Jump to content
  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks Dx. Amended defence set out below. Does it look right now?   1. By agreement between the defendant and Halifax on or around the 3/3/2015 (the agreement) Halifax agreed to loan the defendant monies.     2.The defendant did not pay instalments as they fell due.     3.The agreement was terminated following a service of a default notice.     4.The agreement was assigned to the claimant.     5.The claimant therefore claims 1. 4.5k 2. Costs    Defence   1. The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.     2. The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017. It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.     3. Paragraph 1 is denied. It is accepted that I have had financial dealings with Halifax in the past. However I do not recall entering into any financial agreement with Halifax on or around 03/03/2015 and have sought verification from the claimant who has not complied with my request for further information.     4. Paragraph 2 is denied. I am not aware of any payment terms for the stated agreement.     5. Paragraph 3 is denied. It is denied that Cabot Financial served any Default notice on the Defendant pursuant to s87 Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Claimant is required to prove that a compliant Default Notice was served upon the Defendant. The Claimant is required to prove that the any Default notice relied upon complied with the requirements of s88(4A) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and that the notice was in the prescribed form as required by The Consumer Credit Enforcement Default and Termination Notice Regulations 1983.   6. Paragraph 4 is denied as I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served by either the claimant or the original creditor.     7. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant; the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of credit agreement / assignment / balance / breach requested by CPR 31.14, and remains in default of my section 77 request, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:   a. Show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and   b. Show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and   c. Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim     8. On receipt of this claim I requested by way of Royal Mail on 13/10/20 a CPR 31.14 request from the claimant’s solicitors and a section 77 requests to the Claimant, for copies of the documents referred to within the Claimant’s particulars to establish what the claim is for. To date the Claimant has failed to comply with my section 77 request and their solicitors, Mortimer Clarke, have refused my CPR 31.14 request.     9. As per Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.     10. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82 A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974     11. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.  
    • I'm generally convinced that there is at least 2 users on MSE that's in my thread that has friends or family or even themselves that have similar line of work to MB or Gladstone.   I don't mind different opinions but they're just throwing out playground insults to me for using that letter saying I'm stupid, prat, idiot etc etc for doing it and not including in the letter without prejudice so it can't be used against me in court. I think I'll leave MSE and just stick with CAG and pep in this case.    
    • not sure what happened to the statint sheet...looks like you over wrote cells.   so they have already litigated over this debt ?
    • Fraudsters are using the details of firms we authorise to try to convince people that they work for a genuine, authorised firm. Find out more about this ‘clone firm’. View the full article
    • Any time limits AZ might spout are simply arbitrary, the ONLY thing you need to be doing is informing them ''in writing'' of your new address.   Also ensure your CRF is updated and showing your correct address also.   When you send AZ the letter which needs only to be one line......   Sir/madam.   My current address is No.1 Mickey mouse street blah blah blah, please update your records accordingly.   Regards   And obtain ''proof of posting'' which is free from the po counter, send it 2nd class post.
  • Our picks

    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies
    • Oven repair. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/427690-oven-repair/&do=findComment&comment=5073391
      • 49 replies
    • I came across this discussion recently and just wanted to give my experience of A Shade Greener that may help others regarding their boiler finance agreement.
       
      We had a 10yr  finance contract for a boiler fitted July 2015.
       
      After a summer of discontent with ASG I discovered that if you have paid HALF the agreement or more you can legally return the boiler to them at no cost to yourself. I've just returned mine the feeling is liberating.
       
      It all started mid summer during lockdown when they refused to service our boiler because we didn't have a loft ladder or flooring installed despite the fact AS installed the boiler. and had previosuly serviced it without issue for 4yrs. After consulting with an independent installer I was informed that if this was the case then ASG had breached building regulations,  this was duly reported to Gas Safe to investigate and even then ASG refused to accept blame and repeatedly said it was my problem. Anyway Gas Safe found them in breach of building regs and a compromise was reached.
       
      A month later and ASG attended to service our boiler but in the process left the boiler unusuable as it kept losing pressure not to mention they had damaged the filling loop in the process which they said was my responsibilty not theres and would charge me to repair, so generous of them! Soon after reporting the fault I got a letter stating it was time we arranged a powerflush on our heating system which they make you do after 5 years even though there's nothing in the contract that states this. Coincidence?
       
      After a few heated exchanges with ASG (pardon the pun) I decided to pull the plug and cancel our agreement.
       
      The boiler was removed and replaced by a reputable installer,  and the old boiler was returned to ASG thus ending our contract with them. What's mad is I saved in excess of £1000 in the long run and got a new boiler with a brand new 12yr warranty. 
       
      You only have to look at TrustPilot to get an idea of what this company is like.
       
        • Thanks
      • 3 replies
    • Dazza a few months ago I discovered a good friend of mine who had ten debts with cards and catalogues which he was slavishly paying off at detriment to his own family quality of life, and I mean hardship, not just absence of second holidays or flat screen TV's.
       
      I wrote to all his creditors asking for supporting documents and not one could provide any material that would allow them to enforce the debt.
       
      As a result he stopped paying and they have been unable to do anything, one even admitted it was unenforceable.
       
      If circumstances have got to the point where you are finding it unmanageable you must ask yourself why you feel the need to pay.  I guarantee you that these companies have built bad debt into their business model and no one over there is losing any sleep over your debt to them!  They will see you as a victim and cash cow and they will be reluctant to discuss final offers, only ways to keep you paying with threats of court action or seizing your assets if you have any.
       
      They are not your friends and you owe them no loyalty or moral duty, that must remain only for yourself and your family.
       
      If it was me I would send them all a CCA request.   I would bet that not one will provide the correct response and you can quite legally stop paying them until such time as they do provide a response.   Even when they do you should check back here as they mostly send dodgy photo copies or generic rubbish that has no connection with your supposed debt.
       
      The money you are paying them should, as far as you are able, be put to a savings account for yourself and as a means of paying of one of these fleecers should they ever manage to get to to the point of a successful court judgement.  After six years they will not be able to start court action and that money will then become yours.
       
      They will of course pursue you for the funds and pass your file around various departments of their business and out to third parties.
       
      Your response is that you should treat it as a hobby.  I have numerous files of correspondence each faithfully organised showing the various letters from different DCA;s , solicitors etc with a mix of threats, inducements and offers.   It is like my stamp collection and I show it to anyone who is interested!
        • Thanks
        • Like

Sexuality Discrinination ?


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4786 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

I recently tried to book a holiday in a static caravan on a campsite in Blackpool (Lancs)

 

I was refused because they do not accept all 'same sex' parties. This is to guard against roudy stag/hen parties,

 

After explaining that we are a quiet 'gay' couple and not a stag party we were still refused.

 

as a gay couple should we be treated different than a hetrosexual couple ?:confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you mean that treating a gay couple differently from a heterosexual couple is illegal or that by refusing a gay couple a caravan the site has acted illegally?

Lloyds TSB, Total Charges £900, Claim Filed for £1379 - Settled

 

Sainsbury's Bank Credit Card, Total Charges £90 - Settled.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it depends on the reasons that they have refused you, did you get anything in writing?

 

If they have refused you because they dont take same sex parties, well then that is fair enough, they only have your word for it that you are a "quiet gay couple" you might be making up stories (not that i am saying you are ) and end up bringing 5 more rowdy mates.

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

From the Stonewall website:

 

"Hotels

Hotels and B&Bs can no longer refuse double rooms to same-sex couples. If you want a double bed, you can have one."

 

You're not a same-sex party, you're a couple and are entitled to a double room. This is treating you differently because of your sexual orientation and is definitely illegal! The same-sex party rule came about because of rooms getting smashed up by stag/hen parties, they can't apply this rule to a couple.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well it depends on the reasons that they have refused you, did you get anything in writing?

 

If they have refused you because they dont take same sex parties, well then that is fair enough, they only have your word for it that you are a "quiet gay couple" you might be making up stories (not that i am saying you are ) and end up bringing 5 more rowdy mates.

 

I disagree Lula: such a blanket exclusion couuld not be objectively justified beacuse it would have the obvious effect of excluding gay couples.

 

There are lots of ways that the site could prevent rowdy people from attending, and this is, IMHO, an unlawful means of doing it.

 

Davjoh

Here to help!

 

Good with employment, disability and welfare/benefit questions :rolleyes:

Just ask!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The site are allowed to ban same sex parties but should have changed their tune when they were informed it was a same sex couple. Same sex couples should never be treated differently to a heterosexual couple, would they have said the same if the couple had entered into a civil partnership?

Any posts submitted here on the Consumer Action Group under the user name GlasweJen may not necessarily be the view of the poster, CAG or indeed any normal person.

 

I've become addicted to green blobs (I have 2 now) so feel free to tip my scales if I ever make sense.;-)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Just subscribing. Interested in what they are going to say here. It sounds to me live a cover up for discrimination - a lot of christian owned holiday lets were up in arms about this law. Too bad - it's 2007, it they want to be in business, they have to act within the law like the rest of us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's absolutely discrimination - I would phone again, advise them you are recording the call (do it as I bet they won't put it writing) and then let all hell break loose.

 

You can then report them to the police for their discriminatory action.

All help is merely my opinion only - please seek legal advice if you need to as I am only qualified in SEN law.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You can then report them to the police for their discriminatory action.

 

And what do you expect the police will do?

 

Discrimination law is civil, not criminal. Even if it were criminal law, it would be enforced by the Women & Equality unit or one of its statutory designated bodies, not the police.

 

Dave

Here to help!

 

Good with employment, disability and welfare/benefit questions :rolleyes:

Just ask!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The police do have a duty to look into cases of discrimination regarding sexuality - perhaps you are thinking of employment law, which is a civil matter.

All help is merely my opinion only - please seek legal advice if you need to as I am only qualified in SEN law.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...