Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • good you are getting there. Lloyds/TSb...i certainly would not be risking possible off-setting going on if a choice were there, but in all honestly thats obv too late now..., however..you might not never be in that situation so dont worry too much. regardless to being defaulted or not, if any debt that is not paid/used in 6yrs it becomes statute barred. you need to understand a couple of things like 'default' and 'default notice' a default is simply a recorded D in the calendar section/history of a debt, it does not really mean anything. might slightly hit your rating. the important thing here is a default notice , these are issued by the original creditor (OC) under the consumer credit act, it gives you 14 days to settle whatever they are asking, if you don't then they have the option to register a defaulted date on your credit file. that can make getting other credit more difficult. and hits your rating. once that happens, not matter what you do after that, paying it or not or not paid off or not, the whole account vanishes from your credit file on the DN's 6th b'day. though that might not necessarily mean the debt is not still owed - thats down to the SB date above. an OC very rarely does court and only the OWNER of a debt can instigate any court action (Attempted a CCJ) DCA's debt collection agencies - DCA's are NOT BAILIFFS they have ZERO legal powers on ANY debt - no matter what it's TYPE. an OC make pass a debt to a dca as their client to try and spoof people into paying through legal ignorance of the above statement. an OC may SELL on an old debt to a DCA/debt buyer (approx 10p=£1) and then claim their losses through tax write off and their business insurance, wiping their hands of the debt. the DCA then becomes the debt OWNER. since the late 70's dca's pull all kinds of 'stunts' through threat-o-grams to spoof a debtor into paying them the full value of the debt, when they bought if for a discounted sum (typically 10p=£1). you never pay a dca a penny! if read carefully, NONE of their letters nor those of any other 'trading names' they spoof themselves under making it seem it's going up some kind of legitimate legal 'chain' say WILL anything....just carefully worded letters with all kinds of threats of what could/might/poss happen with other such words as instruct forward pass... well my dog does not sit when instructed too...so... DCA's SOMETIMES will issue a court claim, but in all honesty its simply a speculative claim hoping mugs wet themselves and cough up...oh im going to court... BIG DEAL DCA - show me the enforceable paperwork signed by me...9/10 they dont have it and if your defence is conducted properly, most run away from you . however before they do all that they now have to send a letter of claim, cause the courts got fed up with them issuing +750'000PA speculative claims and jamming up the legal system. so bottom line is two conclusions.... if you cant pay a debt, get a DN issued ASAP (stop paying it!) make sure it gets registered on your file then it stops hurting your file/future credit in 6yrs regardless to what happens (bar of course a later DCA CCJ - fat chance mind!)  once you've a registered DN , then look into restarting payments if the debt is still owed by the OC, if SOLD to a DCA, don't pay - see if they issue a letter of claim (then comeback here!).        
    • Any update here?  I ask as we have someone new being hassled for parking at this site.
    • Any update here?  I ask as we have someone new being hassled for parking at this site.
    • Any update here?  I ask as we have someone new being hassled for parking at this site.
    • Any update here?  I ask as we have someone new being hassled for parking at this site.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

PSM V Abbey PLC


psm
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5532 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 160
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Any sort of reasonably significant stock holding I should imagine - although the consequences for a district judge would not be anywhere near as servere (if at all) than for a higher, precedent-setting judge.

 

Why? I suggest you PM me if you are aware of any specific examples, rather than posting on the public forum.

Please remember to DONATE! Help CAG keep up the fight!

 

 

Any advice or opinion is offered informally & without liability. Use your own judgment and if in doubt seek advice of a qualified and insured professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn! Thought you might have a revelation for us! :D

 

In fact I remember a while ago that a district judge stepped aside from presiding over a claim because his wife was claiming back charges! So I think they must have to declare any sort of conflict of interest such as that.

Please remember to DONATE! Help CAG keep up the fight!

 

 

Any advice or opinion is offered informally & without liability. Use your own judgment and if in doubt seek advice of a qualified and insured professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for taking the time to post in my thread psm - Just noticed the time of your post :eek: do you ever sleep!! Great advice (as always) I did have the breach of contract defence so will be using that on 4th Oct and have copied the Order you have received. Have been studying the CPR rules 3.9 and 3.9 too and hoping to use these also as Abbey did not submit a bundle or reply to my lba etc. I doubt they applied for a stay in the proper manner either, thanks again, your thread is a mine of useful information and I really want to wish you all the best with your claim

 

Lisa

[FONT=System][COLOR=darkorchid]29.1.07 - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) letter sent to Abbey[/COLOR][/FONT] [FONT=System][COLOR=darkorchid]17.2.07 - Preliminary letter sent to Abbey[/COLOR][/FONT] [FONT=System][COLOR=#9932cc]5.3.07 - LBA sent to Abbey[/COLOR][/FONT] [FONT=System][COLOR=#9932cc]28.3.07 - N1 filed at Worcester CC![/COLOR][/FONT] [FONT=System][COLOR=#9932cc]1.7.07 - AQ filed at Worcester CC[/COLOR][/FONT] [FONT=System][COLOR=#9932cc]6.9.07 - Court Date!!![/COLOR][/FONT]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have been studying the CPR rules 3.9 and 3.9 too and hoping to use these also as Abbey did not submit a bundle

Be aware that CPR 3.8/9 only applies to orders which carry sanctions - I.e. "If the defendant does not comply with this order the defence will be struck out..." etc.

Please remember to DONATE! Help CAG keep up the fight!

 

 

Any advice or opinion is offered informally & without liability. Use your own judgment and if in doubt seek advice of a qualified and insured professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi PSM

 

I hope you don't mind but I have PM'd you. I'm delighted at the order you have received and am so pleased that there is a Judge out there who will look beyond his/her letter or recommendation from Judge Moore-Bick, Hurrahh! There is hope for the rest of us.

 

Well done again and if your hubby feels like a little tripette to East London tomorrow afternon please let me know :D

 

Sue x

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Morning Peeps

 

As well as contacting the PM re Bank Charges it might be woth sending a message to David Cameron at webcameron: David Cameron there is a forum on his site that, once you have registered and signed in, you can create topics or comment on existing ones. I imagine there is a similar site for the Lib Dems. If the PM won't act you can at least give the opposition another stick to beat him with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello PSM,

 

I believe there are Labour MP's who are working on this but unfortunately it can seem quiet whilst they busy away at such an important issue, and I see it as being the nature of the beast. Have you seen post 58 7/9 by Olden in thread 'Urgent info needed to confirm bank leak' It gives more faith in the government system. There will be much lobbying and I am holding onto this.

 

All the best to you

 

Determind

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
Just got home on the mat was a letter from the courts

 

General Form of Judgement or Order

 

Before District Judge ########## sitting at Woolwich County Court

 

Upon hearing both parties in person

 

IT IS ORDERED THAT

 

1. The claimant's claim insofar as it is based on the assertion that the charges levied amount to a penalty is adjourned to 7 JANUARY 2007 (ooops they got the wrong year) AT 14:00. Time estimate 1 Hour before District Judge ##########

 

2. Defendant to file and serve by 4.00pm 5 October 2007 any documents and witness statements on which it seeks to rely in relation to the issue set out in Paragraph 1 of this order and in default, defence will be struck out without further order.

 

3. If the Defendant contends that the cost of each transaction exceeds the sum of £5.00, it must include evidence in its documents or witness statements of the actual costs.

 

4. Defendants application of 22 August 2007 is struck out.

 

GAME ON!!!!!!!

 

PSM, did they file their papers in to court by 5th October... if they did not you could go for a strike out.

DSxx

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Today was judgement day for my claim and I can report that pantomime is alive and kicking in our law courts. Abbey were allowed to stay the "Breach of Contract " part of my case that had previously been disallowed twice before. Pantomime might be a strong term more fitting would be "Whitehall Farce" To begin with, the Abbey defence had been struck out due to non compliance back in October 2007 however that did not stop them from being allowed to amending their defence so it would fit into the OFT remit. It gets better, the Abbey claimed that the terms and conditions that they had been happy to use, until being rumbled, were in fact meant to be interprted differnetly and the term "breach of Contract" didn't mean that at all, one has to question the competence of their legal support. I cannot write much more as I am seriously disillusioned by the whole process, my only regret is that Briam Rix didn't walk in and lose his trousers, still there is still time in the OFT court hearing. So I am in the same boat as the rest of you waiting and hopeing that the farce stops in Woolwich.

Link to post
Share on other sites

PSM, welcome to the club, the banks really have the courts eating out of their hands, I think it is terribly wrong that the cases bought before the test case have been stayed pending the OFT case. I am sure that the CPR rules have been broken. I think we should all turn up at the high court for test case in our 1000'ssss to make a protest about the way we have been treated.

 

Ds

Link to post
Share on other sites

That really is disgusting behaviour psm.

What a farce.

I really do think we should join forces in some sort of protest in our thousands tuttsi.

How is it legal to be treated in this way?

Night Owl

Keep up the fight against Bank Charges.

 

 

Got Debt problems?

Don't panic, put the kettle on and read this

 

:-) Everything I write comes from my heart and head! The large filling cabinet that is my knowledge of life, however warped that may be!! :-)

 

<<< Please tickle my star!! if I have managed to help you or just made you chuckle!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont forget guys freedom of speech is not allowed, if those in power dont like what is being said.....However, bring it on, cant beat a good protest.

 

good luck psm

:madgrin:

Link to post
Share on other sites

That really is disgusting behaviour psm.

What a farce.

I really do think we should join forces in some sort of protest in our thousands tuttsi.

How is it legal to be treated in this way?

Night Owl

 

I am not sure how legal it is to start a protest and how many peeps would actually turn up, one thing is for sure the press and TV crews will be there.

 

It was an idea I thought of when I was very, very mad :x about my own case.

 

Ds

Link to post
Share on other sites

now THAT piqued my attention, tell us, is she green with horns? did you take a piccy on your phone, oh PLEASE say tyou took a pic, or did Gary?

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...