voyager 9 vs bank of scotland

[voyager9]

Dear Sir or Madam,

Re: Claim no: #########

 

I have now obtained judgement (copy enclosed) in the above claim, for £##### payable forthwith.

 

I am writing to inform you clearly that if I have not received the money in full by Midday Friday 6th July (7 days) I will takes step to enforce the judgement, this will add considerable costs to the amount payable and may interfere with your ability to obtain credit.

 

The enforcement action taking place will be one of the following:

• A warrant of execution
  
• An attachment of earnings order
  
• A third party debt order
  
• A charging order
  
• A Statutory Demand will be served
  
• A writ of Fi Fa issued.

If you wish to discuss the matter I urge you to contact myself without delay as no further warning will be given before enforcement commences.

 

Yours faithfully,

[voyager9]

there you go sanand cant remember where i found it dont think its a template but just adapt to suit

 

voyager9

[sanand]

That is BRILLIANT!!!! Especially the bit where it says 'and may interfere with your ability to obtain credit'! Ha Ha Ha!!!

[miz_print]

Any news today voyager??? xx

[voyager9]

no miz, nothing yet but only faxed 7 day letter yesterday so think it will be few days yet at least.

 

voyager9

[Dusary]

Oh! It's terrific stuff!

 

Dear Sir or Madam,

 

Re: Claim no: #########

 

I have now obtained judgement (copy enclosed) in the above claim, for £##### payable forthwith.

 

I am writing to inform you clearly that if I have not received the money in full by Midday Friday 6th July (7 days) I will takes step to enforce the judgement, this will add considerable costs to the amount payable and may interfere with your ability to obtain credit. I certainly won't be offering them any credit!!!

 

The enforcement action taking place will be one of the following:

• A warrant of execution Can I be hangman?
  
• An attachment of earnings order I hope that it's a percentage of their earnings!!!
  
• A third party debt order
  
• A charging order
  
• A Statutory Demand will be served
  
• A writ of Fi Fa issued.

[voyager9]

rofl laughing , thanks dursary i wont take credit for it though found it somewhere on this site (just cant remember where lol) , nothing in post today

 

but have now statred on the credit card received a definate no way to prelim 2 days after sending it so lba sent funny thing is,

 

i sent cca request to them, received application form , wrote back stating agreement void under section 59 cca act , they then sold debt to another company and wrote bact stating upon advise from legal dept can not comment on my legal arguments? emmm ,untill i begin litigation.

 

so in my prelim and lba as the agreement/application is void all terms/agreements in it are also void so am claiming all interest paid+credit care insurance/payment protection+charges

 

i will be happy for this one to go to court and prove once and for all that all application forms which they argue are agreements are void under the consumer credit act section 59 because i hope that it will open up a massive can of worms.

 

voyager9

[Dusary]

Yum! Yum!

I Lurvvv Worms!

 

 

 

[overflow]

Hi Voyager

Any news today .If you send in the baliffs can I come and watch LOL:D

[Dusary]

Book me a seat, too!

[voyager9]

thanks guys

 

nothing yet they got till midday wednesday then will issue warrant of execution , am keeping fingers crossed for tommorow or wednesday receiving nice cheque lol he says optimisticaly:rolleyes:

 

voyager9

[miz_print]

Is that the next step then voyager sending in the bailiffs? i have issued a judgement and they keep lieing to me saying its going in my account and it never does!! they sent me letter dated 9th july saying will be in account within 5 days!! i still have not got anything they keep telling me that they have emailed the ACCELERATOR dept to hurry it along just fob offs basically, i just don't know what else to do

[sanand]

Fingers crossed for you voyager

[voyager9]

nothing today, have phoned up someone from judgement dept meant to phone back by end of day yeah right anyway if they dont will be issueing writ of fi fa as my claim is over 10 grand and that will be high court bailiffs going in

 

voyager9

[voyager9]

update:

 

sorry for delay but been away for a few weeks.

 

hbos have paid part of the judgement - 6 years charges and 8%

 

they have now requested setaside on basically 2 points basically

 

1 wrong name (hbos plc on poc)

2 not intitled past 6 years ( included limitations act in poc) therefore defendind on basis that not entitled to anymore

 

suprisingly they have not mentioned precedent on contractual interest

 

hearing set for 25 sept

 

any advice?

 

voyager9

[**Tilly**]

hi voyager have a look at this link

READ THIS NOW if you have received a court date

[voyager9]

hi tilly have had a look but mine is not a full claim hearing its just a hearing to hear the defendants application for a set aside of a default judgement,

 

i am looking for advice on argueing the set aside

 

voyager9

[Bigmac versus]

Have a look below voyager9

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/scotland/111089-info-sists-relation-bank.html

[voyager9]

thanks for the reply bigmac

 

i dont think this applies to me either

 

i am in the english courts and they are not asking for claim to be stayed

 

i obtained default judgement after they failed to send in a defence and they are now applieing for a set aside basically relying on the basis that the defendant has a real prospect of successfully defending the claim.

 

their basic evidence to support this request is

 

defendant incorrectly named

 

limitations act which i covered in poc

 

i am trying to argue at the hearing that the defendant has no real prospect of defending case therefore default judgement should stand

 

thanks voyager9

[**Tilly**]

bump

[kennythecelt]

Will see what I can find voyager!!!!

 

You look like you are up for a battle- great!!

[voyager9]

right this is what i am doing , as it is only a ten minute hearing i did not think i would have much chance of putting my case for rejection of the set aside across so have decided to send a letter into court for the judges consideration before the hearing

 

heres what i have wrote if someone knowledgable could look over it for me.

 

REPLY TO DEFENDANTS WRITTEN EVIDENCE IN THE APPLICATION TO BE HEARD ON 25TH SEPTEMBER 2007 AT NEWARK COUNTY COURT.

 

The claimant would be most grateful if the court would consider this response to the defendant’s evidence in part c of their application when any decision is being made.

 

In paragraph’s 1 through to 3 the defendant contends the claimant incorrectly named HBOS plc as the defendant and the claim should have been brought against Halifax plc.

 

The claimant originally banked with the bank of Scotland who eventually merged with Halifax plc and as far as the claimant was aware was renamed Hbos plc which is why the claimant named Hbos plc as the defendant and not Halifax plc.

 

Also the claimant notes that on the acknowledgement of the claim the defendant stated all correspondence to be sent to Hbos plc, legal services – retail division, trinity road,Halifax,.hx1 2rg which is the same address right down to the postcode of Halifax plc.

 

In paragraph 5 the defendant then admits the claimant had an account with the named defendant even though in paragraph 3 this fact is denied.

 

Paragraph 6 states that the charges were debited in accordance with the account terms and conditions.

 

This paragraph is vague and does not give any reason why this Defence has a real prospect of succeeding, furthermore this does not cover any of claimant’s points in her particulars of claim including but not restricted to paragraphs 5 and 6 of the particulars of claim which clearly states

“the claimant is a disabled person and her husband is a full-time carer for there disabled son as such the only income into the account was disability living allowance for the claimant, disability allowance for her son, income support, invalid carers allowance and child support all of which were paid into the account by the department for work and pensions.”

and

“all of the charges in question were taken from the above mentioned benefits which contravene section 187 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (hereinafter referred to as SSAA), this section clearly states that any agreement to charge shall be void against any benefit as defined in section 122 of the Contributions and Benefits Act, any income related benefit and any child benefit.”

 

The claimant did receive payment of £3279.62 however no explanation as to how this figure was reached arrived with payment.

 

Paragraph 8 claims that the remainder of the claim which totals £6509.17 is statute barred due to section 5 of The Limitations Act 1980.

 

In the claimants particulars of claim in paragraph 43 (a) (b) © and (d) the claimant has clearly invoked section 32 of The Limitations Act 1980 for the reasons stated, this has not been addressed by the defendant at all and further more please find attached a copy of a letter the claimant received from a Mr. Richard brown dated 18th of may clearly stating in the highlighted section

“You asked us to explain how we calculate the amount of charges for which you are seeking a refund. As this is commercially sensitive information, I hope you will understand that I cannot provide this information.”

The above statement shows that the defendant has concealed and continues to conceal relevant facts pertinent to the claimant’s right of action and the claimant continued to pay the charges in the mistaken belief they were lawful and a true estimation of costs.

 

In paragraph 9 the defendant denies that the claimant is entitled to costs as these are not recoverable under part 27.14 of the civil procedure rules.

It is the claimants view that part 27.14 of the civil procedure rules applies to claims on the small claims track unless paragraph 5 applies, as no track has been decided and the amount of claim is above the limit for small claims, if the claim was allocated small claims track paragraph 5 would apply.

Based on this, costs are recoverable in this case.

 

In paragraph 10 the defendant states

“The claimant also makes allegations of her health being affected as a direct result of the defendant’s treatment.”

The claimant refers to paragraphs 53 to 56 of her particulars of claim, in paragraph 54, the claimant states

“The claimant suffered from a chronic depressive condition which was caused equally by her living in a impoverished state”

As you noticed in the above statement the claimant stated equally not directly as stated by the defendant.

Also the claimant goes on to state

“This impoverished state was caused by inter alia a significant portion of the claimant’s income being consumed by the charges”

Again as you notice above claimant uses the term inter alia which as the defendants legal team should know means “amongst other things” as such the claimant fails to see how the defendant has come to the conclusion that the claimant is making allegations that her health was affected as a direct result of the defendants treatment.

The defendant then makes various allegations that the claimant failed to comply with the pre-action protocols for personal injury claims.

After reading the relevant sections the claimant fails to see the relevance to this case, as far as the claimant is aware this is not a personal injury claim, it is instead a money claim.

 

Finally it is the claimant’s contention that the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending this claim based on the defendant’s evidence as stated in part c of their application.

 

Accordingly the claimant would respectfully request that the court gives due consideration to whether the defendants application should be rejected.

 

The claimant believes all of the above facts are true

 

Signed

 

 

 

Dated 17th September 2007

 

Copy sent to defendant 17th September 2007

[moneyhelp]

Bump

[voyager9]

can a mod possibly have a look? or anyone

 

thanks voyager

[overflow]

HI Voyager9

 

Not an expert by any means but this sounds fine to me. Very clear and consise.

This will bump you up though so perhaps someone with more knowledge than myself will help.

Good Luck.

 

Regards