Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I apologise if I was being unclear. Where it currently stands is that they will have it repair, placing scaffolding in our garden for 5 days. They have moved fast, but we will still have to postpone our contractors, meaning, we won't necessarily have the work done in time for the wedding and therefore will incur additional expenses for either a marquee or a wedding venue. They are vehemently against having any kind of liability in any regard but continue repeating that they are legally entitled to use our garden for their repairs (I believe this is true unless the work can be carried out using a cherry picker). The neighbour seems either indifferent or oblivious to the fact they can't reach all of the side of the roof from the space where they can place the scaffolding. They have asked their roofer of choice about using a cherry picker but the roofer has said it wasn't possible. It's not clear whether the roofer doesn't want to use a cherry picker or whether there is an issue with it. They have told us it is a problem that we are installing a gazebo as it will prevent them to access their roof from our garden in the future?!?  
    • Couldn't agree more, really wanted a true ruling on this just for the knowledge but pretty sure the Judge made some decisions today that he didn't need to?.. maybe they all go this way on the day? We hear back so few post court dates I'm not sure. Each Judge has some level of discretion. Their sol was another Junior not even working at their Firm, so couldn't speak directly for them! that was fortunate I think because if she would have rejected in court better, she might have  been able to force ruling, we are at that point!, everybody there!!, Judge basically said openly that he can see everything for Judgement!!!  but she just said "I can speak to the claimant and find out!" - creating the opportunity for me to accept. I really think the Judge did me a favor today by saying it without saying it. Knowing the rep for the sol couldn't really speak to the idea in the moment. Been to court twice in a fortnight, on both occasions heard 4 times with others and both of my claims, the clerk mention to one or both parties "Letting the Judge know if you want to have a quick chat with each other"! So, it appears there's an expectation of the court that there is one last attempt at settling before going through the door. So, not a Sol tactic, just Court process!. Judge was not happy we hadn't tried to settle outside! We couldn't because she went to the loo and the Judge called us in 10 minutes early! - another reason to stand down to allow that conv to happen. Stars aligned there for me I think. But yeh, if the sol themselves, or someone who can make decisions on the case were in court, I would have received a Judgement against today I think. She was an 'advocate'.. if I recall her intro to me correctly.. So verbal arguments can throw spanners in Court because Plinks dogs outsource their work and send a Junior advocate.
    • that was a good saving on an £8k debt dx
    • Find out how the UK general elections works, how to register to vote, and what to do on voting day.View the full article
    • "We suffer more in imagination than in reality" - really pleased this all happened. Settled by TO, full amount save as to costs and without interest claimed. I consider this a success but feel free to move this thread to wherever it's appropriate. I say it's a success because when I started this journey I was in a position of looking to pay interest on all these accounts, allowing them to default stopped that and so even though I am paying the full amount, it is without a doubt reduced from my position 3 years ago and I feel knowing this outcome was possible, happy to gotten this far, defended myself in person and left with a loan with terms I could only dream of, written into law as interest free! I will make better decisions in the future on other accounts, knowing key stages of this whole process. We had the opportunity to speak in court, Judge (feels like just before a ruling) was clear in such that he 'had all the relevant paperwork to make a judgement'. He wasn't pleased I hadn't settled before Court.. but then stated due to WS and verbal arguments on why I haven't settled, from my WS conclusion as follows: "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. "  He offered to stand down the case to give us chance to settle and that that was for my benefit specifically - their Sols didn't want to, he asked me whether I wanted to proceed to judgement or be given the opportunity to settle. Naturally, I snapped his hand off and we entered negotiations (took about 45 minutes). He added I should get legal advice for matters such as these. They were unwilling to agree to a TO unless it was full amount claimed, plus costs, plus interest. Which I rejected as I felt that was unfair in light of the circumstances and the judges comments, I then countered with full amount minus all costs and interest over 84 months. They accepted that. I believe the Judge wouldn't have been happy if they didn't accept a payment plan for the full amount, at this late stage. The judge was very impressed by my articulate defence and WS (Thanks CAG!) he respected that I was wiling to engage with the process but commented only I  can know whether this debt is mine, but stated that Civil cases were based on balance of probabilities, not without shadow of a doubt, and all he needs to determine is whether the account existed. Verbal arguments aside; he has enough evidence in paperwork for that. He clarified that a copy of a DN and NOA is sufficient proof based on balance of probabilities that they were served. I still disagree, but hey, I'm just me.. It's definitely not strict proof as basically I have to prove the negative (I didn't receive them/they were not served), which is impossible. Overall, a great result I think! BT  
  • 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

SLC Cannot Supply The Original Agreement


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5480 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

Hi All,

 

Interesting thread this.

 

My story so far:

 

I had an alleged debt with a high street bank for £28K (yes 28 grand).

 

They issued a court claim for the full amount plus costs etc.

 

I defended having issued a CCA request with my £1 and sent it recorded delivery.

 

We completed our respective AQ's and sent them off. I by this time confirmed with the court that the Bank had defaulted and committed an offence as they had not responded to my CCA request.

 

I today receive a letter from the Banks solicitor stating that they cannot retreive the documents and have filed a notice of discontinuance with the court.

 

I have a default against me for non payment of this "alleged" debt and want it removed and also want all the monies I have been duped into paying towards this alleged debt refunded.

 

Has anyone had any success with this? and if so how do I word a letter?

 

 

Cheers

 

 

pj41

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I think you'd just apply for a set aside and argue why the judgement shouldn't have been brought in the first place.

 

Cheers

 

Michael

 

It's got to be worth the attempt :)

Alliance & leicester:Settled 8/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/alliance-leicester-successes/19700-tamadus-l.html?highlight=tamadus

Capital One:Settled 22/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/capital-one/16644-tamadus-capital-one.html?highlight=tamadus

MBNA 2 accounts:Settled 22/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions-successes/13831-tamadus-mbna-i.html?highlight=tamadus

Smile:Settled 15/11/06

Egg Card:S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 2/10/06

GE Money:S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent3/8/06 LBA sent 26/9/06

Abbey:ERC prelim sent 14/9/06. LBA sent 2/10/06. Now it's getting interesting so keep watching

Barclaycard:In criminal default watch this space

Lloyds TSB:In criminal default watch this space

 

If my comments have been useful please click the scales and let me know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hiya!

 

JAYZUZ! Thats what I call a result!

 

Somewhere, in the depths of the early part of this thread, alanfromderby posted a template for the letter you need.

 

Just start on page one and keep reading. Youll find it.

 

 

28k! dear God! Well done!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All,

 

Interesting thread this.

 

My story so far:

 

I had an alleged debt with a high street bank for £28K (yes 28 grand).

 

They issued a court claim for the full amount plus costs etc.

 

I defended having issued a CCA request with my £1 and sent it recorded delivery.

 

We completed our respective AQ's and sent them off. I by this time confirmed with the court that the Bank had defaulted and committed an offence as they had not responded to my CCA request.

 

I today receive a letter from the Banks solicitor stating that they cannot retreive the documents and have filed a notice of discontinuance with the court.

 

I have a default against me for non payment of this "alleged" debt and want it removed and also want all the monies I have been duped into paying towards this alleged debt refunded.

 

Has anyone had any success with this? and if so how do I word a letter?

 

 

Cheers

 

 

pj41

 

Yes this has been done, I think it was in surlybonds thread under the bailiffs forum but can't remember the exact details.

 

Basically you need to persue the CRA and the bank using the DPA and using the argument that the debt data they recorded is incorrect.

Alliance & leicester:Settled 8/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/alliance-leicester-successes/19700-tamadus-l.html?highlight=tamadus

Capital One:Settled 22/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/capital-one/16644-tamadus-capital-one.html?highlight=tamadus

MBNA 2 accounts:Settled 22/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions-successes/13831-tamadus-mbna-i.html?highlight=tamadus

Smile:Settled 15/11/06

Egg Card:S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 2/10/06

GE Money:S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent3/8/06 LBA sent 26/9/06

Abbey:ERC prelim sent 14/9/06. LBA sent 2/10/06. Now it's getting interesting so keep watching

Barclaycard:In criminal default watch this space

Lloyds TSB:In criminal default watch this space

 

If my comments have been useful please click the scales and let me know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

LMAO noomill they really messed up on that one :D now if my mortgage company can only lose the mortgage documents :D

Alliance & leicester:Settled 8/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/alliance-leicester-successes/19700-tamadus-l.html?highlight=tamadus

Capital One:Settled 22/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/capital-one/16644-tamadus-capital-one.html?highlight=tamadus

MBNA 2 accounts:Settled 22/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions-successes/13831-tamadus-mbna-i.html?highlight=tamadus

Smile:Settled 15/11/06

Egg Card:S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 2/10/06

GE Money:S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent3/8/06 LBA sent 26/9/06

Abbey:ERC prelim sent 14/9/06. LBA sent 2/10/06. Now it's getting interesting so keep watching

Barclaycard:In criminal default watch this space

Lloyds TSB:In criminal default watch this space

 

If my comments have been useful please click the scales and let me know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I just bring to everyone attention that whilst probably a waste of time you should report the creditor to Trading Standards if they commit a criminal offence by failing to comply with the CCA law. For obvious reasons this is important if you intend to use this fact as part of you case.

 

Also you never know if TS get enough such complaints they might actually do something

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this needs testing in court.

 

I think the way forward is to have the judgement set-aside on the basis that i didn't attend the hearing, the loan contained an unlawful element, and the bank has failed in their obligation to provide the original agreement,

 

CCJs are not set in stone and can be set-aside for a number of reasons, i think not providing a true signed copy is as good as any.

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this needs testing in court.

 

I think the way forward is to have the judgement set-aside on the basis that i didn't attend the hearing, the loan contained an unlawful element, and the bank has failed in their obligation to provide the original agreement,

 

CCJs are not set in stone and can be set-aside for a number of reasons, i think not providing a true signed copy is as good as any.

 

 

Keep us informed please when you do start it Paul

Alliance & leicester:Settled 8/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/alliance-leicester-successes/19700-tamadus-l.html?highlight=tamadus

Capital One:Settled 22/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/capital-one/16644-tamadus-capital-one.html?highlight=tamadus

MBNA 2 accounts:Settled 22/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions-successes/13831-tamadus-mbna-i.html?highlight=tamadus

Smile:Settled 15/11/06

Egg Card:S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 2/10/06

GE Money:S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent3/8/06 LBA sent 26/9/06

Abbey:ERC prelim sent 14/9/06. LBA sent 2/10/06. Now it's getting interesting so keep watching

Barclaycard:In criminal default watch this space

Lloyds TSB:In criminal default watch this space

 

If my comments have been useful please click the scales and let me know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My next hearing date has been set for the 11th of Jan regarding my bank charges claim, hopefully i'll get a final hearing date by the end of Jan, so i guess early Feb i'll be seeking a set-aside, and yes i will keep you updated.

 

One of the main reasons for seeking a set-aside is that you agreed at the time that the original ammount was correct but now new evidence has come to light showing this to be incorrect, so now the ammount is in dispute.

This new evidence relates to the unlawful element and i may claim i was mis-sold the ppi included in the loan too.

For these reasons the CCJ may get set-aside. Once the CCJ is set-aside and a new correct ammount has been established i would then ask for a true signed copy of the original agreement and make the judge aware that the bank has already failed in it's obligation under the CCA Act.

"But we don't have a copy" the bank says to the judge. oooops.!

 

There's more than one way to skin a cat.

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

With regard to the setaside of a CCJ when the loan company cant produce the original documents...

 

When the court action was brought, someone at the loan company had to sign the statement on the court claim form as "being true" etc. etc. How can the claim be true if they have no loan agreement? Telling porkies to a court is perjury is it not?

 

I'm currently using the perjury argument against a loan company, but I don't want to post details until the case is overturned/won, as I know they troll these forums and as mine is a complex matter, I will easily be identified... don't want to give them any ammunition!

Link to post
Share on other sites

With regard to the setaside of a CCJ when the loan company cant produce the original documents...

 

When the court action was brought, someone at the loan company had to sign the statement on the court claim form as "being true" etc. etc. How can the claim be true if they have no loan agreement? Telling porkies to a court is perjury is it not?

 

I'm currently using the perjury argument against a loan company, but I don't want to post details until the case is overturned/won, as I know they troll these forums and as mine is a complex matter, I will easily be identified... don't want to give them any ammunition!

 

I have something very similar which I'll be taking further at a future date so I understand you not saying too much as I feel the same.

Alliance & leicester:Settled 8/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/alliance-leicester-successes/19700-tamadus-l.html?highlight=tamadus

Capital One:Settled 22/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/capital-one/16644-tamadus-capital-one.html?highlight=tamadus

MBNA 2 accounts:Settled 22/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions-successes/13831-tamadus-mbna-i.html?highlight=tamadus

Smile:Settled 15/11/06

Egg Card:S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 2/10/06

GE Money:S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent3/8/06 LBA sent 26/9/06

Abbey:ERC prelim sent 14/9/06. LBA sent 2/10/06. Now it's getting interesting so keep watching

Barclaycard:In criminal default watch this space

Lloyds TSB:In criminal default watch this space

 

If my comments have been useful please click the scales and let me know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My next hearing date has been set for the 11th of Jan regarding my bank charges claim, hopefully i'll get a final hearing date by the end of Jan, so i guess early Feb i'll be seeking a set-aside, and yes i will keep you updated.

 

One of the main reasons for seeking a set-aside is that you agreed at the time that the original ammount was correct but now new evidence has come to light showing this to be incorrect, so now the ammount is in dispute.

This new evidence relates to the unlawful element and i may claim i was mis-sold the ppi included in the loan too.

For these reasons the CCJ may get set-aside. Once the CCJ is set-aside and a new correct ammount has been established i would then ask for a true signed copy of the original agreement and make the judge aware that the bank has already failed in it's obligation under the CCA Act.

"But we don't have a copy" the bank says to the judge. oooops.!

 

There's more than one way to skin a cat.

 

It sounds like your on top of it Paul so good luck :D Your definitely following my line of thought

Alliance & leicester:Settled 8/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/alliance-leicester-successes/19700-tamadus-l.html?highlight=tamadus

Capital One:Settled 22/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/capital-one/16644-tamadus-capital-one.html?highlight=tamadus

MBNA 2 accounts:Settled 22/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions-successes/13831-tamadus-mbna-i.html?highlight=tamadus

Smile:Settled 15/11/06

Egg Card:S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 2/10/06

GE Money:S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent3/8/06 LBA sent 26/9/06

Abbey:ERC prelim sent 14/9/06. LBA sent 2/10/06. Now it's getting interesting so keep watching

Barclaycard:In criminal default watch this space

Lloyds TSB:In criminal default watch this space

 

If my comments have been useful please click the scales and let me know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are always loopholes.

 

The one that finds the last one wins.

 

Pete

I will not make any deals with you. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own. Number 6

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pete - you put it so concicely!

 

For every law there are dozens of loopholes it seems, I just don't think it a good idea to draw these to the attention of the banks - let them discover in their own time, or hopefully they are so busy being inundated with claims they might not have time to look for loopholes (OK I admit that is perhaps unlikely, when they are now shelling out hundreds of thousands, but you get the point!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

In most cases I think the banks already know about them. The CCA sec 77/78 request for example. They know about it but probably figured the public wouldnt delve into the act that far.

Alliance & leicester:Settled 8/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/alliance-leicester-successes/19700-tamadus-l.html?highlight=tamadus

Capital One:Settled 22/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/capital-one/16644-tamadus-capital-one.html?highlight=tamadus

MBNA 2 accounts:Settled 22/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions-successes/13831-tamadus-mbna-i.html?highlight=tamadus

Smile:Settled 15/11/06

Egg Card:S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 2/10/06

GE Money:S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent3/8/06 LBA sent 26/9/06

Abbey:ERC prelim sent 14/9/06. LBA sent 2/10/06. Now it's getting interesting so keep watching

Barclaycard:In criminal default watch this space

Lloyds TSB:In criminal default watch this space

 

If my comments have been useful please click the scales and let me know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Banks do know about this site (been in the Daily Mail enough timea) and it would make good business sense to monitor it very closely.

 

However, you have to think that people claiming their money back etc on this site is in it's thousands. If the general public knew their rights, the number of people claiming would be in it's millions.

 

I don't think Banks are to concerned at the moment, but if the OFT report that these charges are unfair... things will change..

Remember if you find anything I say helpful, please click the scales

 

 

tbern123 vs Cabot

  1. Cabot again !!! Urgent Help Needed
  2. Litigation - tbern123 V Cabot Financial (Uk) Limited
  3. No more calls from Cabot... lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course the money lenders & their agents monitor this site they would be fools not to. Anyway I was being sarcastic (as is my want) to it being suggested that we should not disclose our tactics. Bit hard when everyone here is trying to inform each other.

 

I certainly agree some of the new ones should not be exposed until they have proved successful but it's inevitable that they will become aware of some

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the banks are very aware of the 1998 SI 1557 reg 3 that enables them to not supply an copy of the executed (signed) contract.

 

I think they are aware that untill the 2006 act comes into force the unsigned contract they send is still not enforceable section127(3)(61)(1).

 

I think they are keeping their heads down and playing a waiting game untill sction 15 of 2006 removes the above.

When this happens any contract sent under any of the request sections acts will be enforcable on a practical level.

Whether the document is a true copy or not will be a matter for the court to decide as the requirement of a debtors signature has been effectively removed.

 

I think this makes it even more important that we get to the bottom of the section 77 issue regarding signatures and also whether just rejecting the validity of the document they send you porporting to be a true copy of your agrement will put the ball back into their court and still leave the clock running for them to produce a true copy.

 

 

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose ultimately it is simply a case of are the banks required to prove we owe them money, or are we required to prove that we don't?

 

Logically we can't possibly prove we don't owe them money, so it must be for them to prove we do (which they could by various means as simple as showing the money was deposited in our current account, and then we would have to prove we'd paid it back by referring to direct debits paid against the loan account number, cheques paid to it, cash-over-the-counter receipts or whatever)

 

As has been said many times, proving there is a debt of some kind is the easy bit for the banks, proving exactly what terms were agreed to that resulted in that debt being borne is something else entirely if they don't have our signature on a document.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...