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

[Bev250264]

Just re-doing it now. Should I take out the background information then and just leave my answers to their witness statement or should I take out some of that as well? How much is too much?

[citizenB]

A skeleton is just a brief outline of the points you want to raise. Will try to find an example for you.

[citizenB]

Here you go - please remember it is user specific so dont copy..

 

EXAMPLE ONLY

 

Skeleton Argument for forum.pdf

[Bev250264]

Thanks citizenb, much appreciated

[Bev250264]

So do I submit a skeleton along with the WS 7 days prior to SJ hearing or only if it goes to trial?

[Bev250264]

What date is the hearing?

 

22nd March so need to get my WS in by this Thursday at the latest

[blondie 27]

No need for skeleton at this point save it for trial!

[Bev250264]

Ooh good. One less thing to worry about at this stage... Just need to work out what I need to take out my WS then.

 

Getting a bit confused here can someone just clarify for me. My defence is that:

 

a) The Claimant failed to adhere to the strictrequirements of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA) S.82(2) in that the Claimant consolidated the Small Business Loan (xxxxxx) andBusiness Current Account (xxxxxxxx) prior to the assignment withoutissuing an amended agreement and subsequent Default Notice to the Defendant. The Defendant further contends that theaccount to which the two accounts were supposedly amalgamated, namely BusinessAccount Number (xxxxxxxxxxx), was closed with a nil balance on 10th March 2004

 

b) The current account which the two accounts were supposedly amalgamated did not have an agreed overdraft facility and so no facility letter can exist.

 

c) the evidence provided by the claimant as being a true statement of account of payments made is false as the payments were not made to the claimant on the dates stated, as supported by documentation showing the actual payments made by the defendant and to whom

 

Don't know if this relevant:

 

d) The date shown on the particulars of claim is 8th November 2007 but the letter of assignment is dated 8th October 2007.

[asokn]

D is not relevant. As for C, are you just saying that the date of payment doesn't match or that some payments you've made have not been credited? If the former it doesn't really give you a defence.

[Bev250264]

No they weren't made to the claimant at all! The payments they show as being made to them on the SoA were actually made to Metropolitan. I didn't start making payments to RW until a later date - all documented on my bank statements.

[asokn]

But why does that give you a defence if they're *crediting* payments to your account?

[Bev250264]

Because I was arguing that as I wasn't paying the money to them, I wasn't aware that the account had been assigned nor had I received the NoA as they claim. They argue that if I was paying them, I must have been aware that a valid assignment had taken place.

 

also, surely if the payments weren't made, then the document they submit as being a true copy of their statement of account can't be and so has been (allegedly) concocted to their own end.

[AndyOrch]

And that is why the business of debt assignments should be banned because most of not all of these companies are not responsible to handle financial dealings, no statements no accounting non compliance with the CCA1974.Don't forget that these debts in most cases have been wrote off (and tax relief already allowed to the OC) and purchased for peanuts in the pound, the sole intention is to buy, litigate, and convert to a CO, not to maintain a financial agreement with the debtor.

 

Andy

[asokn]

Because I was arguing that as I wasn't paying the money to them, I wasn't aware that the account had been assigned nor had I received the NoA as they claim. They argue that if I was paying them, I must have been aware that a valid assignment had taken place.

 

also, surely if the payments weren't made, then the document they submit as being a true copy of their statement of account can't be and so has been (allegedly) concocted to their own end.

 

With you now, apologies. That's what comes from me not reading the whole thread!

[Bev250264]

You can't be expected to read everything. So, is it a valid defence or am I clutching at straws?

 

Don't forget that these debts in most cases have been wrote off (and tax relief already allowed to the OC) and purchased for peanuts in the pound, the sole intention is to buy, litigate, and convert to a CO, not to maintain a financial agreement with the debtor.

 

You're so right. A member of my family used to work for one of the big telecoms companies.. He said exactly that. They sell the debts for a pittance and then claim tax relief so they're happy. that's why I'm so determined to have them over this. I'm still paying my other CC debts as I spent the money so I owe it but this one. They forced us to personally guarantee the loan and then hung us out to dry when things went wrong (through no fault of our own I mght add). It makes me mad when large companies can get into trouble but simply sell out, change their name etc etc and get away with it. No sleepless nights worrying if their kids are gonna be homeless..... Sorry for rant

[gezwee]

Hi Bev

 

Not able to get on here during the day, looks like you've got the idea though

 

When you've finished drafting your w/s can you post it up as a .doc [word] attachment. Makes it easier for anyone taking a look to add notes to it for you and repost.

 

Oh and don't forget to make a mention of s.63 in there somewhere as well, these are all importants sections of the CCA. Section 127 refers to it, but its important that you understand each point of your argument and why their case is flawed. There's an old case on here where it was a very effective argument

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?166060-zhanzhibar-vs-Link-financial-***WON***

 

Your case will focus on the enacted version of the CCA as at 1974, none of the 2006 changes should be effective...... things have moved on a bit, however; your case is stuck in 2004 and the inherent requirements of the CCA at that time.

 

Gez

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/section/63/enacted

63Duty to supply copy of executed agreement

 

 

(1)If the unexecuted agreement is presented personally to the debtor or hirer for his signature, and on the occasion when he signs it the document becomes an executed agreement, a copy of the executed agreement, and of any other document referred to in it, must be there and then delivered to him.

 

(2)A copy of the executed agreement, and of any other document referred to in it, must be given to the debtor or hirer within the seven days following the making of the agreement unless—

 

(a)subsection (1) applies, or

 

(b)the unexecuted agreement was sent to the debtor or hirer for his signature and, on the occasion of his signing it, the document became an executed agreement.

 

(3)In the case of a cancellable agreement, a copy under subsection (2) must be sent by post.

 

(4)In the case of a credit-token agreement, a copy under subsection (2) need not be given within the seven days following the making of the agreement if it is given before or at the time when the credit-token is given to the debtor.

 

(5)A regulated agreement is not properly executed if the requirements of this section are not observed.

[gezwee]

Further to Cb's post this morning, theres a looooooooooong and verbose skel on this thread at post #4. Would suggest taking a few pointers from the references within.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?197867

 

Gez

[Bev250264]

Hi Gez

 

Just going to add a couple of bits and then I'll post it. I've removed the background info but should I keep in my replies to the points made in their WS or is that still too much info?

[gezwee]

Hi Bev

 

Leave in as much as you think necessary to state your case, you can always trim it down to suit before service.

 

Gez

[Bev250264]

OK, here is amended WS. Feel free to destroy as required

[gezwee]

Okey doke, leave it with me for now..... I'll copy everything off the thread and have a good look through it tomorrow.

 

I'll be back on here tomorrow evening with any ideas

[gezwee]

Bev

 

1 more thing, did they serve the 'supporting' docs in response to an order or of their own volition?

 

Gez

[Bev250264]

Thanks for that, you're a star!

 

Their own volition,. There was no order.

 

While your on, do I need to send my WS to RW as well as the court or will they do that?

[gezwee]

Hiya

 

File [court] and serve [other party] the w/s along with any supporting docs. Take additional copies to the hearing, the court always lose their copy and Robbers will probably deny receipt

 

Gez

[Bev250264]

I can take the court stuff in by hand and get a receipt but I'll struggle to get everything to RW by this Thursday. Do they have to have it 7 days prior as well or if I send it "signed for" it'll be ok just so long as they get it before the hearing? Also, do I need to re-copy and attach any supporting docs of theirs that I have referred to or will the DJ cross-reference?

 

Also, a completely separate point but one I was thinking about last night...when a bank asks you to turn your overdraft into a loan,is it because it's easier for them to pursue if you default? Is an overdraft much harder to chase as there's no agreement etc? I know lots of people get hassled by their banks to turn their o/d into a loan and I wondered if this was why. Completely unrelated to my claim but I was just curious.