Backdoor CCJ Arrows/Cater - Old Lloyds Card debt - set aside ***Claim Struck Out***

[AndyOrch]

Hi MBL

 

There is no requirement to file the WS with the Court...only on each other... simultaneous exchange.Not paying the fee is another matter and there are sanctions...as Ford states you could consider SO but keep checking firstly and allow time if the Court is running behind.

Otherwise it would be a wasted application and expense.

 

:- http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/pd_part03b

 

Regards

 

Andy

[maybelate]

Thanks Ford and Andy. I spoke to the court today and they advised me that the claimant paid the hearing fee on 08/12/12 and that the hearing will be taking place as planned next week. I'm scared now, I put my WS together and filed it with the court in the hope that it would put them off paying for the hearing, the that they might discontinue. I could really do with some advice if possible please to help me to prepare as there is very little time left now. I posted their WS above (a few posts back).

[DonkeyB]

Few Qs, maybelate – when was the last payment on this account? What was the nature of the dispute?

 

Did you SAR the OC?

 

Can you post copies of their templated default notice?

 

Also, does the recon ‘agreement’ comply with Carey v HSBC, ie. does it have your exact name and address on the front from the time the account was opened, plus a copy of the current T&Cs?

 

Could you give us some detail on these bits?

[AndyOrch]

What are you scared about MBL...they cant shoot you and there are no debtors prisons?

[maybelate]

Hi Donkey and Andy, sorry to be vague Donkey but the agreement is an old one and I believe I last paid it in 2008. The dispute with the OC was that they didn't provide a CCA within the given time limits when they were asked to and when they eventually did it is an application form. I did SAR the OC a while ago and they did respond. I can't post a copy of their template default notice at the moment (scanner at home not working), but it is just a letter with no names or dates on it etc. It isn't a recon agreement but a copy of the original application form. Andy, I'm just scared of having to fight my corner face to face with the claimant. I am pretty sure that some of (if not all of) the documentation that they have supplied is inadequate but it is having the correct legislation to quote to prove this as well as the confidence to get this across to a solicitor and a judge.

 

regards

Maybe

[DonkeyB]

Need to be a bit careful. Failure to comply with a CCA request would not be seen as a fair reason to stop paying, if that’s what happened.

 

Have you read up Carey v HSBC? You need to get the facts down on whether they have ever complied with the CCA request properly, because failure to do so – ie. not providing the app form + T&Cs at time of signing + most recent variant – is a bar to enforcement. Were there any T*Cs on the app form, or any supplied? You must get your ducks in a row.

 

That’s why I’m asking for sight of docs. Hard to comment without these. You have to specifically identify failings and quote the law/case law.

[AndyOrch]

Perhaps bring your WS forward MBL lets have a refresher.

[maybelate]

Hi Donkey/Andy, the OC sold the debt Donkey to "the claimant". The claimant has started a claim, without (I believe) the original CCA, a DN or a proper NOA, all of which they were ordered to supply to myself and the court last week. What they have actually provided is a copy of the original Application Form (looks like a micro fiche copy), a template of a DN with no personal details about myself, the alleged debt or anyone else. The NOA that they have sent is a letter which they claim to have sent to me saying that they have purchased the debt and the DOA that they have supplied also contains no reference to either myself or the alleged debt. Andy, these are the points that I have highlighted in my WS. Sorry for the late response to these posts must have had some lag they've only just appeared on the thread

[Guest]

Perhaps bring your WS forward MBL lets have a refresher.

 

claimants WS #160

maybelate's WS?

Edited December 12, 2012 by Ford

[maybelate]

I threw my WS statement together in a hurry towards the end of last week as I didn't really know that I needed to file one until Andy said that I should. I haven't posted it on the thread but the details of it are in post #183

[maybelate]

Hi everyone, I have today received a second WS from the claimant which is said to be in response to my WS and basically provides a copy of my WS and copies of 2 letters sent to me by the claimant stating that they have supplied the documentation that I have requested. The final paragraph of the second WS reads:

 

The claimant can confirm that the order of Judge ----- dated ----- has been complied with to the best of the claimant's ability. A true copy of the agreement, terms and conditions, redacted deed of assignment and the default template notice have been filed. Having regard of the above the claimant contends that there is more than sufficient evidence before the court to establish that the defendant entered into a credit agreement with ----, the account was duly assigned to the claimant and the sums claimed are due and owing. In the circumstances the claimant asks the court to strike out the defendant's defence and enter judgement for the amount claimed as per the particulars of claim, together with costs payable forthwith.

 

Any thoughts on this please? Should I respond? I was thinking of reiterating what I had stated in my WS which is basically that the CCA they have provided is an application form and I don't believe that they have the original. The deed of assignment bears no connection to me whatsoever and neither does the default notice that they have supplied (just a blank template of a default notice letter).

[AndyOrch]

If you could post up your WS and a copy of the agreement MBL. Also a copy of their supplementary WS.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[maybelate]

Hi Andy, I know it's not much use but I can't post anything at the moment as my scanner is not working. I have today posted a second WS in response to their WS, once again highlighting how the documents that they have supplied are lacking and quoting legislation/case law to back up what I'm saying. Guess I'll just have to see what happens next week now (hearing is Wednesday)

[DonkeyB]

Could you not use a camera phone to take some pix? Happy to edit for you.

 

We really do need the detail and sight of these items, especially your WS – otherwise we’re whistling in the wind. Need the specifics. It’s what wins cases.

[maybelate]

Hi Donkey, sorry for the late reply, not been on the computer for a while. I haven't found a way to put WS up,but thank's so much for your kind offer to edit for me though, just got to cross my fingers now and hope that all the years of reading different advice on various other threads on this great site can get me through tomorrow. I'll post after I've been tomorrow with an update

[Guest]

good luck for tomorrow. not sure where you are with this, but you asked about case law before. a bit late, but some authoritative cases that may be of help if applicable?

kotecha/phoenix court of appeal case - re requirement for an accurate response to a cca request.

woodchester lease house of lords case - re need for compliant def notice.

harrison high court - re requirement for compliant def notice.

brandon/amex court of appeal case - re requirement for compliant def notice.

Wilson HL case - re s127 3 ie need to show there was a signed agreement (if before april 07)

[maybelate]

Thank you for the above Ford. Here's how it went:

 

The claimant's sol turned up and he looked about 10 years old lol, we went in and the judge read through his papers said that this was an agreement that had been assigned to the claimant and asked me what my thoughts on the claim were.

 

I replied that I did have an old agreement with the OC which has been in dispute for some time and that looking at the copy of the app form that the claimant has provided it looks like my signature but the T's and C's are definitely not the original ones because they refer to an address that I moved to in 2008 and the alleged agreement was taken out in 1998.

 

I then said I would like to see the original agreement, NOT A COPY, as paragraph 7.3 of Paragraph 16 states that this must be produced in any court proceedings (thanks Andy). The sol quickly piped up that there was a new direction that had been introduced by DJ Wakesman and Carey v HSBC which means that they no longer need the original agreement and are able to produce a reconstituted one in court, the judge nodded in agreement.

 

I then pointed out that this only applies to agreements which were taken out post 2007 and that my alleged agreement was taken out in 1998 (thank you again Andy). The judge said that he was at a disadvantage because he did not have this case law in front of him and the sol said that he has won lots of cases using this case law, including one from 1999, because he has had agreements which contained all of the prescribed terms on them.

 

I respectfully pointed out to the judge that the law is the law and once again pointed out that this case law applies to post 2007 agreements only. It then all got a little confusing because the judge said that I hadn't quoted this case law in my defence and I said that it was in my WS, which the judge said that he hadn't received due to an administration error.

 

I had filed 2 witness statements with the court and had checked that both had arrived before the deadlines. The judge also stated that he had only received one of the claimant's WS's and they had also filed

 

2. The sol gave the judge a copy of all of the missing WS's. The judge read through them briefly and then said that there was lots of legislation and case law quoted in mine which hadn't been in my defence and that he will need me to file a revised defence which quotes all of the points that I included in my WS's, he would then read and check the legislation/case law and make an order from there.

 

The judge looked like he couldn't wait to get out of the court and left straight away before myself and the sol had moved. So it now means that I have to file a new defence which states all points made in my WS's. I know that I will need to post my WS's as soon as I can, does anyone have any thoughts on how this might be going please?

 

If I remember anything else I will post again.

Edited December 31, 2012 by citizenB
formatting

[DonkeyB]

The need to see your documents is now even more important. Beg, borrow or steal a scanner or borrow a phone with a camera.

 

Without a properly detailed, document-specific, accurately prepared defence, you may encounter trouble.

[maybelate]

Thanks Donkey, I have until Mid Jan to file the revised defence so I will post the WS's as soon as I can.

 

regards

Maybe

[maybelate]

Is it my WS's that I need to post Donkey? and what about documents that I have attached to them for reference? There is a lot of personal information on all of them, which I know can be removed, but I'm worried that by posting all this information unwanted parties will be able to piece the information together and if I put the claimant's WS's on as well there will be an awful lot of documents. Which do you think would be most relevant for me to post regarding the revised defence? Getting a bit messy and confusing Lol !

[DonkeyB]

Need copies of any documents they are relying on, plus copies of all WS – yours and theirs.

 

I’m worried you have made some sweeping statements that you have not backed up with facts or evidence. Luckily the judge wasn’t too hot on the case law...

 

Unless we have ALL the facts, documents and data – and so can identify what is missing – it’s difficult to do a detailed defence.

 

And you will only win with a detailed, referenced defence that refutes their specific claims.

[maybelate]

ok Donkey, well they are relying on a copy of the application form with some t's & c's they attached, a template copy of a default notice letter (no personal information included at all) a noa letter but with no proof of service and a redacted doa (again no information relating to me). I researched all relevant legislation and case law which I quoted in my WS on here for each piece of documentation they provided and this is what the judge is now going to look in to further (I hope I got my facts right). I did put the second WS together in a bit of a hurry though as it was in response to the claimant's second WS. I will put docs up next week, will have to do it from work because I can scan at home but am unable to format the documents to remove details and as there is a lot of info. I want to make sure I don't miss anything. Thanks for your help Donkey, much appreciated

[DonkeyB]

Yes, but... we need to see it all because the devil is in the detail. Generic defences do not work. If you want help redacting the documents, there’s plenty of us can and would assist.

[maybelate]

thanks Donkey. I'll get them on as soon as I can.

 

regards

Maybe

[maybelate]

Hi everyone,

 

Here are my WS's:

 

 

 

The claimant's first WS is in post #160 and I will post their second one later.

 

regards

Maybe