Jump to content
  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Sorry to hear about the "playground insults".    The fact you didn't write "without prejudice" means the letter could be produced in court, not that the PPCs ever seem to do so.  Well, so what?  Minister Baywatch HAVE made up fictitious charges.  Courts HAVE told the PPCs off for this numerous times.  DDJ Harvey DID go ballistic about this.  I don't' see what's wrong in refuting a claim and referring to a persuasive court case to back up your position. 
    • Thanks Dx. I have tidied the defence up with your suggestions amended. Does it look right now? Thanks!   1.    Monies due under current account facility xxxxxxxxxxxx. The claimants claim is for the balance outstanding under the facility provided by Halifax to the defendant. It was a term of the bank account that any debit balance would be repayable by the defendant in full on demand.   2.    The defendant has failed to repay the amount due following the service of a demand.   3.    The debt was assigned to the claimant.   4.    The claimant therefore claims 1. 5k 2. costs   Defence   1. The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and 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 Claimants statement of case fails to give adequate information to enable me to properly assess my position with regards the claim.    3. The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim fail to state when the agreement was entered into.   4. Paragraph 1, Whilst I accept that I have in the past held a current account with Halifax Bank Plc. I have not serviced this account since 08/07/2016 due to the punitive charges and interest being applied which made the account untenable and impossible to facilitate. The amount claimed is far in excess of any agreed overdraft limit with Halifax Bank. I deny that the account exceeded an agreed overdraft limit due to overdrawing of funds and claim that this is a result of unfair and extortionate bank charges/penalties being applied to the account. It is therefore denied that I am indebted for any alleged outstanding residue.    5. Paragraph 2 is denied as the original creditor has failed to serve a Notice served under 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974 Demand / Recall Notice and the Claimant is put to strict proof to evidence any breach.    6. Paragraph 2 is further denied as i am unaware of Halifax Bank ever providing me with a copy of the Notice served under 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974 Demand / Recall Notice and Notice of Assignment.   7. Paragraph 3 is denied. I am not aware or ever receiving any Notice of Assignment pursuant to the Law of Property Act 1925. 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. The Claimant has yet to provide a copy of the Notice of Assignment its claim relies upon.   8. Paragraph 4 is denied. I refute the claimants claim is owed or payable. The amount claimed is comprised of amongst others default penalties/charges levied on the account for alleged late, missed or over limit payments. The court will be aware that these charge types and the recoverability thereof have been judicially declared to be susceptible to assessments of fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 The Office of Fair Trading v Abbeyicon National PLC and others (2009). I will contend at trial that such charges are unfair in their entirety.   9. As per Civil Procedure icon Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. The claimant is also put to strict proof to:-.     a. Provide a copy agreement/facility arrangement along with the Terms and conditions at inception, which this claim is based on. b. Provide a breakdown of their excessive charging/fees levied to the account with justification. c. Show how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed. d. Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim. (f) Show how they have complied with sections III & IV of Practice Direction - Pre-action Conduct.   e. Provide a copy of the Notice served under 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974 Demand /Recall Notice and Notice of Assignment.   10. On receipt of this claim I immediately requested documentation by way of a CPR 31.14 request, which was received by the Claimant on the *******. The Claimant has failed to comply with this request. Therefore the claimant in their non compliance to my requests have frustrated my attempts to clarify their claim and against pre action protocol should be considered when the question of costs arise.     11. By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.    
    • MPs are pushing authorities to respond to allegations of potential fraud at certain banks, whereby it’s claimed home repossession documents weren’t actually signed by the authorised signatory View the full article
    • Thanks Dx. Amended defence set out below. Does it look right now?   1. By agreement between the defendant and Halifax on or around the 3/3/2015 (the agreement) Halifax agreed to loan the defendant monies.     2.The defendant did not pay instalments as they fell due.     3.The agreement was terminated following a service of a default notice.     4.The agreement was assigned to the claimant.     5.The claimant therefore claims 1. 4.5k 2. Costs    Defence   1. The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and 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. Paragraph 1 is denied. It is accepted that I have had financial dealings with Halifax in the past. However I do not recall entering into any financial agreement with Halifax on or around 03/03/2015 and have sought verification from the claimant who has not complied with my request for further information.     4. Paragraph 2 is denied. I am not aware of any payment terms for the stated agreement.     5. Paragraph 3 is denied. It is denied that Cabot Financial served any Default notice on the Defendant pursuant to s87 Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Claimant is required to prove that a compliant Default Notice was served upon the Defendant. The Claimant is required to prove that the any Default notice relied upon complied with the requirements of s88(4A) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and that the notice was in the prescribed form as required by The Consumer Credit Enforcement Default and Termination Notice Regulations 1983.   6. Paragraph 4 is denied as I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served by either the claimant or the original creditor.     7. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant; the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of credit agreement / assignment / balance / breach requested by CPR 31.14, and remains in default of my section 77 request, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:   a. Show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and   b. Show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and   c. Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim     8. On receipt of this claim I requested by way of Royal Mail on 13/10/20 a CPR 31.14 request from the claimant’s solicitors and a section 77 requests to the Claimant, for copies of the documents referred to within the Claimant’s particulars to establish what the claim is for. To date the Claimant has failed to comply with my section 77 request and their solicitors, Mortimer Clarke, have refused my CPR 31.14 request.     9. As per Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.     10. 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 82 A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974     11. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.  
    • I'm generally convinced that there is at least 2 users on MSE that's in my thread that has friends or family or even themselves that have similar line of work to MB or Gladstone.   I don't mind different opinions but they're just throwing out playground insults to me for using that letter saying I'm stupid, prat, idiot etc etc for doing it and not including in the letter without prejudice so it can't be used against me in court. I think I'll leave MSE and just stick with CAG and in this case.    
  • Our picks

    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies
    • Oven repair. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/427690-oven-repair/&do=findComment&comment=5073391
      • 49 replies
    • I came across this discussion recently and just wanted to give my experience of A Shade Greener that may help others regarding their boiler finance agreement.
       
      We had a 10yr  finance contract for a boiler fitted July 2015.
       
      After a summer of discontent with ASG I discovered that if you have paid HALF the agreement or more you can legally return the boiler to them at no cost to yourself. I've just returned mine the feeling is liberating.
       
      It all started mid summer during lockdown when they refused to service our boiler because we didn't have a loft ladder or flooring installed despite the fact AS installed the boiler. and had previosuly serviced it without issue for 4yrs. After consulting with an independent installer I was informed that if this was the case then ASG had breached building regulations,  this was duly reported to Gas Safe to investigate and even then ASG refused to accept blame and repeatedly said it was my problem. Anyway Gas Safe found them in breach of building regs and a compromise was reached.
       
      A month later and ASG attended to service our boiler but in the process left the boiler unusuable as it kept losing pressure not to mention they had damaged the filling loop in the process which they said was my responsibilty not theres and would charge me to repair, so generous of them! Soon after reporting the fault I got a letter stating it was time we arranged a powerflush on our heating system which they make you do after 5 years even though there's nothing in the contract that states this. Coincidence?
       
      After a few heated exchanges with ASG (pardon the pun) I decided to pull the plug and cancel our agreement.
       
      The boiler was removed and replaced by a reputable installer,  and the old boiler was returned to ASG thus ending our contract with them. What's mad is I saved in excess of £1000 in the long run and got a new boiler with a brand new 12yr warranty. 
       
      You only have to look at TrustPilot to get an idea of what this company is like.
       
      • 3 replies
    • Dazza a few months ago I discovered a good friend of mine who had ten debts with cards and catalogues which he was slavishly paying off at detriment to his own family quality of life, and I mean hardship, not just absence of second holidays or flat screen TV's.
       
      I wrote to all his creditors asking for supporting documents and not one could provide any material that would allow them to enforce the debt.
       
      As a result he stopped paying and they have been unable to do anything, one even admitted it was unenforceable.
       
      If circumstances have got to the point where you are finding it unmanageable you must ask yourself why you feel the need to pay.  I guarantee you that these companies have built bad debt into their business model and no one over there is losing any sleep over your debt to them!  They will see you as a victim and cash cow and they will be reluctant to discuss final offers, only ways to keep you paying with threats of court action or seizing your assets if you have any.
       
      They are not your friends and you owe them no loyalty or moral duty, that must remain only for yourself and your family.
       
      If it was me I would send them all a CCA request.   I would bet that not one will provide the correct response and you can quite legally stop paying them until such time as they do provide a response.   Even when they do you should check back here as they mostly send dodgy photo copies or generic rubbish that has no connection with your supposed debt.
       
      The money you are paying them should, as far as you are able, be put to a savings account for yourself and as a means of paying of one of these fleecers should they ever manage to get to to the point of a successful court judgement.  After six years they will not be able to start court action and that money will then become yours.
       
      They will of course pursue you for the funds and pass your file around various departments of their business and out to third parties.
       
      Your response is that you should treat it as a hobby.  I have numerous files of correspondence each faithfully organised showing the various letters from different DCA;s , solicitors etc with a mix of threats, inducements and offers.   It is like my stamp collection and I show it to anyone who is interested!
        • Thanks
        • Like

NCP ANPR PCN - Ashford Park Mall - already appealled what next?


Recommended Posts

Hi folks, it's been a while but I'm back as I thought I would be.

I didn't know where to post this as my original thread is now closed so sorry if I'm in the wrong place 🐵

 

BW Legal are at it again and after me.

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/profile/393677-ncp-hater/content/

Here's the latest episode.

This looks a bit more official.

do I need to appeal to "them!!!!" 🤬 ????

 

Judge and jury ggrrr  !!

 

Sure.... see attached.  😃

bw.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • dx100uk changed the title to NCP ANPR PCN - Ashford Park Mall - already appealled what next?

yes you must reply but you don't appeal

find one of the suitable BW snotty insulting letters from ericsbrother and use that.

 

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

so are you saying that they are not intending to proceed with court? It seems to me they are about to do just that as errand boys for NCP??

How much clout do BW have? If I need to reply to them then they can't be as toofless as I first thought.

cheers

Edited by NCP hater
Link to post
Share on other sites

eh?

 

its how we reply to PPC PAPLOC's 

 

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

sorry DX I don't follow. There is no MLOC application against me. You didnt really answer me question either. Seems I'm chasing my tail here.

 

Thanks !

Link to post
Share on other sites

i didnt say there was.

 

you reply with a snotty insulting letter

as everyone else does.

 

you must by now realise CAG is also a self help site...

that means you don't just come here for answers ..you research here too. by reading like threads. use our search..

 

our enhanced google search box

 

ericsbrother bw snotty letter

 

there are loads...

read each thread you find one in so you understand what you are writing and why you are doing it this way and NOT using their silly forms.

 

post yours up here and well check it

 

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

Hi DX, thanks for a quich reply.

Sure I get that CAG is a selfhelp site.

But my question is if this is a genuine thing that's taking me to court or if it's another level of toothless scaremongering . That was my question.

 

It's all well and good sending snotty insulting letters if BW are just scaremongering but it's a whole different thing if there's validity to this letter of claim on which I need to act upon.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks genuine and valid to me if your referring to the one you uploaded at post # 29 ?

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 thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi yep, thats the one!

So I need to act on it then?

In that case is a snotty reply the way to go?

 

after all it's not going to stop them after the month is out.

They'll just proceed with this to MCOL and my potential bill will be just more than now.

 

Fact is that no matter what I do as they are judge and jury if they don't get their dosh this'll go to MCOL and I'll have to pay their rip off money

Link to post
Share on other sites

It certainly is.

The letter shows that you are not afraid to stick it up them,

that you are not going to pay and you are not afraid if their threats.

 

So the likelihood is that if they do take you to Court you will have a very good defence to their claim, as that have seen from previous snotty letters. 

 

They may decide to push you a bit further to see if you will pay up and they may decide not to turn up in Court if they see your defence.

 

They may push because the virus has lost them a lot of money as people are ordering groceries etc. from home and not so many cars have been parked in super markets carparks. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel a snotty something coming on. Whatever it is it's not Batflu 😂😂

 

It was an ANPR capture. ..... SMILE 🖕.....

 

Is this enough or should I write a proper defense??

 

A lack of contractual obligation makes your demands spurious, please refer back to your client and desist this harassment

Link to post
Share on other sites

These companies don't actually like to take people to court.  Legal fees in small claims are capped at £50.  However, the people who run the companies are so stupid that they are incapable of dealing with their own court cases and so have to employ local solicitors which costs them a bomb.  So even if they win in court they lose IYSWIM.  

 

If you give them both barrels now there is a good chance they will decide it's not worth their while and go after some other naive mug instead.  There are no guarantees of course.

 

Just to clear a few things up.  You actually paid the parking fee - twice - but the machine was knackered, right?  Any proof of this?  Then the fleecers sent out a second demand without sending the first so you couldn't appeal or get the discount, right?

 

Also, can you remember what you wrote to them?  In particular if you outed yourself as the driver?

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

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that's an interesting question if I outted myself or not.

I did send an appeal to NCP in reply to the original letter although I was late with that and after their shut off date or what ever they called it. I'd just had a hand operation. However I did not say I was the driver but perhaps by even replying to NCP I make myself the driver by default. Is that right?

 

after the time or not I did fire off and appeal and have the receipt for that.

See attached. Some time late I got a letter from Trace then it seems I was bounced over to BW.

 

I never herd back from NPC regarding my appeal. Total radio silence. Then came the Trace letters and then BW

 

I did send a bit of snot over to NCP.

As I was using this car park on a daily basis for some months I did capture on day the pic with the masking tape on it just by chance.

 

Apart from that I was using the NCP payment app which did or did not work depending on the day.

Talk about bugware!

 

I do have some 4 months of payment history within the app.

 

so my point is that these machines do go wrong from time to time.

I did not put the tape on there but someone did!

bank card only.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

appeal one has ref number showing

other pix to screen removed

please use PDF only

 

 

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
20 minutes ago, NCP hater said:

However I did not say I was the driver but perhaps by even replying to NCP I make myself the driver by default. Is that right?

No, not all all.  It's up to them to prove you were the driver.  Well done in not telling them!

 

Remember in all this you are legally in the right.  Their parking fee was paid.  You're not trying to "get out" of something you owe.  They are in the wrong as far as the law goes.

 

So how about sending them something like -

 

Dear BW Legal,

 

cheers for your Letter Before Claim.

 

I don't earn owe your clients a bean, indeed your clients owe the driver of the vehicle who paid the parking fee - twice.  It is your clients' responsibility if the machines they buy second hand on eBay don't work properly because they're too tight to pay a technician to maintain them.

 

Your clients also gave me to no right of appeal or of paying a discount in contravention of their own industry's Code of Conduct.

 

You can either drop this foolishness now or your clients can get a good hiding in court, both are fine by me.  I fancy a winter holiday and I fancy financing it by an unreasonable costs order under CPR27.14(2)(g).

 

COPIED TO NCP

 

The reason i say to send to NCP too is because unscrupulous solicitors are well into their clients starting claims which are bound to lose, after all they get the £££ in any case.

Edited by FTMDave
Typo

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

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok DX I'll stick to pdf's. Posting those pix's were something of an afterthought.

I certainly like Dave's letter. I think I'll go with that. I'll give it a bit of a tweak and send it to them in an e mail. That way they can't BS me and say it never reached 'em.

 

Yeah, good t' go! I'll update when I have more ....

 

Have a great weekend!

Link to post
Share on other sites

no you NEVER give a fleecing DCA or their client an email address!!

and you do NOT modify it much either

post it up here before you send it please

there specific reasons WHY we word it as such

 

 

send it 1st class by royal mail get free proof of posting from any PO counter

 

have you not been reading up??

 

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

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...