Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • @Tom Price   Thank you for your note, which is very helpful.   Did VCS cite the following cases?   1. VCS v Ward 2. Semark Jullien   VCS threw the two cases to me in the last minute at my previous hearing. The judge accepted the extra WS and adjourned my case for me to read/defend it. My case is going to be held on 30th March.   Thanks!      
    • Hi,   So, I received a letter today from a debt collection law firm threatening CCJ action on behalf of Volvo/Santander for a voluntary termination of a vehicle. (I did request Volvo/Santander that a complaints procedure be started as I think the terms of the contract were miss sold but alas, they ignored me and went straight to CCJ action via a debt collection law firm!).   I digress, anyway, so the letter was addressed to me, it included my original signed contract, but, there was another document inside. This document was another hire contract with some other person details on it!   It includes:   Their full name Their address and postcode Their handwritten signature Their email address Their mobile telephone number Their debt amount Their vehicle registration    Is this a breach of the data protection act? On the flip side, my details could be in the hands of someone else, who knows?    What should I do now, is this a trump card that I could use if this matter does actually go to court? I did intend to argue against this debt in the first place.   Any advice on this would be most grateful!   TIA         
    • Hi guys   I received a county court claim form on Thursday dated 18/02/2021 saying that the claimant (CABOT FINANCIAL (UK) is claiming for the sum of £2140.14 on behalf of  NEW DAY LTD RE MARBLES. but it requests all documents to be sent to MORTIMER CLARKE SOLICITORS.   Now i think i did have a marbles card a while ago although my partner says that that was a capital one card.   But either way i don't like the idea of these parasites chasing me for money for a debt they probably bought for £10.    From looking around here it seems that i should be sending them a CCA request and a CPR 31.14.   I've bought a £1 postal order.   Is there anything else i need to do?   Thanks for any help given
    • Yes that is an absolute must. Generally the Council has no wish to see people committed to prison for Council Tax debt. They want to see the debt recovered where it is properly due and the debtor has the ability to pay. If he hasn't that ability they will take into account the debtor's financial situation and make any arrangements they can. But only a court can remit some or all of the debt. The more you engage with the Council the easier this will be.
    • I think you'd need to have formally noted you were working under protest at the time. 
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

Idem Claimform - HSBC Credit card from 2005 *** Claim Discontinued***


Recommended Posts

Try again: thanks for bearing with me

 

I have copied the text in post 21 and added in the line missed:

 

Does this now look ready to submit?

 

 

 

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. The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017.It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC

 

2. I have in the past had financial dealings with HSBC . I am unaware of what alleged debt(s) 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.

 

In response the claimant has disclosed they do not have an agreement between HSBC and Myself

 

And in response to my section 78 request for the HSBC agreement - was not supplied

 

3. Paragraph 2 is noted but it is denied that I was ever served Notice of Assignment at the time of the Assignment.

 

4. Paragraph 4 is denied. I am unaware of any service of a Default Notice (s) pursuant to section 87 of the consumer credit

 

5.Paragraph 5 is noted but I refer you to my point 2 that i am unaware of the alleged debt they are referring to

 

6.It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of assignment/balance/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 with the Claimant; and

(b) show and evidence the nature of any breach and Default Notice;

© show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and

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

 

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

 

8. 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.

 

 

9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

No the above has parts missing use the one in post #21 which I have already edited...there is no need for you to do anything to it except submit it on MCOL

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

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

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Welly26 said:

Hello DX100 uk, 

 

Apologies, I thought I needed to edit the above to suit my case.. My bad. 

 

there is not a 16 digit number in the claim, its exactly has written. 

 

oh well typical PRA claim they don't even know what type of debt it is !!

 

ruddy fleecers.

our post numbers are diff to yours

 

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
3 hours ago, Welly26 said:

Hello, what do think of this? i have taken most of it on the above mentioned posts, i need to submit today really because I don't think I will gain access to a computer tomorrow 

 

1) An agreement between HSBC and Defendant/s (D) subject to standard terms and conditions

2) Claimant (C) purchased the debt 13/10/2016

3) it was a term of the agreement that is any instalment was not paid on due date, C would be entitled to repayment of outstanding balance of total amount payable less (on Payment) any rebate that D maybe entitled

4) D Failed to pay instalments due. C issued a Default Notice requesting payment D failed to pay sums due, which consequently became immediately due and payable, Formal demand issued dated 10/08/2020

5) D has failed to pay outstanding balance of £4277.61

 

************************* FINAL Defence *********************************************

 

 

 

1.  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.

2. The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017.It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.

 

3. I have in the past had financial dealings with HSBC . I am unaware of what alleged debt(s) the claimant refers to having failed to adequately particularise its claim,  or even referring to an account number. I have therefore sought clarity from the claimant by way of a Section 78 request and a CPR 31.14 request.

 

In response the claimant has confirmed they do not have an agreement between HSBC and Myself

 

And in response to my section 78 request for the HSBC agreement - was not supplied and therefore remain in default and prevented from enforcing the alleged agreement.

 

4. Paragraph 2 is noted but it is denied that I was ever served Notice of Assignment at the time of the Assignment.

 

5. Paragraph 4 is denied. I am unaware of any service of a Default Notice (s) pursuant to section 87 of the consumer credit

 

6.It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of assignment/balance/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 the nature of any breach and Default Notice;

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

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

 

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

 

8. 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.

 

 

9. 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.

 

 

 

 

this one^^

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

What could you possibly counter claim for ?

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

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

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

I never expected to see an option of a counterclaim so pressed no and that looks correct. 

 

Thank you for all your help so far. 

 

what now, do I just wait for the court to contact me? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

use our enhanced google search box

type in claimform lowell card

 

and get reading as many threads as you can

 

the more you read

the stronger we become.

that will also give you advice on what is next

what is to come as the claim progresses

and how to respond.

 

but you are most welcome and advised to check 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

Hello i have just logged on to the MCOL online portal to check if any updates and its says DQ sent to you on 28/09/2020 will this be sent by post and will there be anything I need to do? 

 

Will this be sent in the post? i cant see anything online. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

you should be reading up like threads

 

DQ is the N180 hundreds of threads here ' best to use the search i pointed you too before

 

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

Or use ours and complete on screen...looks far more professional......print 3 copies.

 

 

Your hard copy from the court will contain the date it must submitted by.

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

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

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Evening, 

 

I have today received a letter form the court, 

 

It says,

 

Before deputy district judge xxxxx sitting at the county court at (address)

 

UPON reading a letter dated 13 October 2020 from the claimant IT IS ORDERED THAT

 

1. the claim is stayed until 4pm on the 20 November 2020

 

2. in the event that the claim has not been settled during the period of the stay, the claimant shall by 4pm on the 18 December 2020, send to the defendant and the court its reply to defence

 

3. Refer back as deskwork upon receipt of reply or expiry of 18 December 2020

 

Dated 26 October 2020

 

Only arrived today and stamped 6th November

 

Any help with explaining what this means? should i not have a copy of the letter sent on the 13th October? 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Welly26 said:

3. Refer back as deskwork upon receipt of reply or expiry of 18 December 2020

 

never seen that before...

 

 

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

powerless muppets

 

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

probably nothing to do with this issue and any dca that holds a CCL can check anyone 

wetclothes don't buy debts anyway and are the very bottom of bottom feederes

few can see the search anyway.

 

means nothing

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

It simply prolongs the process and allows the claimant a little breathing space...a claimant can make application to stay a claim before allocation ..as in this case until  4pm on the 20 November 2020.

 

Its a bit daft really because they could have let it stayed after you submitted the defence...then paid the fee to lift the stay if they wished to proceed.

 

Signifies they are struggling and possibly not able to prepare or produce the necessary to proceed at directions stage.

 

Whichever its looking good so dont concern yourself even if it out of the norm.

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

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

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Andyorch said:

Its a bit daft really

 

yes thats what puzzled me ....why apply to stay early...:noidea::crazy:

 

i mean it's not as if idem ever discontinues a claim either... but its a good step that way...

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

well neither wetcloths nor resolvecall will be anything to do with this debt subject to a court claim.

you must have others debts...

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

please create a new topic by hitting create in the top red banner for the cabot debt

 

whilst idem are stating some sort of time limit, i'd not worry about nor replying in time not even at all - see what andyorch thinks

 

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

in your attachment 3 posts up you have failed to follow our upload guide and have used a felt pen to obscure things

we can see right thru that...so can idem ...hidden again.

we must sadly abide by the strict data protection rules this site must operate under.

 

 

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

just a few notes...

if you filed the defence andyorch indicated after amendments. Nowhere did you state you entered into an agreement with idem...

 

there is no default notice 

there is no signed agreement


the 2 sets of T&C can be downloaded from anywhere inc this site ..bogroll.


the statements mean nothing 


the previous payments to them are not admittance to the debt as such, just you got had by them
neither is your F&F offer - with no enforceable agreement nortDN they ain't going nowhere fast - you just ran the SB date a few more years..


there is no signed agreement ....for a take out date of 2006 an agreement MUST have been signed by you and must be produced as the agreement predates the amendments to the CCA arp 2007 which introduced the allowance of digital sign ups and reconstructed agreements.
total bogroll


i can see them discontinuing this case...no wonder they applied for an early  stay themselves and dangled a tomlin order ...

 

fat chance idem

 

nothing for you to do until or unless the court writes.

 

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
  • Andyorch changed the title to Idem Claimform - HSBC Credit card from 2005 *** Claim Discontinued***

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...