Northern Rock dodgy default and termination - advice needed

[Jamesx81x]

Found it:

 

A new amendment has been made in case of failure to give notice of sums in arrears in CCA 1974. Section 11 CCA 2006 inserts a new section - 86D - that sets out the consequences for a creditor or owner if he fails to give a notice as required by sections 86B or 86C.

 

If the creditor or owner fails to provide a notice of sums in arrears when required to do so, then during the period of his failure to provide the notice (i.e. from the date that it was required to be given until the end of the day on which it is eventually provided), he is not entitled to enforce the agreement. In addition,

 

The debtor or hirer is not liable to pay any interest that relates to the period of the creditor or owner’s failure

 

Would that mean they cannot claim the arrears owed within that period or they simply cannot enforce the agreement within that period but can once they provide it?

[alangee]

Yes that is correct.

 

I think I am right in saying that all the time that they are in default of their obligations, then they can neither enforce nor charge interest. However once they have sent you an arrears notice then they can enforce, but they can only claim arrears from that notice. They cannot claim back the arrears from the period they were omitting to send the arrears notices.

 

If I am wrong, I am sure that someone will correct me.

 

Alan

[Jamesx81x]

Thanks for that will wait and see if anyone knows more about it

[Jamesx81x]

Also what if the figures in the sums of arrears notice are wrong?

 

Is it the same as applies for the default notice in that the agreement remains unenforceable until they give you a correct notice?

 

James

[Jamesx81x]

Anyone have any knowledge on the arrears notices?

 

James

[crowgal]

Hi, I urgently need some advice with this court claim as it is still on going. I recently received a notice of allocation to fast track from my local court where the case has been

transferred. It is scheduled to be heard later in the year. Meanwhile the DJ ordered each party to give every other party standard discovery by list. I sent my list to NR's solicitors

and they have been very crafty in all this. On receipt of my list of documents they responded on the very last day sending everything by email, they seem to have prepared their list

after they had seen everything that was included in my list.

 

For example, I havehad three sets of terms and conditions to date, on my disclosure list I added the three sets of terms and conditions and included the file references which were

at the bottom, the references show that the T&C's are later dates than the agreement. So suddenly on their disclosure they have added a fourth set of T&C's with a file reference

date earlier than the agreement date. It looks like they never noticed the file references before and are now covering their tracks. But the T&C's mentioned on their disclosure are

not the ones sent with the particulars of claim and I have never had sight of them either, they are not the ones sent to me with my original CCA request.

 

Their disclosure list is very vague generally and don't actually disclose anything much at all really, they have always been reluctant to provide this information. They state that original correspondence sent by themselves to me, some of it is no longer in their control although they don't specify where it is. I have kept all this correspondencemyself, but didn't list all of it in my disclosure list. I t sounds like there is something there that they don't want to be seen, for example one letter from them states that the terms and conditions sent with my original CCA request are the correct ones but they are not the ones now appearing on the disclosure list. I now wish I had incuded all correspondence from them on my

disclosure.

 

On their disclosure they also state that the original agreement and it's T&C's has been destroyed. They also state that they object to correspondence between themselves and the

claimant being inspected because these are 'privileged documents'.

 

So apart from a few basic bits, such as the third DN and formal demand, contact notes etc it dosen't disclose much at all.

 

What I need to know is can I flush the information out of them with a subject access request or by any other method? Should I contact the Court to raise my concerns, I really need

to get all the letters they say they don't have included, can I do this at this stage as it not until I saw their disclosure and what they have done that I realised what a game this all is! Thanks in anticipation.

[The Mould]

Good afternoon Crowgal

 

With reference to para 3 in your above post (#356), use CPR 31.11 to disclose the documents that you did not disclose at the directed standard disclosure stage, did the direction for said disclosure state any specific directions, eg simultaneous disclosure?

 

Can you use the non-disclosed documents to your advantage against the claim and the claimant's statement of case?

 

Kind regards

 

The Mould

[emandcole]

Be interesting if you can expose their tricks for what they are. If you can show their disclosure has been less than truthful and transparent (they must disclose what is both beneficial and damaging to their own claim remember) you could put them in a tight spot. Sounds as if you have a logical progression to date but now they're getting creative. Dangerous ground.

[crowgal]

Thanks for the replies. I think they have a tendency to bungle along and had a last minute panic with this, I don't think they have the capacity to be creative. The disclosure request from the court was just described as Standard Discovery, I think the 'missing' correspondence might be useful to me, it is very strange that it is not available they won't say where it is the form states they should. I had a quick look at the CPR disclosure rules and I think their disclosure is not sufficient or acceptabele. I had already previously complained to the Court that they had ignored my disclosure requests in the past. Am I not within my rights to send a SAR request to them, they have 40 days to reply but the case is a long way of so there is plenty of time.

[car2403]

if you can show that they haven't complied with Court orders, you need to apply for an order forcing their compliance - be sure, before you do, though, as costs will be in the case for the application. Sounds like something that needs some thought either way

[crowgal]

Another strange development in this. I recently received a letter from the Claimant's solicitors stating that 'as per the court order dated ...' they required me to forward copies of some of the doucments included in my disclosure list. I haven't responded yet as I don't readily have the facility to copy. But some of the documents and corresspondence they are asking me to farward them copies of they actually originally sent me, including two versions of the terms and conditions.

[DonkeyB]

How can you disclose documents that they have provided to you?

[crowgal]

That's why it's so strange, apart from the odd document everything else was originally generated by them or the Claimant! I haven't made up my mind how or when I am going to respond yet.

[Guest]

would still need to comply with any order. and, a party is entitled to inspect a disclosed doc (unless there is an exception). (even if they sent it in the first instance?).

imo

Edited June 28, 2011 by Ford
typo

[AndyOrch]

Another strange development in this. I recently received a letter from the Claimant's solicitors stating that 'as per the court order dated ...' they required me to forward copies of some of the doucments included in my disclosure list. I haven't responded yet as I don't readily have the facility to copy. But some of the documents and corresspondence they are asking me to farward them copies of they actually originally sent me, including two versions of the terms and conditions.

 

 

Its known as as fishing trip to see what you hold and they dont and if they match. It is normal to exchange documents on your N265 at the Claimants/Defendants request and usually done simultaneously.I trust you only listed items referred to in your defence.?

 

Regards

 

Andy

[The Mould]

Another strange development in this. I recently received a letter from the Claimant's solicitors stating that 'as per the court order dated ...' they required me to forward copies of some of the doucments included in my disclosure list. I haven't responded yet as I don't readily have the facility to copy. But some of the documents and corresspondence they are asking me to farward them copies of they actually originally sent me, including two versions of the terms and conditions.

 

Good evening Crowgal

 

Simply refer the solicitors to the fact that their client has the said documents or copies thereof in his possession since it was their client who disclosed the same to you.

 

Kind regards

 

The Mould

[Guest]

what's the point? might as well do as per the order/disclosure. they have the right to 'inspect' if they want. as andy says, tis normal.

imo

Edited June 27, 2011 by Ford
typo :)

[AndyOrch]

Good evening Crowgal

 

Simply refer the solicitors to the fact that their client has the said documents or copies thereof in his possession since it was their client who disclosed the same to you.

 

Kind regards

 

The Mould

 

Could be considered as frustrating proceedings Mould and if subject to a Court Order I personally would comply.They have nothing to gain as they will have already disclosed what they intend to rely upon.

 

Andy

[The Mould]

Could be considered as frustrating proceedings Mould and if subject to a Court Order I personally would comply.They have nothing to gain as they will have already disclosed what they intend to rely upon.

 

Andy

 

Yes, I understand that Andy (not being funny), however, it appears said request for disclosure relates to documents already in the claimant's possession, therefore the request is unecessarily made by the claimant as possibly part of a Draft Order for Directions. In my opinion where a party makes requests for disclosure of documents he has in his possession, he is just wasting time, messing about and being unreasonable. What is his reason for such request?

 

Ford WTF? are you on about?

 

Kind regards

 

The Mould

[Guest]

.........Ford WTF? are you on about?

 

Kind regards

 

The Mould

 

same as andy.

as said, they are entitled (subject to any exceptions) to 'inspect' whatever is on the disclosure list, regardless!! it's not an unnecessary request. particularly if it is the subject of an order!

imo

Edited June 27, 2011 by Ford
typo

[AndyOrch]

I think the simple answer is for Crowgal to confirm what they have requested, how long ago she received them and if its likely or unlikely they have lost control and therefore are requesting them again.Comply with the Court Order (dont turn the DJ against her before the whistle) write across the copies in large letters " Defendants Original Copy " then they cant be reintroduced nor should they be if the Claimant has already disclosed.

 

Thats the way I would play that request. Ignoring a Court Order is detrimental to anybodys case.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[caro]

You cannot ignore a court order or you could find yourself in contempt. Besides, what harm can it do.

[citizenB]

I like andy's idea of identifying the origin of the documents.

 

I have noticed lots of caggers saying they have provided documents to the opposition, only to see them turn up in the other side's bundle

[keates]

I thought that those with Northeren Rock mortgages would be interested in this

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/07/18/uk-northernrock-jcflowers-idUKBRE96H0DS20130718

 

Just for the record, I have mortgages with a building society that J C Flowers got involved with and they put all of my properties into LPA receivership and all my properties have now been sold and I have been left with a debt twenty times bigger than when the receivers were appointed. This selling off of Northern Rock mortgages is a way ot the government duping the country into believing that the setting up of UKAR to oversee B & B and NR mortgages, has worked! Rubbish - all it has done is caused devastation and lined the pockets of unregulated unscrupulous receivers whom the banks and government hide behind whilst allowing them to do their very dirty work.