Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Received a final demand today Final demand.pdf
    • Here is my final draft: I, XXXXXX, being the Defendant in this case will state as follows; I make this Witness Statement in support of my defence in the claim and further to my set aside application dated 1 November 2022. The claimants witness statement confirms that it mostly relies on hearsay evidence as confirmed by the drafts in person in the opening paragraph. It is my understanding they must serve notice to any hearsay evidence pursuant to CPR 33.2(1)(B) (notice of intention to rely on hearsay evidence) and Section 2 (1) (A) of the Civil Evidence Act.   1.        The claimant failed to comply with the additional directions ordered by District Judge Davis on the 2 February 2024 'The Claim shall be automatically struck out at 4pm on 3 April 2024 unless the Claimant delivers to the Court and to the Defendant the following documents.' None of these documents were received by the court nor the defendant by that date.   2.        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 wrote off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income as confirmed in the claimants 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.   3.        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.  I have attached a copy of my tenancy agreement which is marked ‘Appendix 1’ and shows I was residing at a difference address as of 11 December 2018 and was therefore not at the service address at the time the proceedings were served.  I have also attached an email from my solicitors to the Claimants solicitors dated 14 July 2022 which was sent to them requesting that they disclose the trace of evidence they utilised prior to issuing the proceedings against me.  This is marked ‘Appendix 2’.  The claimants solicitors did not provide me with these documents.   4.        Under The Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims 2017 a Debt Buyer must undertake all reasonable enquiries to ensure the correct address of a debtor, this can be as simple as a credit file search. The Claimant failed to carry out such basic checks. Subsequently all letters prior to and including ,The Pre action Protocol letter of claim dated 7 January 2020 and the claim form dated 14th February 2020 were all served to a previous address which I moved out of in 2018.   5.        I became aware of original Judgement following a routine credit check on or around 14th September 2020.   6.        Upon the discovery of the Judgement debt, I made immediate contact with the Court and the Claimant Solicitors, putting them on notice that I was making investigations in relation to the Judgement debt as it was not familiar to me.  I asked them to provide me with a copy of the original loan agreement but this was not provided to me.   The correspondence to the Claimant Solicotors is attached and marked ‘Appendix 3’   7.        I then sent a Data Subject Access Request to Barclays but no agreement was provided. Details the timeline of communication between myself and Barclays are attached and marked ‘Appendix 4’and the copies of correspondence between myself and Barclays are attached and marked ‘Appendix 5’.   8.        The claimant relies upon and exhibits a reconstituted version of the alleged agreement.   It is again denied that I have ever entered into an agreement with Barclaycard on or around 2000.  It is admitted that I did hold other credit agreements with other creditors and as such should this be a debt that was assigned to Barclaycard from another brand therefore the reconstituted agreement disclosed is invalid being pre April 2007 and not legally enforceable pursuant to HH Judge Waksman in Carey v HSBC 2009 EWHC3417.  Details of this are attached and marked ‘Appendix 6’.   The original credit agreement must be provided along with any reconstituted version on a modified credit agreement and must contain the names and address of debtor and creditor, agreement number and cancelation clause.   9.        Therefore the claimant is put to strict proof to disclose a true executed legible agreement on which its claim relies upon and not try to mislead the court.   10.   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. Until such time the claimant can comply and disclose a true executed copy of the original assigned agreement they refer to within the particulars of this claim they are not entitled while the default continues, to enforce the agreement pursuant to section 78.6 (a) of the Credit Consumer Act 1974. 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. Signed                 ………………………………………………….. Name                  XXXX Date                     30 April 2024
    • Only trying to help.  Ain't being nasty.  Some
    • Hi folks, I've just found previous documentation. I thought it had gone missing. I'd forgotten that I did appeal it through POPLA but I can't find the thread on here that, I assume, I posted for help. Appeal letter is dated 27/10/2020 with a rejection. I genuinely had forgotten about this so apologies for misleading you. A lot has happened in the years since the ticket was issued. We closed down a couple of businesses and moved to the opposite end of the country to retire. The documents I have are scanned copies. I no longer have the originals. The NTK is also in there. If there's anything you'd like to see, please let me know and I'll post them, although it probably won't be until tomorrow now, but I'll be looking in on this page tonight. Thank you for the responses so far
    • Hello! After emailing them I received this reply:   I have drafted the following, please would you be able to comment as to if you think it is correct/sufficient? "Thank you for your email.   Thanks you for confirming that the vehicle does not have these features as stated in the advertisement.    I am sure you are aware that the Consumer Rights Act 2015 provides the short term right to reject within 30 days. Statutory rights cannot be taken away from a consumer, and any attempt to do so is illegal.   Please can you advise how best to return the vehicle?" Thanks in advance!
  • 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

Aviva fraudulently processed my data without authorisation o


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 687 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

@BankFodder sure no worries I'm also worried once I reject the FOS decision aviva will start sending default lettershoe do I manage this ?

I have the police coming today too he seems to have done soft searches periodically around March, july20, Dec20 and April 21 to the same companies I think there's over 36 companies 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I hope that your meeting with the police goes well. You need to keep on emphasising the domestic/economic abuse aspect. This is a kind of trigger phrase for them. Also of course keep on referring to fraud.

I suggest that it would be very useful if you took notes while the meeting was happening.

Although it seems strange, they won't give you access to anything that they prepare as a result of your meeting – so you should take brief notes and then write them up when the police have done so you can remember exactly how the discussion went

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, – in order to avoid getting into a discussion about it, I suggest that you don't mention the fact that you are visiting this forum for advice. They don't like this kind of thing. They don't really know why they don't like it – but they don't like it and to avoid disapproval, I suggest that you don't mention it. It's not relevant anyway.

But of course it's a decision that you make for yourself

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you do mention us to them then probably a good idea to point out that we have been encouraging you to go to the police – because then they will feel that we are supportive of them – which we are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well there's not much that you are going to go to do about it.

We will respond to them according to the context they set out.  However, I think that these are issues which you should be dealing with in your other thread and my site team colleague @dx100uk will help you through it

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@BankFodder this was the email i sent that generated the above response also I now have a crime reference number too .

 

Thank you for your email please accept this email as acknowledgement of receiving the decision.
 

I am currently considering the decision and in order to help me consider the situation could you provide me with details of any domestic, or economic or financial abuse policies which have been implemented and also if I could have details of your interactions with any abuse organisations.
 

I look forward to hearing from you in due course.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you.
They are treating it as an FOIA request – which is fine.

Did you send a similar letter to Aviva?

Link to post
Share on other sites

@BankFodder

 

Hi I rang the FOS yesterday afternoon the handler emailed the ombudsman and the investigator directly for an extension but he said they might not get back to us in time the data protection officer has also acknowledged my request and emailed to say they will be sending the information directly 


Interestingly yesterday experian got back to me saying one of the loan companies omni finance are saying they've spoken to myself and completed DPA obviously it's not myself but I'm wondering if he's had a female impersonate me and would I be digging myself into a deeper hole, I need to speak to each company in turn myself by looks of it 

 

Spoke to omni finance its Z's email and bank details there too gave them crime reference will be getting passed to fraud team


I think in the meantime we should work on the rejection and objections on a letter in case the FOS doesn't get back to us in time what are your thoughts? X

Edited by dx100uk
Link to post
Share on other sites

"Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I'm required to ask Mrs B to accept or reject my decision before 11 May 2021".

 

I'd have thought it's a no-brainer isn't it?  You need to inform the FOS you are rejecting the decision irrespective of whether you get a reply to any SAR.  I don't see that any SAR response could possibly lead you to accept their decision.

 

(Unless I'm missing something obvious, there is no downside in rejecting the FOS decision, is there?  I presume there are no costs involved?)

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course there's no downside to declining the decision and that is what should happen. However, I've suggested that the letter declining the decision should be accompanied by some basic objections to the way the decision has been made.

Although these objections won't have any effect, I don't see there is any downside to lodging them and at least they will go on file.

It's clear that the application to Aviva had all the hallmarks of domestic abuse or/and also fraud.

The ombudsman's decision basically says that Aviva had a "process" and that process was followed therefore the whole thing was fair. Nobody has asked any questions about the fairness of Aviva's "process" and in fact the "process" has never been disclosed to the OP – the victim of this – and it's not clear that it has even been disclosed to the FOS.

Furthermore, Aviva make a big thing about having financial abuse training et cetera but there is no disclosure on their website what their training might be or whether they have an abuse policy in place. Furthermore there is no indication on the FOS decision that they have considered whether or not an abuse policy has been considered by Aviva – and we believe in fact that the FOS has never even asked the question.

As usual, this is another example of a poor quality decision made by the FOS.

The letter declining the decision must be sent by next Tuesday. This means that there is no hurry. Requests have been sent to Aviva and to the FOS for information. Frankly nobody seriously expects that the information will arrive in time – but you never know.

I should point out that even if the FOS decision is not formally declined, a failure to respond is taken as a non-acceptance of the decision.

The failure by Aviva and also the FOS to disclose on their websites any abuse policies is basically saying that they have a set of rules in place that they won't disclose what they are.

Imagine sitting down to a game of cards were somebody. Your opponent says that they are playing by a set of rules but they're not going to tell you what they are. All you know is that every card you play is scooped up by the other side and when you ask why – you are told that there is a process/set of rules – but they are secret and you will never know what those rules are. Just keep on playing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@honeybee13I got a crime reference number @BankFodderI've rung companies directly where further loans have been taken and they were to buy his private registerations I have also raised the frauds with the companies 

@BankFodder the ombudsman got back to me saying an extension will be fine ive asked for 6wks but she hadn't confirmed that this is fine yet 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry - not made myself clear.

 

Yes - I agree it would be best for the OP to explain why they are rejecting the FOS decision, but they must not miss the date given by the FOS to reject* their decision just because they have not yet received replies to all the SARs they have sent out.  They should meet that rejection deadline whatever responses they have or have not received.

 

If necessary I would tell the FOS something like "I hereby notify you that I reject the FOS decision reference xxxxxxx and I shall supply detailed reasons for that rejection pending receipt of replies to SARs I have requested".  If the OP has not received any replies she needs to get that holding rejection off to the FOS in time for 11 May - so there isn't much time left.

 

And I agree that the FOS finding that because Aviva followed their internal procedures they have not done anything wrong is clearly barmy as the internal procedure they have followed will inevitably result in something going wrong because it is flawed.  It is clearly wrong that the OP could be held to have entered into a binding contract with Aviva simply on the assertion by her brother that he was acting on the OP's behalf and where Aviva made no attempt to verify that assertion.  It's clearly wrong otherwise people would be entering into legal contracts that they knew nothing about all the time.

 

I also agree that the FOS investigation does not seem to have invited much involvement from the OP, but I am also concerned that the FOS decision has clearly been based upon evidence that Aviva wrote several times to the OP (eg renewal letters) but the OP is adamant that nothing was ever received.  I think that is a gap that has to be closed by the OP, and when it is it will make the FOS decision unsustainable.

 

*I note that the FOS decision does not say they need reasons for rejection by 11 May, simply notification of rejection.  I would suggest there is nothing to stop the OP saying "I reject your decision - reasons to follow pending SAR"

 

PS - just noticed OP has cross-posted.

 

EDIT:  Having just read the OP's recent post I think the emerging pattern of criminal behaviour by her brother just reinforces the OP's case.  To be honest, I am surprised AVIVA continue to pursue this as it shows them in an appalling light.  If I were contemplating becoming a customer of theirs, I would be put off.  I don't want my insurer being a victim of insurance scams because they don't have proper procedures in place to safeguard their own position and their other customers.  It's the customers who will end up paying for writing it off.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Very good news about the extension. Have you got in writing? Send them an email immediately and confirm the conversation that you have had with them – naming the person that you spoke to and confirming that you are pleased to understand that there has been an extension.

Of course it won't make any difference to the final decision that it will allow us to gather more information in the intervening time.

I suggest that you send an SAR to any company that you can identify which appears to have been approached by somebody representing themselves as you. In particular, the one in which you say that there was a conversation – send them on SAR immediately. Use our very wide template and make sure it refers to everything including voice recordings.

Now we have some time to wait for FO I disclosures and SAR disclosures.

Don't waste any time in getting SARs off.

Also, probably worth hassling the police a bit more and try to get them to record this not only as a domestic abuse case but also as an example of fraud contrary to the Fraud Act 2006

You had better make a diary note to remind you of the new deadline for declining the decision. Six weeks is far enough away that we will forget it. Give us a weeks notice

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@BankFodder shes responded on email to me to say its fine thats all I will respond to say thank you for confirming the extension I will endeavour to respond back to you by 22nd June 2021 

 

I have sent SAR's already to all companies but they've agreed to look into them as fraud 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

In addition to the information that you might get, I think we are especially interested to know if any company refuses to disclose data to you because they say that it is not yours.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, have you provided details of all of these companies to the police?

 

But have you sent them valid SARs? Have they acknowledged them

Link to post
Share on other sites

I sent them SARs around 10days ago and I disputed transactions with he credit agencies a lot are coming back saying data is accurate so I'm now having to ring each company to get them to remove their information from my report 

 

Yes police have all companies details and I've also provided companies with crime reference number 

Edited by Titchytitch
Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 687 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...