Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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
    • I understand what you mean. But consider that part of the problem, and the frustration of those trying to help, is the way that questions are asked without context and without straight facts. A lot of effort was wasted discussing as a consumer issue before it was mentioned that the property was BTL. I don't think we have your history with this property. Were you the freehold owner prior to this split? Did you buy the leasehold of one half? From a family member? How was that funded (earlier loan?). How long ago was it split? Have either of the leasehold halves changed hands since? I'm wondering if the split and the leashold/freehold arrangements were set up in a way that was OK when everyone was everyone was connected. But a way that makes the leasehold virtually unsaleable to an unrelated party.
  • 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

LC Asset/Link/Kearns Claimform - old Barclaycard debt


MadMat
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 134 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

Which Court have you received the claim from ? CBNC

Name of the Claimant ? LC Asset 2 S.A.R.L.

How many defendant's  joint or self ? Self

Date of issue – 14-11-23

Particulars of Claim

What is the claim for –

1. The Claimant ('C') claims the whole of the outstanding balance due and payable under an agreement referenced xxxxxxxxxxx and opened effective from xx/xx/2013. 

2.the agreement is regulated by the consumer credit act 1974 ('CCA') was signed by the defendant ('D') and from which credit was extended to D. 

3. D failed to comply with a default notice served pursuant to s87 (1) CCA and by xx/xx/2021 a default was recorded. 

4. As at xx/xx/2022 the defendant owed barclaycard the sum of £8xxx. 

5.By and agreement in writing the benefit of the debt has been legally assigned to C effective xx/xx/2022and made regular upon C serving a notice of assignment on D shortly thereafter.

And C claims

1. 8xxxx

2. interest pursuant to section 69 county courts act at a rate of 8% per annum from xx/xx/2022 to xx/xx/2023 of 5xx and thereafter at a daily rate of 1.72 to date of judgement or sooner payment.

What is the total value of the claim? 9250

Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? Yes

Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? no

Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? n/a
Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Credit Card

When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? after

Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? Online

Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? yes

Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. assigned to debt purchaser

Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? no

Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? no

Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? no

Why did you cease payments? Income reduced to pretty much zero during covid.  attempted to negotiate payment plan after but was unable to agree amount I could afford!

What was the date of your last payment? early 2020

Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? no

Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? yes

.................................

I received a PAPLOC letter shortly before the claim to which I replied with the form on this site and a CCA request.

The claim was issued a few days after they received the reply form and CCA request

I've had an acknowledgement that my form was received but no further reply

CCA Request has been completely ignored,  they havn't cashed the £1 cheque.

I've Acknowledged service on Moneyclaim website.

Should I send a CPR 31  request as I've already requested documents in the PAPLOC form?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to LC Asset/Link/Kearns Claimform - old Barclaycard debt

yes cpr.

lots of recent link Barclaycard link claimform threads here already

they wont get a cca they'll fake it up.

see the one down a few here on FLI  forum

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

propsed defence,  which I believe is due tomorrow

 

1. The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.

 

2. The Claimant has failed to comply with paragraph 5 (DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS) of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) by failing to supply whole or in part documents requested and indeed has offered no explanation as to why.  It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.


3. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had financial dealings in the past with Barclaycard. I am unable to recall the precise details of the alleged agreement or debt by which the Claimant refers within this claim. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars.
 
The Defendant sought clarification by way of a section 78 request sent Royal Mail 2nd Class, dated 1/11/2023. To date the claimant has failed to sufficiently comply with my CCA request and is therefore in default and prevented from enforcing the agreement until such compliance.


4. Paragraph 2 is noted. The Defendant does not recall having received statutory notices in the form of a Default Notice required under s87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show and evidence the nature of any breach and Default Notice.

5. Paragraph 3 is denied. A notice of assignment was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof that a A notice of assignment was issued to and received by the Defendant

6. On the 11/12/2023, the Defendant sent a request for inspection of documents mentioned in the Claimants statement of case under Civil Procedure Rule 31.14 to the Claimant. The Defendant requested the Claimant provide copies of the Agreement, Default Notice, Notice of Assignment. To date the claimant has not sent any of these documents in relation to this request.

 

7. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant.  The Claimant has failed to comply with PAPDC, is in default of my CCA request and has not provided requested information under my CPR 31.14 request. Given the reasons as outlined the Claimant has failed to provide fully or in part evidence of agreement / assignment / balance / breach, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: 
  
(a) Show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and 
(b) Show and evidence the nature of any breach and Default Notice; and
(c) Show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and 
(d) Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.

 

8. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.

 

9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.

Link to post
Share on other sites

defence is due by 4pm friday

looks ok to me

i'm sure @Andyorch will pop in before then and check

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

Okay apart from para 3 refers to default notices not para 2

Quote

4. Paragraph 2 is noted. The Defendant does not recall having received statutory notices in the form of a Default Notice required under s87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show and evidence the nature of any breach and service of a Default Notice.

Para 5 refers to assignments not para 3

Quote

5. Paragraph 3 is denied. A notice of assignment was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof that a A notice of assignment was issued to and received by the Defendant

 

  • 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 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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...