IND/Hagerty - ** Court Papers Issued MBNA card ** / ** WON WITH COSTS **

[PGH7447]

well three weeks on and no Cheque, so wrote to them and said 7 days or else expect a debt collector to call -

[Andyorch]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?334524-Lowell-portfolio-served-me-SD-HELP!!!-***-WON-FULL-COSTS-***/page18

 

Post#350 PGH

 

Regards

 

Andy

[PGH7447]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?334524-Lowell-portfolio-served-me-SD-HELP!!!-***-WON-FULL-COSTS-***/page18

 

Post#350 PGH

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

Love it

[PGH7447]

Cheque recieved today - - they said that they had not been informed by their outsource partner that costs had been awarded - seems that robinson and ind dont even talk to each other, , maybe robinson will soon see that IND aint that clever after all, and ditch them.

 

anyway all done and dusted with this lot now and so glad that I managed to make a small dent in their profits

[intend]

Enjoy

[citizenB]

Excellent news

[intend]

just read whole thread - excellent read.

 

Are you still claiming from Crapone???

 

Intend

[PGH7447]

No I stopped that action, it was just confusing the issue with robinson and idiots ltd, in the end I recieved PPI fro cap1 for another issue which far in away exceeded my expectations. so in the end I only repaid what they had already given me

[postggj]

may i ask

 

did you ever find out this connection with IND who were doing the litigation and calling the shots

 

what happened to hegarty solicitors in all of this

Edited December 1, 2012 by squaddie

[PGH7447]

may i ask

 

did you ever find out this connection with IND who were doing the litigation and calling the shots - No the judge was not interested, but it seems they are hired by other dca's to bring on the strong arm stuff, which in several cases on here seem to sail close to the legal edge, if you get my drift

 

what happened to hegarty solicitors in all of this - Pass I got a letter on the day or just a couple of days before the case saying they had been replaced, which seems to be another trick up idiots ltd sleeve

 

 

 

see in line, hope this helps

[PGH7447]

I don't believe it, Got a letter today from Idiots Incorporated at IND stating that I still owe £***.** to some jokers called the Hoist Group, but not to worry because the idiots at IND are still managing my account.

 

Well I suggest Idiots limited that you check with the courts and you will notice YOU LOST - FOOLS

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Hoist Group Najib Nathoo ex 1st Crud this is the successor to Robinson Way.

[citizenB]

I don't believe it, Got a letter today from Idiots Incorporated at IND stating that I still owe £***.** to some jokers called the Hoist Group, but not to worry because the idiots at IND are still managing my account.

 

Well I suggest Idiots limited that you check with the courts and you will notice YOU LOST - FOOLS

 

Ooh, are you going to write a stern letter to them. You want your data removed from their files as they no longer have the right to process your data

[PGH7447]

Already sent them a strongly worded email, on their new website, told them they have 14 days to confirm that all my info has been removed from their systems

[citizenB]

Already sent them a strongly worded email, on their new website, told them they have 14 days to confirm that all my info has been removed from their systems

 

Well done

[batty69]

I don't believe it, Got a letter today from Idiots Incorporated at IND stating that I still owe £***.** to some jokers called the Hoist Group, but not to worry because the idiots at IND are still managing my account.

 

Well I suggest Idiots limited that you check with the courts and you will notice YOU LOST - FOOLS

 

Speaking to a legal friend of mine recently, he reckons they is a specific legislation that makes it a criminal offence to pursue a debt that does not exist (note this does not mean unenforceable, disputed, etc, etc but a debt that categorically and factually does not exist).

 

Your case has been settled, you paid a f+f settlement which was in fact a full settlement. The interest part of the dispute does not exist and has never existed as it would only have been "created" if the judge has ruled it applicable.

 

I would suggest you get a bit stronger in your response to them.

[intend]

Any details of the specific legislation??

[batty69]

Any details of the specific legislation??

 

Nope, but I can find out unless one of the caggers know which one it is.

 

I didn't chase up this angle myself as I expect there would be a burden of proof that the debt "does not exist full stop", although I suspect PGH will be in a better position.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I cannot think of anything specific regarding this.

[postggj]

I WOULD THINK SECTION 40 OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ACT WOULD BE APPLICABLE

 

Miscellaneous Provisions

 

40 Punishment for unlawful harassment of debtors.

 

(1)A person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under a contract, he—

 

(a)harasses the other with demands for payment which, in respect of their frequency or the manner or occasion of making any such demand, or of any threat or publicity by which any demand is accompanied, are calculated to subject him or members of his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation;

 

(b)falsely represents, in relation to the money claimed, that criminal proceedings lie for failure to pay it;

©falsely represents himself to be authorised in some official capacity to claim or enforce payment; or

(d)utters a document falsely represented by him to have some official character or purporting to have some official character which he knows it has not.

 

(2)A person may be guilty of an offence by virtue of subsection (1)(a) above if he concerts with others in the taking of such action as is described in that paragraph, notwithstanding that his own course of conduct does not by itself amount to harassment.

 

(3)Subsection (1)(a) above does not apply to anything done by a person which is reasonable (and otherwise permissible in law) for the purpose—

 

(a)of securing the discharge of an obligation due, or believed by him to be due, to himself or to persons for whom he acts, or protecting himself or them from future loss; or

(b)of the enforcement of any liability by legal process.

 

[F1(3A)Subsection (1) above does not apply to anything done by a person to another in circumstances where what is done is a commercial practice within the meaning of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and the other is a consumer in relation to that practice.]

 

F1(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine of not more than £100, and on a second or subsequent conviction to a fine of not more than £400.

[postggj]

I have left out CPUTR 2008 as this is not a commercial debt, that ended with the court judgement. That ended with the court judgement that was handed down and case dismissed.

 

Their is no credit agreement in relation to this debt anymore as any agreement on judgement became subject of the court

 

Res judicata

 

That is just my educated opinion but i am sure the OFT will confirm if you send an email

Edited April 21, 2013 by squaddie

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Section 3 (a) key or is ''BELIEVED BY ''HIM'' To Be due.

[batty69]

I don't think it's any of these, the specific law he said dealt with the act of claiming the debt exists rather than the conduct of pursuing that claim.

 

Anyway email sent off to him, I'll see what he brings back.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

No nor do I, needs some research!

[batty69]

Hi all, hes got back to me, sorry it is section 40 of AJA 1970 he was referring to. Anyway I'll post up his interpretation of how it can be used.

 

"

Hi

 

The provision I was thinking about is section 40 of the Administrationof Justice Act 1970.

 

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administration_of_Justice_Act_1970

 

 

 

I would argue that claiming money not owed under a contract harasses the other by virtue of the occasion of making such demand and will inevitably be calculated to subject the other to alarm, distress or humiliation contrary to section 40(1)(a) of the AJA 1970. There may be defences to this i.e. if the debt doesn’t exist it can’t be said to be due under a contract but then is making the claim an attempt to obtain money by false pretences.

 

 

 

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER – I am not a qualified lawyer. This email does notconstitute legal advice.

 

 

 

All the best"