Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi Ade,   Stop speaking to them by phone and keep contact in writing only, which you've said you prefer.   Send TT a SAR by post immediately. The data you get back should enable you to see what they think you owe, and how it's made up.   Also write to BW Legal confirming you dispute the alleged debt owed to TT and have written to TT seeking data, so BWL must stop demands until TT have replied to the SAR you've sent them.
    • Please do although obviously I don’t know the facts from your side but at least I can tell you how much of a cut and paste job it is.
    • Please check back for a full reply tomorrow. However, it would help if you would introduce pergo spaces into a story full stop it's very long and especially for people with small screens it's very difficult to follow when it is so compacted.   I think this straight has become rather confused because of the third party account which we received at the outset. I think it will probably be helpful if you could repost your story but on a new thread and more openly spaced please.   Then we can start to have a closer look at it. However, as I've already suggested, I think there are two issues. The question of your liability in the accident and the problem of how you have been persuaded to take a rental car at such a high rate.    I would suggest that you hold off telephoneing anyone until we have had a closer look.before you do anything on the telephone. You have obviously had some very important conversations but you don't have any evidence of them. Although the other side may say that they have recorded them, you you may find it difficult to get hold of those recordings if in fact those recordings incriminate them in any way. for instance if they have promised you that you don't have to pay anything for the hire car, that would be an extremely useful conversation to have but you may find that it is difficult to get hold of.   please start a new thread it will be much easier to continue from there                                
    • When I sadly lost my job a while back, i reportd it immpediately to DWP as you are supposed to, but didnt realise at the time that the day I reported to them was the day before I was paid out for the last month. I was actually paid extra whem I left as it was cheaper than redundancy fort the business and at the time it was a good financial move (so I thought).   I was paid on Fri 26th Jan, they paid me out 2 months in one go. I reported to DWP on the 22nd of Han that I was made unemployed, had the letters and evidence. As they spun the story, because of their assesment dates and that, my first payment was on the 1st May and reassured that it works the other way around. That when work starts again, if I dont actually receive money from the company during the assesment period, there wont be an issue as it balances up.   Can I believe this or was it another spun story? I'm concerned that as I'll be paid monthly, (Starting on the 15th paid on the last day of the month), assment ends on the 22nd. Tha they'll take that money into consideration.   I'm just concerned due to the disparity it would cause between 4 odd months I endured with zero income because of how their system works and whatever they ahe in place to counter at this end of the claim.   Anywa, it's just awonder.   Cheers,   Ade    
    • Hi, OP sister here, im going to try and explaine in full details from start to present and see if you have any advice for me on what i can do. on 15/1/2021  at 16:25pm i was traveling along hazlebarrow cresent wich is on my estate at around 30mph, its a tight road with cars parked along the left hand side, as i proceeded through, a van ( which was parked on my left hand side, facing towards me) pulled out from the side of the road, he stopped the van wich resulted in the van being at an angled stationary position on the road. I breaked immediately but the ice and snow skidded my tyers, i skidded into the drivers side of his van, my car bounced off his van and sent my vehicle head first into the back of a parked car ( wich was originally parked at the back of the van before he set off from the side of the road. I will refer to the van driver as MR seddon. ( im going to attatch a street veiw picture and diagram wich will be more helpful in understanding how the accident accured ect) .  The owner of the parked car, which i will refer to as Mr simpson came out of his house. Myself, mr seddon and mr simpson exchanged details and took photos, then i left the scene as my first concern, understandably was to contact my midwife and the hospital. I live just round the corner from the scene of the accident so i slowly drove my car to my property. I contacted Go skippy the next day 16/1/21 and informed them of the accident and gave them all the details ect . by the following monday 18/1/21 i had a call from AX who said they was dealing with my claim as go skippy will not deal with it as i am third party insured. Over the next few days, i complied with their requests ( gave them a written statment of what happened, sent them pictures of the damage to my vehicle and mr seddons van ect). Then on the 19/1/21 AX contacted me again and asked if i need a curtesy vehicle, my first response was ' how much will that cost me?' Of which she replied ' nothing because your insurance covers the cost'. I agreed to the curtesy vehicle and the vehicle was delivered to me on the 20/1/21.  Over the coming weeks, AX and i had regular contact about my claim and updated me in regards to my own vehicle. At one point she said it could be deemed a 50/50 liability. an engineer had collectes my car, deemed in a total loss as the damage was more than 66% of its total value and written my car off . i had a call from a lady from AX and she said they have valued the car and i will be payed out £2200 . i asked when and she said ' we will send you a cheque out for £358 in the post, and the remaining balance will be payed out by Admirel but this may take a few weeks more' .  I didnt hear nothing for around 2 weeks so i comtacted AX again for an update, she told me that admirel are refusing liability and there now in dispute. Every time i contacted them they said the same thing ' admirel are refusing liability' i asked them why admirel consider themSelf not liable and she read from the notes ' mr seddon said he was driving along the road, the corsa ( my vehicle) was at high speed coming towards me , i beeped my horn and tried moving out of the way but i couldnt because of the ice and the snow and the corsa hit my van' . the lady at AX said the problem is that the damage to both our vehicles is consistant with both our stories and due to there being no witnesses, no cctv or dash cam footage- no one can prove who is at fault. I then questioned why i had been told i was being paid out £2200 and she said 'well we have to advice you the estimated value' of wich i replied 'no, there was no 'advice' - i was told it was a done deal i was getting paid £2200 and she told me i had a cheque arriving in the post!!!.  The lady then told me she had requested a ' none prejudice payment' from admirel and waiting for a response.   Shortly after this phone call, AX contacted me again and asked if i had the funds to repair my own vehicle or buy another one, ( im.assuming admirel refused to pay the ' none prejudice payment) I told them No i do not as i have a baby due and even if i did have the funds, why on earth would i fork out to repair my own vehicle when i wasnt at fault ?! . she said ok im going to pass this to managment and see what we can do .   I contacted AX again and asked for an update and expressed how unhappy i was with their service as i felt like they hadnt fought my corner, bowed down to admirel and then had the cheek to ask me to repair my own vehicle . again she said ' its still in dispute, admirel are not budging i have to pass this on to management. She then asked me for 3 months bank statements to 'prove' i dont have the funds to repair my vehicle myself. I thought this was ridiculous and stated that even if i had the funds, why would i repair my own vehicle when im.not at fault!? Obviously this has been on going since middle of january, pretty fed up. My brother come to this forum and you guys had mentioned the hire car rates may fall back on me. I contacted AX first thing this morning regarding this. I made it clear that they can collect the vehicle to stop the daily charges as i do not want to be in thousands of pounds worth of debt when i am a lone parent with a new born baby. and the lady told me ' we will try every avenue to recover the cost from Admirel for the hire car charges, if this means taking them to court, even if this is unsuccessful, considering you comply with your hire vehicle contract and you work with us with your claim ( which you have been doing) you will not be liable for this debt and if worst comes to worst and admirel will not pay, we will just wipe the debt off' . i made her repeat several times that i will not be liable for this debt and she said i have told you my name, and these calls are recordered and i am telling you that this debt will not be on you to pay . She then said that if i was to give AX the hire car back now, then it would jepordise everything. And she said ' we gave you that hire vehicle because we beleive your not at fault so you can keep using it as we know you need transport' I then questioned the need for bank statements again and she told me the reason they need bank statements is so if it goes to court - AX can justify why i needed the hire car for so long ( because i didnt have the funds to repair my vehicle or buy another one) and also so they can prove they have tried every root possible.    After the phonecall it got me thinking about how she said ' aslong as you comply with your hire car contract your not liable for any charges for the hire car' . will they find any fault with the contract just to try and lumber me with the debt? , as it seems pretty fishy how they would just ' wipe off' thousands of pounds if admirel refuse to pay.  And also, she said if i gave the hire car back it would jepodise the case . so when the lady rang me the other week asking if i had funds to repair or buy myself a new vehicle , if i had said yes, ill buy a car tomorrow and come collect the curtesy one. Then what? Wouldnt that ' jepodise' the case?    As you can imagaine, my heads spinning. Stressed and dont know what to do. I dont even care about a pay out , i just want to give the hire car back and be completely done with AX . but now im scared if i give the car back i will be lumbered with thousand of pounds worth of debt from the hire car charges.  Tomorow i am going to read thoroughly through the ' hire car contract' . i am going to give them another call and record them saying i am not liable for the debt. Any advice on how i can just give the hire car back to them without me being liable to pay the debt?  Thank you Gemma
  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

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...