Link Financial -ford credit return of goods order - lost

[olympic1805]

Hi emandcole,

Glad your not too worried now, cos i still am !! this is so nerve wrenching, al this with courts, etc, !!

 

Anyhow I will take the acknowledgement in myself tomorrow, and will post on later, going work again now and back around 8 ish, so will post everything on then.

 

thanks for eveyones help !

 

hi,

Here is the PoC as requested,hopefully !, is there anything else to post on ??

PoC.pdf

[angry cat]

You need to make a request under CPR Part 31.14, requesting all documents that relate to Link Financial's claim.

 

Until such time that you receive said documents, you will be unable to submit a full defence. The only defence that could be submitted until such time that they comply will be the "embarassed defence".

 

Please open the following link and view 31.14:

 

PART 31 - DISCLOSURE AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS - Ministry of Justice

 

Also, the following thread may be of benefit to you:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/241827-legal-action-how-start.html

[olympic1805]

Right, PoC posted on (is this okay and readable ?), acknowledgement going in tomorrow, and CPR letter for Link done, posting tomorrow, recorded !

Still daunting !!

Does anything else need posting on ??

 

Oh and thanks AC for the links, have read through, but it can be so much to take in ? will have another read through tomorrow when my eyes are not as heavy , thanks

[emandcole]

Interesting, thanks for posting up. Have a couple of thoughts on this so will go over in the morning and stick them on here.

[Jasper1965]

Just a bit confused contesting the amount owing, when I know its outstanding ?????This is all getting a bit confusing, sorry for appearing stupid !!

 

Well just to confuse you more do you think it is normal for a company to repossess the goods and still seek to charge you the full outstanding amount on the account? I don't, maybe if they sought the return of the vehicle and the outstanding balance upon sale of the vehicle but both????

 

Can you clarify if the CCA that you posted was your copy or supplied by Link please?

 

Please don't use this it's a bit left field but I'm putting it up to see if any of the better legal bods out there think there's some mileage in any of it for you.

 

1) The defendant admits to being party to the agreement presented to the Court such agreement being bound by the terms of the CCA 1974 (The Act).

 

2) The defendant was able to meet their commitment under this agreement until the year 2008 almost four years in to the agreement at which time as a result of the defendants business problems, the defendant realised that they would experience some problem meeting the commitment in the manner and timescale agreed.

 

3) At this time the defendant contacted the original creditor (LRFS) with a view to invoking the defendants rights under the terms and conditions of the agreemnt and section 99(1) of The Act.

 

4) At this time the defendants liability towards the claimant as defined by section 100(1) of The Act would have been nothing upon satisfactory return of the vehicle as the aggregate of the defendants payments had already far exceeded the one-half required by statute and there was in place no notice of default for any outstanding sums (7).

 

5) LRFS were unwilling to accept the voluntary termination and falsely told the defendant that such action was impossible.

 

6) At this stage (5) the defendant avers that:

(i) The initial breach of the agreement occurred, and that the initial breach was incurred by the creditor.

(ii) Such breach can be defined as the refusal by the original creditor to comply with a term in the agreement and the governing legislation to the prejudice of the defendant, specifically unlawfully denying the defendant the opportunity to terminate the agreement lawfully and with no further liability in accordance with Section 99(1) of The Act.

(iii) Such breach constitutes the creation of an unfair relationship as defined by the CCA 2006 at a time when this legislation was in force for an agreement of this age. The unfair relationship arose because the creditor unlawfully refused the defendant the right to terminate early without further liability, such right defined within the contractual agreement and the CCA 1974, the refusal of the creditor to accept a lawful termination bound by Secs 99(1) and 100(1) of The Act has ultimately empowered the creditor to continue to pursue the defendant for both the vehicle and the full outstanding balance when had the creditor complied with both the terms of their own agreement and statute no such balancing payment would ever have been lawfully deemed due.

(iv) The defendant strongly avers that the refusal of the creditor to enter into voluntary early termination arrangements with the defendant was not only unlawful but constitutes unjust enrichment since the claimant now seeks return of both the vehicle and the entire balance due, some £9,000 more than that which they would have been entitled to had they upheld the terms of their own agreement at the time (2).

 

7) The defendant avers that the default notice was by the claimants own admission issued 'by first class post on 09/12/09) some 12 months after the defendant attempted to terminate the agreemnt under Sec 99(1) of the act and so it must be taken that at the time of the attempted Sec 99(1) termination there were no outstanding default sum or identifiuable arrears upon the account.

 

8) The defendant seeks the return of all monies paid to the creditor under this agreement for the creditors breach of contract, creation of an unfair relationship, damage to the defendants credit rating etc. etc......

 

9) Alternatively the defendant asks the Court to take into account all the facts set out within this defence and rule that the agreement be made void with no further liability by the defendant for the reasons set out in 3,4,5,6,7 and also refuse the claimants request for an order to return the protected goods under the agreement in question, for the same reasons.

 

I know this sounds daft !!! but it looks like LINK only paid around £3k for the debt of Landrover, would they not accept ths amount do you think ??

wishful thinking ehhh ???

 

Sorry to spoil your morning but if you are seeing a credit for approx £3261 on the account IMO it's more likely to be a tax writedown, Link will probably have paid between 6% and 10% for this alleged debt, that's between £500 and £800 not bad for a Landrover and £9k plus costs eh?

 

Of course casually slipping something along these lines into your witness statement just lets the judge know what kind of business is bringing the claim which certainly wouldn't harm your case if you were going to make a claim that the agreement be ruled void and the vehicle retained by you. Let the judge know that greedy Link only stand to lose a few hundred quid if they lose but to gain £20 grand in car and cash if they win, it kind of sets a sense of perspective for them.

[emandcole]

Great stuff from Jasper. Quite rightly LR did mislead you and did not accept the voluntary termination, which would have prevented all of this in the first place.

 

So...you need to think about how you can prove you made efforts to return the vehicle. Is there anything in writing at all to show you wanted to exercise your right to voluntarily terminate?

 

Went back over the default to look at the dates of service and to see if there was any mileage but as LR gave you well in excess of 14 days playing with these makes no difference, still plenty of time given .

 

The nature of the assignment is one of your strongest points right now...if Sink have messed that up they'll be sunk. You also need to put them to strict proof that all documents were sent...the default, the Notice of Assignment that LR sent as this notice alone does not in itself create the assignment.

 

We'll also insist on original documentation, if they produce copies or reconstructions instead of the original there's a whole host of difficulties we can throw in their way there.

 

As discussed before Sink must hold the actual deed of assignment and it must be correct. Know you've written off for sight of this but be very surprised if they show it to you, we'll see what happens.

 

Particularly bothered by their claim for both the vehicle and the balance outstanding. That's total greed and can't see how they're entitled to claim both. I believe that in the event of a contract breach (you in this case for not paying but arguably LR broke it first by refusing voluntary termination) the court will look to put the offended party back to where they would have been had the breach not occurred.

 

Sink cannot possibly justify gaining the vehicle and the balance...absolute pirates. If your argument that LR refused VT (dealers hate this so it makes sense) is refused then all Sink are owed is either the balance or an order for the return of the car. That's my understanding at present anyway.

 

Jasper is bang on to highlight to the court the nature of Sinks business model. As far as I'm concerned it amounts to gross unjust enrichment and given the history of the account and the faults by LR to force you into this position Sink should not be allowed to profit to this extent.

 

So far it looks as if you'll need to submit an embarrassed defence, presuming Sink do not come up with all of the documents you have a right to see. You never know, this might be enough to beat them. Sink did not have a Deed of Assignment in my case and they had no choice but to discontinue so you never know.

 

Perhaps it's worth writing to LR/FCE asking them for confirmation of the details included in the deed, be hilarious if they were to write back stating one wasn't sent. Stay calm anyway, lots to do yet and Sink are far from home and dry so far.

Edited April 27, 2010 by emandcole

[olympic1805]

Well just to confuse you more do you think it is normal for a company to repossess the goods and still seek to charge you the full outstanding amount on the account? I don't, maybe if they sought the return of the vehicle and the outstanding balance upon sale of the vehicle but both????

 

Can you clarify if the CCA that you posted was your copy or supplied by Link please?

 

CCA Agreement was copy from landroer, and the cca Claim just put on few days was from link

 

I cannot believe my stupidity, I had not read the POC properly !! cannot believe Link want the o/s balance AND the car !! pure GREED.

One of the things i do remember being told(not sure if link or LR) was that if the car went back, it would go to auction and we would still be liable to pay the difference ! so we would have still had a problem paying any o/s balance )

 

Sorry to spoil your morning but if you are seeing a credit for approx £3261 on the account IMO it's more likely to be a tax writedown, Link will probably have paid between 6% and 10% for this alleged debt, that's between £500 and £800 not bad for a Landrover and £9k plus costs eh?

 

Of course casually slipping something along these lines into your witness statement just lets the judge know what kind of business is bringing the claim which certainly wouldn't harm your case if you were going to make a claim that the agreement be ruled void and the vehicle retained by you. Let the judge know that greedy Link only stand to lose a few hundred quid if they lose but to gain £20 grand in car and cash if they win, it kind of sets a sense of perspective for them.

Are we gonna have to stand up in court and say all this ??

[Jasper1965]

I cannot believe my stupidity, I had not read the POC properly !! cannot believe Link want the o/s balance AND the car !! pure GREED.

One of the things i do remember being told(not sure if link or LR) was that if the car went back, it would go to auction and we would still be liable to pay the difference ! so we would have still had a problem paying any o/s balance )

 

Yes it is nothing more than pure unadulterated greed on behalf of Link. This might be able to be used against them though, as it's clearly on the POC.

 

As for being liable to pay the balance after sale at auction, this would not have been the case had you been able to voluntarily terminate the agreement as you desired since you would have then been restricted to a maximum liability of 50% of the agreement value with a few caveats.

If you are looking for a motive for Landrover telling you that you couldn't terminate the agreement when you wanted to then I think that possibly, just possibly we might have found one.

[emandcole]

Are we gonna have to stand up in court and say all this ??

 

Remember, 'standing up in court' as you put it would suggest a grand court room with walnut panels, dusty tomes and dusty judges with wigs! You're far more likely to end up in a room with a desk, literally chatting to the judge with the other side offering their version as the claim is assessed.

 

So...don't freak yourself out with scary court images. Sure, it can be intimidating but overall it's bearable, more so if you have a great argument and herein lies the secret. I suspect this type of image is loved by the DCA's as that alone can be enough to scare people off.

 

I personally would definitely include such a fact/suspician if you can't point to it as being indefinitely factual as the judge should be looking for fairness and such an obvious display of greed would hopefully not go down too well. It won't get you 'off the hook' so to speak but it's no bad thing to have the judge 'on side' as it were when it comes to final decision making.

 

As I, Jasper and others perhaps have already offered, the claim that Sink want both the car (which I assume you've looked after and still retains considerable value) in addition to the outstanding balance needs to be fought. Personally I cannot see any reason why the claimant should succeed in getting both, I suspect they're simply trying it on in the hope of securing a judgement by default.

 

As for contract breach the court does and will tolerate breach of contract, however it should seek to put the offended party back to the position it would have been in had the contract not been broken. It is not ever carte blanche for ripping the other party off, a fact you should ensure is remembered throughout the hearing, if indeed that happens.

[olympic1805]

Hi emandcole, you mentioned evidence of us wishing to return the car ?, in the SAR from Landrover, there are comments within their 'discussion notes' about me saying the Dealership had misinformed us, you see at the time we would av just handed the car back to get rid of any debt, and buy a bit of an 'old banger', although sad it would have had to be done, but then somewhere it came about that the car would go to aUCTION so we would still have an o/s balance, so there is evidence of being misinformed. Some of it is all hazy, being so long ago, and losing both our parents, then we had problems, And now i know really you should keep account of eerything, but unfortunately we didnt.

You mentioned asking LR/FCE for copy of assignment as well, shall I ?

[Jasper1965]

 

As for contract breach the court does and will tolerate breach of contract, however it should seek to put the offended party back to the position it would have been in had the contract not been broken. It is not ever carte blanche for ripping the other party off, a fact you should ensure is remembered throughout the hearing, if indeed that happens.

 

 

Can't reiterate this enough, for the Sec 99,100 breach of contract you should seek for the contractual position to be returned to the "position it would have been in had the contract not been broken", as the breach quite arguably created an unfair relationship it is then an acceptable remedy to have the agreement declared void at that point. That Link have claimed for car and cash is proof that an unfair relationship was created as it has contrived a situation whereby you are being held accountable for more than £8,000 than you should have been , it was clearly not in Landrovers interest to accept the VT of the vehicle, chances are this will not be the first case involving VT'ing of vehicles the appointed judge will have dealt with either, they know what goes on.

Their refusal to accept your VT has also impacted your credit rating, this is actionable and much discussion on this matter can be found on CAG.

 

I would be astonished if any judge entertained their claim to both, it could easily be argued to be an attempted abuse of process from an early stage if you ask me.

[olympic1805]

Jasper1965, should i be getting a defense claim ready do you think /,

[emandcole]

Hi emandcole, you mentioned evidence of us wishing to return the car ?, in the SAR from Landrover, there are comments within their 'discussion notes' about me saying the Dealership had misinformed us, you see at the time we would av just handed the car back to get rid of any debt, and buy a bit of an 'old banger', although sad it would have had to be done, but then somewhere it came about that the car would go to aUCTION so we would still have an o/s balance, so there is evidence of being misinformed. Some of it is all hazy, being so long ago, and losing both our parents, then we had problems, And now i know really you should keep account of eerything, but unfortunately we didnt.

You mentioned asking LR/FCE for copy of assignment as well, shall I ?

 

Hi, yes, such evidence would enable you to have a more substantial claim that LR chose to make a VT difficult for you. Clearly LR were unwilling to allow this to happen when this is a right you have...and given the fact that money was tighter you quite rightly decided that getting rid of it (bet fuel cost you a fortune ) was the better thing to do.

 

Great news that LR have recognised your earlier dispute in their records...at least they maintained those with some accuracy. This is good evidence to support the argument that LR put you in an impossible situation, one that has now led you to litigation at the hands of one of the lowest DCA's CAG has the misfortune to deal with.

 

I believe you have some excellent arguments, very important to compile a comprehensive defence now stating your case and making sure Sink are exposed for what they are.

 

One thought I had last night was if you can demonstrate to the court how much you've already paid that can be a great help in decision making too. For example, if you've effectively paid the value of the car anyway (but huge chunks of that amount to date have been lost on interest) it gives you further opportunity to state that "Fair's fair, they've actually been paid for the actual cost of the vehicle already". Can make a difference in undermining their claim.

 

I'd suggest you total up all of the payments you've made and see what that figure comes to. Does it actually meet the cost of the car yet?

 

Great stuff from Jasper so follow that input too. He's been more specific with the remedial aspects of contractual breach so do some reading of this so you're up to speed and can argue the crux of this on your own. As for defence certainly, I feel defending is absolutely the best way to go as you have valid grounds to do so.

 

Given the value of the claim you should be aware that the track this is likely to be assigned to may carry risk of costs from the other side if you were to lose. The value of the claim does not automatically dictate the track a court will assign as the complexity of the matter can also have a bearing on this but given the fact that yours is of a certain value and much of the arguments are likely to based on contract I feel there will be a costs component to consider...if you lose.

 

Of course we'll try our very best to help you put a good argument together and there's still the possibility that Sink have not got the Deed of Assignment, which would render their action fatally flawed.

 

So, would you work out how much you've paid since the start of the agreement and provide that for us? Be a useful start.

[Jasper1965]

Hi, just wondering whether I should write back to Link, the letter they sent is worded below:

 

"Link Financial Outsourcing has attempted to negotiate with you the repayment of the above account. We have been unsuccessful in these negotiations.

We will therefore commence proceedings in the County Court for the return of the goods subject to the above Agreement.

Proceedings will be issued within the next 48 hours if we have no response from you.

Please contact us on telephone 02920808698 as a matter of urgency "

 

Shall I write back and try to re negotiate paym,ent terms, or just ignore it ??

Still a bit worried that legal cost will then be added on to this debt ??

Any help would be grateful

thanks

 

I don't know if you ever did reply to this letter but if I were you I would write back now formally stating that you are disappointed that they were unwilling to accept your offer of £2000 cash plus scheduled repayments as you felt this was a fair and very reasonable offer.

I'd also point out that you feel the haste with which they have started litigation against you underlines your suspicions at the time that they had no intention of ever coming to an arrangement with you for repayment of the monies claimed outstanding as the POC's you have received plainly indicate that their intention was to go for BOTH the money and the car, quite obviously by entering into any repayment plan with yourself Link would have prejudiced their perceived right to get the car as well which appears to have been their primary objective upon assignment of this account.

(Had you offered them the full £8k cash would they really have have accepted that when they believed they could have got their hands on the £8k plus a Disco? IMO when you thought you were negotiating an alleged debt of £8 they were really trying to negotiate an alleged debt of nearer £20k they just didn't bother telling you)

 

No harm in generating some evidence for your bundle and no harm either in giving Link some awkward questions to answer along the way. At the risk of turning this into a battle on several fronts I feel a request for Links formal complaint procedure is now in order as IMO this behaviour is a breach of the CSA code of practice ( (f) Unless instructed otherwise, accept all reasonable offers by debtors to pay by instalments, provided acceptable evidence of non-ability to pay is given) a breach of a Code of practice to which an organisation subscribes creates a breach of the CPUTR's. There's no argument that Link were instructed otherwise since they have raised proceedings in their own name, something which they would not be entitled to do if the assignment were only equitable. (Yet to be proven obviously).

Complaint to the CSA and OFT would then be in order.

 

If such paperwork in your bundle simply illustrates further how greedy and unreasonable Links actions are then sadly this is nobodys fault but theirs.

 

PS Have Link at any time provided a date for when the alleged assignment took place yet?

Edited April 30, 2010 by Jasper1965

[olympic1805]

Hi Jasper1965,

I will send a letter today to Link, with a complaint and my wish to follow a complaint procedure as you stated, is that the correct order to send ?

Re the assignment, see post 85, this is what I receied from Link, then a follow on letter "sale of your debt", see post

thanks

[olympic1805]

Hi Emandcole,

Have coupe of statement of accounts from LR, also on the Default notice it shows "total amount payable under agreement - £33144.08 and total we have paid at date of this DN - £25118.07.

On the HPA it states cash price of vehicle £26995.00

So that shows we have very nearly paid the cash price.

[emandcole]

Excellent. The fact that you've paid nearly the amount of the vehicle will seriously undermine Sink's claim to just have it off you. Think we all agree such a claim is outrageous.

 

I'm sure I've read somewhere in the past that litigation effectively carried out for the purposes of claiming the interest (effectively what is happening here) can be attacked but can't recall the reasons or the argument used. If I remember it I'll add it up for you.

 

Keep us posted anyway and let's see how they respond to the request for the Deed of Assignment. If it were me I would be very tempted (if they don't provide it) to pay an application fee to have the court assess the evidence of the claimant. Initial application is about £45.

 

Can't recalll the name for it but you make the application for the court to order the claimant to provide the evidence they rely on, if the court agrees you'll pay the final amount of £30 and the court will set a date. You'll attend, along with the claimant and the judge will examine 'their hand' if you like.

 

Great way of taking control of the situation and if the judge looks at what they produce and rejects it, it instantly puts them on the back foot and gives you valuable insight into their chances. Great use of funds I think and well worth it to see their faces if what they have is useless. I did this and it made a huge difference as they'd been evasive despite SAR and CPR requests. They subsequently opted to discontinue.

 

In the meantime if they don't play ball send them a CPR 31.15 letter demanding right to inspect the documents they have including the DOA. If they ignore that as well definitely consider the application hearing as well as consider a request for strike out as they're frustrating attempts to provide a full defence.

[olympic1805]

"Further to your letter dated 1/2/10, and my subsequent telephone conversation with your employee

named 'Rasheed'.

I am dissappointed that you were unwilling to accept my offer of £2000, plus scheduled re payments,

as I felt this was a fair and very reasonable offer.

I would also like to point out that I feel the haste in which you have started litigation against me,

underlines my suspicions that you had no intention of ever coming to an arrangement with me for

the repayment of monies claimed outstanding,as on the 'Particulars of Claim' I received, plainly

indicate that your intention was to go for BOTH the money and the car.

I feel a request for your formal complaint procedure is now in order, as this behaviour is a

Breach of the CSA Code of Practice (f) unless instructed otherwise, accept all reasonable

offers by debtors to pay by installments, provided acceptable evidence of non-ability to

pay is given."

 

Is this worded letter okay to send to Link ?

[angry cat]

Very important that you make a request under CPR 31.14, requesting ALL documents that relate to their claim...ALL DOCUMENTS, including the DEED OF ASSIGNMENT!!!

[olympic1805]

Hi there AC,

I have CPR requested them on the 26/4, so they will have recived it 27/4(Guaranteed next day delivery), how long do they have to reply to this ?

[angry cat]

Between 21-28 days is a reasonable time;

a solicitor would give them 28 days.

 

Please note that, you will be unable to submit your defence until such time as they comply fully.

 

If they fail to comply, you can then use CPR 31.15 to gain sight of said documents;

they must comply with CPR 31.15 within 7 days of receipt of same.

 

In the meantime, you can only submit the 'Embarassed Defence'.

 

Please read the following thread, fully:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/159445-getting-them-reveal-their.html

[olympic1805]

When do I submit the 'Embarrassed Defence' ?, and is this on a particular form ?

thanks

[angry cat]

Please read the following:

 

by PT:

 

CPR 31.14 allows you the right to request documents mentioned in a statement of case. Most of us are aware of this, but CPR 31.15 provides that upon receipt of a written request, the Claimant must allow inspection within 7 days

 

 

Quote:

31.15

 

Where a party has a right to inspect a document –

(a) that party must give the party who disclosed the document written notice of his wish to inspect it;

 

(b) the party who disclosed the document must permit inspection not more than 7 days after the date on which he received the notice; and

 

© that party may request a copy of the document and, if he also undertakes to pay reasonable copying costs, the party who disclosed the document must supply him with a copy not more than 7 days after the date on which he received the request.

 

 

 

So, if the lender doesnt give you the docs after being served with a written letter requesting the documents upon which they rely and which are pleaded, then you should raise this matter with the court, not by writing to the court but by making a formal application for an order compelling disclosure.

 

This will most likely bring an order for costs against the claimant too, so will make them realise that you mean business too.

 

The other point to note is CPR 15.5 allows you to agree an extension of time for filing the defence. So you can get 28 days ontop of your 28 days to file.It is always advisable to file an acknowledgment of service this gives you the full 28 days, you can state an intention to defend for now, you can always change the view once disclosure takes place. you need an agreement from the Claimant to do this and you need to write to the court to advise that you have indeed agreed with the claimant to a 28 days extension, this is an obligation of the Defendant to notify the court so YOU MUST do it if you reach an agreement with the Claimant, do not rely on them doing it cos you will end up with a Default Judgment.

 

If the Claimant cannot disclose then you cannot plead and this is where an application to strike out the case should be used in my opinion, there is no point filing a verbose defence which deals with everything and the kitchen sink where you dont even have the agreement they are reliant upon.

 

The CPR is there to help you, to help the court effectively manage the case and to set out what is expected from a claimant. it is unlikely that the court will refuse to order the Claimant to disclose to you the docs upon which the claim is based and the court will also take into account the fact that you will need more time to file your defence too,providing you ask for it!!

 

By securing the documents, you are ensuring that you dont file a verbose and meaningless defence when based upon the documents you dont have a defence, as this simply adds to the legal bill that you will have to pay. If you dont have a defence then you need to accept it, dont waste time defending the indefendable. I know it sounds harsh but you are the person who foots the bill if the case is lost, now its better to admit defeat early than taking it all to trial and then losing. a solicitor will struggle to justify more than a few hundred pounds within 14 days of issue, but believe me, its easy to run up 10 -25k of costs going to trial.

 

Im not trying to put a downer on things, but just trying to be realistic." [End Quote]

 

In the XXXX county court

Claimant -v- (YOUR NAME)

Claim Number: (CLAIM NUMBER)

 

 

Dear XXX

 

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION UNDER CPR 31.14

 

I have received a recent court claim from your organisation. In order to file a defence and counter claim I require some information. Given that this matter is now the subject of legal proceedings, you are obliged to disclose under the Civil Procedure Rules, the information and documents detailed below.

 

The information must be furnished within twenty eight days of the receipt of this letter. If you fail to comply, this will be reported to the Court, a copy of this letter will be provided as evidence to the same and an Order enforcing your compliance will be sought.

 

1. A true copy of the executed credit agreement and any terms and conditions that applied to the account at the time of default and at the time the account was opened. True copies of any notice of assignment; deed of assignment and deed of sale. True copies of any default notice or enforcement notice that you or the original creditor sent me, with a copy of any proof of postage that you hold.

 

 

1.1 If copies of any of the above documents are to be relied on in court rather than originals, a copy of the Notice of proposal to adduce hearsay evidence required under s2(1) of the Civil Evidence Act 1995 together with proof of the authenticity of the document(s) as required under s8(1)(b) of the Act, including but not limited to:

 

(a) a copy of the procedure(s) used for copying, storing and retrieving documents

(b) a copy of the relevant log entry showing the time and date of the scan or copy, the name of the member of staff making the copy, the method used for copying, storage and retrieval and time and date of destruction of the original document(s)

© copies of internal and external audit reports covering the entire period from the date of the copy to the present to demonstrate that the procedures have been complied with

(d) copies of Quality Assurance accreditation certificates covering the entire period from the date of the copy to the present to demonstrate that the procedure(s) and audit process(es) comply with the appropriate quality standards

 

2. All records you hold on me relevant to this case, including but not limited to:

 

a. Transcriptions of all telephone conversations recorded and any notes made in relation to telephone conversations by your company, or by any previous creditor

b. Where there has been any event in my account history over this period which has required manual intervention by any person, I require disclosure of any indication or notes which have either caused or resulted in that manual intervention, or other evidence of that manual intervention in relation to my account formerly held with *********.(AMEND TO THE COMPANY NAME)

c. .Documents relating to any insurance added to the account, including the insurance contract and terms and conditions, date it was added and deleted (if applicable).

d. Details of any collection charge added to the account; specifically, the date it was levied, the amount of the charge, a detailed financial breakdown of how the charge was calculated, and what the charge covers.

e. Specific details of the fees/charges levied by any other agency in respect of this account and a detailed breakdown of said fees/charges and what each charge relates to and on what date said fees/charges were levied.

f. A genuine copy of any notice of fair use of my data as required by the Data Protection Act 1998

g. A list of third party agencies to whom you have disclosed my personal data and a summary of the nature of the information you have disclosed.

h. Copies of statements for the entire duration of the credit agreement.

 

 

3. Any other documents you seek to rely on in court.

 

 

I will require this information within the next twenty eight days. I must advise you that if the information is not forthcoming, it will be reported to the Court that you are trying to frustrate proceedings and denying me the opportunity to file a defence and counter claim.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

XXXX (type, don't sign).

 

Suggested 'Embarassed Defence' (edit to suit)

 

 

I, ********** of ************** make this statement as my defence to the claim brought by **************

 

The claimants particulars of claim are vague and fail to disclose any cause of action, they appear to be an abuse of the process in that they fail to deal with the basic rules of pleading in accordance with the CPR even allowing for the constraints of the bulk issue system

 

No documents supporting the claims in the particulars have been offered and despite a request to the claimant for further information (edit to suit) none has been forth coming and as a result I cannot plead in defence to the claim

 

Without clarification of the claimants claim, the defendant is extremely disadvantaged and the claimants claim appears without merit, the defendant asks to be allowed to submit a fully particularised defence should the claimant provide copies of the original documents he will rely upon.

Further to that above 4 paragraphs, the defendant is unable to plead effectively or at all. The defendant is embarrassed.

[olympic1805]

right, so i dont send the 'Embarrassed Defence' yet ? however giving Link 28 days to comply to my request, this takes me to the 28 days from 'Acknowledgment' so when should i send the ED. I'm reading and reading and somethings are just not sticking, feel like my brain is a sieve at the moment, theres so much to remember !

[angry cat]

As you are aware, the most important step to take at the moment, is to acknowldge service of the claim.

 

You must do that within the timescale or, Link will win by default;

you can acknowledge the claim on-line but don't forget to enter the claim number.

 

As you have already made your CPR 31.14 request to Link, you must give them a reasonable amount of time to provide you with the docs requested. However, if they do not comply by the due date. You can then submit your Embarassed Defence.

 

[Emphasis] You cannot submit your full defence, until you have been provided with all docs relating to Link's claim.

 

county court bulk centre