Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They wont take you to court. I'm not sure what they'll do about the letters and if they will or wont send you the letters from their retail prevention company, but you can ignore those letters. You'll be just fine don't worry.
    • Yeah I figured, unlikely I'll need credit anyway mortgage all paid off etc so I'll take that on the chin and learn from the experience. Probably would've beaten that too had I remembered the protocol, first time ever going through the process though sob it wasn't familiar to me  Oh well  
    • This is my slightly amended WS taking on board your previous comments, any suggestions for amendments would be most appreciated.  Thank you for you time.   1.        I am the Defendant in this matter. 2.        The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. 3.        I became aware of original Judgement following a routine credit check on or around 14th September 2020. 4.        The alleged Letter of Claim dated 7 January 2020 was served to a previous address which I moved out of in 2018, no effort was made to ascertain my correct address. 5.        The Judgement debt was not familiar to me so I began investigations to ascertain what the debt related to and how such a figure had been equated in any event. 6.        I made immediate contact with the Court, the Claimant Solicitors and the Claimants thereafter, asking them to provide me with a copy of the original loan agreement but this was not provided to me.  7.        I sent a Data Subject access Request to Barclays but no agreement was provided – See appendix 1 which details the timeline of communication between myself and Barclaycard as well as copies of correspondence between us. 8.        I do not admit to entering an agreement with Barclaycard in 2000. 9.       The claimant has failed to comply with the additional directions ordered by District Judge Davis and therefore this claim should be automatically struck out.  10.    The claimants have failed to disclose a true executed copy of the original agreement they refer to within the particulars of this claim. They are not entitled to enforce the agreement pursuant to section 78.6 (a) of the Credit Consumer Act 1974 12.   The reconstituted standard Barclaycard agreement that the claimant has included in the court bundle does not satisfy any CCA request and so the claimant is and remains in default of my CCA request and therefore unable to enforce the alleged agreement. 13.  The claimants have failed to provide proof the assignment, such as a deed of assignment. 14.  The claimant has failed to provide a statement of account setting out how the alleged debt accrued under that agreement 15.   Despite numerous requests to the claimant, I have still not seen any evidence, such as an original agreement or deed of assignment, that substantiates the claimant’s assertion that I owe the debt to the claimant, nor evidence of how the debt was accrued. 16.   As per CPR 1.4(2)(a) the court encourages parties to cooperate with each other in the conduct of proceedings in order to try and save time and costs for the parties and to also save the time and resources of the court however, despite vast attempts at mediation the claimants have been most unreasonable and have remained unwilling to mediate. I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are 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 its truth.
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Arrows, Capquest, moorcroft and HSBC managed loan/OD debacle


Big1978
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2594 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

Right OK.

 

So moorc@p flogged it on to Cr@pquest and failed to tell them that you had requested the CCA, typical cash cow account!

 

Do nothing, you have the 'signed for' receipt of Moorcr@p receiving your CCA request, this IMO is all you need, did they cash the £1 PO/cheque?

 

You're in the puerile game of letter tennis, until you ignore their idle threats they'll simply keep on stringing you along hoping that their lame empty threats will intimidate you enough to pay money you don't owe.

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

today I've received a letter from Arrow stating "a change of agency"

- I've not made any payments or contacted them at all except to request the CCA.

But I believe this must be statue barred by now?

 

 

As the account was apparently taken out in 2008 (01/2/08).

There's more information on this letter

- apparently it was a HSBC personal loan

(I really have no recollection of ever taking a loan out with them!!).

Apparently it has now been passed to Shoosmiths LLP who "will contact me"

 

I'm so bleeding over this rubbish..... What with my hearing tomorrow I'm about to scream!

 

Any advice?

 

 

Is statute barred from inception date or default date?

 

 

I'm pretty sure I've seen from Dx that it's from inception date....

 

 

In that case this would be SB'd and I'd like to tell them so and move on....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because I was advised (on here - on this thread) to "not poke the sleeping dog"

 

I stand by what I've said previously I don't know what this is and I have no recollection of what this is.

 

Is now the time "to poke the sleeping dog?"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi - here goes:

 

 

Compello (was HSBC Loan) £8.30

Lowell (was O2) £2.50

Lowell (was Vanquis) £1.70

MCS (was HSBC) £0.70

UK Search (was JD Williams) £3.90

 

 

I got all these after my marriage broke down and I (obviously) took what was owed by myself.

 

 

the above was 2014...

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

i would suggest that as someone else was dealing with things and you would not have gotten letters

that HSBC converted everything over to a 'managed loan' as they did then [use the cag search box in the red toolbar and read up on HSBC managed loan

 

 

did you ever have a bank account with hsbc too?

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

you state no loan taken out then why have you not told them to prove it? as yopu have never taken a a HSBC loan!????

 

Because it simply encourages the little darlings and you then enter the tedious game of letter tennis, prove it letter is so 80's!

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Baz - quick question.... national debt line have advised me to send a prove it letter. They also say that the CCA I sent way back in 2013 was an acknowledgment of the debt. Is that true??

Link to post
Share on other sites

NO NO and NO

 

 

its unlike them to make so many mistakes..

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

I've gone through all the letters received from Arrow - Moorcroft - Westcot - Capquest and now Shoosmiths (letter before action received from them today).

 

In 2015 I got a letter in response to my s78 request from Moorcroft stating that they acknowledge my request and they've requested the documents and until they receive them all collection action is suspended... but I've continued to get letters from Westcot - Capquest etc...

 

Today I get a letter from Shoosmiths stating my "payment" options etc.

 

Should I send another s78 request to Shoosmiths reminding them of the Moorcroft letter back in 2015?

 

Not sure I am able to go through the Court merry-go-round again...

Link to post
Share on other sites

no shoosmiths are a solicitor not a creditor.

who are their stated client.

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

says their client is arrows

so since 2015 its been sold.

I would not be entering into any letter tennis

nor sendanything.

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 was sold by Arrow to Westcot in early 2016 then to Capquest in late 2016 only to be back with Arrow now who've instructed Shoosmiths? All very confusing...So who should've responded to the s78 request?

Link to post
Share on other sites

nope..

 

 

capquest are arrows as are shoo's

 

 

wetcloths don't buy debts they simply chase for 'a client' this time being arrows.

 

 

but its a pointless anyway..

 

 

all you've done is done what they wanted you to do..panic.

thinking its going up some kind of escalation ladder

its not

its all the same DCA just using differing names

probably exactly the same printer...

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

ofcourse

the only reason this is all going on is its very near to SB date [august]

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...