Pumpytums goes to Northampton Help Please!

[The Mould]

Good evening Pumpytums

 

GODZILLA to your news.

 

Kind regards

 

The Mould

[pumpytums]

Darn,

I wish I had known it was £18 that's pretty good.

 

Thanks again all for your comments.

 

Pumpytums

[pumpytums]

Afternoon everyone,

well time marches on and the OC gets more daft just to sum this thread up

 

1. Due to loss of earning I have to stop paying.

 

2. The OC sells it to Link who decide to litigate in late 2009.

 

3. Link discontinue as the OC never sent a default notice. (after I file a defence and attend court)

 

4. They flog it back to Santander

 

5. Santander decide that they will reinstate the account start charging interest and PPI again then issue a default.

 

6. Santander decide to litigate in 2011.

 

7. I file (N244) for a strike out as they didn't apply for permission to re-issue a case that was discontinued so CPR38.7 applies.

 

8. My application is heard the DJ agrees 100% with me Claimant can't even be bothered to turn up Claimant case is struck out.

 

9. The Claimant requests the strike out is set aside along the lines that the strike out was silent as to why the claim was struck out.

 

10. I attend court again the judge asked why they asked for a set aside they should have issued an appeal. And sends them packing.

 

11. The judge confirms the previous DJ strike out still stands

 

Now after 2 years they are flogging it to Global Barrow apparently.

 

So off we go again. What fun

 

Obviously I could still use CPR 38.7, I would be very surprised if a judge allowed another 3rd party to issue an identical claim the Claimant would be different only in name, their standing and the overriding facts would be exactly the same (3rd time lucky maybe).

 

Any comments I'm getting a bit fed up of this one now. Plus I'm a bit vexed I asked for the PPI back and Santander refunded it back to the account, I never agreed to this. I should have waited till now I would have got the lot back

 

I just had a look back at my letters to and from them (all carefully scanned and ordered) and the OC is an utter shambles.

 

 

Thanks

 

PT

[IainHL]

Hello PT. If first litigation was in late 2009, when did you last make any payment? Knowing the slow speed at which these things tend to happen, particularly when it has to reach the state of being sold on, I am obviously thinking in terms of it becoming statute barred, hopefully sometime soon, if not already.

[pumpytums]

Hi Iain,

its not SB yet probably in about a year I would say.

 

To be fair to the OC they just flog these things off as a block. I tried to come to a payment arrangement years ago they couldn't even be bothered to answer my letter so be it.

 

The good news it LIP costs are now £18, bring it on.

 

Cheers

 

PT

[pumpytums]

Hi everyone,

well yesterday I broke a promise to myself and had a massive go at a DCA that had the nerve to call me, wrong I know but sometimes I feel very frustrated especially after 5 years of dealing with idiots. I haven't received any new claim (strike 3) just doing some reading.

 

While looking into CPR38.7 I actually found some case law. This is very interesting as my strike out was confirmed several months prior. They must have read my application (I wish)

 

OK this has only come into play since October 2011

 

Westbrook Dolphin Square Ltd v Friends Provident Life

 

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2011/2302.html&query=Westbrook+and+Dolphin+and+Square+and+Ltd+and+v+and+Friends+and+Provident+and+Life&method=boolean

 

I have found several sites explaining this

 

http://www.boyesturner.com/news-article.html?id=1646

 

http://www.internationallawoffice.com/newsletters/detail.aspx?g=697da1da-35b2-4da7-be45-c7f039f7e447#2

 

Can someone explain what a consent order is please? I made an application to have the Claimants case struck out Part 3.4(2)(b) and the DJ agreed. So does that now operate as a final judgement determining all the issues in the claim in favour of the Defendant?

 

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part03#3.4

 

Power to strike out a statement of case

3.4

 

(2) The court may strike out(GL) a statement of case if it appears to the court –

(a) that the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending the claim;

(b) that the statement of case is an abuse of the court’s process or is otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings; or

© that there has been a failure to comply with a rule, practice direction or court order.

 

 

If so does res judicata now apply in earnest? The parties are not identical but their interests will be namely they are creditors seeking to enforce exactly the same CCA.

 

If so it looks to me that if your Claimant is getting cold feet get your defence in quick .

 

I'm glad they phoned me now I might have never found that case law.

 

Thanks

 

PT

[citizenB]

Hmm, I don't know PT - I would say if companies are continually issuing a claim on the same issue then yes there is an abuse of process.

 

Am I correct in assuming that when one company fails at court - the account is then sold on for another company to start the process over again? If this is the case then I think perhaps the regulators might be interested.

 

As I don't know for sure - I will alert andyorch / steampowered for you.

[pumpytums]

Hi CB,

basically they have now sold the same account 3 times.

 

On two occasions the owner has litigated and failed. After each failure its bundled up and sold on like a macabre game of pass the parcel.

 

Interesting case law though never heard of it before. Prior to this the Judge looked in the white book the claim would only be allowed if the defendant had misled the claimant, new evidence had come to light or the laws had changed. Pretty much now quoting from a link

 

"However, in Westbrook it was confirmed that the court's approach to CPR 38.7 should be informed by the principles that no one should be sued twice over the same events, and that it is in the public interest to bring litigation to an end."

 

Amen to that.

 

Thanks

 

PT

[AndyOrch]

Res Judicata will only apply if there was a judgment/any new claim is virtually the same...so if you got the SO/ as a general form of judgment...then the matter has been ajudged

 

CPR 3 PD4 /PD5 http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pro...l/rules/part03

 

Regards

 

Andy

[pumpytums]

Hi everyone,

this account is now Statute Barred.

 

I wonder how I stand regarding the default that was registered. Right back in 2009 the buyer at the time Link put a default on my CRF. I went to court with them and it turned out the OC had never issued a Default notice so Link Discontinued. They then sold/gave it back to the OC who issued a Default notice and also a new court claim which I countered with CPR 38.7 they had not gained the courts permission for a fresh claim. The account was then sold again and I have heard nothing since.

 

The only issue I have is Link put a Default on my CRF from mid 2009 to mid 2011, the OC then put a default on the account in mid 2011 for the same account. The default was supposed to be removed by Link in 2010 as stated by the OC in letters but it was not.

 

So basically the new DN will be there to 2017, what can I do a incorrect DN was present on my account for 2 years and a new one has been put on for another 6. This relates to the same account only the owner has changed.

 

thanks in advanve

[AndyOrch]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?451414-Consumer-Credit-(Credit-Reference-Agency)-Regulations-2000.(1-Viewing)-nbsp

[pumpytums]

Thanks Andy,

I have copies of the historic CRF entries.

 

Cheers