Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×
Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

mercyblue

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    522

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Everything posted by mercyblue

  1. mercyblue
    llieno162 I seem to have gone a bit off topic in my last post I do apologize. Was your mother aware that it was an interest only mortgage. By the dates you have given some lenders would be throwing money at her considering it was an ex-council house so there would be plenty of equity to grab.
  2. mercyblue
    Makes no odds whatsoever, Acenden are merely the administrators of the loans you can view it as a type of outsourcing. Oh and SPML didn't sell all their loans in Jan 2009 they were sold off in three month tranches soon after the loan was originated as can easily be determined by the name of the relevant eurosail product e,g eurosail 2007-1NC whose prospectus is dated feb 27th 2007. All the eurosail products appoint the same trustee to operate the individual products. You can view the company here (presuming the link to bloomberg isn't removed) http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=2027401 The whole point of securitization is to package up the loan and sell it thus removing it from your own books and any liability. The issuer who is now the owner then issues various notes for investors dependent on the supposed amount of risk. The issuer in these case will be the relevant eurosail product which will be listed at companies house as they are a public limited company (as indeed is stated in the prospectus) the company number for the eurosail I mentioned above is 05999159 which shows the last annual return was the 15th November 2015. It also shows the registered office as Wilmington Trust Sp Services (london) Limited, Third Floor, 1 King'S Arms Yard, London, EC2R 7AF. You will see this ownership structure if you read one of the prospectus's. Directly below the ownership structure is the transaction structure which shows SPML as the sellers "sale of mortgage pool" to the eurosail company. So who are you paying as a borrower? Well again using the above as an example at page 45 of the prospectus "Payments by Borrowers in respect of amounts due under the SPML Loans will be made, in the majority of cases by direct debit, into (i) the Eurosail-UK 2007-1NC SPML Trust Collection Account;" then a bit further down "SPML will, by a declaration of trust dated on or about the Closing Date (the “Eurosail-UK 2007-1NC SPMLTrust Collection Account Declaration of Trust”) declare a trust over the Eurosail-UK 2007-1NC SPML Trust Collection Account in favour of the Issuer and the Issuer will be the beneficiary of such trust." (The issuer been eurosail.) This is then transferred daily to another account in order to service the notes the issuer has issued. Back to Acenden using the prospectus from page 62 "Capstone will be appointed as the Mortgage Administrator pursuant to the Mortgage Administration Agreement and will be responsible for the provision of certain mortgage administration services." later on in the prospectus it goes on about the standby mortgage administrator - homeloan management limited which in turn refers to another section "Investors are referred above to the section entitled “Title to the Mortgage Pool -Administration of the Mortgage Pool” for a summary of the provisions governing the appointment and termination of the Mortgage. Administrator, the Cash/Bond Administrator, the Standby Mortgage Administrator" So even though capstone/acenden was a subsidiary of an affiliate of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) it matters not, all that company is doing, whoever owns them, is providing administration services on behalf of the issuer
  3. mercyblue
    "Paragraph 1, I accept that I have held a current account with Lloyd's Bank Plc." Don't you mean hsbc?
  4. mercyblue
    Looking at the order of 15th August point 2 regarding medical evidence have you done that isbo?
  5. mercyblue
    It's a common misconception people see the phrase application form and think that cant possibly represent an agreement. Well it can and often does. Look at the signature box it tells you it is a credit agreement there, not to mention at the top underneath application form as well. Reading the t&c's it does say "refer to your credit agreement for conditions 8 and 9" these I am assuming are the "prescribed terms" which seem to be at the last page of your scan although I can't really read them. If they are then I don't think you're going to get far questioning the validity of the agreement. Which I do find somewhat surprising for a MBNA card of that date.
  6. mercyblue
    Yeah dx that's their usual method so you're always in debt to them and never pay if off. The interest rate will no doubt be something astronomical knowing that would be useful.
  7. mercyblue
    Thanks, I'm glad you got the point of my posts.
  8. mercyblue
    The point of my original post about the DN was to demonstrate that invalid DN does not equal necessarily case thrown out. I was trying to show it's usually somewhat more complicated than that most of the time. The last thing I want to see is someone waltz into court thinking they have it in the bag and then get mugged by the other side, you're not going to walk in say ooh look mr(s) judge there was no account taken of postal service with regard to this DN and the judge is merely going to say oh yes of course claim dismissed. I think some of the posts following that amply demonstrate that. Now you ask why I think it's de minimus. You say I cant use the Brandon case not actually true the case was overturned on a point of law (i.e the threshold of what can be done via a summary judgement) the actual issue wasn't addressed. The claim was issued many years after the DN indeed the defendant was paying for 7 years on the defaulted account how has the lack of 2 days extra been prejudicial to the defendant? Would the defendant have acted any differently given the extra two days? That would be my basis. To say a 'bad dn is a bad dn' is again I think an over-simplification every case needs to be viewed on its own merits, or lack of, as a whole, which is what I am trying to do here. Do I think a claim is going to be thrown out for a two day discrepancy 8 years ago? Or is the judge more likely to see it as clutching at straws? As for the Harrison case I presume you refer to this case[removed]
  9. mercyblue
    I did read it carefully. Considering (according to para 11) no DN was issued by barclaycard and that the claimant issued their own DN which showed a different figure to their other documents. Then in para 12 it states "If you cannot afford to pay the balance in full you must send us a down payment equivalent to 40% of the balance outstanding within fourteen days of receipt of this letter" Well that's something I've never seen before in a DN (40% of what for starters given there are two balances, not to mention it should have been an actual figure). Seems to me the claimant as by their own admission couldn't provide an original barclaycard DN they made their own up and made a hash of it and rightly so the judge wouldn't accept it. A fail to see why an original DN that doesn't account for 2 days of service is comparable. I'm glad you brought up the Brandon case it's a complicated case with two appeals. The best summary of it I can find of it is here https://goughsq.co.uk/publication/default-notices-terminations-in-credit-agreements/ Now that does indeed say the defect may indeed not be de minmus nothing really has been properly resolved. It's also worth pointing out that this case was taken on by John Pugh Chambers on instruction from Trinity Law Solicitors of Huddersfield it's the third case down here http://www.johnpughschambers.co.uk/Cases.htm. The problem with the Brandon case is that it's a summary judgement appeal, it's never been to a proper trial as far as I know. So all that appeal shows is that there was a triable issue with regard to the DN. You forgot to highlight the important issue "Noting the threshold test for summary judgment at Part 24 CPR," I haven't said that any fault in a DN is de minimus I have said in my opinion in this case specifically it would be but so what it's not my opinion that is of any consequence.
  10. mercyblue
    "You need to tell the judge you distinctly remember the DN notice coming (perhaps you have a copy that matches theirs!) made a copy and there was no s88(4A) notice included.. .consequently you put the claimant to strict proof that it was." JR are you suggesting here the op just lies?
  11. mercyblue
    I think they are maybe referring to another case on here? There is nothing at the supreme court pending that is at all relevant.
  12. mercyblue
    Whilst not a particularly relevant case to quote (the one in the previous post), considering it has nothing to do with dates on a DN and there are loads of other issues. Para 15 however is somewhat interesting "It is also argued that notwithstanding such technical breaches of the default notice, if the Defendant cannot show any prejudice then the notice nevertheless should be allowed to stand and the Claimant should be allowed to proceed with the action. First of all, it does seem to me inherently prejudicial if a notice is defective in more than just de minimis fashion" Which is the argument the claimant will use should the question of the DN arise. Personally I'm of the opinion of the case in this thread the slight defect in the DN would indeed be considered de minimis. Of course it doesn't matter what my or anybody's else opinion is apart from the judges. Now regarding the prescribed terms. What is the argument here - been a pre-april 2007 you're going to try and invoke S127(3). Once again it's not that simple. That clause states “unless a document… containing all the Prescribed Terms… was signed by the debtor” . So what you are really saying is the agreement was defective from the start. The failure to supply them later does not itself invalidate the claim, clearly providing the prescribed terms from your original agreement of course shows you did indeed sign a document containing the prescribed terms. Now the onus is on the creditor to show there was a properly executed agreement they will be using the usual phrases of "on the basis of probability" etc to try and ride roughshod over that.
  13. mercyblue
    Correct in the context of the restriction at the LR.
  14. mercyblue
    But there really wasn't "the day" it was adjourned at your request - the case has not yet been considered.
  15. mercyblue
    But what would be the point Martin? Send them a letter telling them I have read the directions? I really don't get it.
  16. mercyblue
    The ICO is the restriction you don't have to register a second time with a FCO. If you read part 73 73.10A 3(a) "a) make a final charging order confirming that the charge imposed by the interim charging order continues," It will most likely registered as an ICO at the LR. This explains it quite nicely near the end of the link http://www.inbrief.co.uk/property-law/charging-orders-relating-to-property/ This issue actually came up on another thread recently I quite understand how it does due to the wording people thinking that the charging order is only interim so it's not been "finished off" (for want of a better phrase).
  17. mercyblue
    Why on Earth would you write to their solicitors telling them they need to follow the court directions? If they don't follow them that's their problem and you could use their failure to your advantage in court. In view that they have been ordered to produce the original in court how could they possibly provide the defendant with the original?
  18. mercyblue
    Indeed he was BB. Your post sort of shows the point I was trying to get across. Lets say for arguments sake the DN was deemed faulty. Could a new one be issued 8 years later (I would suspect not) but if so by whom the original lender? the DCA ? Would a DCA's license even allow it to issue a DN? Has the original contract actually been terminated? How if it wasn't terminated by a DN? etc You get the point? A lot of times things that might initially seem straightforward actually are anything but.
  19. mercyblue
    Dx is correct here that the dates don't take into account service (by post) of the DN which would add two days. But frankly so what? What consequence has it had considering the OP was willing paying the debt for 7 years after the DN was issued what practical difference would a couple of days mean here? There would be a very strong possibility that if this went to court and this issue was brought up it would be considered de minimus. My latin isn't very good so I'll use the google version "The law does not concern itself with trifles" Now in the overall context of this case would a judge deem this a trifling issue? You can make your own guess on that. Now I know there are other issues in this case, the point I am trying to get across is that things are rarely as clear cut as they first may seem and that going to court can be a risky business even if you technically may have the law on your side. Now some people may be outraged by that and how wrong I am that "the law is the law and that's it". Well yes a statute cannot be changed so that is certainly a valid argument that it MUST be adhered to. There is a reasonably well known case American Express Services Europe PE Limited v Ian Karl Robert Brandon 2010 which addresses what I am calling "the 14 day rule". It does get quite complicated with appeals etc and I don't want to go into the details there is a decent summary here http://www.squirepattonboggs.com/~/media/files/insights/publications/2010/09/default-default-default-high-court-gives-judgmen__/files/4211creditchargesreviewv4pdf/fileattachment/4211creditchargesreviewv4.pdf So my opinion is that whilst this DN is technically invalid in reality in this case it doesn't actually matter , others may be of a different opinion. The point of this post really is to illustrate what may seem an absolute at first isn't always the case.
  20. mercyblue
    "1. The Claimant's claim was issued on or about March 20th 2004." No it's not OK the claim wasn't issued in 2004 it was issued in 2016 they are saying you started the contract with m&s in mar 2004 the claimant certainly didn't issue the claim 12 years ago! You should have put the date you last paid anything or acknowledge the debt. You've got yourself mixed up a bit here.
  21. mercyblue
    Yeah it is important if you want to go straight down the Statute barred route.
  22. mercyblue
    Thanks for that clarification dx I hadn't been actually thinking about the statute barred status part. But it does make sense the CCA been UK wide the limitations act only England and Wales.
  23. mercyblue
    Personally (if that last payment is correct or even close) I would just file a statute barred defence. That should bat this one away without the need to do anything else.
  24. mercyblue
    To be honest Orchid47 I don't know. Seems to me you could have contested jurisdiction when the initial claim was issued but that ship has already sailed. As the cca is likely to be the only act referenced in any case if it goes to trial and considering that is a UK act does it matter? Court is defined in the CCA as "“court ” means in relation to England and Wales the county court, in relation to Scotland the sheriff court and in relation to Northern Ireland the High Court or the county court; " I am thinking that at this stage it's not a question that will crop up as any ruling made will be based on the CCA. Please don't take that as gospel though it's just my take on it and should be read as such.
  25. mercyblue
    Cant argue with that Andy it's what I would do. It's quite possible the offer was made to a previous owner and as such the current one wont have much to disclose in any case - if it ever gets that far.

Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...