Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • There's no facility for a settlement "out of court" as such. But matters that are started under the "Single Justice" (SJ) Procedure can often be concluded without the defendant appearing. The SJ procedure, as the name suggests, involves a single magistrate, sitting in an office with a legal advisor, dealing with matters "on papers" only. Nobody else can attend. The SJ deals with straightforward guilty pleas. Anything where the SJ believes the defendant should appear, or which should be dealt with by the "ordinary" court are adjourned o a hearing in the normal magistrates'  court .As well as this, all defendants have the right to a hearing in the normal court if they wish. Nobody is forced to have their case heard under he SJP.  In particular, as far as traffic matters go, a SJ will not disqualify a driver and if a ban is to be considered, the case will be passed over to the normal court. Because, following your SD, you will be pleading Not Guilty (and offering the "deal"), your case would usually be heard in the normal court, meaning a personal appearance. To be honest, performing your SD at the court is a more straightforward way of doing things. It avoids any possible hitches involved in serving he SD on the court. But of course, as I said, most courts have backlogs which mean an SD may not be quickly accommodated. If you do end up doing your SD before a solicitor, check with them the protocol for serving it on the court. Do let us know what the solicitor says about Wednesday.    
    • Welcome to posting on CAG cabot, people will be along soon to help you try to sort this out. Please complete this:  
    • Quotes of the day penny mordaunt came out swinging with her broadsword, and promptly decapitated sunak while Nigel Farage, representing Reform UK, made contentious claims about immigration policies, which were swiftly fact-checked during the debate.   Good question though raised at labour about the 2 child benefit cap, which I broadly agree with, but the tory 'trap' assumes tory thinking - rather than child centric thinking. There should be no incentives to have kids as a financial way of life paid for by everyone else ... ... BUT the kids should not be made to suffer for the decisions of their parents Free school meals would feed the kids, improve their ability to learn, and incentivise them to go to school. As an added benefit ... it would invest in our nations future.   How far this should go is a matter for costing, social intent and future path of the nation, but not feeding our nations kids is an abomination. There should be at least one free school meal per day for every child who attends school. Full Stop. Its the cheapest and most effective investment in our future we could make.
    • Hey people, I've been browsing this amazing forum for the past year and recieved a letter today which has made me require some help. Received a claim form from Cabot in the Civil National Business Centre in regards to an Aqua Credit Card taken out in 2018. I failed to make payments due to financial hardship and have not taken out any credit or uses any forms of credit since. Received a lot of letters from Cabot and their solicitors Mortimer Clarke which I've ignored    By an agreement between New Day Ltd RE Aqua& the Defendant on or around 26/03/2018 ('ths Agreement) New Day Ltd RE Aqua agreed to issue Defendant with a credit card. The Defendant failed to make the minimum payments due. The Agreement was terminated following the service of a default notice. The Agreement was assigned to the named Claimant. Cabot Credit Management Group Limited, acting as servicing agent of the named Claimant through its Appointed Representative (Cabot Financial (Europe) Limited), has arranged for these proceedings to be issued in the name of the Claimant. The named Claimant may be entitled to claim interest under the Agreement but does not seek such interest and instead claims interest under Section 69(1) of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8% p.a.from03/03/2023 until date of issue only, or alternatively such interest as the Court thinks fit THE NAMED CLAIMANT THEREFORE CLAIMS 1. 3800.82 2. INTEREST OF 379.84 3. Costs How would I go about this and what could happen? I don't remember much details about the card either.
    • cause like you said in post one, 99% of people think these are FINES (it now reads charge). and wet themselves and cough up. they are not, they are speculative invoices because the driver supposedly broke some imaginary contract by driving onto privately owned land which said owner may or may not have signed some 99% fake contract with a private parking co years ago, thats already expired or has not been renewed or annually paid to employ them dx  
  • 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

CCA response


taurus66
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6029 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

  • 2 months later...
  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Update to this.

 

Since sending the letter kindly supplied by tomterm, I have not heard anything at all from either HFC or Robinson Way. Should I be doing anything else other than wait for their next move?

Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I have had dozens of 'notice of legal proceedings' letters or 'we are preparing legal documents' etc with 'you have until such-and-such a date to respond or we may commence action' etc etc. Usually in black bold letter or red ink (for extra effect.)

 

In other words is it a genuine court action letter or the usual psychological tactics these DCAs employ to simply scare you into paying up without a fight?

 

Remember you can't be taken to court unless they have issued you with a default notice first.

:!: -Any advise I give is based purely on my own experience. It should not be solely relied upon as I am NOT a legal expert and any major decisions you make should not be based on my opinion alone -

HFC Bank - Davey vs HFC

Barclays - Monthly payments made

Cahoot - Agreement received, awaiting 2nd agreement after DCA.

MBNA1&2 - Agreements received. (Currently in limbo)

Halifax - Davey vs Halifax/Cabot

MINT - Davey vs Mint

Amex - Davey vs Amex

Cap1 **WON** £1,500 Written Off Davey vs Cap1

 

Never Sign Anything

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you davey for your reply. The letter from robinson way headed Notice of legal proceedings says

"notice of intended court action valid even if not read by you" then goes on to say documents are being prepared for the issue of proceedings and court action may be issued without further warning.

 

I'm not sure how to respond to them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think others will agree that the key word here is 'may'. Never received official court papers myself but i am sure they don't word it that way. It really does sound like a scare tactic. Is there anyway you can upload it for us to look at?

 

Did you ever establish whether they sent a default notice?

Have you checked your credit files recently for a default?

:!: -Any advise I give is based purely on my own experience. It should not be solely relied upon as I am NOT a legal expert and any major decisions you make should not be based on my opinion alone -

HFC Bank - Davey vs HFC

Barclays - Monthly payments made

Cahoot - Agreement received, awaiting 2nd agreement after DCA.

MBNA1&2 - Agreements received. (Currently in limbo)

Halifax - Davey vs Halifax/Cabot

MINT - Davey vs Mint

Amex - Davey vs Amex

Cap1 **WON** £1,500 Written Off Davey vs Cap1

 

Never Sign Anything

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have a look at post 146 of my thread and the threats of action from Debt Managers Ltd. There was no court action as a result of that and they passed the account back to Barclays eventually but they really design these letters carefully to worry you. (Needlessly in most cases.)

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mbna/57846-debt-written-off-due-8.html

:!: -Any advise I give is based purely on my own experience. It should not be solely relied upon as I am NOT a legal expert and any major decisions you make should not be based on my opinion alone -

HFC Bank - Davey vs HFC

Barclays - Monthly payments made

Cahoot - Agreement received, awaiting 2nd agreement after DCA.

MBNA1&2 - Agreements received. (Currently in limbo)

Halifax - Davey vs Halifax/Cabot

MINT - Davey vs Mint

Amex - Davey vs Amex

Cap1 **WON** £1,500 Written Off Davey vs Cap1

 

Never Sign Anything

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you also read this thread recently started about robinson way by "doingmyheadin" and their "threat of legal proceedings" and the pyschological approach they use:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collectors-debt-collection/122299-robinson-way-doing-my.html

:!: -Any advise I give is based purely on my own experience. It should not be solely relied upon as I am NOT a legal expert and any major decisions you make should not be based on my opinion alone -

HFC Bank - Davey vs HFC

Barclays - Monthly payments made

Cahoot - Agreement received, awaiting 2nd agreement after DCA.

MBNA1&2 - Agreements received. (Currently in limbo)

Halifax - Davey vs Halifax/Cabot

MINT - Davey vs Mint

Amex - Davey vs Amex

Cap1 **WON** £1,500 Written Off Davey vs Cap1

 

Never Sign Anything

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

taurus-

 

I would suggest posting on this thread:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/33174-consumer-credit-act-agreements-523.html#post1266184

 

together with a link to this one.

 

You state that PPI has been charged without your authority- this would mean that any figure they believe you owe them is probably incorrect.

 

Have you recieved a document headed "DEFAULT NOTICE" ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a standard threat-o-matic letter.

 

You'll get lots of court threats.

 

they may or may not go to court; however, the impact on me of such letters is minimal. they produce them regularly, and rarely go to court. Unless they have a credit agreement, they don't have a chance of winning either way.

i will be off site for the next month or so. if you have any problems, feel free to report the post so a moderator can help you.

 

I am not a qualified or practicing lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This agreement looks (almost) exactly the same as those I've had from HFC - suggest you take a look at my thread, as they are (foolishly!) taking me to Court in one claim and I've retaliated by taking them to Court over the second agreement. I think you'll agree your case is very similar to mine, so I won't bore you with the details, but here is the link;

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collectors-debt-collection/110146-car2403-hfc-bank-default.html

 

Hope this helps, but ask any questions in reply if it doesn't...

  • Haha 1

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your reply car2403. I agree there is more than a similarity in both cases. . I had thought to remind them of the last correspondence I sent in July but I think I shall just wait and see what robinson way do next.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could someone please confirm whether I should ignore the "notice of Intended proceedings" or write and remind robinson way I am still awaiting a reply to my letter of 31st July?

RE: Your recent correspondence.

 

Thank you for your phone call today, and for agreeing to communicate only in writing.

 

from the content of the call, it appears that you are claiming I have breached a term of a contract with HFC Bank, Ltd. I am not clear, however:

 

(a) what interest you hold in such a breach, or

(b) since I have had no default notice, what the nature of the breach was.

 

In relation to point a, I would ask if you are the owner under an equitable assignment, or the agent of HFC Bank. If you are an agent, I would ask you to provide a power of attorney for the agreement; if owner, I would ask that HFC Bank provides appropriate notice of this fact, and confirms your entitlement to any benefit.

 

I would like to speedily resolve and rectify this alleged breach, and therefore would ask you to provide, in relation to point b, a detailed break down of the nature of the alleged breach, the date it occurred, and how it can be rectified.

 

I would remind you of your obligations, under the Civil Procedure Rules, to act reasonably in relation to this matter and to avoid where possible the expense of legal action. In particular, terminating the agreement and bringing the matter to court when I have stated my intention to, if possible, make good any breach would seem a breach of these objectives.

 

I thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would send that letter to them anyway, taurus66, as it will do you no harm - I don't think they'll issue against you as a result of this letter, as they will back themselves in to a corner, but reminding them of your dispute at this early stage is definately to your advantage.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I see - in that case, send them a reply to their letter, referring to your dispute with them and include a copy of the July letter with proof of postage/delivery attached if you have it. This should go Recorded Delivery (not worth paying £4 for Special Delivery on this one)

 

You should include this text in your letter;

 

I would like to remind you that the Office of Fair Tradings Collection Guidelines cover this situation, in that you cannot continue to pursue me for this debt without effectively handling my dispute;

 

The OFT Collection Guidelines s.2.8;(http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/bus...dit/oft664.pdf)

 

... i. failing to investigate and/or provide details as appropriate, when a debt is queried or disputed, possibly resulting in debtors being wrongly pursued

 

I also believe that this account falls under the Banking Code, so the original Creditor, along with you as their assignee/agent, may be subject to that code;

 

The Banking Code s13.6; (http://www.bankingcode.org.uk/pdfdocs/BANKING%20CODE.pdf)

 

... k. not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating a reasonably queried or disputed debt.

 

If this collection activity continues unabaited, I will escalate this to the Office of Fair Trading, as I believe you are in breach of your Credit License and the Financial Ombudsman Service as you are in breach of the Banking Code.

 

If that doesn't throw them off the scent, nothing will!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been paying £5 p.m to Lloyds for a loan,and they are forever phoning to increase my repayments. I've sent the telephone harassment letter.

The latest caller was quite rude when I explained I could not afford more from my disability income. She almost demanded that I send further evidence of what I receive and what I pay my other creditors. I suffer with epilepsy so I just did not appreciate getting wound up. I have been paying as fairly as I can to who I owe.

 

Is there anything that says I HAVE to show what my income is?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...