Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I see, shame, I think if a claim is 'someone was served' then proof of that should be mandatory. Appreciate your input into the WS whenever you get chance, thanks in advance
    • Paper trail off the original creditor often confirms the default and issue of a notice...not having or being able to disclose the actual copy or being able to produce a copy less so. Creditors are not compelled to keep copies of the actual default notice so you will in most cases get a reconstituted version but must contain accurate figures/dates/format.     .    
    • Including Default Notice Andy? Ok, I think this is the best I can do.. it all makes sense with references to their WS. They have included exhibits that dates don't match the WS about them, small but still.. if you're going to reference letters giving dates, then the exhibits should be correct, no? I know I redacted them too much, but one of the dates differs to the WS by a few months. IN THE ******** County Court Claim No. [***] BETWEEN: LC Asset 2 S.A.R.L CLAIMANT AND [***] DEFENDANT ************ _________________________ ________ WITNESS STATEMENT OF [***] _________________________ ________ I, [***], being the Defendant in this case will state as follows; I make this Witness Statement in support of my defence in this claim. 1. 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 written off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income as confirmed in the claimant’s 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. 2. The Claim relates to an alleged Credit Card agreement between the Defendant and Bank of Scotland plc. Save insofar of any admittance it is accepted that the Defendant has had contractual agreements with Bank of Scotland plc in the past, the Defendant is unaware as to what alleged debt the Claimant refers. 3. The Defendant requested a copy of the CCA on the 24/12/2022 along with the standard fee of £1.00 postal order, to which the defendant received a reply from the Claimant dated 06/02/2023. To this date, the Claimant has failed to disclose a valid agreement and proof as per their claim that this is enforceable, that Default Notice and Notice of Assignment were sent to and received by the Defendant, on which their claim relies. The Claimant is put to strict proof to verify and confirm that the exhibit *** is a true copy of the agreement and are the true Terms and Conditions as issued at the time of inception of the online application and execution of the agreement. 4. Point 3 is noted. The Claimant pleads that a default notice has been served upon the defendant as evidenced by Exhibit [***]. The claimant is put to strict proof to verify the service of the above in accordance with s136 and s196 Law of Property Act 1925. 5. Point 6 is noted and disputed. The Defendant cannot recall ever having received the notice of assignment as evidenced in the exhibit marked ***. The claimant is put to strict proof to verify the service of the above in accordance with s136 and s196 Law of Property Act 1925. 6. Point 11 is noted and disputed. See 3. 7. Point 12 is noted, the Defendant doesn’t recall receiving contact where documentation is provided as per the Claimants obligations under CCA. In addition, the Claimant pleads letters were sent on dates given, yet those are not the letters evidenced in their exhibits *** 8. Point 13 is noted and denied. Claimant is put to strict proof to prove allegations. 9. The Claimant did not provide a true copy of the CCA in response to the Defendants request of 24/12/2022. The Claimant further claims that the documents are sufficient to pursue a Judgement and are therefore copies of original documents in their possession. Conclusion 10. Without the Claimant providing a valid true copy of the executed Credit agreement that complies with the CCA, the Claimant has no grounds on which to enforce this alleged debt. 11. The Defendant was not given ample evidence to prove the debt and therefore was not required to enter settlement negotiations. Should the debt be proved in the future, the Defendant is willing to enter such negotiations with the Claimant. On receipt of this claim I could not recall the precise details of the agreement or any debt and sought clarity from the claimant by way of a Section 78 request. The Claimant failed to comply. I can only assume as this was due to the Claimant not having any enforceable documentation and issuing a claim in hope of an undefended default judgment.   Statement of Truth I, ********, the Defendant, believe the facts stated within this Witness Statement to be 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 it’s truth. Signed: _________________________ _______ Dated: _____________________
    • AMEX and TSB the 2 Creditors who you need to worry about the least, ever!  Just stop paying them and forget about it, ignore all their threat o gram letters.  Only if, and with these 2 it's a massive if, you end up with a claim form you need to respond, and there will be plenty of help here.
    • No, nothing from Barclays. Turns out i have 2 accounts on here, and i posted originally on the other one. Sorry about that.  
  • 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

Shaz vs Lloyds TSB * * WON * *


stahir
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6482 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 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

this letter in reply to my LBA letter.

 

Dear Mrs xxxxxx

 

Thank you for your e-mail dated 8 May 2006. I am sorry to hear that you have not been happy with our response to date.

 

Unfortunately there is little I am able to add to Ms Horton's letter dated 13 March 2006 and I am only able to refer you back to the terms and conditions of your account, although I do respect you opinion about our charges.

 

This letter is the bank's final response, which means that if you remain dissatisfied you may refer your complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service. If you decide to pursue your complaint through the Financial Ombudsman Service you must do so within 6 months from the date of this letter. I have attached a leaflet, which outlines how to contact them.

 

Yours sincerely

 

David Just

Assistant Manager

 

 

Im going to wait until my 14 days are over and then take them to court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck, I've just sent my LBA and am expecting exactly the same response shortly.....

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."- Margret Mead

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ummm.....I was just wondering if I should wait the 14 days out or not since they've made it clear they're not going to do anything about it.

 

What do you guys think??

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would do, then if it goes to court you've shown that you've given them a reaonable amount of time. Maybe even send them another letter after 7 day saying "I appreciate this is your final view, so you have another 7 days to reconsider after which I shall be filing my claim". I know I'll have to give the 14 days as I won't have any money to file my claim until then!

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."- Margret Mead

Link to post
Share on other sites

Press on with your claim. You gave them 14 days before action, unless they replied unfavourably beforehand. They have done so, they have explicitly stated that this is their final position, so no reason at all for you to delay. Good luck.

Alecto, Magaera et Tisiphone: Nemesis on Earth is come.

 

All advice and opinions given by Spiceskull are personal, and are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group. 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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree - if you write again they'll probably just have a little chuckle to themselves and send you another reply saying the same old tripe.

If you feel that we have helped you, or you would like to help keep this web site running so that others can continue to get their money back, please click the donate button at the top of the forum.

Advice & opinions of Dave, The Bank Action Group and The Consumer Action Group are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability.

Use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.

 

------------

 

 

Add me as your friend on FaceBook - I need all the friends I can get :-(

 

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=577405151

 

------------

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even tho your allowed 1080 words youre only allowed 24 lines and my 'particulars' go on to page 25 at 1060 words.......how can I cut this short.....please help!!!

 

I have a contract with the defendant bank

dated 1995,which is conducted on their

standard terms and conditions. I am claiming

the return of money taken by the defendant in

the way of charges over the last 6 years plus

the interest they have levied on those

charges. The bank's charges are a

disproportionate penalty and therefore

unenforceable as they are contrary to common

law. Further, as a disproportionate penalty

they are invalid under the Unfair (Contracts)

Terms Act 1977 s.4 and under the Unfair Terms

in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.

Para.8 and sch.2(1)(e). In the event that the

charges are not a penalty then they are

unreasonable within the meaning of the Supply

of Goods and Services Act 1982 s.15. I have

repeatedly asked the bank to justify

their charges but they have declined to do

so. The claimant also claims interest under

section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at

the rate of 8% a year from 2.1.2001 to

12.5.2006 of £210.10 and also interest at

the same rate up to the date of judgment or

earlier payment at a daily rate of 0.31.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Lueeze

I have a contract with the defendant bank

dated 1995,and conducted on their standard

terms and conditions. I am claiming return of

money taken by the defendant in way of

charges over the last 6 years and interest

they have levied on the charges. The bank's

charges are disproportionate penalty,therefore

unenforceable as they are contrary to common

law. Further, as a disproportionate penalty

they are invalid under the Unfair (Contracts)

Terms Act 1977 s.4 and under the Unfair Terms

in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.

Para.8 and sch.2(1)(e). In the event that the

charges are not a penalty then they are

unreasonable within the meaning of the Supply

of Goods and Services Act 1982 s.15. I have

repeatedly asked the bank to justify

charges but have declined to do so.The

claimant also claims interest under

section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at

the rate of 8% a year from 2.1.2001 to

12.5.2006 of £210.10 and interest at the

same rate up to the date of judgment or

earlier payment at a daily rate of 0.31.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

THEY'RE PAYING UP!!!!!!

 

Got a letter from them this morning saying laying out why they're in the right! Hahaha.........but "regrettably the costs of resolving the dispute can easily exceed the amount in issue regardless of who "wins" at the end of the day. The Bank is therefore willing to settle your claim on the following basis:

 

1. The amount of your claim, £1529.10, will be credited to your account.

 

2. You must cooperate with the Bank's request that your account is reviewed.

 

3. You must maintain your acc within your current limit, and any new limit agreed with the Bank.

 

4. Payment will be in full and final settlement of this claim and any further claims you have or may have against the Bank arising out of or in any way connected to this claim.

 

5. These terms and any correspondence entered into in reaching settlement, of which this letter is one, will remain confidential between you, us and the Bank."

 

 

Upon account review I may have to change Banks......but thats no big loss really, is it! ;-)

 

So the next step is to acknowledge the letter and have the money credited to my account + have my account reviewed...hopefully this week.

 

Will let you know what happens :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fantastic!!!! Well done.

29 March 2006 Data Protection Act Request sent for ac 1 (then she got a bit distracted but got another charge so...)

27 May Prelim letter sent for ac 1

27 May Data Protection Act Request sent for ac 2 & 3

21 June Prelim Letter sent for 2 & 3

14 July LBA sent with schedule for ac 1 & 2 & 3

7 August MCO filed – defence expected 10 September

11 September defence filed - signed Sean Copping

12 September AQ form received

18th September AQ sent back to Lambeth Court and copy sent to solicitors both recorded delivery

13th Feb 2007 Court Date Set

15th Feb Reclaimed Money is in my bank Account

 

Cat's opinions are those of a nurse and most definitely, definitely not those of an accountant or solicitor, although she was always quite good at sums and elocution.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi everyone,

 

have just read through this thread as i have just received the same letter this morning reguarding the money being credited to my a/c.

 

my only two reservations are if i do sign and return this letter i am bound to confidentiality which is not what i want. i want to be able to tell as many people as possible citing my case as proof it can be done.my othe reservation is not being able to claim regarding any charges i may accrue in future years.

 

any thoughts will be appreciated before i sign

 

thanks in advance.

 

 

rob

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely people are refusing based on no.4 ??

 

Are you not waiving your rights to future claims by accepting this.

Is this request from the bank legal?

 

It seems that they are asking you to accept the fact that they will take unlawfull charges from your account again. Isnt that why we are here?

 

 

Well Done on your claim m8, btw ;)

Data Protection Act Request sent 22nd April 2006 (recorded delivery) to Penny Berryman 40 days up on 1st June 2006.

 

Statements recieved 5th May 2006

Claiming back = £3913.65

 

Preliminary Letter Sent 5th May (recorded delivery) to Customer Care, Birmingham. Told me to sod off on the 9th May

 

Letter Before Action Sent 9th May (recorded delivery) to Customer Care, Birmingham. Told me to sod off on the 12th May

 

Moneyclaim filed issued 6th June (14 days to reply) Time up on 20th June.

 

Acknowledged 15th June (28 days to defence)

Time up on 13th July.

 

Defence Recieved 7th July

 

Going Before the Judge 15th September

 

Court Date 5th December

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fantastic- Well done! You have already broken number 5 though, so I hope that you're going to tell them where they can stick their confidentiality ;-) And make sure that you can still claim in future too......

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."- Margret Mead

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice one mate. I wonder what the minimum amount that you claim back is for them to actually go through with court proceedings, even though they're going to lose anyway..?? It may be on here somewhere but I haven't read too many threads yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanx guys,

 

i'm defo not going to stand for the 'charging me in the future' deal and as for confidentiality......like sweetcyanide said......'as if'!!!

 

Lets see what happens when i tell them i'm not having no. 4 and 5!

 

Will keep you posted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6482 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...