Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Particular's of claim for reference only 1. the claim is for the sum of £6163.61due by the defendant under an agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974 for hsbc uk bank plc. Account (16 digits) 2. The defendant failed to maintain contractual payments required by the agreement and a default notice was served under s 87(1)  of the consumer credit act 1974 which as not been compiled with. 3. The debt was legally assigned to the Claimant on 23/08/23, notice on which as been given to the defendant.  4. The claim includes statutory interest under S.69 of the county courts act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of issue of these proceedings in the sum of £117.53 the Claimant claims the sum of £6281.14. Suggested defence 1. The Defendant contends the particulars of the claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.3 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. The claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre action protocol) failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st of October 2017. It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant 7.1 PAPDC. 3. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have in the past had financial dealings but do not recognise this specific account number or recollect any outstanding debt and have therefore requested clarification. 4. Paragraph 2 is denied. I have not been served with a default notice pursuant to the consumer credit act 1974. 5. Paragraph 3 is denied. i am unaware of any legal assignment or notice of assignment. A copy of assignment was sent by Overdales solicitors when acknowledgement of receipt of CPR request was received, but this was not the original.   6. Paragraph 4 is denied. Neither the original creditor or the assignee have served notice pursuant to sec86c of the Credit Consumer Act 1974 Notice of Sums in Arrears and therefore prevented from charging interest on debt regulated by the CCA1974. 7. The defendant submitted a request for a copy of the alleged agreement pursuant to s78 CCA 1974. The claimant has acknowledged receipt of request but has failed to comply. The claimant has failed to provide any evidence of balance or Default Notice requested by CPR 31.14 8. It is therefore denied with regards to defendant owing any monies to the claimant. therefore the claimant is put to strict proof to:  a.  Show how the defendant has entered into an agreement with HSBC. b.  Show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a Default notice pursuant to section 87 (1) CCA 1974. c.  Show and quantify how the defendant has reached the amount claimed for. 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 claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 9.  Until such time the claimant can comply to a section 78 request he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement 10. 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.     .
    • OK, well rereading the court orders from March, in the cold light of day rather than when knackered late at night, it is quite clear that on 25 June there will only be a preliminary hearing about Laura representing her son.  Nothing more. It's lazy DCBL who haven't read things properly and have stupidly sent their Witness Statement early. Laura & I had already been working on a WS, and here it is.  It needs tweaking now after reading the rubbish that DCBL sent and after all of LFI's comments.  But the "meat" is there. Defendant's WS - version 1.pdf
    • Morning, I purchased a car from Big Motoring World on 10th December 2023 for £14899.00. On the 15th December I had a problem with the auto start stop function of the car in which the car would stop in the middle of the road with a stop start error message. I called the big assist and the car was booked in for February. The BMW was with them for a week and it came back with the auto stop start feature all fine and all error codes cleared on the report from big motoring world. within 5 days I had the same issue. Warning light coming on and the car stopping. I called big assist again and the car was again booked in for an other repair in May. Car was taken back in may, they had the car for a week and returned with the report saying no issue with the auto stop start feature and blamed my driving. Within 5 days of having the car back it broke down again. This time undrivable. I had the rac pick my car up and take to Stephen James BMW for a full diagnostic. The diagnostic came back with the car needing a new fuel system as magnetic swarf was found.  I have sent big motoring world a letter stating all the issues and that under the consumer rights act 2015 I have asked for a replacement vehicle. all reports from Stephen James BMW have been sent over to big motoring world. Big motoring world have come back and said they will respond to my complaint within 14 days for the date of my complaint letter. I am not feeling confident on the response from them, what are my next steps?   Thanks in advance. 
    • That is really good is that a mistake last off "driver doesn't have a licence" I assume that should be keeper? The Court requested me to send the Court and applicant proof of my sons disability from their GP this clearly shows he has Severe Mental Impairement, he is also illiterate.  I naively assumed once the applicant received this that they would drop the claim.  It offends me that Bank has asked the Judge to throw the case out at the preliminary hearing and to make us pay up.
    • Hi, we are looking to get some opinions on weather or not to bother fighting this PCN. This comes from a very big retail park parking where there are restaurants, hotel, amongst other businesses. The parking is free but I suppose there must be a time limit on it that I am not aware of. We were in the area for around 4 hours. Makes us wonder how they deal with people staying in the hotel as the ANPR is on what appears to be a publicly maintained street (where london buses run) which leads to the different parking areas including the hotel.  1 Date of the infringement 26/05/2024 2 Date on the NTK  31/05/2024 3 Date received 07/06/2024 4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?]  YES 5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Entry and exit photos however, based on the photographs we are almost sure the photos are taken on public street. This is the location I believe photos are taken from.  https://maps.app.goo.gl/eii8zSmFFhVZDRpbA 6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] No Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up N/A 7 Who is the parking company? UKPA. UK Parking Administration LTD 8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] The Colonnades, Croydon, CR0 4RQ For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. British Parking Association (BPA) Thanks in advance for any assistance.  UKPA PCN The Collonades-redacted.pdf
  • 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

pinkduchess v HSBC


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5105 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

  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

You must be psychic! I was just going to post the link for you!

I can't see it myself. I tend to agree with Caro's view that if they were going to do it they would do it now. No point in waiting. Also it's one of those friend of a friend stories.

Whats your thinking?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well they are basicaly accountants so making provision for the impending pay out does ring true but to fold now leaves then open to everyone including people that havent claimed.

 

I still think they can cut a deal with the OFT to cut their liability before they pay out. The OFT is part of the old boys network and not a mad customer they will agree a fair rate and pay out over that.

 

pete

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes I see what your saying but the point that was made in the press, and someone pointed it out on that thread, is the ammount of interest the banks would make on the money they will eventually have to pay out. I think it was quoted at 20 million in the papers.

 

Do you mean they could sort a deal with the oft before the outcome of the test case?

Link to post
Share on other sites

why not, its only a court case, they have made agreements and run before why should the OFT case be any different.

 

If they manage to cut a deal with the OFT and the FSA and get it rattified in court what chance will anyone have of geting any more than they have agreed.

 

pete

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many congrats on your extra spot PD! :) Pity you can't get pink ones to go with your avatar..........

 

 

PS. The translation was for a reply to Auburn anyway ,but you can take your place in the queue if you like :cool: :cool: ( Really Laffin !!) :lol: :lol:

Nemo me impune lacessit

 

 

Advice & opinions given by johnnymitch are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

 

If you think I've helped you please feel free to tickle my star :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, Pete and Freaky,

 

Have I missed some movement on the Lloyds front (is there a link?) or is it just speculation from financial gurus? :confused:

Nemo me impune lacessit

 

 

Advice & opinions given by johnnymitch are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

 

If you think I've helped you please feel free to tickle my star :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! That's pretty heady stuff if it's true , guys!

It has a ring of truth in that, if a bank thinks that it can steal a march on the others by 'giving in' - it'll go for it.

 

As has been mentioned, they must be losing a bomb in 'product sales' - 'cos you can't sell to irate customers.

 

Also, although they may lose interest on their 3.5 billion - they won't have to pay out for so long at our 'minimum' of 8% per item

 

It may also be that the courts may allow claims to go back over the six years from when the claim started, because the banks have wasted courts time - AND LOST!!

I would also venture to suggest that if Lloyds goes for it, - it will be like dominoes - they'll all have to follow suit and vie for who can quote the lowest 'fair charge'.

 

Competition and CAG would win the day!

 

Thanks for the link Freaky, it's got my mind ticking over again............:)

Nemo me impune lacessit

 

 

Advice & opinions given by johnnymitch are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

 

If you think I've helped you please feel free to tickle my star :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, at least I managed the quoting bit at last!

 

Can't let PD have all the best ones so I want to tell you all about the day Abraham and Rachel got married. The families were happy as Becky had married a nice professional boy, but he was a little, shall we say, careful about money and so was naturally perturbed when Becky said she wanted to bathe in Champagne before her wedding.

 

Abe had already stashed a couple of dozen cases (bought wholesale) for the reception and so carefully removed all the foil wrapping, wire retainers and corks from each bottle, poured the Champagne into the bath and called out to his beloved "Becky, your bath is ready."

 

Going into the bathroom Becky saw the inviting bubbles and jumped in to luxuriate beneath them.

 

After her bath, Abe carefully refilled each bottle, managed to get the corks back in, rewired the retainers and even got the foil back on the bottles and into the case when he suddenly realised he was one bottle short.

 

"BECKY" he screamed in panic "YOU DIDN'T, DID YOU?

 

Pip-Pip

 

Van

Link to post
Share on other sites

It may also be that the courts may allow claims to go back over the six years from when the claim started,

 

Sorry, what I meant there was - if the court case drags on through apppeals etc and they still lose , the court may allow claims which were 'in the mill' at the beginning to go through without applying the time limit.

 

Does that sound better? :)

Nemo me impune lacessit

 

 

Advice & opinions given by johnnymitch are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

 

If you think I've helped you please feel free to tickle my star :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Johnny. I would like to think that llodys were going to do something along these lines but the longer this story goes on without any other hint of the same thing from elsewhere then the less i think it is likely to be true.

If they did do it I for one would open an account with them though!:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

PS. The translation was for a reply to Auburn anyway ,but you can take your place in the queue if you like :cool: ( Really Laffin !!) :lol: :lol:

 

oh how presumptuous of me!!! :oops::p

 

a letter from DG dropped through the letterbox today informing me of their intention to apply to the court to stay my action!! dont they realise the judge has already done that?? :x

Link to post
Share on other sites

lol :D

 

ok just for you theres two options

 

1. she either 'added' to the bath so there was excess liquid in relation to the number of bottles :o

 

or

 

2. she must of hidden the bottle somewhere :o :o

 

 

what i dont understand is when rachel became becky :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear, red faces all round!

 

Where I used to live, and where some of my best friends were Jewish, the diminutive form of Abraham was Abe and the diminutive of Rebecca (not Rachel) was...er...Becky.

 

Now you know why I can't do this blasted spread sheets!

 

Just in case you think I am anti-semitic (which I am most decidedly not as the joke was told to me by my Jewish dentists while he was drilling away) Mind you I could have easily become so after laughing with that rotating tool in my mouth!)

 

Then a priest told me about two girls in Dublin who opened a massage parlour in a quiet street where two elderly spinsters sat opposite peeping through their curtains, watching, timing and, of course commenting and tut-tutting.

 

One day a Minister of the Church of Ireland appeared in the street, rang the girls' door bell and was quickly let inside only to emerge an hour later looking rather pleased with himself.

 

"Did you see that sister Mary" snorted one old lady watcher to the other "that Protestant hypocrite has been sporting himself with them girls - thank God I'm a Catholic".

 

Next day who should appear but Fr. Murphy himself who also disappeared inside the girls' dwelling.

 

The two old ladies looked at each other for a moment before Mary spoke "sister Martha, 'tis ashamed of myself that I'm thinking, one of those poor girls over the road must be dying."

 

Van

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, Ok. Freaky Leaky.

 

Will do as requested, but not with Becky's Champagne.

 

Hinting to OH she might go and get a bottle of Scotch from the Co-op to do so 'cos it's on special this week.

 

We have been talking about a Jewish Princess, none other than Rachel Rebecca Cohen, daughter of Howard Lewis Cohen and Mrs. Cohen of Cleckheaton.

 

Van

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...