Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • What type of finance is it?   HP, PCP, Loan? They want her to ring so they can bully her into making payments she can't afford...unless she can record her calls then IMHO, I'd keep everything in writing. Is £400 SSP her only income? There's no chance they will justify taking half of that.   Lodge a formal complaint with them ASAP, exhaust it, and then you can escalate it sooner rather than later, ruddy sharks!  
    • Is all of this actually on the signage? Don't remember seeing that much detail on other threads.
    • If I have learnt one thing from this forum, it's not to call and communicate via email. I passed this info on to her and they are pushing for her to call them.    "Unfortunately, you will need to call us. The conversation won’t be so black and white as to therefore type over email. In a nutshell we can confirm that the request to not pay for 3 months we cannot put in place"  I emailed them back on her behalf and said that what ever is discussed over the phone will need to be put in an email so that she can review it properly. No decisions will be made on that phone call.    "Once we speak to you on the phone we will follow up with an email to confirm the options discussed. [Phone number]"   Why are they pushing for a phone call? If its not so black and white, why can they then follow up with an email?  
    • Appreciate input Andy, updated: 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. The Defendant has not entered any contract with the Claimant. 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 21/12/2022. 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 Claimant has been unjustly enriched at the expense of the Defendant by purchasing bulk debt at a greatly reduced cost and subrogating for the original creditor in trying to recuperate the full amount of the original debt 12. 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: _____________________
    • Morning,  I am hoping someone can help, I am posting on behalf of my friend so I will try and provide as much info as possible.  Due health reasons, she is currently not working and unable to pay her contractual car finance payments. She emailed 247 Money and asked for a 3 month payment holiday, they refused this straight away with no reasons as to why. They have told her that instead she can make a payment of £200. She is currently getting £400+ a month ssp so this is not acceptable. She went back to them and explained she cannot make this payment and they have not offered an alternative plan. Its £200 or she falls into default.  She is now panicking as she does not want her car to be taken away. What options does she have?  Thank you, 
  • 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

nip and some dodgy behaviour from police. Opinions needed please.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 735 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

Thank you again,  your explanations make perfect clear sense to me, I cant find fault with that rationale.

dates are as follows :

 07/09/21 speeding offence committed.

10/9/21 police sent nip with s172.

29/9/21 (on or around) police say they they received  S172 nomination.

01/10/21 letter sent to me saying they viewed photo evidence and it suggests incorrect due to age / gender. Asked me to re check my records. HAd S172  On back.

12/11/21 police did pnc / dvla checks on me. After no response. From me.

12/11/21 police sent letter saying they had no correspondence, summary proceedings being considered. 
16/11/21 police got email from me requesting photo evidence.

17/11/21 police sent photo evidence along with another S172

22/02/22 police sent SJPN with statements etc

26/02/22  SJPN recieved.

…Charge dates on SJPN….

12/12/21 fail to give information identifying driver.

07/09/21 Speeding. 
 

Obviously I’ve got some of that date information from police statement  accompanying SJPN.

Hope that helps.

thanks again.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So alas, no timeout, then. As the request was sent on 10/9/21, it was “served” on you on Tuesday 14th and if a s172 offence was committed it would be on 12th October. They had until 12th April to begin proceedings.

 

So with that out of the way I think your situation is quite straightforward. In order to convict you under s172 the court must be sure that the person you named was not the person who was driving at the relevant time. If they are not sure it means you have made a satisfactory response to the request and the issue of whether subsequent requests place new requirements on you should not arise.

 

When you respond to the SJPN I assume you will plead Not Guilty. There should be a space on the response form allowing you to state the basis of your NG plea. You don’t have to complete this but it may shorten matters if you say that you have provided a response as required and that this response was received and acknowledged by the police. If the matter proceeds as usual you should get a hearing date (this may be some months off). You could, in the meantime, suggest that the police take a statement from your wife where she can confirm she was indeed the driver. There is no chance of her being prosecuted for the speeding offence on the basis of that statement – that offence times out in seven days’ time. The prosecution may want her attendance to give live evidence at your trial if they do not “agree” her statement. Other than that I don’t see what else you need to do. You have the evidence that your response was received. The only issue is the police do not believe the information you provided is true and it is for them to provide evidence to support that contention.

 

You may want to take other advice on this. Unfortunately you will not be eligible to see the duty solicitor at your first hearing as the offence does not carry a custodial sentence. But some High St solicitors offer a free half hour consultation and it should not take longer than that to obtain an opinion.

 

Let me know if I can help further.  

 

MitM

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think follow the advice given by @Man in the middle at #27.

 

In the meantime, would it be possible for you to post up suitably redacted images in PDF format (not just transcriptions) of these three letters from the police?  I'm interested to see what they actually tell you and how they express it.

 

18 hours ago, Bad lad said:

...

29/9/21 (on or around) police say they they received  S172 nomination.

01/10/21 letter sent to me saying they viewed photo evidence and it suggests [my bold and how did they "suggest"?] incorrect due to age / gender. Asked me to re check my records. HAd S172  On back.

...

12/11/21 police sent letter saying they had no correspondence, summary proceedings being considered. 
...

 

 

 

Just one final though important question - and apologies if you've covered it previously and I've overlooked it - but was the original s172 response you returned to the police (a) 100% unequivocal in identifying the driver, and (b) did you sign it?  

Edited by Manxman in exile
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Man in the middle  -  going back to your comments in #20, if the OP returned an unequivocal and signed s172 response but the police don't believe it, can they really charge him for failing to respond rather than for committing perjury or attempting to PCOJ?

 

I don't see how they could make what looks like such a fundamental error... ?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote

if the OP returned an unequivocal and signed s172 response but the police don't believe it, can they really charge him for failing to respond rather than for committing perjury or attempting to PCOJ?

 

That was something which struck me. However, the consensus is that they can. The requirement is to provide the identity of the driver. If the recipient provides the identity of somebody else, he has failed in that requirement. In circumstances where the age/gender etc. do not match the person identified,  the police normally provide a "do you wish to reconsider" letter, as they have done here. Bad Lad did not wish to reconsider. 

 

It is clear that to succeed under s172 on the basis that the wrong person has been identified, the prosecution must prove their contention to the court and from what Bad Lad says, they will struggle to do that as his wife really was the driver. My concern was not with that, but with the validity of the subsequent s172 requests served (which Bad Lad did not respond to). If they were valid he could be prosecuted for failure to respond to them even though he had responded in time to the first. However, I have made some further progress on that issue (with considerable help from elsewhere). The Scottish case which I knew existed but could not find is here:

 

 

The background to that case (in summary) is the RK responded to a s172 request naming the person who had hired a car from them. A s172 request was sent to that person but he did not respond. The police visited him and asked him who the driver was at the relevant time and he replied that he did know. Eventually he was prosecuted under s172 but the prosecution failed as the court ruled that the charge was out of time. It was out of time based on the original written request but was still valid under the later oral request. The Procurator Fiscal appealed the decision, arguing that the clock begins again when a fresh request is made. The Scottish Appeal Court ruled against the PF, confirming that the offence is committed based on the first occasion the request was made. Here's the relevant passage from the ruling:

 

"The question is on what date the contravention occurred. The position of the Crown in this appeal, as we understood it, was that, if more than one requirement under section 172 of the 1988 Act was made, then the 6 month period for prosecution commenced on the occasion of the last such requirement, in this case on 30 April 2009. We cannot accept that submission. If it were correct, it would mean that the statutory time limit provided for in section 136 of the 1995 Act could, in effect, be obviated by the making of repeated requirements, presumably subject to the proviso that, eventually, a prosecution might be considered to be oppressive on account of the passage of time. We cannot think that that reflects the intention of Parliament in enacting section 172 of the 1988 Act. In our view, the statutory intention emerging from our consideration of that legislation is that there can be but one requirement which would occur when the requirement was first validly made, if oral, or twenty eight days after service of a requirement in writing, from which date the statutory time limit would start to run. In saying that we do not intend to suggest that there should never be more than one actual requirement. We can understand that where, for example, a written requirement is made and apparently ignored, it may be appropriate for a personal requirement to be made by police officers. That might be done with a view to obtaining useful information which could lead to the prosecution of the original offence. However, where that occurs, it should be understood that the limited time available for a summary prosecution for breach of section 172(3) of the 1988 Act, provided for under section 136 of the 1995 Act, will nonetheless have started to run from the expiry of the 28 day period, in the case of a prior written requirement, or from the date of any prior oral requirement."

 

So, Bad Lad, I think you need to prepare a two pronged approach to your defence. Personally I think the prosecution will have to lay out their case before your trial and say whether (a) they are prosecuting you on the basis that you provided the details of somebody other than the driver when you made your first (and only) response,  or (b) they are prosecuting you for failing to respond to the subsequent requests. If (a) a statement from your wife confirming she was the driver may help but if the photos are inconclusive as you suggest I can't see them proving their case anyway. If (b) you need to be armed with the details of the case above. As I mentioned, rulings in Scottish Courts are not binding in England and Wales. However, I would suggest the case should be very persuasive. Section 172 applies throughout the UK and there would be fundamentally no difference between your case and the Scottish one. The only difference is that you would not be using that case to suggest the prosecution was out of time, but that its principle (that there can only be one requirement - the first one) means that the subsequent s172 requests made of you were not valid. The ruling made it clear that, as in your case, there was simply no need for them. A prosecution could have been launched as soon as the 28 days had expired following the first request. You told the police you did not need to "reconsider" so nothing new had emerged which necessitated a fresh s172 notice.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done you obviously have some very good friends and contacts. Thanks fo coordinating them 🙂

 

btw I’m assuming you have seen the paperwork I’ve posted on Facebook,  take a look at those pictures.

 

Yes they really are that bad, that’s probably why police aren’t including them in prosecution.

 

Nothing to substantiate their  unfounded claims there…

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't do Faceache, but regarding my earlier question, was your s172 response (a) unequivocal in naming the driver (eg you didn't say something like "I think it was probably my wife") and (b) you did actually sign it?

 

(I ask because in earlier posts you seemed to be demonstrating what might come across to some people as a bit of an unco-operative attitude to the process, so it would be good to know you have complied fully with the request).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies Manxman, I did type out a reply to you earlier, god knows where that vanished to.

 

Anyway you’re right I’m not a fan of the police but I didn’t pull any sillly stunts, S172 was completed properly and signed.

 

I didn’t see any reason to give them ammo to use against me,,,, Little did I know what was to unfold.

Edited by dx100uk
unnecessary previous post quote removed
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s madness, but then again this sort of thing is exactly why I don’t like the Police. They have too much power when they are judge jury and hangman. They start to behave as they like, Thugs.

Edited by dx100uk
unnecessary previous post quote removed
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes he’s been very helpful and obviously put a lot of effort and thoughts into it. I’m very grateful.

 

There’s one thing MITM mentioned and I’m not sure about, that’s the “Abuse of Process “  Im thinking this is a bit of a Hand grenade to be thrown in if needed…

 

The question is do I  go “all in” with my defence with the SJPN  quoting pretty much every point MITM makes, including saying that the Police actions will cause an abuse of process if If the case is forwarded to trial. 


A sympathetic magistrate might decide enough is enough and Police have overstepped the mark,  others might be interested to see it go all the way and how it plays out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't go down the "abuse of process" route at the moment. The only action I can see as being along those lines is the issue of multiple s172 requests being made but even that has its explanations:

 

  • The second one - It is standard practice, when a "discrepancy" between the person nominated and the photo is noticed, to send a fresh s172 request along with the "do you wish to reconsider?" letter.
  • The third one - once again you asked for photo evidence and if you wanted to change your mind having seen it you would need a fresh s172 form.

The problem with all this stuff is that it is produced by a "sausage machine" and very often the process followed does not fit the precise circumstances.

 

Based entirely on what you say I cannot see a prosecution succeeding. The Scottish judgement ruled that the first s172 request establishes the requirement, that there can only be one requirement and that it cannot be "renewed" by virtue of successive s172 requests being made. If that were the case a recipient could be convicted for every one issued to which he failed to reply and the Scottish High Court recognised this in their judgement. I would suggest that, in the absence of any English precedent, a Magistrates' Court here would be almost bound to take heed of the Scottish ruling.

 

That leaves the issue of you identifying the wrong person as the driver. If the photos are inconclusive as you suggest it is hard to see what evidence the police have that you have told lies when making your s172 return. If they do have any it should have been disclosed to you by now. but since your wife really was driving none can exist.

 

As far as a trial goes, I cannot see it progressing beyond the half way stage. In its case, the prosecution must prove that the person you nominated was not the driver. If they fail to do this you can submit that there is "no case to answer" and if the Bench agrees you will not have to provide your defence.

Edited by Man in the middle
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

MITM message understood, thanks.

You  cleared that up perfectly.

Have you not looked at my profile picture? You keep mentioning it as if you haven’t. That’s the evidence supplied by police. I’ve also put it on the Facebook group with another they supplied. You will have a good chuckle to yourself when you see it and despair at how the police can cast such aspersions. Please have a look and let me know. Thanks, Phil..

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Bad lad  -  I think you should do exactly as Man in the middle says in #43 and play this with a perfectly straight bat.

 

I bet he doesn't often get to tell people dual charged with speeding and failure to identify that they will probably have an opportunity to submit "no case to answer" at half way.  It would be a pity to cock that up and possibly end up snatching defeat from what should be almost certain victory by deviating from the obvious path.

 

If some antagonism exists between you and the police and they are perhaps trying to provoke you in some way, the best way to give them satisfaction is to allow yourself to react to that provocation.  I'd suggest that after you have successfully defended the case would be a better time to question how they have handled this and to ask how they came to the decision to prosecute at all - which on the face of it seems a strange decision and a likely waste of public resources 

 

I may be wrong (I'm sure Mitm will put me right if I am) but I think the the thing for you to take from that Scottish court decision is that Parliament must have put a time limit on prosecution for a reason, and that the police/prosecuting authority can't get around that time limit simply by re-issuing new s172 requirements at a later date just because they don't like what you've submitted.  Otherwise they would be subverting the clear intention of Parliament that there should be a time limit on prosecution.  That might or might not amount to "abuse of process", but I don't think it's necessary to mention that to the court - just that it clearly isn't what Parliament intended when they passed the law*.

 

*I'm not sure whether the 1988 Act referred to by the Scottish court is the same Act that applies to England & Wales or not.  The legal requirements will be the same, it's just that the Act that applies in Scotland might be different from the one that applies in England.  I think it always helps to persuade magistrates if you can demonstrate to them that you look like you know what you are talking about and don't make obvious mistakes!  I'm sure @Man in the middle can confirm which Act you may need to rely on - if you get so far as having to present a defence that is - you may not need to do so... 

 

 

 

Edited by Manxman in exile
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bad lad said:

Have you not looked at my profile picture? You keep mentioning it as if you haven’t. That’s the evidence supplied by police.

No. As above I can't see it. I don't use Facebook so have not seen the photos. However, it doesn't really matter. I'm simply going on what you told us and, after all, you would know better than anybody whether the photos can identify someone other than your wife!  🤣

 

1 hour ago, Manxman in exile said:

*I'm not sure whether the 1988 Act referred to by the Scottish court is the same Act that applies to England & Wales or not. 

Yes it is. RTA 1988 applies equally in Scotland. In fact the Scottish Court judgement mentions two Acts, that and s136 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. The latter provides for a six month time limit on summary proceedings (**but see below) in the same way that s127 of the Magistrates' Court Act provides that limit in E&W. The reason for that was that the Scottish case centred around the charge being time expired. The intention of the legislators in both cases was to impose a strict time limit on prosecutors to bring summary proceedings. You're right in that intention could be circumvented if the issue of subsequent s172 notices meant the six month clock was re-set each time. This is something the High Court recognised and mentioned in its judgement, though it is not relevant here as Bad Lad's matter does not revolve around the charge being time expired. But the judgement helps because it states clearly that there can be only one requirement which has to be met and that requirement is established when the request is first validly made. 

 

**The current limit on summary proceedings has been "temporarily" increased to twelve months. This change was brought in early in the pandemic.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

pdf of stuff from facebook now in about post 33.

 

i have also removed your name from a post here and the docs..too..please dont post your pers details here, as we must abide by your, ours and the sites gdpr laws and regulations.

  • Thanks 1

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

Thanks to Dx100 for getting the paperwork and photos up in this thread for me.

MITM  and Manx exile please take a look at message number 33, as I said you will be amazed police are questioning who driver was. 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...