Jump to content


JCI/BW Claimform - old Omni Capital Retail Finance Loan for Training program but provider went bust


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 95 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 Andy

 

Definitely no Default Notice from Assignor or the Assignee... so that's a one line defence, thank you 👍

 

So with s75 as Shrimp is being sued for the full loan paid direct to Provider, if they're expected to pay then the Assignor/Assignee should provide a suitable alternative ie they're responsible per s75........ have I got this wrong and s75 will only apply if the Assignee is successful in Court and Shrimp has to pay and is then in loss?

 

As it is the Assignee who is suing..... can any of the defects with the Assignor be used in my Defence?

Does the Assignee also need to serve a Default Notice?

 

Edited by clarity99
clarity
Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, clarity99 said:

Thank you Andy

 

Definitely no Default Notice from Assignor or the Assignee... so that's a one line defence, thank you 👍 The assignee cant issue a default notice as the agreement was most probably already terminated on the sale of the debt (asssignment)

 

So with s75 as Shrimp is being sued for the full loan paid direct to Provider, if they're expected to pay then the Assignor/Assignee should provide a suitable alternative ie they're responsible per s75........ have I got this wrong and s75 will only apply if the Assignee is successful in Court and Shrimp has to pay and is then in loss?

 

Section 75 only applies to the party that made payment to the provider...that not being the defendant in this claim

 

As it is the Assignee who is suing..... can any of the defects with the Assignor be used in my Defence?

No because the assignor (the original creditor) has sold the debt and is no longer responsible ...the assignee is now the legal owner and claimant and owner of the debt and all its obligations.

12 minutes ago, clarity99 said:

 

 

 

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

What date must you file and serve and exchange witness statements by ?

 

I would suggest you start your draft now and post it here for checking/tweaking .

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

18 minutes ago, Andyorch said:

Section 75 only applies to the party that made payment to the provider...that not being the defendant in this claim

75 Liability of creditor for breaches by supplier.

(1)If the debtor under a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement falling within section 12(b) or (c) has, in relation to a transaction financed by the agreement, any claim against the supplier in respect of a misrepresentation or breach of contract, he shall have a like claim against the creditor, who, with the supplier, shall accordingly be jointly and severally liable to the debtor.

 

I'm confused, if this is a CCA retail finance agreement used to purchase a training course and the course wasn't provided, how can Assignor chase debt but not be required to meet their s75 obligations?

 

Monday 🤒

 

Edited by clarity99
clarity
Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the the assignor is now the legal owner of the debt and the one at loss....what obligations are you referring to ?

 

Re your statement you better get your skates on then today and get a draft to me pronto.....you really need to drop this obsession with the assignee and obligations...the obligation mostly fell away when the Original creditor sold the debt.

 

You  or your son are not party to any section 75 reclaim for monies...section 75 only covers monies paid on a credit card by a consumer to a business.

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

Yes I take on board that is legally feasible but this is a small claim track claim and would rather over complicate matters when the claim can easily be defended on the facts provided. Also that ship has sailed and permission would be required to submit a Part 20 and add a party to the claim now given that acknowledgment and defence has been submitted and claim allocated and a statement is due by this Monday. 

 

Assignee claims are easily defended because they simply lack the knowledge of disputed debts and what the original creditor has provided in following the correct legal process to enable a valid claim by an assignee.

 

In this case...as far as I'm aware no Pre Action Protocol followed no Default Notice ever served, breaches of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 as a service was never provided by the dissolved company.

 

I cant see any court awarding judgment for debt given the facts above.

 

Best to keep it simple mantis.

 

Andy

  • Like 1

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

OK- so I now see that s75 applies to credit cards and there wasn't any payment made by credit card.......so no protection there.

 

There is the linked agreement I posted that provides similar protection.......

 

Andy- are you saying there is NO defence to an assigned debt?

 

C

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Andyorch said:

Absolutely not.....read my last few posts.

 

Sorry Andy - was typing up

 

 

Edited by clarity99
Link to post
Share on other sites

There are section within section 75 that would make the original creditor liable and party to the claim as stated by MS...but we are too far down the road now given the lack of time to invoke that option and would involve further expense on your part.

 

Quote

Andy- are you saying there is NO defence to an assigned debt?

 

Absolutely not.....read my last few posts.

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

So my bulleted defence is:
 

i)  No Defualt Notice served on Defendant by Original Creditor

ii) failures by Original Creditor renders the assignment defective?

iii) Service never provided by Provider... now liquidated

iv) Claim should be dismissed

 

any more than that?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

More or less.......was pre action protocol followed ?

 

Quote

ii) failures by Original Creditor renders the assignment defective?

 

No the assignment is legally valid and very rare you will prove this otherwise...failure of the original creditor to serve a valid default notice renders the claim invalid by the assignee because of  section 87(1) CCA1974.

 

87Need for default notice

(1)Service of a notice on the debtor or hirer in accordance with section 88 (a " default notice ") is necessary before the creditor or owner can become entitled, by reason of any breach by the debtor or hirer of a regulated agreement.—

(a)to terminate the agreement, or

(b)to demand earlier payment of any sum, or

(c)to recover possession of any goods or land, or

(d)to treat any right conferred on the debtor or hirer by the agreement as terminated, restricted or deferred, or

(e)to enforce any security.

 

 

WWW.LEGISLATION.GOV.UK

 

 

 

Now with the above in mind have a go at your draft witness statement and get it posted here.

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

Forget whats in the sar from the oc

the claimant must produce the nosia and the dn as exhibits, or atleast have concrete proof they were sent. And that does not mean a printout from sone database.

 

so as asked ages ago to see it all and  resisted ...what exhibits are in their ws

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

And a copy of their WS if you have received it.

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

thanks Mantis - it was my error all along. It should always have read as  s75a not s75 as this is a linked credit agreement!

 

My apologies to all ......

 

C

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

if you want to move this forward and understand your claimant properly.

 

type in JCI Claimform

in our enhanced google search box.

 

and you'll see lots of information and how we defended, constructed witness statements and in many cases won.

 

no DN? yours it appears is no diff

 

but ....we've still not seen their WS yet, please get it up.

 

 

 

 

  • 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

On 28/01/2022 at 13:44, clarity99 said:

 

They've sited "Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd"  but that is a property building and is not covered by the CCA.

if in their exhibits theyve inc the full case of things like the above. We obv dont need it. Use your brains to cut those 80 pages down.

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 is Mantis- I needed help understanding whether it applied in this instance, as you'll see from the redacted documents I'm about to put up.... The Claimant says not.... I thought otherwise....

 

 

 

these are Witness Statement and supporting docs- redacted as completely as I have, if there is anything I've missed, please shout.  This is as supplied, so image not searchable ....sorry

 

TM1 - Bundle Redacted.pdf Witness Bundle- redacted.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

So the usual game with JCI, theyve still not learned to steer clear of buying debts with no default notice issued..and as para 3 of the agreement/t&c's of it clearly states one must be issued in line with the cca to litigate ... Section 87 thus applies.

 

 

  • Like 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

thank you for taking the time to look at it all- I'm just in from 12hr-shft, so will need couple hours to process..

 

So a simple defence of no DN and S87

 

so I shouldn't need to bother with my original plan of CCA1974  S75 protections and CRA 2015 s55 and s56 to cancel out the debt as repeating was no longer convenient  to consumer so full refund.....

 

C

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...