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
    Eh? When the £1 payments would stop it ever becoming legally unenforceable until your death ???
  2. mercyblue
    Perhaps providing details of such might have been useful? The question Martin asked which is a very good one was is there a set time after which you can ask for a claim to be struck out ie. say claim stayed for xx time the defendant can ask for it to be struck out. To which the answer sadly is no. As for a claim been brought merely to park it to stop the sb clock. I can see that been very valid say if the claimant was an individual after all they will only have the one claim to think about. When you have a dca issuing claims like confetti you're going to have much greater problems they'll just claim something like "commercial pressures" or something like that for the length of the stay.
  3. mercyblue
    I do wish people would stop paying these silly £1 payments - you even hear people boasting of it. It's done with one purpose to stop the SB clock ever starting.
  4. mercyblue
    I wouldn't respond to the letter, it's a common tactic used so they can base their response on what you send them. They've issued a claim you've submitted a defence the ball is back in their court (no pun intended). You'll probably get another letter if you don't respond telling you they'll apply for a summary judgement blah blah to try to intimidate you into showing your cards. Its all bluster and you can safely ignore it.
  5. mercyblue
    The £600 is the amount needed to transfer a debt to use the high court enforcement except you cannot do that for any judgement arising from a cca regulated agreement.
  6. mercyblue
    "As for "The original ccj doesn't come into it" : except you can't be ordered to attend for questioning because of a CCJ unless the CCJ remains not settled ." My point was the validity or how the original ccj arose or indeed anything about the ccj wont be in discussion. I suppose the only reason the ccj would be brought up would be if you could show you had paid off the ccj after getting the n39 and the date of attendance, rendering the oral exam pointless.
  7. mercyblue
    And I have been subject to an oral examination myself, admittedly a long time ago, so I do have first hand knowledge and as far as am aware only the terminology has changed slightly in those years.
  8. mercyblue
    I don't understand what that means never finalized ? ? Not turning up for an n39 isn't a good idea. You could end up with a contempt of court charge. Most likely if you did ignore it they would issue it again missing it again would be much more likely to end up with contempt of court charge. An oral examination is just that. A court official will ask the questions the claimants representative asks to try and find out your means/assets etc. The original ccj doesn't come into it.
  9. mercyblue
    "It's ridiculous there's £268.00 going in and £234. Going straight back out in interest?!" Where's the other £34 going then?
  10. mercyblue
    Whilst it may be at the discretion of the judge seems to me the de facto rate is 8% you will almost certainly attract that rate on a default judgement. "or as may be prescribed" (from Andy's post above) seems to be the baseline. With a potential rate of 8% there is a perverse logic for the creditor to wait as long as possible before taking action. 8% return is a pretty darn good return these days. You do have to factor in inflation but that is around 1% these days the debt is not getting inflated away.
  11. mercyblue
    Sadly that isn't correct s69 can be normally claimed from the cause of action sadly (ask Andy that ). Don't forget when you sell a debt all the rights and obligations go with it - presumably that includes the "right" to interest. Its a frankly disgusting system. As for limited for one year that isn't correct either. Some claims do seem to limit the s69 to one year seems to me looking on here they are usually claims that are for (relatively) smaller sums. You don't seem to see it on larger sums and I cant think of any claim posted on here that would qualify for fast track ever been limited to one year. The whole s69 interest is a complete farce. The rate hasn't been revised in years despite the BOE rate been at a record low for years. Interest rates were around 8% in 1984 when s69 was introduced so must have been based on the BOE rate. If that was the same that would mean ANY claim brought now should attract a 0.5% rate since that's been the BOE rate since March 2009.
  12. mercyblue
    I take your point wandsworth it's not really a standard case. Nevertheless whatever you told barclays doesn't absolve them of their legal obligations. The two dn 's perhaps complicate the matter somewhat. Perhaps things might be clearer once you get their stuff tomorrow assuming you do hopefully they will have shot themselves in the foot - they often do.
  13. mercyblue
    Well that's where Andy and I disagree. Not that the failure to make a payment represents a breach of a contract it clearly does. But missing a payment does not immediately invalidate a contract. The cause of action doesn't accrue until the other party has given the defaulting party notice of their breach and given them the opportunity to fix the breach. That is true of any contract and seems entirely reasonable and I cant see any argument against that as a general concept. Once you accept that concept it's pretty clear that the date of the breach is never going (well I cant think of any) to be the date of the cause of action the defaulter must be informed of their breach and given the opportunity to fix it, only then have all the necessary steps been completed to accrue the cause of action as defined in the 1980 act. Now if we get more specific i.e the cca. Now s87 clearly states before ANY action can be taken a dn must be served. Well clearly any action includes legal action so that adds a further step to the above before all the required steps have accrued and the cause of action is in place. This actually makes complete sense as it formally ends the contract and allowing the defaulter to be sued. Without a valid dn the creditor would actually be sueing someone they still technically had a contract with which would cause the creditor all sorts of problems and indeed does given the amount of cases they have lost due to invalid/no dn's. Now its been said on here that this allows a creditor to determine the start date by serving the dn when they feel like it. This I think does have merit but that doesn't seem to be much help here. The OP's defence is that its sb'd based on the last payment or at the least first missed. Para 9 states the creditor extended the limitation period by 9 months by not serving the dn seems to me your accepting there on the need for a dn you even use the phrase cause of action. I would be pointing that out to the judge that the defendant is well aware of the need for a dn before the cause of action occurs his own WS states that!!
  14. mercyblue
    He meant acknowledge the claim online with the username/password supplied with the claim form.
  15. mercyblue
    The question was asked I answered it, which I did think was the whole point of this forum?
  16. mercyblue
    Yep they do. When I was in York county court back in 2009 the two solicitors cabot sent (they sent their own in house rather than use a local one) told me they read CAG. So I have first hand knowledge of that if they were doing it then...
  17. mercyblue
    (i know i said i wldnt post but..) I'm also guilty of that Ford
  18. mercyblue
    LoP? Would I be right in assuming you mean the Law of Property act 1925?
  19. mercyblue
    Absolutely agree martin. This however maybe of more interest. The defendant actually has the case dismissed for an invalid DN. Numerous things are interesting here the fact that barclaycard dates and account numbers are all over the place. However the bits that interest us here start at paragraph 10 "I am then asked to consider the issue of the default notice purportedly served at the same time in February by this Claimant on Mr. Burney. I have a copy of this document. It is dated 3rd February 2011" We see at the start this person fell into arrears at 2006 and at para 2 "What is first of all a little surprising in this case is that it does not appear that Barclaycard took action. Some statements of account are exhibited in this case in the Claimant's bundle. They show a balance and the final statement (page 27 of the exhibit bundle) of £1,072.62. The date of that is 21st March 2007. Nothing more recent is produced in the way of statements. All goes quiet" So here we have a dn issued 4 years later! para 11 "What of course is important with default notices is that they should clearly state the nature of the breach of the terms of agreement by the defendant and what is required of the defendant to remedy such breach if it can be remedied. Curiously, the skeleton argument from the Claimant in August argued that we do not have to consider a remedy because the agreement has already been terminated. But by their own concession there is no evidence of a default notice ever having been served on behalf of Barclaycard, no evidence at all that this credit agreement had ever been effectively terminated before" Then at para 15 "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. Mr. Burney points out that service of a default notice means an adverse credit report with a consequential adverse credit rating. It might be suggested perhaps he already had some adverse information on his credit rating because he had been in arrears with this agreement back in 2005 and 2006. Perhaps his argument on prejudice cannot be taken too far, but nevertheless I consider this to be more than de minimis and I am of the view that this default notice is not valid, which means the Claimant has to start again" Its available here http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2011/23.html Everyone can make their own view on that (of course the issue of sb didn't arise).
  20. mercyblue
    "I and the claimant are submitting my witness statement and supporting evidence this week ( i have nothing but the claim, CRA data and the correspondence). Lets assume the claimant produces no agreement and or supporting DN. Will this immediately stop the case? If not, surely I need this as part of my defence as an SB couldn't be brought against an agreement that didn't exist?" So you are saying now there never was an agreement?
  21. mercyblue
    That would be true in a major case such as Carey vs hsbc etc where multiple barristers were involved what we have here is case likely to be run by a deputy district judge without any barristers present (unless the claimant sends one the op wants to hope that isn't the case. Usually the claimants solicitor will approach the LiP while they are waiting to go into court to try and agree on the issues whether the LiP agrees is up to them - I imagine a lot will think the other side is trying to pull a fast one unless they have previous court experience. The first time either side will speak with the judge is once they are in the courtroom. Lets say a fast track trial is listed for a 3 hour window are you going to spend the 1st hour debating what is the most important issue. Or are you saying there should be a pre-trial case management meeting to decide the important issues - something I would very much doubt nothing in the directions about it
  22. mercyblue
    I had started writing a a fairly long reply as to why that would be a bad idea when martin posted this. So instead will add just a bit. If you think you have a valid defence stick to it, don't turn it into some sort of tickbox exercise of well A hasn't worked so I'll move onto B if that doesn't work I will go for C etc a judge would see right through that In any case how could an unenforceable agreement be SB in any case - there is nothing to SB
  23. mercyblue
    Momentum Networks Ltd.? Would that be this company https://www.companiesintheuk.co.uk/ltd/momentum-network I hope not as that was run by the Rankine's.
  24. mercyblue
    Sorry that above post should read 3 reminders not 2.
  25. mercyblue
    Actually I would agree with that statement Ford!! The whole point of the dn is to terminate the contract and hence be able to sue the other party. Until the contract is terminated (in some way) you cant sue someone, otherwise you are sueing somebody you still have a contract with seems a nonsense imo. Now this case is more unusual in that the creditor informed the creditor that they weren't going to be paid (I would imagine most people simply ignore all correspondence from the creditor when everything goes belly up). The general pre-action protocol (paragraph 3) is covered as both parties are aware of each others position. So the issuing of reminders could be considered unnecessary. Which would come back to what I put in a previous post that imo the question is was the dn served in a reasonable time. Now my position here would be the banks system is automated and it just spews out the letters automatically up to the default. Now by my reckoning if that was 2 reminders then default you would be in the clear any more than that then your not.

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...