subbing with interest

Sorry, did not realise you were mortal enemies, thought we were all in this for the same outcome - to fight unfair practices?? Anyway, enough said.

Yep, fair comment!

Hi guys, following a very successful fight with Coward Howen (with the assistance of MANY CAGers) I thought I would share another experience with you all. Two weeks after returning from a holiday in the South of England, I received a "Parking Charge Notice to Owner" from ParkingEye. I had been in car park in question for less than 15 mins as I was dropping off my wife and children. After they had been dropped off I then went and parked on a side road location. Having been stopped (but not parked) for such a such a short period, the idea of paying for an hour + of parking never entered my head. I had a quick read on MSE website and decided I had several grounds of appeal - firstly that the vehicle was never "parked" in the first place, secondly that there were mitigating circumstances, those being the safety of my children (not wishing to drop them off on a busy road), and finally that the letter only arrived on the same day as the charge must be paid. At this point, I perhaps made a slight error in actually acknowledging the letter by writing back to them using the MSE template.Within the letter I do state that I would be prepared to pay the relevant parking fee for the amount of time I was actually on the car park. I am fairly confident that, if it ever did end up in the county court, my offer to pay the fee due would be considered fair. Anyone got any comments?

Hi guys, sorry its all been quiet on here but I thought I would share the end result of this case with you. Having initially ignored the consent (Tomlin) orders from Cohen they eventually made contact with us again shortly before it was due to go before the court. They were prepared to accept a settlement of about half of the alledged outstanding balance over a period of just shy of 7 years. Considering in the first instance we were prepared to pay the full amount demanded over 4 months which they refused (3 months was the maximum they would be prepared to accept) we considered this to be a pretty major back down on their part. We asked for them to send through the new consent order for us to consider along with a letter stating that neither they nor any other entity may make a claim on the account. Also that no negative information be recorded on credit files and any negative information already stated on the file be removed. All incurred costs to be met by themselves and a guarantee that should we choose to pay the outstanding balance earlier than the agreement that they would not continue to demand the monthly installment even though the full amount had been paid (very suspicious on my part I know but, better safe than sorry!) This all arrived the following day and a some serious soul searching ensued over the next few days. We contacted a solicitor friend who put us in touch with a litigation specialist who believed that the consent order was a better deal for us than cohen's (especially with the written guarantees already received). He also pointed out the incredibly poor wording of the order which would go against Cohen's should this case ever come back before a court. I won't go into the major details here as I would rather they didn't become aware it and correct it in future. Needless to say though if anybody receives an order with the same wording os this one then you are being given an additional advantage - message me for details. In short, the litigation specialist felt that the offer was good enough for us not to risk having a judge on a bad day go against us and find in favour of Cohen's. As an additional safeguard we asked Cohen's to sign the documents first and send them to us by post which be duly obliged. We made several copies of the agreement (both prior to and after signing) and returned it to them. In due course the courts contacted us informing us that further action had been cancelled and that all costs had been met by Cohen's. Not exactly the result I would have wanted in an ideal world but certainly it has saved us several hundred pounds and cost Cohen's a dammed sight more than that. For that reason I am considering this a victory (as certainly I don't think that Cohen's could claim it to be the outcome they desired!!) Cheers everyone for your help and if I can be of assitance to anyone please let me know

Thanks for your comment, hadnt really considered that possibility as in the letter they have stated that all further action will be terminated, however I know that they are pretty unscrupulous and will be taking this on board! Anyone else got any thoughts?

Hi all, All been a bit quiet of recent, was supposed to be in court a couple of weeks ago but we all agreed to an adjournment as we could not make it on the set day, then out of the blue, a letter arrives from Cohen's. They have offered a 'Consent Order' for an amount considerably less than their original claim (though still more than I feel is appropriate). They state that this would prevent further court action being necessary and would avoid the risk of a CCJ being registered against us. I don't doubt that this is true but do wonder if some sort of negative information would be placed on the credit file by accepting this. On the face of it this seems like a fairly good deal, less that their original claim, repaid at a VERY LOW monthly amount over a term of more than six years. A big part of me wants to accept it as it strikes me as being a 'win' for us, but this also means that Cohens expect to lose if it gets to court and we should go for that - completely torn, but leaning towards acceptance. I also wondered about the possibility of contacting Cohnens about this and suggesting a compromise as I feel that the settlement amount is too high considering the PPI and charges on the account. Was thinking about suggesting a value of half of what they have requested but paid over one year as opposed to spreading it out over the more than six that their proposal would take. What do you all know about these Consent Orders? Is this a good thing, should we go for it or does it come with a sting in the tail? If we should go for it, should we suggest the lower amount over a shorter period? Looking forward to your responses!

OK, a brief rundown of events upto now: N1 claim form received for a debt owed to GE / Santander, purchased by CL Finance and legal proceedings issued through H Cowen on same day (November 09) No DN received No notice of assignment from either the original creditor or purchaser CPR31.14 sent to Cohen demanding copies of the agreement the default notice referred to in the N1 notice of assignment [*]Letter received (eventually) from Cohen stating that they do not hold the documents but were obtaining them Also offered us to 'grant a further 14 days to file a defence' once they had supplied the documents (suspect this was an attempt to make us go over the time limit for submitting a defence thus granting them a judgement by default). [*]Also sent an SAR to the original creditor full (almost) set of statements received list of correspondance included in this list was a default issued in 2007 this default was subsequently settled and 'removed from collections' as stated in the list of correspondance [*]informed in the letter that 'DNs are issued automatically' [*]Court demand sent to Cohen's to supply the documents requested in our draft directions Agreement T&Cs Default notice (with proof of service) Notice of assignment (with proof of service) Deed of assignement Set of statements showing all payments & charges from the date of account opening to commencement of action [*]Cohen's subsequently requested more time which was granted. [*]Day after second time limit passed documents were delivered agreement T&Cs (although not obviously linked to the account) Deed of assignment Most statements No proof of delivery for any documents Default notice dated late 2007 [*]Telephone call to Santander to clarify points in their SAR to which they responded by letter The default issued in late 2007 was settled and the account returned to normal state It is not possible to obtain copies of default notices as they are generated automatically - it is only possible to print the skeleton of the notice, there will be no dates or values in the copy. Based upon all of this, I believe the main thrust of our defence is that as yet no relevant default notice has been served as the only one supplied was settled more than two years ago. The default notice supplied is (I strongly suspect) a reproduction as there are many differences between it and one which I know to have been issued by GE five months later (on a different account). It is also very different in layout and wording to the skeleton notice I was sent by the original creditor in their letter. I have not heard from the court as yet that the documents have been delivered - not sure if I will receive notification of this or not. I have to submit a WS by 25th May and do not know where to start with it - so any help would be greatly appreciated!

Certainly will, just have to eat then will get onto it!

LoL. Am I being over confident here do you think??

The "true copy" is still non-compliant so I am rather inclined to believe that this is the genuine wording in use at the time. Ultimately though, I have it in writing that it is a "true copy", let Cohen's prove it isn't (after I have torn theirs apart)! Am reluctant to upload a copy of it, simply because like I have been told before, Cohen's do like to view these boards and I would hate to give them the correct wording to use in future cases. If you wish however, I will gladly email you a copy if you PM me! Indeed, this is the point - how did they obtain a copy of the DN when GE / Santander cannot it themselves?! Does this essentially mean that all DN's "obtained" by Cohen's from GE / Santander are infact (to quote a learned gentleman / lady) "un-authorised recreation"?

Hi Andy, in a very similar position (my wife too BTW). Take a look at my thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/237134-mrs-ski-howard-cohen.html it is quite long but covers everything right from the moment you are at now and identifies many of the arguments you can use in defending the claim. Without viewing the court doc I am certain there will be statements that say something along the lines of 'a default notice has been issued' and 'pursuant to clause 7' blah blah blah Cohen's like to play games, fore warned is fore armed. Have a look at the thread and see what you have got to come - in a strange way it is quite good fun!

Right, received a letter today from Santander - they were very helpful indeed both on the telephone a couple of days ago and have followed it up with a lovely letter (from our point of view anyway) So, this letter poses an interesting question for Cohen's. If the original creditor is not able to produce a copy of a DN, how can they? :-? It also clarifies that the DN that Cohen's are reliant upon was in fact settled and the account 'removed from the collections process'. So, how can they be relying upon this "DN" to demonstrate that the correct procedure was followed? They also very helpfully provided a copy of the DN wording in force at the time that this "DN" was issued, to say there are some huge differences would be an understatement. However, for fairly obvious reasons, I have decided not to upload a copy of it! Thanks Santander!

Going to need some help to put together another statement, needs to be in by 25th May

Foolish, we do not hold THE original DN, only AN original DN. It relates to a different account and different date. This is the reason I am wondering how to continue. Although I know it to be a recon, proving it is slightly more problematic. If i could find a letter from GE on a letterhead dated before the recon DN we would be laughing as we could show how their letters were formatted before and after the date of the recon DN. Hope that makes sense.