Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Your point 4 deals with that and puts them to strict proof .....but realistically they are not in a position to state that within their particulars they were not the creditor at the time of default but naturally assume the OC would have...so always worth challenging and if you get a DJ who knows his onions on the day may ask for further evidence from the OC internal accounts system. 
    • I see, shame, I think if a claim is 'someone was served' then proof of that should be mandatory. Appreciate your input into the WS whenever you get chance, thanks in advance
    • Paper trail off the original creditor often confirms the default and issue of a notice...not having or being able to disclose the actual copy or being able to produce a copy less so. Creditors are not compelled to keep copies of the actual default notice so you will in most cases get a reconstituted version but must contain accurate figures/dates/format.     .    
    • Including Default Notice Andy? Ok, I think this is the best I can do.. it all makes sense with references to their WS. They have included exhibits that dates don't match the WS about them, small but still.. if you're going to reference letters giving dates, then the exhibits should be correct, no? I know I redacted them too much, but one of the dates differs to the WS by a few months. IN THE ******** County Court Claim No. [***] BETWEEN: LC Asset 2 S.A.R.L CLAIMANT AND [***] DEFENDANT ************ _________________________ ________ WITNESS STATEMENT OF [***] _________________________ ________ I, [***], being the Defendant in this case will state as follows; I make this Witness Statement in support of my defence in this claim. 1. I understand that the claimant is an Assignee, a buyer of defunct or bad debts, which are bought on mass portfolios at a much-reduced cost to the amount claimed and which the original creditors have already written off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income as confirmed in the claimant’s witness statement exhibit by way of the Deed of Assignment. As an assignee or creditor as defined in section 189 of the CCA this applies to this new requirement on assignment of rights. This means that when an assignee purchases debts (or otherwise acquires rights under a credit agreement) it also acquires certain obligations to the borrower including the duty to comply with CCA requirements (such as the rules on statements and notices and other post-contractual information). The assignee becomes the creditor under the agreement. This ensures that essential consumer protections under the CCA cannot be circumvented by assigning the debt to a third party. 2. The Claim relates to an alleged Credit Card agreement between the Defendant and Bank of Scotland plc. Save insofar of any admittance it is accepted that the Defendant has had contractual agreements with Bank of Scotland plc in the past, the Defendant is unaware as to what alleged debt the Claimant refers. 3. The Defendant requested a copy of the CCA on the 24/12/2022 along with the standard fee of £1.00 postal order, to which the defendant received a reply from the Claimant dated 06/02/2023. To this date, the Claimant has failed to disclose a valid agreement and proof as per their claim that this is enforceable, that Default Notice and Notice of Assignment were sent to and received by the Defendant, on which their claim relies. The Claimant is put to strict proof to verify and confirm that the exhibit *** is a true copy of the agreement and are the true Terms and Conditions as issued at the time of inception of the online application and execution of the agreement. 4. Point 3 is noted. The Claimant pleads that a default notice has been served upon the defendant as evidenced by Exhibit [***]. The claimant is put to strict proof to verify the service of the above in accordance with s136 and s196 Law of Property Act 1925. 5. Point 6 is noted and disputed. The Defendant cannot recall ever having received the notice of assignment as evidenced in the exhibit marked ***. The claimant is put to strict proof to verify the service of the above in accordance with s136 and s196 Law of Property Act 1925. 6. Point 11 is noted and disputed. See 3. 7. Point 12 is noted, the Defendant doesn’t recall receiving contact where documentation is provided as per the Claimants obligations under CCA. In addition, the Claimant pleads letters were sent on dates given, yet those are not the letters evidenced in their exhibits *** 8. Point 13 is noted and denied. Claimant is put to strict proof to prove allegations. 9. The Claimant did not provide a true copy of the CCA in response to the Defendants request of 24/12/2022. The Claimant further claims that the documents are sufficient to pursue a Judgement and are therefore copies of original documents in their possession. Conclusion 10. Without the Claimant providing a valid true copy of the executed Credit agreement that complies with the CCA, the Claimant has no grounds on which to enforce this alleged debt. 11. The Defendant was not given ample evidence to prove the debt and therefore was not required to enter settlement negotiations. Should the debt be proved in the future, the Defendant is willing to enter such negotiations with the Claimant. On receipt of this claim I could not recall the precise details of the agreement or any debt and sought clarity from the claimant by way of a Section 78 request. The Claimant failed to comply. I can only assume as this was due to the Claimant not having any enforceable documentation and issuing a claim in hope of an undefended default judgment.   Statement of Truth I, ********, the Defendant, believe the facts stated within this Witness Statement to be true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in it’s truth. Signed: _________________________ _______ Dated: _____________________
    • AMEX and TSB the 2 Creditors who you need to worry about the least, ever!  Just stop paying them and forget about it, ignore all their threat o gram letters.  Only if, and with these 2 it's a massive if, you end up with a claim form you need to respond, and there will be plenty of help here.
  • 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

RBOS Unclearing a Cheque!


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6355 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

Hello All,

 

I paid a cheque in at my RBOS Account which cleared yesterday. It was for £500, last night at 11.50 pm I withdrew £300 and at 12.10 I withdrew the last £200. This morning my internet banking is showing the cash withdrawals along with the £500 leaving my account for the cheque not clearing! So my balance now sits at MINUS £500! It's like RBOS have uncleared a cheque that I've taken all the funds out for. I am on my way to the branch this afternoon to see what's going on. Has anyone come across this before? Does anyone know why this may have happened? Am I entitled to the £500 from the cheque or will I be expected to bring the account back to £0 myself? I have Incapacity benefit going into that account tomorrow which I won't be able to access if it's overdrawn as I have no overdraft facility!

 

Mark.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I went to the branch who have basically said that I will have to pay back the £500! They are (kindly!) waving the charges for going overdrawn but I will still be charged interest. I have lodged a complaint and they are going to get back to me.... Anybody come across this before?!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Had the cheque been returned unpaid (in other words had it bounced)?

 

It had definately cleared? There is a difference between 'available balance' and 'account balance'...

for FAQs & Step By Step

click here

for Templates Library

click here

for Court Bundle

click here

________________

 

WON 121o121 'vs' LloydsTSB

here

WON 121o121 'vs' Halifax C C

here

WON 121o121 'vs' Cahoot CC

here

WON 121o121 'vs' LloydsTSB (again)

here

 

________________

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeh this sucks but im sure somewhere i've seen on their websites that any payment by cheque is subject to 24hours clearance, they can withdraw the funds from your account if there are any problems with it so yeh you will have to pay it back.

George Loveless - “We raise the watchword, liberty. We will, we will, we will be free!"

 

My advice is only my opinion, I am not a legal expert.

 

IF YOU LIKE THE ADVICE I'M GIVING AND ARE HAPPY WITH IT, CLICK THE SCALES ON THE BOTTOM LEFT OF THIS POST AND TELL ME.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you contacted the person who gave you the money to get the money off them, after all, they haven;t been debited with £500.00 so they still owe you the money. Just a thought

I came I saw I helped. I could do no more.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Spuzzcake, you are way short of details at the moment.

First of all-the cheque- was it a personal cheque, do you know the person who gave it to you, when did you bank it and was it drawn on another

RBOS branch or even a building society.

 

Did your bank tell you why the cheque had not been paid?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course it had cleared or I wouldn't have been able to withdraw it! I withdrew it from a cash machine. The day before it said Balance £500.00 Available £0.00. Then just before I withdrew the money it said Balance £500.00 Available £500.00. Then the next working say they are saying it hadn't actually cleared and has now bounced. Why would I be able to withdraw the money if the cheque hadn't cleared in the first place?!

 

My problem is with the bank just now as I will struggle to get hold of the person who send the cheque.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The cheque was a personal cheque. I don't know the person who sent it. I paid it in on Monday at 9am. It was sent from an HBOS customer. The bank did not tell me why it had not cleared but can only presume insufficient funds. They won't put him £500 over his limit but they will do it to me!

 

I have written a letter to HBOS to pass on to the person who sent me the cheque.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been told it's not being represented but will be sent to my home address "REFER TO DRAWER"

 

Is there anything I can do at all with RBOS. Surely they are in the wrong letting me access the money then taking it back!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well to be honest if they have agreed to waive the charges implied on your account because of this, I don't think they'll do anymore about it. Wait and see how they handle your complaint.

 

What you can do however is try and find the person who's cheque is it. Do you mind me asking what the cheque was for? (ie. was it an eBay purchase etc)?

 

You obviously have the name of the person and if you have a rough idea where they live you could do a trace. If you can find them you can then take it further.

for FAQs & Step By Step

click here

for Templates Library

click here

for Court Bundle

click here

________________

 

WON 121o121 'vs' LloydsTSB

here

WON 121o121 'vs' Halifax C C

here

WON 121o121 'vs' Cahoot CC

here

WON 121o121 'vs' LloydsTSB (again)

here

 

________________

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am doing all I can to contact the person but in the meantime I want to find out how they can let me access the funds and then a day later take them back! I have read through all the T & C's but there is nothing about reclaiming a cheque like this...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are wasting your time working along that line. The banks are

aware that it takes too long to clear cheques at the moment, and your

bank has taken the view that as the vast majority of cheques do clear, that

they will take a risk and treat cheques as being cleared a day early which

is a bonus to many of their customers.

In your case though, you are in the confusing position of being told that

it is cleared, and then its not. But the fact is that you paid in a cheque

that has not been honoured. So you do owe the bank the £500. They have

been considerate in not imposing bank charges. Especially as you withdrew

all the money so quickly after it "cleared," since they could be forgiven if

they felt there was an element of collusion involved. Doubtless your meeting

with the bank on the Thursday allayed those fears.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Errrrmmm.... Karnevil, are you sure you are not confusing that with when a

cheque is treated as being out of date?

I may need Natweststaffmember to correct me here, and of course it would

depend on the reason for the return.

In cases of a forged signature or fraud, I am not sure that there would be a time limit at all.

But when a return is for lack of funds, stopped cheques etc, there is a

definite time limit. I am talking about situations where the cheque is drawn

on one bank and paid into another. I accept that when building societies

who are not part of the bank clearing system, are involved it may take longer

to clear cheques.

If you pay in a cheque on a Monday, then the latest it will be accepted as

a late return is the Friday of the same week. Obviously postal strikes and

a major breakdown in banks computer systems might cause a temporary

change in that rule.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right on the clearing thingy because a cheque can be returned at any point if there is fraud on the account. It is true that you can draw on a cheque from the atm prior to it actually being cleared. The leaflet on charges and fees would have details of the clearing cycle. Cheques are considered out of date after 6 calender months.

I came I saw I helped. I could do no more.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...