Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I contacted Sanctury housing in August 2023 after informing them my father in law who had Dementia had moved into a Nursing home December 2022. We kept the flat for 8 months until such a time we could accomodate some of his furniture that my wife wanted to keep. I contacted them in August 2023 to let them know the situation by email as I was the named person that could speak on his behalf. I informed them that we had left it to late for POT and were seeing a solicitor for Deputyship of his financies. I asked them what information would they need in order to give notice on the flat and we could provide details of his condition and nursing home. This went ignored I left it a month and then called them October 2023. I was promised a call back from a manager over the next few days. This never happened and it was end of November when I contacted them again and they had no record of me calling them. I explained the email and again I was told the local manager to the area would call me. This never happened and I ended up emailing them in January 2024 with a copy of the email from August. Again this went ignored and I had explained to them that we couldn't just go to the bank and stop the DD as we had tried. This email again went ignored. I then had a letter written to our home address in February asking us to get in contact with them (local manager) as they were concerend nobody was living in the flat. He had an email address so I copied in the last 2 emails to say I had been trying to give notice since August 2023. I also stated that I would like the rent that was paid from August 2023 refunded back to his account as I had officially tried to give notice then and it went ignored. He replied to us about wanting to look at the flat then notice could be given once he had contacted the nursing home to confirm he was actually living there now. Notice was giving for the 22 March 2024 and this would be when rent would stop and no further payment would be taken by this point. The fact I asked to be back dated went ignored. I have since noticed on 2 banks statement for April and May that they are still taking Rent payments of £501 from his bank. Further to this which seems very strange. He was with Eon Next for his utility bill again we were having problems getting this stopped as they needed a named person on his account which there wasn't one despite me managing his online account for him. I didn't check the email address that often that I used to set it up and went to check as noticed the credit he had built up with not living there was all getting refunded in February. The email said £600 would be refunded to his account with a (sorry you are leaving us message) but how can he leave as nobody but himself had access to speak with them. I also noticed the lady in the flat above him had a letter from her bank sent to his address with his address details but his name which was dated 4th March well before we had given notice and it said (thank you for giving us your new address details) we have set all this up for your account.   So Sanctuary housing must have been aware he wasn't living there from the ignored emails for the lady above to start changing address details to move into his flat before the housing manager had even got in contact to ask if anyone was living there. What I basically want to know his do we have any legal standing to claim the rent back from when I first contacted them in August 2023? There is roughly £3000 to come back  
    • lowell letter = we've mugged you once - why are you not paying this other debt....😎
    • i see you are posting this all over the internet too. here you say it was returned by the safety camera dept UK, Wales Returned NIP Nov23 - Heard Nothing - Now It's been returned as refused and have SJPN Form. Help please? WWW.FTLA.UK UK, Wales Returned NIP Nov23 - Heard Nothing - Now It's been returned as refused and have SJPN Form. Help please?  
    • I see what you mean. I will wait till the 8 weeks is up and then take it up with FOS. Before I do will be on with some more details on the SAR. Thank you once again. 
    • Tagging @stu007 who's great with this. You should have at least 2 months notice with a Section 21 notice (Which Form 6A is used) For now, scan, redact and upload anything you think will be useful    
  • 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

Just been to court/CL finance**WON IN COURT**


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5590 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 134
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi bluetack,

 

 

Congratulations!!! Well Done!!!

 

 

I'm not actually surprised that you had more knowledge than those solicitors. Bet they thought it was going to be a walk in the park.

 

 

Best wishes, Jeff.

 

 

WELL DONE - BRILLIANT NEWS!!! NICE TO SEE YOU WON!!

 

Jeff, this is the big mistake these companies are making in their thinking we don't know anything!!

 

Time these comapnies woke up and realsied that Consumers have rights too - gone are the days where we let them take us for a ride :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hear hear! I think it stinks that TWO solicitors attended to fight a case that was listed for a 10 minute hearing.....

And then lost ::)

Absolutely well done, and well done Rory as well. The advice on this thread will be invaluable to others and will be an inspiration.

Link to post
Share on other sites

oh and I also took along a copy of my last statement which I had doctored to read that CL Finance's solicitor (two of them turned up to fight the case) actually owned the debt they were chasing me for!!! The judge agreed that this proved statements alone were not proof of debt.

 

When you say you doctored the statements - what exactly do you mean?

Consumer Health Forums - where you can discuss any health or relationship matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

Or it could be if she forgot a comma:

oh and I also took along a copy of my last statement which I had, doctored to read that CL Finance's solicitor (two of them turned up to fight the case) actually owned the debt they were chasing me for!!! The judge agreed that this proved statements alone were not proof of debt.

I'm just hoping really that's what she means, would be bad otherwise.

I'm reading the whole paragraph to read that she had a statement in her posession that was doctored by the solicitor to read that they owned it.

Judge has then looked and took the opinion that CL and sols cannot both own it.

I may be gravely wrong, oooer!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

No she clearly states this which I had doctored to read that CL Finance's solicitor

 

YIKES............:!: :!:

 

Surely not. I think (hope) there may be a misunderstanding here........

HOIST BY THEIR OWN PETARD.

 

Blimey it works....:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having thought about it, ... the production of statements in court does not necessarily prove the existence, ownership, or liability of a debt, (anyone can print statements of sorts), then it's unlikely to sway a judges decision if you just happen to write on certain statements that XXX company claim ownership from XX date,... because they are.

 

I would imagine it only becomes a problem if documents are produced with the specific intention of misleading the court to your advantage. If this was the case, surely two Solicitors would have picked it up????

 

I'm just theorising, thinking out loud.......

 

No. I'm sure it's OK. 8-)

HOIST BY THEIR OWN PETARD.

 

Blimey it works....:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've no doubt your thread will be a tremendous inspiration to loads of folks who were dreading being taken to court.

 

Now EVERYONE knows the application as an agreement arguement has been totally blown out of the water.

 

Well Done for having the courage of your convictions.

 

To all the MIB who I know trawl these posts.... TAKE NOTE.

Link to post
Share on other sites

oh and I also took along a copy of my last statement which I had doctored to read that CL Finance's solicitor (two of them turned up to fight the case) actually owned the debt they were chasing me for!!! The judge agreed that this proved statements alone were not proof of debt.

 

I read that as the Judge having been shown how easy it is to alter a statement, realised that such statements cannot be relied upon as proof of a debt.

Of course I will pay you everything you say I owe with no proof.

Oooh Look....Flying Pigs

Link to post
Share on other sites

I read that as the Judge having been shown how easily it is to alter a statement, realised that such statements cannot be relied upon as proof of a debt.

Beat me to that lol. I think he altered the docs and pointed this out to the judge - to show that these statements prove NOTHING. Perhaps op will see and explain lol.

Diddy Vrs Clarity - Clarity have produced CCA on behalf of EGG CC

Diddy Vrs Woolwich - I am at stage 2 (recieved shcedule of charges applied to account)

Diddy Vrs Buchanan clark & Wells - sent CCA request, not yet complied.

 

Mission is to end the year 2007 as level - dont want to owe or be owed by then :cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, do I feel famous!

Wasn't expecting this kind of response from everyone and its great, but I think I need to clear a few things up.

First of all, there was a lot of money involved here, over £9,000.

The solicitors were given big case reference books to try and find the points I had raised (I think there were about 11) but the judge was reading them out so quickly they hardly had chance to turn the pages! (they did look silly)

Then one of them said about the statements being proof of the debt.

It was at this point that I gave the judge the statement saying the solicitor actually owned this debt. I admitted then that I had altered the statement myself to prove that anyone with a computer is capable of falsifying documents that are not signed.

No one mentioned anything about this being unlawful, but I knew the statement thing would be raised and thats why I did it.

Remember, two years of the statements were missing. Their argument was that the account was dormant therefore no need for statements, the judge's reply was statements have to be supplied at least every twelve months (one of my defence points).

This was the main structure of my defence:

Non compliance CCA 1974 s127(3)

60(1)(a) 60(1)(b) 60(1)©

61(1)(a) 61(1)(b) 61(1)©

78(1)(a) 78(1)(b) 78(1)© 78(4)(a)

79(1)

 

CCA 2006 not retrospective - Default under regulated agreements/ 11 (a)(b)©

 

House of Lords ruling: WILSON and others v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

 

I do hope this info will help anyone else in a similar position.

I will post the court docs/strike out when they arrive.

(not sure if I should show you doctored statement, could lock me up if spies watching...........)

Also, I asked for costs and was awarded £50 even though I hadn't gone prepared with anything written down!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...