Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Your point 4 deals with that and puts them to strict proof .....but realistically they are not in a position to state that within their particulars they were not the creditor at the time of default but naturally assume the OC would have...so always worth challenging and if you get a DJ who knows his onions on the day may ask for further evidence from the OC internal accounts system. 
    • 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.
  • 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

MKandy vs Capital One "WON"


mkandy
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5586 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

I have tracked back through the threads, and so far the Application form nonsense goes back to at least 2000. You could have 2 options open if this is the case.

WARNING TO ALL

Please be aware of acting on advice given by PM .Anyone can make mistakes and if advice is given on the main forum people can see it to correct it ,if given privately then no one can see it to correct it. Please also be aware of giving your personal details to strangers

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 129
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

My plan is to be either bank on them:

  • Not replying within the 12 days
  • Not sending the correct form anyway

I'm just about ready to submit my claim (using the N1) at my local court. For me the Default Removal is more important than the money. Judging by previous threads, they don't like removing defaults for whatever reason, i think that them hitting either of the two points above will provide the leverage i need to say words to the effect of 'You did not comply with my CCA request, you have commited an offence, please remove this Default before i take further action'.

 

Assuming they do comply with my CCA in the allotted time, the default they placed on my account is of an amount less than the charges i'm claiming back.

NatWest - WON! £3350 Paid back

Vodafone - Default removed

Citicards - Judgement awarded for £1898, default remains though...for now....

Capital One- WON! Settled out of Court £392 + Default Removal!

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the letter i sent for CCA:

 

Capital One Bank (Europe) PLC

350 Euston Road

London

NW13JJ

 

23rd October 2007

Consumer Credit Act 1974

Credit Agreement Request

Dear Sir/Madam

 

 

Re: Account Number **** **** **** ****

With reference to the above agreement, I would be grateful if you would send me a copy of this credit agreement.

 

I understand that under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (Sections 77−79), I am entitled to receive a copy of my credit agreement on request. I enclose a payment of £1.00 which represents the fee payable under the Consumer Credit Act.

 

I understand a copy of our credit agreement should be supplied within 12 working days.

 

I also understand that under the Consumer Credit Act creditors are unable to enforce an agreement if they fail to comply with a request for a copy of the agreement under these sections of the Act.

 

I look forward to hearing from you.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

 

MKAndy

NatWest - WON! £3350 Paid back

Vodafone - Default removed

Citicards - Judgement awarded for £1898, default remains though...for now....

Capital One- WON! Settled out of Court £392 + Default Removal!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andy

 

I would have left out the last paragraph. Too late now as you have posted it. Let's see what happens. .

WARNING TO ALL

Please be aware of acting on advice given by PM .Anyone can make mistakes and if advice is given on the main forum people can see it to correct it ,if given privately then no one can see it to correct it. Please also be aware of giving your personal details to strangers

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't entirely sure about it either...they probably wont reply anyway!

NatWest - WON! £3350 Paid back

Vodafone - Default removed

Citicards - Judgement awarded for £1898, default remains though...for now....

Capital One- WON! Settled out of Court £392 + Default Removal!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Going to file my N1, which is printed up and sat there begging to be handed in. Going to file at the end of the week just to give them a bit of time to provide me with the CCA.

NatWest - WON! £3350 Paid back

Vodafone - Default removed

Citicards - Judgement awarded for £1898, default remains though...for now....

Capital One- WON! Settled out of Court £392 + Default Removal!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Make sure you use the new POC found above your thread in the forum.

WARNING TO ALL

Please be aware of acting on advice given by PM .Anyone can make mistakes and if advice is given on the main forum people can see it to correct it ,if given privately then no one can see it to correct it. Please also be aware of giving your personal details to strangers

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup that's the one i printed off. Cheers :)

NatWest - WON! £3350 Paid back

Vodafone - Default removed

Citicards - Judgement awarded for £1898, default remains though...for now....

Capital One- WON! Settled out of Court £392 + Default Removal!

Link to post
Share on other sites

N1 Filed today!

 

For some rubbish reason i was nervous about going to court to submit the claim, probably the stigma associated with the place. :oops:

 

Anyway, now the wait!

NatWest - WON! £3350 Paid back

Vodafone - Default removed

Citicards - Judgement awarded for £1898, default remains though...for now....

Capital One- WON! Settled out of Court £392 + Default Removal!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know what you mean Andy. Well done, now the wait of a few weeks. .

WARNING TO ALL

Please be aware of acting on advice given by PM .Anyone can make mistakes and if advice is given on the main forum people can see it to correct it ,if given privately then no one can see it to correct it. Please also be aware of giving your personal details to strangers

Link to post
Share on other sites

First time near a court, so it's a different experience i guess. Kinda reminded me of a library for some reason, maybe all the paperwork behind the court manager!

NatWest - WON! £3350 Paid back

Vodafone - Default removed

Citicards - Judgement awarded for £1898, default remains though...for now....

Capital One- WON! Settled out of Court £392 + Default Removal!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Served!

 

Now the wait...till the 19th.

NatWest - WON! £3350 Paid back

Vodafone - Default removed

Citicards - Judgement awarded for £1898, default remains though...for now....

Capital One- WON! Settled out of Court £392 + Default Removal!

Link to post
Share on other sites

CCA Provision time expired! Someone's criminally in default now i believe :rolleyes:

NatWest - WON! £3350 Paid back

Vodafone - Default removed

Citicards - Judgement awarded for £1898, default remains though...for now....

Capital One- WON! Settled out of Court £392 + Default Removal!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Defendant has filed an Acknowledgement of Service....28 days from the 9th of November. Is it a good idea for me to compile a basic court bundle at this point?

NatWest - WON! £3350 Paid back

Vodafone - Default removed

Citicards - Judgement awarded for £1898, default remains though...for now....

Capital One- WON! Settled out of Court £392 + Default Removal!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Update!

 

I recieved a response to my CCA Request, the devious gits have supplied a covering letter, dated the 3rd of November (day 11 of the CCA request) however, the post date on the envelope says 9th of November. So they can try and make out they complied in time, when in actual fact they havent! :evil:

 

They have also supplied a copy of the original application, signed by myself and a Capital One representative, with a date, with a small bit of text above stating 'Credit Card Account Agreement'.

 

Is this enforceable?

 

 

P.s

 

This is a copy of what someone else recieved, mine is essentially exactly the same:

 

Cap1App.jpg

NatWest - WON! £3350 Paid back

Vodafone - Default removed

Citicards - Judgement awarded for £1898, default remains though...for now....

Capital One- WON! Settled out of Court £392 + Default Removal!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Coolio, is there one specific to Capital One.

 

Also, is there a letter someone has already used to reply back to the CCA from Capital One?

NatWest - WON! £3350 Paid back

Vodafone - Default removed

Citicards - Judgement awarded for £1898, default remains though...for now....

Capital One- WON! Settled out of Court £392 + Default Removal!

Link to post
Share on other sites

hello all hope you dont mind if i ask a question:o

I wrote asking about a ppi reclaim and I got that short application form back and a letter saying that as I signed it I was not entitled to a refund.

Do I need to write again asking for the actual CCA or is the application form enough to refuse my claim?

thanks a lot

Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like that application form is the agreement, which is unenforcable debt. Can you start your own thread and post there? . .

 

Are you just going for PPI or charges as well?

WARNING TO ALL

Please be aware of acting on advice given by PM .Anyone can make mistakes and if advice is given on the main forum people can see it to correct it ,if given privately then no one can see it to correct it. Please also be aware of giving your personal details to strangers

Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like that application form is the agreement, which is unenforcable debt. Can you start your own thread and post there? . .

 

Are you just going for PPI or charges as well?

 

Does this mean they have complied with my CCA request though, after looking through threads around the applicaion form vs Executed agreement requirements, i'm quite confused. While they have supplied me with the Application form, i'm not sure whether this actually complies with the CCA request.

NatWest - WON! £3350 Paid back

Vodafone - Default removed

Citicards - Judgement awarded for £1898, default remains though...for now....

Capital One- WON! Settled out of Court £392 + Default Removal!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it does. I will ask the lads. From the ones i have seen they are not enforcable.

WARNING TO ALL

Please be aware of acting on advice given by PM .Anyone can make mistakes and if advice is given on the main forum people can see it to correct it ,if given privately then no one can see it to correct it. Please also be aware of giving your personal details to strangers

Link to post
Share on other sites

It does have the small agreements towards the bottom of the form, i guess it's only unenforceable in court..

NatWest - WON! £3350 Paid back

Vodafone - Default removed

Citicards - Judgement awarded for £1898, default remains though...for now....

Capital One- WON! Settled out of Court £392 + Default Removal!

Link to post
Share on other sites

OFFER RECEIVED!

 

Well, Crap One have given me exactly what i've asked for in Monetary Terms, but have also told me the default is staying even though the amount of the claim is slightly more than that of the amount they defaulted me for. They haven't yet included the cheque, but regardless i'm not accepting this offer. If they are conceding to the fact that their charges are unlawful, then they will have to go all the way, and agree to remove the default as it's solely comprised of charges.

NatWest - WON! £3350 Paid back

Vodafone - Default removed

Citicards - Judgement awarded for £1898, default remains though...for now....

Capital One- WON! Settled out of Court £392 + Default Removal!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Worth a call or an email to tell them that the default is part of the settlement. You have to be firm with them on this.

WARNING TO ALL

Please be aware of acting on advice given by PM .Anyone can make mistakes and if advice is given on the main forum people can see it to correct it ,if given privately then no one can see it to correct it. Please also be aware of giving your personal details to strangers

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...