Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I see, shame, I think if a claim is 'someone was served' then proof of that should be mandatory. Appreciate your input into the WS whenever you get chance, thanks in advance
    • Paper trail off the original creditor often confirms the default and issue of a notice...not having or being able to disclose the actual copy or being able to produce a copy less so. Creditors are not compelled to keep copies of the actual default notice so you will in most cases get a reconstituted version but must contain accurate figures/dates/format.     .    
    • Including Default Notice Andy? Ok, I think this is the best I can do.. it all makes sense with references to their WS. They have included exhibits that dates don't match the WS about them, small but still.. if you're going to reference letters giving dates, then the exhibits should be correct, no? I know I redacted them too much, but one of the dates differs to the WS by a few months. 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. 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 written off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income as confirmed in the claimant’s 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. 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. 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. 4. Point 3 is noted. 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. 5. 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. 6. Point 11 is noted and disputed. See 3. 7. 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 *** 8. Point 13 is noted and denied. Claimant is put to strict proof to prove allegations. 9. The Claimant did not provide a true copy of the CCA in response to the Defendants request of 24/12/2022. The Claimant further claims that the documents are sufficient to pursue a Judgement and are therefore copies of original documents in their possession. Conclusion 10. 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. 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. 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. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in it’s truth. Signed: _________________________ _______ Dated: _____________________
    • AMEX and TSB the 2 Creditors who you need to worry about the least, ever!  Just stop paying them and forget about it, ignore all their threat o gram letters.  Only if, and with these 2 it's a massive if, you end up with a claim form you need to respond, and there will be plenty of help here.
    • No, nothing from Barclays. Turns out i have 2 accounts on here, and i posted originally on the other one. Sorry about that.  
  • 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

Olden v Barclays Bank


olden
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5958 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 206
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

oh I think for the banks.... probably cases where the judge has gone down the line of thought on considerations being added... ie no more bank charges being incurred to account prior to result of OFT case. And then deciding against adding them!... Im sure one of mods might recognise the cases.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi stone and thanks for that :D Did you get your hearing date changed yet? also I wrote to that BBC programme and they never answered me at all, hope they got some good cases on there, must remember to watch that val

 

 

They were following my case, but the date for my hearing 13 Nov is outside their timescale. The program will go out on 16 Nov. They told me that they do have some interesting cases, so it is a pity that i will miss it as I am away on hols then. Will just have to find some kind soul to record it for me.

=======================================================================================================

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

 

 

Halifax Won £1180.00

NatWest Won £876.00

Halifax 2 N1 submitted 20/07/07 stayed 24/08/07 N244 Application filed 31/08/07 hearing set for 12/11/07 rescheduled for 29/01/2008. Application dismissed stay still in place.

Charity Group £200 compo for lost passport.

HM revenue & Customs; demand for WTC overpayment £632.12. Disputed, their error. Did not have to repay.

All opinions expressed are my own and have no legal standing and no connection to CAG

 

All errors/typos etc are not my fault the blame lies with the spelling gremlins

 

<<<<<< If any of this has been helpful, PLEASE click my scales

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hiya Olden first time I've read the full account well done !!! told you you would be ok once you were there :)

 

The cases he referred to were something like (and if anyone can interpret them, please feel free)

 

Bearing

Doesn't ring a bell here

Carslyle

Carslisle v Clydesdale (see below)

Harris v HSBC - Ian Hughes

Heynes v HSBC ? (see below)

Crossdale

Carslisle v Clydesdale ? (see below)

 

 

The two cases that are being used by HSBC (I know this is Barclays :rolleyes:) are Heynes v HSBC and Carslisle v Clydesdale. In both cases the judge upheld the stay but there are differences.

 

Heynes v HSBC.

Mark Heynes agreed to clear the outstanding overdrawn balances of his accounts so the judge stated there was no need to place further restrictions on the bank.

I have a paper copy of this judgment but don't know of a copy online.

 

Carslisle v Clydesdale (also known as the Leed's mercantile hearing)

This case was heard by a high court judge so I'm pretty sure it set a precedent (rules for other judges to follow).

The judge was aware of the possible actions of the bank while the stay was in place, further charges, debt collection, default report etc but he didn't think restrictions on the bank were appropriate. He does state however if the bank do try to collect or report defaults the stay would be removed immediately and the case would go to hearing effectively blocking the bank from any action during the stay.

 

copy of this can be seen here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-1155075.html

 

pete

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all, WHERE DID IT ALL GO??:shock: I thought it was me at first, what happened? I was waiting for a letter from the Judge, which might help or claim, as he told us, and I received a "Notice of Judgement Hearing" today. I don't understand whats this all about? heres what it says:-

 

Take notice that the hearing will take place on 30 October 2007 at 10.40 AM at Cardiff CC .....

NO ATTENDANCE REQUIRED

5 minutes has been allowed for the hearing

please note.. This case may be released to another Judge, possibly at a different Court.

user_online.gifreputation.gif vbrep_register("1200468") report.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just seen your post on Tez' thread.

 

Guess now you're a Golden Olden.:o

 

Regards, Slick

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

do you remember I had trouble with getting my refund from Ideal Shopping? well after nearly 2 months of emails and threatening letters they finally refunded,and put a £10 credit in my account with them to come off my next purchase! damn just when I decided I will never buy another thing from the b....s, give me the money!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all Have you seen this, I emailed Alanfromderby,and this is the reply, i was trying to forward my details to him as asked on the judicial review site where crfx has put that together. they want as many cases as possible. not sure if my hardship details are enough, but the other grounds put forward might be? :-

 

Hi

 

Thanks for your message, actually the server was down on Thursday/Friday for

essential maintenance work - it was nothing caused by outside influence as

it is our own server.

 

Our final submissions will be going to the FSA tomorrow, so if you wish your

case to be included then please can you let me have the details today if

possible.

 

It may also interest you to know that we have been contacted by Guy Weaver,

who is a journalist working for MoneyMail. He has asked for anyone who has a

complaint about a bank failing to action claims where they are going through

financial hardship.

 

As your case may fall within that category, you might wish to consider

contacting him to discuss your situation.

 

Thanks again for your support.

 

Best Regards

 

Alan

 

 

Guy Anker - Contact Details:

 

[email protected]

 

Tel: +44 (0)20 7938 6138

Fax: +44 (0)20 7937 8161

Mobile +44 (0)7960347105

 

Daily Mail,

Northcliffe House,

2 Derry Street, Kensington,

London, W8 5TT

 

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: "BankFodder"

To: "'alan@CAG'"

Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2007 1:09 PM

Subject: FW: remove waiver

Link to post
Share on other sites

What a shame about the judicial review proposal, all seems to be lost and CRFX is away so no one knows if anything can be done do they?

 

The paragraph about crfx not having standing as he himself is not aggrieved surely crfx could use one of us claimants name? and we would all be prepared to join ? Is this possible? CRFX has worked so hard for everyone. Not forgetting all of you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK now I think i need to do something about my debt. Is it a good move to get rid of Barclays after 45 years of banking with them and put the overdraft on to a loan with the cheapest interest rate? or should I keep barclays mounting up charges? As I knew when that stupid Bs sol. made her stupid comment to the judge! that I was 1000 under my limit!! by the end of the month I was up to the £5000 and by tomorrow will probably be hit! can't transfer any more that makes £9000 owing now. Any good tips would be nice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

omg Val.... how about opening/or if you have already got another bank account, getting all your monies paid into that and transfer what dd/so you have to the new account. Leave the barclays one standing just under the overdraft limit and just deposit enough to cover interest to keep it under the limit. Then sit back, forget barclays and wait and see if/if ever/ when barclays own up to overcharging and refund. Thats what I have done only using another barclays account that I had as I was unable to open another bank account. xxxxxx

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi val,

always easier said than done.

not knowing your personal stuff its difficult.

this is said in no condesending way to anyone,its just

what i have done

,the cheapest money was to borrow on house,which i did at start of all this.consequently i havent had any charges applied since.

i have got rid of 90% of my direct debits,this is a must to not get charges.

no direct debits no charges.

if you take cash out of hole in the wall knowing you will go into red,which we have all done,then charges.

ive kept important direct debits eg..,mortgauge,rates,dont want trouble from them,for non payment.

in a nutshell the rest can get stuffed,they get it,when i get it.

i now have bills sent direct to me.

back to good old red letters.

i have a water card to pay by at shop next to post office

energy bills come direct.

maybe pain for lot of people,but if it means no hassel from charges im doing it.

 

on the same note,i wonder if the oft will cover this point about people having to borrow to pay back o d caused by unlawful charges.

people loosing houses.

getting divorced because of money.

loosing buisnesses.

many more.

i never signed any thing when i got paid,so as far as im concerned my case is still open for further claims for damages.

unless the oft draw a line underneath all this,there will be claims for damages eg.., tom brennen.

 

thats why i think,the outcome of oft will not find charges were unlawful,ilegal or anything else.the damages scenario will make charges look like pee in the ocean.

 

back in groove,had severe case of sleeping sickness

tez

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Tez I still have a few DDs I have been mulling over getting a Loan, pay off Bs and CCards start in new bank or leave overdraft in Barclays, pay in enough to cover the interest and go to Alliance & Leicester parachute account with everything else, but I would still have to pay off C Cards :confused: still more going out than coming in methinks:( val

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...