Hi folks,

Today I received an N1 CPC from Northampton County Court Bulk Centre in relation to an MBNA card I took out around 2007.

I stopped paying them in around April 2009 and whilst not sure of the default date, it was either late 2009 or early 2010.

I have not yet sent an SAR request and truth be told have received hardly any paperwork,

the last was a statement from AK yesterday "reminding" me as to the balance.

I do not recollect receiving a letter before action and that the statement that come yesterday contained no mention of court proceedings.

The claim form states the following information.

Issue date 1 April 2014.

Claimant - Aktiv Kapital Portfolio AS, Zug Branch, Zueghausgasse 3, 6300 Zug, Switzerland (Reg No: CH-400.9.032.183-7)

Address for sending payments and documents - Wright Hassall LLP, Olympus Avenue, Leamington Spa, Warwickshire, CV34 6BF

Defendant - Me

POC - "The Claimant is an Assignee of the following debts, notice of assignment having been given to the Defendant in writing:

MBNA Platinum 5 4,331.72

Account No: (16 digit number)

Despite demands for payment, the above sums remain due.

The claimant claims the sum of 4,331.72, interest under s.69 County Courts Act 1984 and costs.

Sum claimed £4331.72, court fee £85, Solicitor's costs £80, total amount £4496.72

Proposed course of action is that I intend to fight this as I do not want a CCJ.

Acknowledgement of service to be filed online over the weekend.

SAR request to go to Wright Hassall (do I need to send documents to Switzerland as well or the UK address of AK which I think might be in Chester)

and then CPR request to follow in about 7-10 days.

Assuming they fail to comply with the CCA request then the "failed" CCA request letter to go after 12 + 2 days.

Obviously my proposed defence is that I dispute the whole claim,

but for the purposes of the defence form should I set out the relevant clause in the CCA

that unless proper copies of the documents that the claimant is seeking to rely on are delivered up,

the claim stands as unenforceable at law whilst the CCA default continues.

Any thoughts or suggestions at this stage most appreciated before I get to work.

Laters

NC

SAR goes to the OC MBNA

CCA & CPR 31:14 goes to wright hassle.

dx

Acknowledgement of service has been filed online setting out I will be defending the whole claim.

SAR and CCA letters sent by signed for delivery service.

NC

CPR?

dx

CPR has gone today

NC

Evening all,

Letter from Wright Hassall in the post today.

They note my request for various documents and have "passed on your request to our client"....."as an assignee of the debt it can take a number of weeks for it to obtain certain documents from the original vendor".

It goes on to say "WP save as to costs...

to avoid further time and expense being incurred on this matter our client will accept £3,750 in full and final settlement of its claim,

payable as a lump sum or affordable monthly instalments".

They then say it is a 15% reduction and a saving of over £500. If I do not accept in 14 days the offer will expire.

Is this a typical type of response from these people?

My defence has to be in Court by 4 May 2014,

and I was thinking of filing it around 23 or 24 April.

In the meantime (a bit of guidance will be most appreciated)

do I go back to the "defended team" at WH inviting them to withdraw the proceedings

and enter into a consent order to do that "save as to costs"

and that to do nothing is not an option for me and I have to defend the claim?

Is it safe / appropriate for me to correspond by email to them?

Alternatively should I just press on and file the defence (will post a draft up) and await a response from MBNA / WH or directions from the Court.

Any guidance much appreciated.

Laters

NC

sit on your hands...

await the sar

if they are offering discounts

then there might well be more to be had by way of PENALTY charges & PPI.

via reclaiming them

if they are offering mediation, then these could , I think, be brought into the melting pots.

interesting to see they are already wriggling.

so somethings up

as for the docs or lack of them

you file regardless

on the CCa they have 14 working days.

dx

Evening folks,

Bit of advice needed.

Response from WH which reads as follows.

We continue to act for the Claimant in the matter referred to above and write in response to your CPR Part 31.14 request dated 7 April 2014.

We would draw your attention to the fact that as this matter has a value of less than £10,000.00 it is very likely to be allocated to the small claims track. We would also like to draw your attention to the fact that under CPR Part 27.2, the rules in CPR Part 31 do not apply to small claims and therefore you have no basis to make your request under CPR Part 31.14.

In addition to the above, in relation to the latter two documents you have requested, namely the Default Notice and termination Notice we would make the following points.

Firstly a request made under CPR Part 31.14 is limited to documents referred to in a Statement of Case. We have not referred to either a Default Notice or a Termination Notice in our Particulars of Claim and therefore have no obligation to provide you with said documents.

Secondly we are not claiming for the amount in default but simply the amount outstanding on the account and so the Default Notice is not pertinent to our claim.

Nevertheless we are keen to deal this (sic) matter amicably and as such we repeat our assurances to you in our letter of 8 April 2014 namely that we will endeavour to provide you with supporting documentation relating to this claim once we receive it from our client.

YF

WH LLP

I would like to start drafting my defence next week to get into Court in good time so any advice / guidance much appreciated.

NC

They are correct in that only documents mentioned in their claim can be requested by CPR31.14. If you wish to discover if a Default Notice was indeed sent, you would have to use CPR part 18 which they do have to respond to.

CPR part 18 can only be used to obtain "information" so you should ask for information by way of a question - then, depending on their response, you can then ask to see the document itself.

Having said that, they will have to disclose information nearer the time - the court shouldnt allow them to go to trial without producing some solid proof of their debt/actions.

I have provided an example of a CPR part 18 below. Please do not just send it as it is - it should be prepared for your specific circumstances. Dont go on a fishing trip asking for everything you can think of

[ATTACH=CONFIG]50310[/ATTACH]

Citizen,

Having researched CPR Part 18 a bit more, whilst it would appear very pertinent, the danger is that if WH get the matter to the SC track then CPR part 18 will not stand. However there is nothing wrong with raising questions as suggested (which I will tailor to my specific circumstances) and I think the whole thing now boils down to the issue of timing when to hit them with the CPR 18 request.

From what I have seen about CPR 18 there would appear nothing wrong with raising the request for more info and documents before the court allocates the case to the SC track, i.e. sending the questions now and then issue the CPR 18 request at the time they issue their defence (correct me if I am wrong but also at the same time they have to submit an allocation questionnaire).

For now the proposed strategy is:

1. For the defence (i.e. to be filed in Court before 4 May 2014) to simply state that no evidence of the debt has been produced and a request under the CCA for documents has been made (which has been acknowledged) which has not been complied with and whilst the breach remains the alleged sum is unenforceable at law. Just one thought though, if I state all the above does it sound contradictory?

This will at least put the ball back in their court.

2. Send a series of pertinent questions to WH - can this be done by email?

3. My CPR 18 request will ask for the same documents as set out in the CCA (not the SAR) request - in this way it is keeping with established law and not seen as a fishing trip.

Any thoughts, anybody?

Laters,

NC

" 3. My CPR 18 request will ask for the same documents as set out in the CCA (not the SARicon) request - in this way it is keeping with established law and not seen as a fishing trip.

Any thoughts, anybody? "

You cant request documents by way of a CPR 18 only information also CPR 18 is usually ignored on the premise that the claim will be Small Claims Track irrespective of it being unallocated at the moment.

Regards

Andy

Afternoon folks,

I will be submitting the defence to Court tomorrow (draft wording appears below) and keeping it short and sweet. Any observations or suggestions appreciated before I get the papers off.

NC

The Defendant disputes the claim in its entirety.

The Claimant has not provided any documentation or evidence to substantiate the claim.

A request for further information pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act has been made

(which has been acknowledged by the solicitors acting for the Claimant stating that it could take a number of weeks to obtain the information necessary).

Until such documentation has been provided in accordance with the Consumer Credit Act

the alleged claim is deemed unenforceable at law.

The claimant has chosen to issue Court proceedings without proving the debt

or providing evidence when a proper investigation is required beforehand.

The alleged sum claimed is also disputed in that it may include interest / penalty charges and PPI which is potentially recoverable.

Afternoon folks,

 

 

I will be submitting the defence to Court tomorrow (draft wording appears below) and keeping it short and sweet. Any observations or suggestions appreciated before I get the papers off.

 

 

NC

 

 

 

 

Playing devils advocate here but this is how a Court will respond.

 

 

The Defendant disputes the claim in its entirety.On what grounds?

The Claimant has not provided any documentation or evidence to substantiate the claim.They are not required to until standard disclosure after allocation

A request for further information pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act has been made (which has been acknowledged by the solicitors acting for the Claimant stating that it could take a number of weeks to obtain the information necessary).Ok thats valid

Until such documentation has been provided in accordance with the Consumer Credit Act the alleged claim is deemed unenforceable at law.Correct

The claimant has chosen to issue Court proceedings without proving the debt or providing evidence when a proper investigation is required beforehand.Not required to see above

The alleged sum claimed is also disputed in that it may include interest / penalty charges and PPI which is potentially recoverable.

Devils Advocate but you see how it now needs further work?

Regards

Andy

Seems I am in the exact same boat as you nunkychunky. Details are almost identical with the exception that I have requested CCA and CPR requests but heard nothing.

Hi folks,

Quick update...

Defence was filed on 23 April (after further tweaking as suggested by andyorch) and this was filed online.

Confirmation received from Court via seemingly standard response - in that after 30 days the claim will be stayed.

Letter sent two days ago to WH asking for further information about the assignment notice (i.e. under what statute do they intend to rely upon it being "given to the Defendant in writing" as per their POC".

Two letters received today from WH.

Envelope 1 - Letter 1 (addressed to me) - "We write further to the above matter and enclose a copy of correspondence sent to Court for your attention"

Envelope 1 - Letter 2 (addressed to Northampton County Court Bulk Centre) - "We write further to the letter of the Court dated 25 April 2014 and confirm that our Client is not in agreement with the Defence and seeks to proceed with the claim. On that basis, we await to hear from you further as to the next steps".

Envelope 2 - Letter 1 (addressed to me) - "We confirm receipt of your defence of which the content is noted. In reply to your Defence, we have requested documents from our client and will forward them to you upon receipt. Given that our client is an assignee of the debt, the process of obtaining the documents may take a number of weeks. We note that your Defence is based solely upon documents not being provided and not in relation to the amount claimed. On that basis, upon documentation being provided by our client we will be lodging an application to the Court for your Defence to be struck out and Judgment to be granted".

Envelope 2 - Letter 2 (addressed to me) - "Without prejudice save as to costs, under CPR 1.1, our Client is offering a 10% discount on the sum claimed"

Any comments or thoughts anybody?

NC

Wish they would make up their minds which way they wish to proceed:lol:

"our Client is not in agreement with the Defence and seeks to proceed with the claim. On that basis, we await to hear from you further as to the next steps".

Wish they would make up their minds which way they wish to proceed:lol:

 

"our Client is not in agreement with the Defence and seeks to proceed with the claim. On that basis, we await to hear from you further as to the next steps".

 

That was to the Court. ;-)

I know...... Im sure they know the procedure to proceed and what the next steps are.

Hi NC, I have an acquaintance who has received the same non-specific and obfuscatory POC from this "firm".

With some help from myself (and this excellent site) my friend also sent a CPR 31.14 letter. Unsurprisingly, receiving an identical response.

I ensured that the request included a paragraph requesting an extension to the time for filing a defence, and that period should be specified and agreed in their response. Did they agree an extension - no. They did however "kindly" state that they would not enter judgment before a defence was filed! (They don't enter judgment, the court does if you don't file a defence on time). Defence filed on time anyway.

IMHO-

So, on we go to allocation where a DOFD will be filed, along with convincing/strong FI that will ensure the J will allow our DOFD.

I fully envisage it will be shortly after this point where the C "decides" that the claim is not in the C's financial interest to continue, and they will seek the D's permission to discontinue (but it will be with conditions!) or simply "forget" to pay the fee and have the claim struck out. Similar in fact, to a certain H-cohen whom employed these tactics some time ago.

The main difference (I think) between my acquaintances circumstances and your own, is that my friend knows (without doubt) that there has never been an agreement.

These "debts" are very near SB, and this is a desperate attempt to make good on poor/old/unenforceable portfolios by aktive.

Good luck with the rest of the process (DLTBGYD),

Bill.

Folks, good morning.

Quick update....

Letter sent to WH on 30 April asking under what statute / authority they are seeking to rely on regarding the assignment notice (i.e. under the LPA and the manner it was (allegedly) served).

Letter received yesterday from WH.....

Dear Me

We write further to your letter dated 30 April 2014 and refer you to our previous letter dated 2 May 2014 stipulating that we have requested documents from Our Client and will forward them to you upon receipt.

We reiterate the content in our previous letter that the process of documents may take a number of weeks given that Our Client is an assignee of the debt.

YF

WH LLP

Do I sense that they are on the back foot?

NC

Bill,

Excuse my ignorance, but what do the acronyms mean (especially the last one)?

Are you referring to Howard Cohen of West Yorkshire?

NC

Hi NC, sorry, didn't mean to be secretive!

At allocation, the parties are invited to file directions so that the court can deal with the case.

DOFD = draft order for directions.

FI = further information.

As well as the "D" (defendant) informing the court that they want the case transferred to their local court, because they are Litigant in person. Further information should "steer/help" the judge, to ensure that the documents requested are necessary for the claim to continue. As without them there is no case to answer, etc.

DLTBGYD = Dont let the b******s grind you down.

You have recieved identical "generic" replies to your requests, as has my acquaintance, this indicates to me that these claims are launched on "a wing and a prayer" that they would not be contested. Unfortunately for AK, they underestimated the resolve of informed defendants. Surely, a bona-fide law firm would've sought confirmation of a water-tight claim (ie docs) against the defendant before issuing the claim, in my view that would be the diligent approach.

The fact that claimants can launch claims against people without sight of, or immediate access to pivotal documents, is a great oversight of MCOL. Or is it? I think the MCOL system should require claimants to attest the legitimacy of the docs relied upon, and to prepare copies before even starting a claim. Of course, this is just as likely as the finance industry genuinely paying the full court fees (as stated on the claim form).

IMHO, I am convinced my acquaintances claim will be either discontinued or struck out due to a non-compliance issue after allocation. This is because if the claimant discontinues before allocation (to the small claims track), they are liable for the defendants costs. Discontinuance/strike out after allocation to the SCT is a freebie.

Shame on them.

Bill,

Thanks for the clarification, especially the last one.

I wholeheartedly agree with the inadequacies of the MCOL system where anyone can issue a claim in a "hit and hope manner". In my case, AK and WH have picked on someone prepared to fight them to the bitter end.

I will be sending them one further letter asking them to specifically answer the question put to them.

NC

Hi, NC, I don't think you'll have much luck with the reply though!

I suspect the "defended team" is a one man band without many templates on his word 2000.

Best of luck with the rest of the process, I will pop in (if thats ok) and update.

Cheers, Bill.

I did a bit of research on WH by the way, and I suppose the purpose having a pop at people like me is to recover some funds for a large costs order made against them for ballsing up an administration whilst acting for an insolvency practitioner, who knows?

The signature on the letter could well suggest the "defended team" is one person, or perhaps a trainee, of a semi-literate disposition (i.e. it contains a mixture of lower case and capital letters).

NC