Robinson Way lifting a stay on a County Court claim made in July 2009 - Happy Christmas!!

[Mike_hawk]

Assuming it complies it allows a good few days to incorporate any contradictory dislosures within your w/s.

[Bev250264]

Just had the docs through I asked for. The assignment from HSBC to RW isn't a NoA, it's actually the account sale agreement we've already got and the other letter I wanted sight of is just the reconsitiuted copy we're already disputing so nothing new there which is a relief.

[Mike_hawk]

There's a waste of 10 bob then innit Can you post them up just to check there's no material differences to either

[Bev250264]

Hope this is ok. there's rather alot of it.

[Mike_hawk]

Hi Bev

 

Don't think you'd posted those before, can't see them on your thread

 

I believe they'll be granted relief to the assignment based on those docs. The issue still remains that there was a consolidation to a single account - I can see partial account number and assume its the current account.

 

The question remains, how did they create a +13k balance from a £00.00 balance in 2004?

[Old Cogger]

intreaging?

[Bev250264]

I believe they'll be granted relief to the assignment based on those docs. The issue still remains that there was a consolidation to a single account - I can see partial account number and assume its the current account.

 

It was part f Suzanne Dean's original witness statement. Our argument was that there is no record anywhere in the sale agreement that this debt was part of it (or not that we could see - a new pair of eyes maybe?).

 

Also, the figure we were quoted this morning from metropolitan (£13,645.43) is different to the one on the assignment letter (£13669.94) and it is to the current account, not the loan account that it refers.

The date's different as well. The dj at the s/j hearing wouldn't accept their sols comment that it was deemed to have been delivered because of this copy in the evidence.

[Mike_hawk]

Hi Bev

 

The Noa's you previously posted were for the 2009 RW to RW assignment, the HSBC to RW was the missing link.

 

Anyway, at least now you can see exactly what they got up to and where the figures came from in October 2007

 

HSBC used the loan account balance of £9018.72 [at the same time discharging the balance to £00.00] at 10.03.2004, compounded the interest at 12.2% and assigned the created balance of £13,669.94 at 08.10.2007

 

What they should have done was to retain the loan account rather than zero the balance and charge no further interest until end of contract term. They have effectively contracted out of the CCA and compounded an interest term which should have persisted until November 2008 [prescribed end date of contract/loan term].

 

The alternative would be to rebate the original loan at closure and charge term at 12.2%, although that still has the effect of contracting out as they state the account was never terminated?

 

ie:

 

Rebate balance at 10.03.2004 of £7256.12

 

Deduct PPI pre term at 10.03.2004 of £291.70

 

Nett balance at 10.03.2004 of £6964.42

 

Interest at 12.2% for 1307 days at £3,552.79

 

Total balance of £10,517.21 [less any credits/interest thereon during the period]

[Bev250264]

So, where does that leave us then? do we still have a case?

[Mike_hawk]

Yep, your case remains the same.

[Bev250264]

That's a relief. I thought this had been all for nothing for a minute

[Mike_hawk]

Hadn't added any weight to the assignment, they'd probably be granted relief anyway. It's the creation of a debt during March 2004 thats the focus, HSBC have offered no explanation and there is no documentary evidence of a debt existing between March 04 and the assignment date.

[Mike_hawk]

Bev open letter.doc

 

I think it would be useful to send the letter this week, I've added a couple of lines

[Bev250264]

That's great Mike. When shall we send it? Shall we give them a couple of days to digest the info off the standard disclosure they asked for (which they should have had today)?

 

Thank you again for all your help. It really is much appreciated.

[Mike_hawk]

The sols are probably now aware of the details, can't imagine they wouldn't have made further enquiries as soon as you started digging for info.

 

I wouldn't worry about giving them any additional time to digest the data.

[Bev250264]

Ok I'll send it tomorrow

[Mike_hawk]

Check that I haven't made any mistakes first, needs to be accurate if you want to rely on it later

[Bev250264]

I will do. In fact I was wondering whether to wait to see if the stuff from chiltern comes tomorrow. What d'you think?

[Mike_hawk]

Yep, wouldn't do any harm to wait a day or so

[Bev250264]

Before I send it I'll type it up with all the dates etc and pm it to you

[Mike_hawk]

That's fine Bev, happy to check it over

[Bev250264]

Thanks

[Bev250264]

Ok just got satement from Chiltern. Nothing whatsoever to RW, London Scottish or anyone remotely like RW. All payments were made to HSBC/Metropolitan. So the witness statement was wrong - yet again.

 

Payments made were:

 

25/5/04 16.49

25/5/04 1.02

10/6/04 1.02

10/6/04 16.49

 

Then we realised it wasn't a good idea and cancelled it

 

So RW's statement saying

 

"I can confirm that following asignment, the Defendant contacted the Claimant to advise that he was no longer dealing with the debt management company"

 

Is another total fabrication as we stopped using them 3-4 years BEFORE they had the assignment

 

Anyuse???

[sillygirl1]

I would immediately write to the court and ask for this to be looked at. The fabrication of a witness statement is a very serious matter - ignorance of the law is NOT an excuse and the other side are taking the proverbial here.

 

I would also contact the Ministry of Justice about this and ask for the case to be pulled and investigated as you are finding so many flaws in their paperwork and statement of truth.

 

They may waffle on about litigants in person using templates but clearly there is an element of a templated witness statement here - something far more serious.

[Mike_hawk]

Probably best kept under your hat for now, if this does look like its going to proceed to trial you should disclose to the other side a week or so prior to exchanging w/s