Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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  
    • Seeking further advice now. The 33 days in which the defendant has to submit a defence expires at 16:00 tomorrow. The defendant has submitted an acknowledgement of service but looking to get the claim awarded by default in failure to submit the defence. This is MoneyClaim Online and can see an option to request a default judgement but believe that is for failure to acknowledge the claim within 14 days??  So being MoneyClaim Online, how do I request the claim be awarded in my favour?
    • Have to agree with the above Health and safety legislation is specific in that the service provider in so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees and those not in the employ of the business. You claim is like saying you slipped in the swimming pool area while taking a dip. As rightly stated by by the leisure centre, a sports hall has dedicated equipment and you yourself personally have a legal obligation in mitigating danger or injury to yourself by taking account of your immediate surroundings. Where your claim will fail is if it is reasonable and proportionate to impose liability of the Leisure Centre? The answer has to be no.
  • 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

Where Do I Stand?


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6135 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

Back when I left school I had a loan with HSBC - around 1998, and a credit card with MBNA.

I'm not 100% sure about the HSBC loan but the MBNA card was paid off in full.

a year or so later I got a letter from them stating that there was an outstanding amount, which it transpired had occured due to them adding a charge on while my cheque was clearing. They agreed to remove that charge.

The following year a DCA contacted me about the same issue, I explained what had happened and that they had agreed to remove the charge.

This happened 3 or 4 times about 9-12 months apart and with the same outcome.

I haven't heard from them since about 2004.

 

In 2000 I ended up with a £300 debt with bank due to a (now ex) boyfriend taking my card and clearing out my account.

I explained the situation with the bank and have never heard from them since.

 

I'm guessing from what I am reading that the HSBC (if it wasn't paid off) and the £300 (for which I was never contacted again) are now statute barred?

 

About 2001 I took a provident credit for £500 and had to chase Provident to actually send a collector as they just didn't turn up.

I paid that off in full the same year.

 

Just recently I have received letters from "buchanan clark + wells" claiming that I owe £759 on a provident credit.

I had email correspondence and stated clearly that I do not acknowledge that debt as mine.

They asked then that I show them a completed payment book - which I was unable to do, due to the fact I have nothing from when I lived at that address reason being a break-in taking almost everything - my bedsit was cleared out.

They then suggested I get a "letter of satisfaction", although they were unable to suggest where I might obtain this as supposedly Provident have me "on record" as owing this debt...

I asked them to show me when that supposed debt was taken out and thus far they have not done so.

The man at bcw that I was dealing with told me he was going to look into the matter and would contact me again if any further details were required. That was on 12 July.

 

Yesterday 15 August I recieved a letter dated 10 August stating "Legal Notification" from bcw. I still do not acknowledge this debt.

 

Today I recieved the letter I know many are familiar with from Mackenzie Hall who claim to be "trying to contact me regarding a personal matter".

 

Where do I stand with bcw/provident? What actions can/should I take?

I'm guessing I ought completely ignore the MH letter, although my curiosity would love to know for what they are trying to contact me.

I'm guessing that it is probably to do with either the HSBC loan or bank overdraft; or MBNA (or rather the DCA's who bought the supposed debt) are trying to resurface the charge they agreed to remove.

 

I currently do not work due to physical and mental health issues.

I own very little besides my clothes.

I'm very concerned about them trying to send bailiffs or the like and that they may try to take things that I do not own - I live with a partner who supports me.

 

Any advice or suggestions greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance (sorry for the essay)

Kia

Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome, you've taken a good first step by posting here.

 

Firstly, the onus is on them to prove that you owe them money. They can't demand that you provide proof that you don't. There's a sticky with the OFT guidelines on Unfair Practice up top somewhere, have a good old browse through and familiarise yourself. You'll be amazed at how often DCAs breach this guidance.

 

Secondly, don't worry about baliffs. You're a very long way away from that. A DCA has the same legal powers as the guy who shoves pizza menus through your letterbox, and even in the highly unlikely event of one actually calling you've got every right to tell them to go away. Politely, like...

 

Next, don't have anything to do with these people by phone. I guess you're already worked that out as you say you've emailed them. :)

 

Now, you say that you took the Provident loan in "about 2001" and paid it off in the same year. Now in England a debt becomes Statute Barred after 6 years (5 in Scotland) so if you've not paid anything or acknowledged any debt in writing since then, the clock's almost up and this is possibly why they're starting to chase you now.

 

What you need to do is copy letter N from the templates library and modify it slightly to suit. Ensure (and this is REALLY important) that you include "I do not acknowledge any debt", and make it clear that if they genuinely believe there's a debt they should provide the supporting documentation or leave you alone.

 

Send it recorded delivery with the £1 fee, and also include the phrase "Please find enclosed cheque/PO number xxxxxxx for £1 in respect of the statutory fee. Please be aware that this should under no circumstances be set aside any alleged debt. If you are unable to supply the documents requested then you should return this fee." That way they can't later claim that the £1 was a payment and restart the 6-year clock.

 

Don't let these people bully you or get you stressed. Even if you DID owe them money, they can't take what you don't have. The one DCA I genuinely owe money to is currently scraping by on £1 per month!

 

Any more advice please post again, this is a great site which has helped me out so much this year. And do keep us updated.

 

:)

  • Barclays: WON!!! It took four months but was totally worth it!
  • Cabot: I'm still waiting for an enforcable agreement, more than a year after requesting it. Go on, Uncle Ken, take me to court if you dare. You know you want to!
  • Elephant.co.uk: VICTORY - they admitted there was no debt!
  • Ashbourne Management (gym membership): Finally got my default removed and out-of-court settlement; I'm not finished with them yet!

<--- If I've been helpful please remember the scales ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...