited for the F+F settlement offer letter, it didnt turned up until the day payment was due. I quickly realised something was awry. The letter had been dated 2 weeks previously, yet the postmark showed it had been posted the day before. Also the letter made no mention of F+F settlement.

 

I phoned AK up to explain this was not satisfactory, that I needed a letter that clearly states the payment was for F+F settlement and that I should be given a reasonable amount of time to make payments. I was told "you need to make payment today, by phone using a credit or debit card or your debt goes up"

 

I'm not stupid, I would have no control over how much they took, and also no proof that this was for clearing the debt. I explained this, only to be met with a barrage of abuse which went something along the lines of "Look,you effing pay this effing money, if you don't I will ruin your life, by the time we are finished you will want to kill yourself. Trust me, we have done it to people before and we will do it to you"

 

Infuriated I responded back with some abuse of my own and told them they wouldn't get a penny back if that was their attitude.

 

At this point I decided I needed advice and started searching the net for info, quickly discovering forums like this, and also what **** this company was. However in the meantime I did keep my direct debit for payments in place but they failed to take the payments.

 

This was then used to justify adding extorniate charges to my account, note it wasn't my failure to make the lump sum payment that was used as the official reason for adding charges but my alleged failure to honour the direct debits.

 

Through using the info on the web, I started the letter Ping-Pong to put the debt in dispute and then after feeling I had enough to declare the debt in dispute issued them with an ultimatum. Give me the docs or take me to court.

 

They would do neither so I put them onto ignore for the next 3 years, there was various threatograms over this time which were nicely filed away and more importantly became very usefully in my subsequent court battles.

 

roll forward to last year, I get a new job, and whoops! I fail the financial checks due to a CCJ I didn't know I had and subsequently lose the job offer.

 

They had got this CCJ by giving the court a false address for me (note not a previous address), however they had gone on my credit file and created a link between this address and my own address which is why it showed on my credit check. I guess the purpose was so they could use this for enforcement when they "transferred" the judgement to my correct address.

 

I was granted the set aside fairly easily on mandatory grounds under CPR blah, blah despite some court room shenanigans from the other side which didn't impress the judge.

 

In meantime I track down all my old details, DSARred the fcuk out of everyone, even retrieving internet transactions with my card which took place 3 years after the debt was alledgely assigned.

 

Beyond a shadow of a doubt this debt was not mine.

 

Unbelievably despite acknowledging to me in DSAR from AK, that they knew this debt was not mine and consequently had no documentation to pursue legal action they went for it again and took me to court!

 

Defence and counterclaim were duly filed. They then quickly dropped the claim against me when the judge ordered them to deliver all documents pertaining to assignment and none were forth coming.

 

Part 2: The court case

Edited September 16, 2013 by batty69

[batty69]

Day in Court,

 

Before the case, there was a flurry of letters in which they indicated they would settle, yet they kept stalling to give me a figure. Come the day we needed to exchange the docs I'm told "the client has changed their mind and will see you in court"

 

I expected that the discussions had been a stalling tactic, and so the w/s and bundle had been filed and served in time.

 

At the court the sols for the other side wanted to meet me before the hearing, she was nice enough girl but a bit if cow in the court room. Although I didn't take this to heart and understood she was just doing the job she had been hired for and I would expect no less if I had hired someone to do the same.

 

I got into the court room, The judge who had been previously handling the case was not conducting the hearing and the new judge had no idea of what the background was. I immediately knew I was on the back foot as I suspected the judge thought my CC was a revenge tactic against my claimant and also it was little guy against a company.

 

As judges always want to, she wanted to slim down the case (i.e. narrow the issues) which meant that since half of my evidence pertained to the claimants claim. That we could rule most of it out as not being relevant. I had to explain it needed to be kept in because the full history of the debt needed to understood, i.e. to get to issues at the heart of the case.

 

She agreed for this, but I knew I had to get some killer blows in immediately.

 

I started with my initial letter from Olympia capital/Thames Credit (AK). I pointed out that the alleged assignee of the debt was "Olympia Capital ASA and not Thames Credit who were now known as Aktiv Kapital"

 

Furthermore

" I have no notice of assignment of the debt from either Barclaycard, Olympia Capital or thames credit,"

 

Furthermore

 

"the claimant in this room today is Aktiv Kapital, my initial letter from them clearly states that Olympia is the assignee of the debt"

 

Furthermore

 

"neither me or claimant has any documentation showing that any debt has been assigned from Olympia to Thames credit/Aktiv"

 

Furthermore

 

"At the time in question Olympia capital didn't have a consumer credit licence to be carrying out debt collecting practices, the OFT states clearly this is a CRIMINAL OFFENCE"

 

Feeling confident and seeing the judge was taking this all on board, especially as I was showing her the various bits of documents to prove my statements above. I went for the jugular and basically declared the claimant was fraudster who was "gaming" the legal system to force payments out of innocent parties.

 

Judge was madly scribbling in her book at this stage,

 

Once the stuff about assignments was done and dusted, I moved onto proving the debt was not mine, claimant had no documents and I had various bits and pieces from Barclays and other sources (including the claimant) that proved the debt was not mine and the claimant was aware of this.

 

The other side claimed they had not handed in their documents because I had filed and served mine at the last possible minute. I pointed I wasn't aware the court order provided for one party to be sent the w/s and docs first so they could formulate their own response.

 

We then move onto me losing my job because of the CCJ and I had to explain how this arose because of the false address malarkey. The other side tried to claim it was mistake on the courts part, but I had discredited the other side so much by now the judge interrupted her and said "don't even go there"

 

My big problem which I knew I had on the day was explaining why I made those payments, as I knew this was what the other side were relying on. I then produced the sanctions from the OFT that had been imposed on AK, and I also brought up the records from Hansard as the Beryl Brazier case has been discussed in parliament several times. The look on the judges face was one of utter disgust.

 

I then cited my situation at the time back in 2004, and used the claimants history to show that people can and do get pressurised into paying debts they do not owe.

 

Next is the harassment element of my case, I describe some of the phonecalls I had from the claimant and then produce some of the juiciest letters they have sent me over the years.

 

0ne of them, a letter stating I had been put into a automated dialling system and they would call my friends, my workplace etc.

 

but the second was the most explosive,

 

I was sent a letter stating that a bailiff would visit me within 7 days to remove my goods, this was long before any court action had taken place and also after the OFT sanctions against Aktiv.

 

the judge then tore into the other side, basically saying you cant send out letters like this! no one can, only the court has the power to do this. You sent this out before you started any legal action and after you were sanctioned by the OFT for preciously this kind of behaviour.

 

I then went on to explain the whole IND [problem] part of the process and pointed out to the court that on one of the documents my Claimant who were "Aktiv Kapital" had signed document declaring they were claimant but for some inexplicable reason they signed it as "Welcome Finance".

 

Yes someone at IND fcked up and signed a load of documents as "Welcome Finance" with someone elses case number, yet they signed the documents as the "Claimant" and submitted them to the court in my case. I asked the other side at what point the claimant became "welcome" and what relation they were to aktiv ?

 

I didn't manage to get through everyone thing I wanted, but I sensed I had the judge on board now and thought I would be pushing things if I produced everything.

 

The claimant was next, I have already included some of the responses above. but their main defence was "remoteness" and "duty of care" along with some fancy case law.

 

They said my damages were unprovable and unquantifiable

 

And finally as I expected they massively relied on the fact I had made payments on the debt.

 

Judge gave me time to respond, in which I picked apart of few things she said and then sat down for judgement.

 

Within seconds of her summing up, I knew I had won.

 

I Can't remember exactly what she said as it lasted 10-15minutes and every sentence was to tear into the claimant. She referenced the OFT sanctions against Aktiv and said my evidence clearly showed they were still engaged in such practices that got them sanctioned in the first place. She referenced the Beryl Brazier case and gave her disgust about it. (as an aside she accepted it as evidence as it came from hansard, so might be usefull for others in the future).

 

She also tore into them about their letters and misrepresenting their powers. She then discussed the phonecalls I had with Aktiv and said she had no doubt that the conversations I said had happened, did happen. She said the claimant has a clear history of ignoring regulations and that I had made payments under duress and also that the debt did not belong to me.

 

I had proved my case and had trashed the claimant in the process.

 

The rest of her summing up, was dealing with my award. I didn't get everything I wanted as buggered somethings up legally speaking, but I could see she was trying to help me out as best as she could.

 

e.g. she threw out my POC of damages for harassment, but then went onto to declare "it is quite clear from the claimants behaviour that the defendant is entitled to damages for harassment, so the court will be imposing it's own award"

 

The END

[DonkeyB]

Brilliant. OFT time.

[citizenB]

Absolutely - it is interesting that people might now be able to include the harassment of Beryl Brazier in their bundles.

 

Please, please, do make a complaint to the OFT and also the FCA.

 

What is the situation with your employment that you lost because of this ?

[citizenB]

BTW, what level of court was this ?

[martin g]

Good morning and well done!!!

 

I am sure that you have enough evidence to go to the Police and to ask them to investigate under the Fraud Act 2006, the main headings of the offence are below.

 

It was announced on the radio this morning that benefit cheats will be prosecuted under the Fraud Act and I can see no reason why a company that lies and makes misleading statements for gain should not be treated in the same manner.

 

Finding someone in the Police who will take this on board may be difficult but I think it is well worth trying, possibly with the support of an MP who is interested in Consumer Credit and mabe a letter to the director of the CPS wouldn't hurt.

 

I have shot down on this forum before for suggesting that the Fraud Act is a possibility, mainly due to the burden of proof, but you seem to have both documentation and a won court case with costs behind you.

 

 

 

1 Fraud

 

(1)A person is guilty of fraud if he is in breach of any of the sections listed in subsection (2) (which provide for different ways of committing the offence).

(2)The sections are—

(a)section 2 (fraud by false representation),

(b)section 3 (fraud by failing to disclose information), and

©section 4 (fraud by abuse of position).

(3)A person who is guilty of fraud is liable—

(a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or to both);

(b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine (or to both).

 

Wishing you well,

 

Martin g

[batty69]

Absolutely - it is interesting that people might now be able to include the harassment of Beryl Brazier in their bundles.

 

Please, please, do make a complaint to the OFT and also the FCA.

 

What is the situation with your employment that you lost because of this ?

 

I must admit I thought I was pushing my luck getting it accepted, but thought it was worth a try, judge accepted it no problems though.

 

I think the scope of using it might be limited, in that it can only be used against AK and if your case relates the behaviour of AK during the period they were hassling Beryl Brazier.

 

However I do think it's a more powerful result, that the Judge was willing to accept that payment of debt does not constitute admittance of debt. And also that any payments made to a DCA are recoverable as undue enrichment.

 

This was small claims, so no precedents set, but is there anyway I can use this result ?

 

re the employment, I found a higher paid job soon after, so the damage to me was quite limited.

[citizenB]

 

This was small claims, so no precedents set, but is there anyway I can use this result ?

 

re the employment, I found a higher paid job soon after, so the damage to me was quite limited.

 

 

That is good news your employment was not irretrievably damaged.

 

Hmm, not sure - I think previous small claims judgments have been used as "persuasive". I would think andyorch and DB will be able to advise on that.

 

Lets see what the court says on their judgment when they send it to you.

[batty69]

Good morning and well done!!!

 

I am sure that you have enough evidence to go to the Police and to ask them to investigate under the Fraud Act 2006, the main headings of the offence are below.

 

It was announced on the radio this morning that benefit cheats will be prosecuted under the Fraud Act and I can see no reason why a company that lies and makes misleading statements for gain should not be treated in the same manner.

 

Finding someone in the Police who will take this on board may be difficult but I think it is well worth trying, possibly with the support of an MP who is interested in Consumer Credit and mabe a letter to the director of the CPS wouldn't hurt.

 

I have shot down on this forum before for suggesting that the Fraud Act is a possibility, mainly due to the burden of proof, but you seem to have both documentation and a won court case with costs behind you.

 

1 Fraud

 

(1)A person is guilty of fraud if he is in breach of any of the sections listed in subsection (2) (which provide for different ways of committing the offence).

(2)The sections are—

(a)section 2 (fraud by false representation),

(b)section 3 (fraud by failing to disclose information), and

©section 4 (fraud by abuse of position).

(3)A person who is guilty of fraud is liable—

(a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or to both);

(b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine (or to both).

 

Wishing you well,

 

Martin g

 

This is something I am seriously looking at,

although I expect simply popping down to my local cop shop will be met with the response "It's a civil matter".

 

I need work out how I get the attention of the police in this matter.

 

I agree it fraud,

pure and simple,

the most damning aspect is that they became aware that the debt didn't belong me.

but decided to proceed anyway.

 

What is interesting

(although it has been mentioned on this forum before),

is that the owner of Olympia Capital ASA "Haakon Korsgaad" has been convicted in Norway for fraud.

 

Although what isn't known,

is that despite Aktiv capital buying out Olympia,

Olympia own Aktiv.

 

Olympia,

Thames Credit,

Aktiv Kapital,

once you plough through all of the share structure you find that it is same person who owns it all.

A convicted fraudster.

 

Regarding MP's,

this is being sorted and hopefully I should be speaking to someone who is very interested these kid of matters very shortly.

[batty69]

Looks like they are not going to pay up, surprise, surprise.

 

What's my best option ?

 

WoE looks the obvious choice,

however since I have a judgement is going for SD then followed by a winding up order a viable path or am I missing something ?

[unclebulgaria67]

Upgrade to High Court and use an HCEO ?

[Ganymede]

As it's a limited company you can skip the SD and go straight for a winding up order.

 

Be warned that it is very expensive and can get very complicated.

[unclebulgaria67]

Is there a process for the court to insist that they attend the court for a hearing as to why they have not paid and they will have to then pay the additional costs for such a hearing. If they failed to attend, they could be held in contempt of the court ?

[AndyOrch]

Is there a process for the court to insist that they attend the court for a hearing as to why they have not paid and they will have to then pay the additional costs for such a hearing. If they failed to attend, they could be held in contempt of the court ?

 

 

N39

 

Regards

 

Andy

[Ganymede]

Why bother?

 

Just crack on with enforcement.

[batty69]

Bad news,

cheque has just dropped through my letterbox.

 

I'm guessing this is now the end of the line regarding any further legal action from either party.

 

Donkey,

any idea how I get the attention of the press ?