Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • From #38 where you wrote the following, all in the 3rd person so we don't know which party is you. When you sy it was your family home, was that before or after? " A FH split to create 2 Leasehold adjoining houses (terrace) FH remains under original ownership and 1 Leasehold house sold on 100y+ lease. . Freeholder resides in the other Leasehold house. The property was originally resided in as one house by Freeholder"
    • The property was our family home.  A fixed low rate btl/ development loan was given (last century!). It was derelict. Did it up/ was rented out for a while.  Then moved in/out over the years (mostly around school)  It was a mix of rental and family home. The ad-hoc rents covered the loan amply.  Nowadays  banks don't allow such a mix.  (I have written this before.) Problems started when the lease was extended and needed to re-mortgage to cover the expense.  Wanted another btl.  Got a tenant in situ. Was located elsewhere (work). A broker found a btl lender, they reneged.  Broker didn't find another btl loan.  The tenant was paying enough to cover the proposed annual btl mortgage in 4 months. The broker gave up trying to find another.  I ended up on a bridge and this disastrous path.  (I have raised previous issues about the broker) Not sure what you mean by 'split'.  The property was always leasehold with a separate freeholder  The freeholder eventually sold the fh to another entity by private agreement (the trust) but it's always been separate.  That's quite normal.  One can't merge titles - unless lease runs out/ is forfeited and new one is not created/ granted. The bridge lender had a special condition in loan offer - their own lawyer had to check title first.  Check that lease wasn't onerous and there was nothing that would affect good saleability.  The lawyer (that got sacked for dishonesty) signed off the loan on the basis the lease and title was good and clean.  The same law firm then tried to complain the lease clauses were onerous and the lease too short, even though the loan was to cover a 90y lease extension!! 
    • Northmonk forget what I said about your Notice to Hirer being the best I have seen . Though it  still may be  it is not good enough to comply with PoFA. Before looking at the NTH, we can look at the original Notice to Keeper. That is not compliant. First the period of parking as sated on their PCN is not actually the period of parking but a misstatement  since it is only the arrival and departure times of your vehicle. The parking period  is exactly that -ie the time youwere actually parked in a parking spot.  If you have to drive around to find a place to park the act of driving means that you couldn't have been parked at the same time. Likewise when you left the parking place and drove to the exit that could not be describes as parking either. So the first fail is  failing to specify the parking period. Section9 [2][a] In S9[2][f] the Act states  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN fails to mention the words in parentheses despite Section 9 [2]starting by saying "The notice must—..." As the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the Act,  it follows that the Notice to Hirer cannot be pursued as they couldn't get the NTH compliant. Even if the the NTH was adjudged  as not  being affected by the non compliance of the NTK, the Notice to Hirer is itself not compliant with the Act. Once again the PCN fails to get the parking period correct. That alone is enough to have the claim dismissed as the PCN fails to comply with PoFA. Second S14 [5] states " (5)The notice to Hirer must— (a)inform the hirer that by virtue of this paragraph any unpaid parking charges (being parking charges specified in the notice to keeper) may be recovered from the hirer; ON their NTH , NPE claim "The driver of the above vehicle is liable ........" when the driver is not liable at all, only the hirer is liable. The driver and the hirer may be different people, but with a NTH, only the hirer is liable so to demand the driver pay the charge  fails to comply with PoFA and so the NPE claim must fail. I seem to remember that you have confirmed you received a copy of the original PCN sent to  the Hire company plus copies of the contract you have with the Hire company and the agreement that you are responsible for breaches of the Law etc. If not then you can add those fails too.
    • Weaknesses in some banks' security measures for online and mobile banking could leave customers more exposed to scammers, new data from Which? reveals.View the full article
  • 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

Lowell/Overdales letter of claim - 2 old cap1 cards


Melbel
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 93 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

Hi. 

I was hoping for some advice. I've been a member of this forum for a long time so have picked up a lot of knowledge but there's a few things that have cropped up that I could do with some help on.

My Husband - he has two credit cards.That were taken out under Capital one in 2016 (one was Ocean). Which he defaulted on in 2018.  We were going through a time of losing our house and our finances were terrible. We were homeless for a while. Anyway - the two accounts are as follows;

1) Balance £340

Default Date - March 2018 

Last payment 5 Oct 2017 (statute barred?)

2) Balance £220

Default date August 2018

Last payment date March 2018

We have been chased by Lowell then Overdales. We wrote back to Overdales earlier this year not acknowledging the debt but requesting a copy of CCA and a SAR as we do not recognise them or the debt. 

They went way over the response time but eventually we received paperwork. one is a copy of the CCA that he signed. But there was no notice of assignment, copy of default etc etc.

The SARs did not show much - just loads of screenshots of missed calls made to his phone and statements of account. They also sent copy letters of notice of assignments which looked brand new. 

They have lumped together the two amounts into one to chase so they are trying to collect £560.  Can they do that on two separate accounts?

Also - one is statute barred

Then my husband was diagnosed with a serious heart condition in Sept  which our lives have been taken over by and has got to give up work so now he is reliant on benefits after always working. He has very little income now. 

We ignored what they sent. They have written recently giving us 30 days or they MAY apply for CCJ. Red writing. 

Should i write back with a statute barred for the one account - if so, how safe is it to not get a CCJ on that ?

Also what about the other that is not quite SB - should we offer £5 per month to stop a CCJ?

Not sure if to just ignore and think they may not go that far for such small amounts. 

Can anyone advise the best course of action now please. Thanks as always 

Mel 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

if he has not moved since taking out the cards you should have simple ignored them until/unless you get a letter of claim from overdales which to date you have not.?

if the above is correct then i suggest you do so now.

always best to sit on your hands rather than start pointless letter tennis until a letter of claim

its then you should respond and we will help.

also not sure where you got this idea of sending a dca an sar, thats pointless to do and should only ever go to the original creditor.

a DCA is not a BAILIFF

and have 

ZERO legal powers on ANY debt - no matter what it's type.

dx

 

 

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

  • dx100uk changed the title to Lowell/Overdales Lumping 2 old cap1 cars together threatening a CCJ
  • dx100uk changed the title to Lowell/Overdales letter of claim - 2 old cap1 cards

yep thats a letter of claim.  

so everything is now much clearer now

sadly neither are yet statute barred (DN+14days typically) but are not far off so this is why lowells are now starting to pull strings before they are, but as usual they wait till the last minute to gain max interest if it goes to court. 

£560 is not alot for them to get really bothered about so they might not push this to court. but even if they do they are easily dealt with.

however back on track.

if you hit letter of claim and follow post 2 thats the way to go, just simply remember you are writing about 2 cards in one so pluralise the relevant words .

now you say they sent previous documentation via cca/sar, but were lacking in the list you'll see on the paploc reply you'll send.?

so what i would do is follow the guide to the letter.......

resend cca's for both cards as well

reason from your thread: the claimant has previously supplied some documentation but this was woefully incomplete of should legally be supplied upon request.

now dont rush on this, leave it until near the end of your 30days time limit, dont play into their hands...send you paploc reply and the cca requests by 2nd class stamps and dont forget to get proof of posting for each.

dx

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

Wow thanks so much for coming back so quick and with such detailed advice. 
I will follow yours and the advice in the thread you have linked. 
 

there’s definitely information missing from the list and them putting the two accounts together has made me realise just how much. 
 

I will respond back to them as two separate accounts and request the specific information on both. 
 

I will keep the thread updated moving forward. Thanks again, I should have come here first instead of sending stupid letters to them 🤦🏽‍♀️
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I am back with an update...

I did everything as instructed on paploc reply for both accounts (as separate). 

I ticked box D 'dispute debt' and listed missing documentation; copy of DN, statement of account/interest etc, calculation of interest claimed & all payments made, copy of notice of assignment. I also sent the separate CCA req again as instructed.

They responded before xmas and told me that they were getting the information together and that they would not send the agreements again as they had already done so. I cannot find these agreements anywhere so I  could have really done with them re-sending so I am annoyed with myself there.

I then received a letter dated 12 Jan which I will upload now. 

The only info they have sent with it is around 20 x pages of Credit Card transactions that you would get on your monthly statement - just the transaction list and where you spent the money & how much. That sort of information.

Not sure now if they have supplied enough to be able to CCJ on. Or If they will bother.

We are missing the Default notices definitely and everything else has come through in dribs & drabs and appears re-constituted. 

I do feel like writing back explaining my husbands situation that his income is now approx £357 per month so there is no money for them anyway!  but obviously i will get better advice here. 

 

Overdales jan 23.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Melbel said:

I do feel like writing back explaining my husbands situation that his income is now approx £357 per month so there is no money for them anyway!  but obviously i will get better advice here. 

Noooo leave it alone now see what they want to do next...you do not divulge your Financial position to a DCA...only a court.

 

Andy

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 OTHER

 

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

a bundle of statements is not a signed credit agreement...:lol:

dx

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

Hi. 
 

They did send agreements early last year (according to what I posted in November at the beginning of this thread) but I cannot find them anywhere. 

then they refused to re-send them when wrote to them again. 
From what I write at the start one was signed. it looks like they only sent one. I need to find them out. 

Theres never been a copy DN sent out. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

well better to find them and get them scanned here

always useful to see their cards early.

dx

 

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

Hello

I haven't found those two agreements.

Now i am wondering if I ever had them as everything else is there in my folder so it is weird.

However, I did make a note in March 23 that they sent ONE agreement and from what i logged - it was reconstituted. (It must have been for the two amounts combined) as I have said at the beginning they are chasing the two debts as one.

I did find two copy DN letters in the file. I can post up here if needed? 

When I sent the paploc then I CCA'd both agreements separately.

They returned both postal orders saying they do not take payment for CCA requests and that they were getting the information requested together.

They then wrote back saying they would not be sending the agreements as they sent both in the March.

I am thinking to just write back and say that there is missing information/incomplete information request and I won't be arguing with them any more so they can crack on if they want to try to issue a CCJ (In the hope they don't)

** as a side note; 

If they were to issue a CCJ and send him paperwork.

Can you pay the full amount before it is registered on your name? 

(i have read about paying within one month and stopping it being registered although i cannot find any conclusive answer).

Many thanks 

Mel

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Melbel said:

However, I did make a note in March 23 that they sent ONE agreement and from what i logged - it was reconstituted. (It must have been for the two amounts combined) as I have said at the beginning they are chasing the two debts as one.

not possible. it's 2 agreements from the ORIGINAL CREDITORS a debt buyer cant 'make up' an agreement.

yes if paid within 1 cal moth but fat chance of them ever getting a CCJ. 

see the many lowell claimform threads already here on merged debt claims.

9/10 they discontinue before having to pay the hearing fee or they simply lose in court.

dont think there is one merged debt claimform lowells have ever won on here.

 

 

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

Right then - so do i need to contact them back now to advise they have insufficient information and I won't be engaging any further unless it is from the court? or just now ignore?

As soon as i get home from work i am looking through the threads you mentioned regarding merged debt claims - I did not even know this was a thing! so that's going to be helpful. 

Thanks again for all of the advice - you've given me plenty of clarity. When i have any more updates, i'll update you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you dont play letter tennis nor play your cards early.

think about it.....

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...