Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • why waste money on scammers? all you need in law is to prove something was sent. use a 2nd class stamp and get free proof of posting from any po counter. dx  
    • Tracked is NOT necessary. 1st or 2nd class will suffice. Just make sure you obtain free proof of posting and KEEP IT SOMEWHERE SAFE...
    • I've given it a try, I expect alot of work required so will give my eyes and brain a rest as I'm getting word blind.. and I'll come back later following your initial bashings Thanks 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. 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 wrote off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income as confirmed in the claimants 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. The Defendant has not entered any contract with the Claimant. 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. 4. The Claimant claims a Notice of Assignment was served on the 22/02/2022. This is denied. 5. The Claimant claims a Default Notice was served on the defendant. This is denied. 6. 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. 7. The Claimant further claims that the documents are sufficient to pursue a Judgement and are therefore copies of original documents in their possession. 8. Point 3 is noted and denied. 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. 9. Point 5 is noted and disputed. 10. 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. 11. Point 11 is noted and disputed. 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. 12. 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 *** (dates are wrong) 13. Point 13 is noted and denied. Claimant is put to strict proof to prove allegations. 14. The Claimant did not provide a true copy of the CCA in response to the Defendants request of 21/12/2022. Conclusion 15. 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. 16. The Claimant has been unjustly enriched at the expense of the Defendant by purchasing bulk debt at a greatly reduced cost and subrogating for the original creditor in trying to recuperate the full amount of the original debt 17. The Defendant was not given ample evidence to prove the debt and therefore was not required to enter into settlement negotiations. Should the debt be proved in the future, the Defendant is willing to enter into 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. Signed: _________________________ _______ Dated: _____________________
  • 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

Am I stupid or just missing the point ???????


waynus
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6592 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

waynus,

 

A simple question... If I were to drain lets say £4000 out of your account over 2 years would your budgeting be able to cope with that or could you see it may cause you to 'dip into the red' with your bank because that's the situation that many of us find ourselves in. The more we get charged the harder it is to get back into the black. It's a very simple snowball affect on the people who are least able to pay.

 

plus the thing you obviously don't realise the bank bouncing a £9 DD for a minimum payment on a credit card will most likely cost you £30 from your bank £30 from your credit card Co. plus the £9 you should have paid

 

£9 is now £69 that around 800%

 

how would you like all of your small bills to increase by 800% ?

 

so you saying that £5000 simply does not add up well I say the opposite because I am there the more charges that get added onto your account deeper the bank is putting you into an almost imposable to recover from situation

 

I am glad for you, that you have the kind of money floating about that allows you the ability just give away £5000 and not notice, I unfortunately am not

 

 

Mal

Lloyds, DPA Letter issued 9/3/06

Lloyds, Preliminary approach letter issued 11/4/06

Link to post
Share on other sites

Theft requires intent, a willful act as defined in the theft act. This is not the case here. 2, there is implied consent. The banks have terms and conditions - if you borrow money from us that is unauthorised e.g. unauthorised overdraft etc we will charge you. They have accpeted on occation one might go overdrawn, as has previosuly said, this is breach of contract. So we can put the bed the notion that this could EVER be theft.

 

You are saying ignore the law. Banks are levying these charges that the LAW and COURTS have ruled is unlawful. If you had a loan or other arrangement with the banks and you defaulted they would use every asset of the law at their disposal to get back there money; we are just doing the same.

 

All I will say is you continue paying your charges or being a 5* customer and wait for the day you need a bit of understanding or latitude with your bank. Come back and tell us they cut you come slack.

 

The banks only care about making money. I don't have a problem with banks making profit, they give people jobs etc, but they must make that profit in a LAWFUL way, and if tey don't we have the right to redress in the law.

The law maybe reason without passion as Aristotle said, but hey, he said nothing about having fun when getting even!

 

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal expereince. For legal advice you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

 

 

Reputation Points Always Welcome

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the answer to the question is simple.

 

Yes, you are missing the point.

 

I couldn't agree more, there are some people I have tried explaining this to and they just don't get it....brick wall anyone?

 

As for my bank (Natwest) I would love to know why it costs them £35 to pay a DD that makes me go overdrawn or let me use my card at the weekend (when I can't see how much is in my account due to the massive drag factor of their antiquated clearing system) and charge me £38.......they don't even send me a letter or ring me or even let me know when it is to come out and worst of all sometimes take it out immediately which then spirals another lot of charges and on and on it goes. THAT is what I have a problem with.

Ex CAG helper ^_^

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Sadly it is not. It is at START of business - which for banks is 9.00am - yet most branches do not open until 9.30-10am.

 

Actually With regards to balance at beginning and end of day RBOS told me that the funds for any DD SO etc had to be in the account at the end of business the previous working day.

 

I recently transferred £200 to cover some direct debits due to come off on the Monday, I transferred the funds on the Saturday. My account bablance on the Monday reflected this and even with the DD's my balance was in credit. The bank bounced the lot and charged me £228. When I quieried this with the bank they told me that basically they take off the debits in the morning (done automatically) and then add charges, then add credits.

 

Woolfie

Advice & opinions given by Woolfie are my own, and 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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Waynus

 

Just because one party to a contract breaches the conditions does not give the other party any scope for acting illegally. The 2nd party only has a right to recover losses or reasonably forseeible losses (and that is all) by law.

 

As it blatantly does not cost anywhere in the region of £30 to administer the letter & increased spending the bank is by definition breaking the law.

 

So in the same way that by breaching the contract they cannot legally have you executed they also cannot charge to penalise - both are illegal according to the law of tort.

 

It has nothing to do with whether or not people have failed to manage their accounts correctly - it is about the banks acting illegally - that is all.

 

I hope this helps.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Waynus - you have totally, utterly missed the point!

 

Here are the points, plainly and simply:

 

- If you haven't got funds (or enough of an overdraft left) for a DD to be paid from your account, then your bank will not pay it. This means that you haven't actually stolen the bank's money.

 

- In such circumstances, the bank will then penalise you by adding a charge to your account. This charge doesn't equal the bank's costs, and is therefore (by definition of common law) a penalty charge.

 

- It's important to note that if you haven't got the funds to pay a direct debit then the bank won't pay it, and won't allow you to go beyond your agreed overdraft or zero (or sometimes a buffer fund). That said, the will allow you to go beyond such limits when they wish to add their charges.

 

- It doesn't matter if you've signed a contract with the bank or not, it is still subject to the law. As you and I are not above the law, nor is the Prime Minister, a Police Officer or the banks.

 

- It doesn't matter if the banks don't call such charges as we are discussing "penalty charges", previous courts have decreed such. As someone from the north of the country may call things you wear on your legs "pants" and someone from the south may call them "trousers", they are still exactly the same thing.

 

And the final, simple, point is:

- Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because someone hadn't got cleared funds to make a direct debit, it doesn't mean that a bank can do whatever they want outside of the law to an account or individual.

£2,352 + interest + costs claim from HSBC:

29/12: Re-started process.

January/February: Letters, LBA, etc sent.

12/3: Deadlines passed.

2/4: Court papers served.

26/4: Defence submitted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly Waynus you have never been self-employed.

 

Ever had to wait, and wait, and wait while customers/clients sit on your bills and dont pay them for weeks/months, or even worse never pay them because they go bust?

 

Your mortgage, council tax, life insurance, house insurance, utility bill payments (gas, electricity, telephone, mobile phone), car insurance, internet broadband, tv licence, buisiness rates, business waste collection, etc, etc, etc ALL still have to be paid and are usually ALL paid by direct debit. In short EVERYBODY still expects you to pay them on the due date.

 

Then the money comes in late - how many charges? It can be obscene to see how much the banks will sting you for when they can and don't forget when clients pay late you get charged for the non-payment of DDMs on your business AND personal accounts since you pay yourself from your business account.

 

Try setting up a business, work your arse off, pay your taxes, same as everybody else - then get paid late and get slaughtered by your bank. Then your high horse will seem a distant memory.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest stephen

well put,

 

I think people who moan about people claiming back charges should remember an old saying "never judge a person untill you walked 10miles in there shoes",

Link to post
Share on other sites

Waynus obviously believes he is right on this.

 

Personally I would not waste time and effort rising to the bait although

we all have very strong feelings on the subject.

 

Perhaps we should just have a poll on the answer to his question lol ?! :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is now an ancient post, which only raises its ugly head again when someone new comes across it, feels their blood boil (quite rightly so, too, as it is an inflammatory post, and meant to be so, IMO) and maybe now is time to let it rest in peace. Waynus briefly appeared, posted this, disappeared again, and I'm going to close this thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6592 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...