Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Is all of this actually on the signage? Don't remember seeing that much detail on other threads.
    • If I have learnt one thing from this forum, it's not to call and communicate via email. I passed this info on to her and they are pushing for her to call them.    "Unfortunately, you will need to call us. The conversation won’t be so black and white as to therefore type over email. In a nutshell we can confirm that the request to not pay for 3 months we cannot put in place"  I emailed them back on her behalf and said that what ever is discussed over the phone will need to be put in an email so that she can review it properly. No decisions will be made on that phone call.    "Once we speak to you on the phone we will follow up with an email to confirm the options discussed. [Phone number]"   Why are they pushing for a phone call? If its not so black and white, why can they then follow up with an email?  
    • Appreciate input Andy, updated: IN THE ******** County Court Claim No. [***] BETWEEN: LC Asset 2 S.A.R.L CLAIMANT AND [***] DEFENDANT ************ _________________________ ________ WITNESS STATEMENT OF [***] _________________________ ________ I, [***], being the Defendant in this case will state as follows;     I make this Witness Statement in support of my defence in this claim.   1. I understand that the claimant is an Assignee, a buyer of defunct or bad debts, which are bought on mass portfolios at a much-reduced cost to the amount claimed and which the original creditors have already written off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income as confirmed in the claimant’s witness statement exhibit by way of the Deed of Assignment. As an assignee or creditor as defined in section 189 of the CCA this applies to this new requirement on assignment of rights. This means that when an assignee purchases debts (or otherwise acquires rights under a credit agreement) it also acquires certain obligations to the borrower including the duty to comply with CCA requirements (such as the rules on statements and notices and other post-contractual information). The assignee becomes the creditor under the agreement. This ensures that essential consumer protections under the CCA cannot be circumvented by assigning the debt to a third party. 2. The Claim relates to an alleged Credit Card agreement between the Defendant and Bank of Scotland plc. Save insofar of any admittance it is accepted that the Defendant has had contractual agreements with Bank of Scotland plc in the past, the Defendant is unaware as to what alleged debt the Claimant refers. The Defendant has not entered any contract with the Claimant. 3. The Defendant requested a copy of the CCA on the 24/12/2022 along with the standard fee of £1.00 postal order, to which the defendant received a reply from the Claimant dated 06/02/2023. To this date, the Claimant has failed to disclose a valid agreement and proof as per their claim that this is enforceable, that Default Notice and Notice of Assignment were sent to and received by the Defendant, on which their claim relies. The Claimant is put to strict proof to verify and confirm that the exhibit *** is a true copy of the agreement and are the true Terms and Conditions as issued at the time of inception of the online application and execution of the agreement. 4. Point 3 is noted. The Claimant pleads that a default notice has been served upon the defendant as evidenced by Exhibit [***]. The claimant is put to strict proof to verify the service of the above in accordance with s136 and s196 Law of Property Act 1925. 5. Point 6 is noted and disputed. The Defendant cannot recall ever having received the notice of assignment as evidenced in the exhibit marked ***. The claimant is put to strict proof to verify the service of the above in accordance with s136 and s196 Law of Property Act 1925. 6. Point 11 is noted and disputed. See 3. 7. Point 12 is noted, the Defendant doesn’t recall receiving contact where documentation is provided as per the Claimants obligations under CCA. In addition, the Claimant pleads letters were sent on dates given, yet those are not the letters evidenced in their exhibits *** 8. Point 13 is noted and denied. Claimant is put to strict proof to prove allegations. 9. The Claimant did not provide a true copy of the CCA in response to the Defendants request of 21/12/2022. The Claimant further claims that the documents are sufficient to pursue a Judgement and are therefore copies of original documents in their possession. Conclusion 10. Without the Claimant providing a valid true copy of the executed Credit agreement that complies with the CCA, the Claimant has no grounds on which to enforce this alleged debt. 11. The Claimant has been unjustly enriched at the expense of the Defendant by purchasing bulk debt at a greatly reduced cost and subrogating for the original creditor in trying to recuperate the full amount of the original debt 12. The Defendant was not given ample evidence to prove the debt and therefore was not required to enter settlement negotiations. Should the debt be proved in the future, the Defendant is willing to enter such negotiations with the Claimant. On receipt of this claim I could not recall the precise details of the agreement or any debt and sought clarity from the claimant by way of a Section 78 request. The Claimant failed to comply. I can only assume as this was due to the Claimant not having any enforceable documentation and issuing a claim in hope of an undefended default judgment.   Statement of Truth I, ********, the Defendant, believe the facts stated within this Witness Statement to be true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in it’s truth. Signed: _________________________ _______ Dated: _____________________
    • Morning,  I am hoping someone can help, I am posting on behalf of my friend so I will try and provide as much info as possible.  Due health reasons, she is currently not working and unable to pay her contractual car finance payments. She emailed 247 Money and asked for a 3 month payment holiday, they refused this straight away with no reasons as to why. They have told her that instead she can make a payment of £200. She is currently getting £400+ a month ssp so this is not acceptable. She went back to them and explained she cannot make this payment and they have not offered an alternative plan. Its £200 or she falls into default.  She is now panicking as she does not want her car to be taken away. What options does she have?  Thank you, 
    • Read these 6 things you can do to be empathetic to other people’s views and perspectives.View the full article
  • 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

Crown Motors Direct / Eden Motor Company / .


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1301 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

All,

 

I’ll summarise my situation as best as I can:

 

03/03/19: Collected car from EMC Car Sales. Gearbox issues within 50 miles or so

 

04/03/19: Took car to local garage. Advised to change gearbox oil as first possible remedy.

 

05 -06/03/19: Autobox oil changed. No difference. Other major problems found. Garage supplies an engineers report advising against driving the car. Wrote formal Right to Reject email to CMD stating displeasure with the vehicle.

 

07/03/19: Supplier responds asking for casualty report from gearbox specialist.

I supply the one from my local garage.

 

08/03/19: Supplier demands a report from gearbox specialist.

 

19/03/19: I've had the car checked by an Automatic Gearbox Specialist, and they have confirmed the gearbox will need a £3000 rebuild after diagnosis.

  

22/03/19: Noted the dealer sold me the car with a "Plan 4" warranty.

 

After having contacted the warranty company, I've had it confirmed that the car is only eligible for a "Plan 3" warranty, which covers far less obviously.

 

25/03/19: Quote for repair from a Gearbox Specialist sent. £3000 potential bill. Also sent on the same date the following to them:

 

Quote

 

 “Please see attached email from Autotrader.co.uk, showing your original advert. In it, it is stated:

1 years MOT

Full Service History

Excellent Condition

The following is actually true of the vehicle:

MOT until 18/07/19

Service history until 2015

Major fault as described above

 

I was also sold a “4 Star” warranty with the vehicle. Having received the documents in the post, I have actually received a “3 Star” warranty.

 

As a supplier, you have failed to provide me with a product that is..

1.       Of reasonable quality

2.       As Described

3.       Fit for purpose

 

 

26/03/19: Received a letter back offering £2250 for the car. They suggested that their own engineers deemed the car to be of sound quality when it left the dealership. Notification of commencement of court action sent.

 

Early April: Court action commenced via MCOL website.

 

17/05/19: Local court called for an update, as I'd heard nothing for 5 weeks or so. This is a copy of the mail that I just sent to the local court upon their request..

  

Quote

 

"Dear Sir / Madam,

 

Re: Case Reference **

 

** vs. EMC Car Sales

 

After contacting your court today for an update regarding the above case, it was brought to my attention that the case status was “Discontinued by the Claimant”.

 

I’d like to advise that I, as the claimant, have NOT applied for this case to be discontinued.

 

Indeed, the process for this would be to fill in a form, of which I did not know existed until today.

I request that this discontinuation request is removed so that the claim can continue.

 

Further investigation today by the very friendly and helpful team at has revealed that a discontinuation form had been filled in in my name and registered on 13/05/19, and that it had been signed with a signature not matching my own

 

 

 Judge sets a court date of mid August, as he wants to see how to proceed in light of the "mystery" discontinuation form.

 

August 19’: Court visit to find out how to deal with N.O.D. Judge accepted I did not fill it in. Saw N.O.D, 100% not my signature. Surprised no changes were brought forward for this obvious attempted forgery.

 

 Court date set for 28th November.

 

 31/10/19: I completed a N244 change request form and sent it to the court. This was necessary as:

 

A. EMC are not a limited company

B. EMC have stopped trading

 

The court have accepted my request, so the case is now against the parent company. The court and CROWN MOTOR DIRECT LTD now have all the documentation that I will personally present in court on 29th. The defendants refused mediation.

 

30/I1/19: Case won in my favour. Decided after an hour of court. Only myself and the judge were present.

 

The money claim is against the owner of EMC, which the judge changed there and then. NAJJEEM KHELOUFI. The judge was saying that the EMC paperwork does not really mention CMD, so better to go after the owner.  ( Hindsight suggests CMD would have been better for the money claim ).

 

January 2020: Debt Collection Bailiffs employed to find Nadjeem Kheloufi. Ongoing to date. Several findings have comeback to me so far, but no current address as yet.

 

14/08/20: 2 x requests send to the court today: Judges Comments and copies of all correspondence relating to my case. Have also sent a request for SAR details to the Data Access address on the Government webpage. The hope is that the N.O.D form will get to me in a few days, and I’d be able to send this to the person with court case next week. ( week 34 ). Now considering changing name on CCJ to Crown Motor Direct, but will wait a while to see what comes back.

 

That’s it so far. I’ll update when I receive any information back.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I have my doubts that Kheloufi is real, although the Debt Agency found an address for him from around a year ago. I've thought of employing a different agency, but have my concerns that they'll uncover anything extra. 

 

Just yesterday, I had an offer of £1750 from CMD via email. Mickel Shamir was the person offering. This was after an email I sent last week asking why I hadn't received my 5k, and threatining to change the judgement name to CMD. I have not responded to that offer, as I believe we have some positive forward motion going on here with us all. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Their response after me sending them a screenshot of their 199k assets:

 

"This info is not up to date and is not hard fact that there are assets. The burden lies on us and we will provide all the docs. 

 

To be honest, the best that can be done is to purchase for £1750 and collect the car. If you disagree, please instruct the bailiff and we will automatically withdraw any future offers. This amount will come from a third party and is subject to a signed agreement between us. 

Yours faithfully,

Mikael Shamir"

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

Show more

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • BankFodder changed the title to Crown Motors Direct / Eden Motor Company / .
  • 2 weeks later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...