Natwest/mitchell Claimform - **£15k tomlin agreed** - now they say its £23k?

[I've got no money]

The AQ

 

Sec A

 

Q1. Yes

Q2. Yes

Q3. No

 

Sec B

 

Location of trail already fixed

 

Section C

 

Yes

 

Section D

 

Full amount although this amount has changed and is lower than what was originally requested, will change

 

Witnesses - me

 

Experts - No

 

Track - multi

 

Section E

 

Trail or final hearing - 2 hours

 

Section F

 

Q1. Yes

Q2. No

 

Section G

 

Blank

 

Section H

 

Blank

 

Section I

 

Q1. Yes

Q2. Yes

 

Q3. No

 

Draft order for directions

 

This is what I have so far (the easy bit).

 

The problem I have is that in the last directions I said the claimant shall within 14 days of service file and serve the following:

 

You don't file disclosure

Copy of the credit agreement

Default notice - You've had that now

 

Document, contract or deed of assignment - what assignment???

Notice of assignment

Copies of any statement or other document relied uopn

 

Finishing it with If the claimant fails to comply with this order, the claim will be struck out without any further order

 

The defendant shall within 14 days thereafter file and serve the following

 

An amended defence

 

The other information was this

 

If the court is in agreement, the defendant respectfully requests that special directions may be given as per the attached draft order.

 

The defendant proposes these directions in mind of the Overriding Objectives, and in particular the duty of the parties to help the court further them. The issues outlined below are the crux upon which this claim rests, and the proposed directions identify these issues and will allow them to be assessed in advance of the hearing so that this claim may proceed justly and expeditiously;

 

without production of the requested documents, I am at a disadvantage and am unable to serve a proper defence. Failure of the claimant to supply the requested documentation will make the case much harder for the court to deal with as without production of the requested documentation will inhibit the courts ability to deal with the case

 

The House of Lords in the case of Wilson v First County Trust Ltd - [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul) made it clear in paragraph 29 of LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD judgment

 

29. The court's powers under section 127(1) are subject to significant qualification in two types of cases. The first type is where section 61(1)(a), regarding signing of agreements, is not complied with. In such cases the court 'shall not make' an enforcement order unless a document, whether or not in the prescribed form, containing all the prescribed terms, was signed by the debtor: section 127(3). Thus, signature of a document containing all the prescribed terms is an essential prerequisite to the court's power to make an enforcement order. The second type of case concerns failure to comply with the duty to supply a copy of an executed or unexecuted agreement pursuant to sections 62 and 63, or failure to comply with the duty to give

notice of cancellation rights in accordance with section 64(1). Here again, subject to one exception regarding sections 62 and63, section 127(4) precludes the court from making an enforcement order.

 

Its is respectfully requested this case be allocated to the small claims track, it is a straight forward case and is easily resolved on production of the required documentation by the claimant, should the claimant not have the documentation required to progress this case I suggest that there will be no case to answer

 

Therefore it stands to reason that this document must be disclosed before this case can progress any further

 

I still think that you should try allocating to the fast track - the problem with the SCT is that you don't get proper disclosure - you've also asked for alloocation to both the Multi track and also to the SCT

 

Have they actually explained how the sum they've claimed has been calculated?

[I've got no money]

No they haven't, I haven't heard anything from Natwest. I was under the impression that they needed to inform me.

 

As above the only document missing is the CCA and the default notice isn't signed so I would say they have generated that as the may not have the original copy of that either.

 

What should happen is that the New Solicitors should file and serve a Notice of Change of Solicitors - don't worry about that

 

The DN - well they are only going to have a copy aren't they - they say that they've sent the original to you...

[lmrn37]

Noted re the multi track will change that.

 

No assignment so that can be cancelled out

 

Also at the bottom change to fast track

 

And ammend the hours to 2 - 4 hours. (hope it doesnt go on that long)

 

According to the AQ that Irwin Mitchell send where it says what amount of claim is in dispute is 30,665.38. The costs are estimates to date 250.00 overall 1500, however Incasso give the sum of 24,814.

 

is thatwhat you mean

[I've got no money]

The AQ

 

Sec A

 

Q1. Yes

Q2. Yes

Q3. No

 

Sec B

 

Location of trail already fixed

 

Section C

 

Yes

 

Section D

 

Full amount although this amount has changed and is lower than what was originally requested, will change

 

Witnesses - me

 

Experts - No

 

Track - Fast Track

The claim is not complex and the final hearing is likely to last less than one day

 

Section E

 

Trail or final hearing - 4 hours

 

Section F

 

Q1. Yes

Q2. No

 

Section G

 

Blank

 

Section H

 

Blank

 

Section I

 

Q1. Yes

Q2. Yes

 

Q3. No

 

Draft order for directions

 

1.Unless the claimant shall within 14 days serve the Defendant with a signed Copy of the original credit agreement the claim will be struck out without further order.

 

2. In the event that the Claimant comply with clause 1 of this Order the Defendant shall have permission to file and serve an amended defence within 14 days thereof

 

 

The other information was this

 

The defendant proposes these directions in mind of the Overriding Objectives, and in particular the duty of the parties to help the court further them. The issues outlined below are the crux upon which this claim rests, and the proposed directions identify these issues and will allow them to be assessed in advance of the hearing so that this claim may proceed justly and expeditiously;

 

without production of the requested documents, I am at a disadvantage and am unable to serve a proper defence. Failure of the claimant to supply the requested documentation will make the case much harder for the court to deal with as without production of the requested documentation will inhibit the courts ability to deal with the case

 

The House of Lords in the case of Wilson v First County Trust Ltd - [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul) made it clear in paragraph 29 of LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD judgment

 

29. The court's powers under section 127(1) are subject to significant qualification in two types of cases. The first type is where section 61(1)(a), regarding signing of agreements, is not complied with. In such cases the court 'shall not make' an enforcement order unless a document, whether or not in the prescribed form, containing all the prescribed terms, was signed by the debtor: section 127(3). Thus, signature of a document containing all the prescribed terms is an essential prerequisite to the court's power to make an enforcement order. The second type of case concerns failure to comply with the duty to supply a copy of an executed or unexecuted agreement pursuant to sections 62 and 63, or failure to comply with the duty to give

notice of cancellation rights in accordance with section 64(1). Here again, subject to one exception regarding sections 62 and63, section 127(4) precludes the court from making an enforcement order.

 

Its is respectfully requested this case be allocated to the fast track, it is a straight forward case and is easily resolved on production of the required documentation by the claimant, should the claimant not have the documentation required to progress this case I suggest that there will be no case to answer

 

Therefore it stands to reason that this document must be disclosed before this case can progress any further

 

I've made some amendments - see what you think

 

Have they given you a detailed calculation as to how the sum claimed has arisen

[I've got no money]

Noted re the multi track will change that.

 

No assignment so that can be cancelled out

 

Also at the bottom change to fast track

 

And ammend the hours to 2 - 4 hours. (hope it doesnt go on that long)

 

According to the AQ that Irwin Mitchell send where it says what amount of claim is in dispute is 30,665.38. The costs are estimates to date 250.00 overall 1500, however Incasso give the sum of 24,814.

 

is thatwhat you mean

 

Do you know how they've reached the sum of £24814 or £30665.38 - what does the claim form say?

[lmrn37]

If you mean the original claim form that Amount claimed is 25165.38 court fees 310, sols costs 100.00 total amount 25575.38.

 

The amended draft order and sec I looks brill. Thanks you for all your help. i didn't have a clue what to put.

[lmrn37]

I think they have taken the interest off if that is what you mean also

[I've got no money]

I think they have taken the interest off if that is what you mean also

 

What I mean is - do you know what the £25k is composed of - i.e. how much was the original loan, how much is the interest are there any charges etc

[lmrn37]

On another note with regards the AQ, who do I send a copy to, will it be Incasso now, although I haven't been told by Natwest as yet that they have changed solicitors.

 

Also have found a letter from Irwin Mitchell with regards how it is made up.

 

22.000 principle sum

5550.00 Loan Guard insurance and interest charged at 4.14% for a total sum of 7983.68 but I had payed sum off.

[lmrn37]

I( have just looked at the default notice they have sent when I requested the information under CRP. It looks new, not a photo copy, is dated but not signed and also the letter attached to it is not signed either, can I request true copies of these or is it applicable.

[I've got no money]

On another note with regards the AQ, who do I send a copy to, will it be Incasso now, although I haven't been told by Natwest as yet that they have changed solicitors.

Yes - send a copy to Incasso

 

Also have found a letter from Irwin Mitchell with regards how it is made up.

 

22.000 principle sum

5550.00 Loan Guard insurance and interest charged at 4.14% for a total sum of 7983.68 but I had payed sum off.

- I don't understand that - what sum had you paid off?

[I've got no money]

I( have just looked at the default notice they have sent when I requested the information under CRP. It looks new, not a photo copy, is dated but not signed and also the letter attached to it is not signed either, can I request true copies of these or is it applicable.

 

They've provided file copies - they probably don't have copies with the signature on - don't forget they'll say that they don't have the original as it was sent to you...

[lmrn37]

I have paid off 10368.00 to them

[lmrn37]

I also thought that the Loan guard would not be taken into account. Is this true?

[I've got no money]

Basically what I'm trying to find out is if you know why they say that you owe them £25k - have they given you copies of statements that start out with a nil balance and then show the loan, interest, every payment you've made, any account charges etc

[lmrn37]

Yes they have, although some of the payments I made to irwin Mitchell are not shown on there but when i worked it all out last time it was correct. Shall I do it again to double check but will take some time

[lmrn37]

Hello IGNM

 

Right think I have worked it all out now.

 

22,000.00 principle loan

5550.00 Loan Guard

7983.68 interest

 

Total 35533.68

 

I have paid them 10,534.16

 

leaving a balance of 24576.44

 

From what I can see on the statements they have supplied I have not had any charges applied to the account at all.

 

Hope the above makes sense no

 

Thanks for all your help

[I've got no money]

On the Default Notice how much did they ask for - there should be two figures - an arrears amount and then the full amount that they'll want if you don't pay ther arrears off by the due date

 

The reason I'm asking is that there should have been an interest and loan protection rebate which acts to reduce the amount outstanding...

 

If your original loan amount was 35k - the amount you owe should be reduced by the amount paid and by the amount of the interest and insurance rebates

 

The other thing - and I know virtually nothing about this - is there a possible claim for mis-sold insurance

[lmrn37]

Have found the paperwork

 

The arrears was £1692.08

 

Total amount outstanding was 32.572.54

Rebate allowance 9625.76

Net outstanding 22.946.78

 

Hope that is what you require.

 

Again thanks for your help on this

[lmrn37]

Has anyone else got any advise re this please

[lmrn37]

Help now urgently required.

 

I have received a new claim for from natwest from Northampton.

 

They haven't informed me that the old one has been cancelled and natwest havent informed me of a new olicitor taking over.

 

What do I do as the old one cut off date for the AQ is next week.

 

Thanks

[steven4064]

You should ask the court whether the old one has been withdrawn. If not you can ask the court to have the new one struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(a) as it is unlawful under s35 of the Couny Court Act 1984

35 Division of causes of action

 

It shall not be lawful for any plaintiff to divide any cause of action for the purpose of bringing two or more actions in one or more of the county courts.

[lmrn37]

Thank you will ring them tomorrow to see what is going on thanks for your help.

 

If they haven't cancelled the first one I take it I send a letter to court or is there a form to fill in

 

Thanks

[steven4064]

Probably a letter in the first instance - the court will tell you if they want a form. If they do, it will be a N244 and will cost you £40

[lmrn37]

Need to file this tomorrow, going to fax and hand deliver to the court.

 

Draft order for directions

 

1. The claimant has filed another claim (claim number xxxxxxx) to which this claim also refers. This under CPR 3.4(2)(a) is unlawful under s35 of the County Court Act 1984 and the defendant requests that this claim is struck out.

2. Unless the claimant shall within 14 days, serve the Defendant with a signed Copy of the original credit agreement the claim will be struck out without further order.

 

3. In the event that the Claimant comply with clause 1 of this Order the Defendant shall have permission to file and serve an amended defence within 14 days thereof

 

 

The other information was this

 

The defendant proposes these directions in mind of the Overriding Objectives, and in particular the duty of the parties to help the court further them. The issues outlined below are the crux upon which this claim rests, and the proposed directions identify these issues and will allow them to be assessed in advance of the hearing so that this claim may proceed justly and expeditiously;

 

The claimant has filed an additional claim (claim no xxxxxxx) concerning the same matter in contravention of s35 of the County Courts Act 1984. The Defendant respectfully requests that the court do strike out this current claim pursuant to CPR rule 3.4(2) on the basis of the Claimants failure to comply with the County Courts Act 1984 and that the claim is an abuse of the court's process.

 

without production of the requested documents, I am at a disadvantage and am unable to serve a proper defence. Failure of the claimant to supply the requested documentation will make the case much harder for the court to deal with as without production of the requested documentation will inhibit the courts ability to deal with the case

 

The House of Lords in the case of Wilson v First County Trust Ltd - [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul) made it clear in paragraph 29 of LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD judgment

 

29. The court's powers under section 127(1) are subject to significant qualification in two types of cases. The first type is where section 61(1)(a), regarding signing of agreements, is not complied with. In such cases the court 'shall not make' an enforcement order unless a document, whether or not in the prescribed form, containing all the prescribed terms, was signed by the debtor: section 127(3). Thus, signature of a document containing all the prescribed terms is an essential prerequisite to the court's power to make an enforcement order. The second type of case concerns failure to comply with the duty to supply a copy of an executed or unexecuted agreement pursuant to sections 62 and 63, or failure to comply with the duty to give

notice of cancellation rights in accordance with section 64(1). Here again, subject to one exception regarding sections 62 and63, section 127(4) precludes the court from making an enforcement order.

 

Its is respectfully requested this case be allocated to the fast track, it is a straight forward case and is easily resolved on production of the required documentation by the claimant, should the claimant not have the documentation required to progress this case I suggest that there will be no case to answer

 

Therefore it stands to reason that this document must be disclosed before this case can progress any further

 

 

I have also spoken to NBCC with regards the new claim they have advised that I submit the defense part of the claim form to them along the same route as above i.e. 2nd claim filed when first claim still being actioned.

 

any thoughts and can someone check the above please