Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder

mysticpols06

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    371
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

54 Excellent

1 Follower

About mysticpols06

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Hey to both No only ppi was returned, will look at other charges, the interest that was front loaded is the killer, but will have to read up on that bit. Yeah we said about it during the application for the mortgage in principle and explained that we'd continued paying each month but hadn't heard anything and that our credit has been ok the last couple years/cleared other debt etc, but we weren't sure how it would affect the application, but when we/the broker checked our credit files, nothing was registered and it showed we had fantastic credit rating apparently.
  2. Just seen this again Silverfox1961 8 years on! Hope you're well x
  3. Hi everyone, Back in 2006 Northern Rock secured a CO against my Husband. House is in both names - debt is in his. He has paid an agreed installment amount every month since and he has received a refund of ppi that was apparently missold at the time. The debt was moved to Marlin/Mortimer Clarke in 2013 since then all he has received are the occasional generic 'discount' letters offering for him to repay in full at a reduced amount. He has never received a statement of account - even after requesting one years ago. The debt was for an unsecured loan with interest frontloaded - the judge ruled that as long as the repayments were made each month, there would be no application to enforce the order by way of sale. (I'm not entirely convinced that the figures add up, but that's another story). We are in the process of re-mortgaging - everything going fine, credit files coming back in good cond/top scores etc etc, no more defaults/ccj etc after clearing debt in the past decade, except the Solicitor has now come back to say that there is a restriction on the land registry, which i believe to be a standard form K; "Form K (Charging order affecting beneficial interest—certificate required) No disposition of the [registered estate or registered charge dated [date]] is to be registered without a certificate signed by the applicant for registration or his conveyancer that written notice of the disposition was given to [name of person with the benefit of the charging order] at [address for service], being the person with the benefit of [an interim] [a final] charging order on the beneficial interest of (name of judgment debtor) made by the (name of court) on (date) (Court reference ... ... ... ...)." The solicitor is saying that in order to proceed with the remortgage they will have to "obtain the requirements from the restrictioner to have the restriction withdrawn before granting the new charge" and that they need to write to "the restrictioner to advise them of our intention to remortgage and to ascertain what they require in order to sign the necessary forms to release their restriction". Apparently, the restrictioner will be put on notice that we wish to remortgage and may refuse to remove the restriction, may want us to pay their fees the remortgage can not proceed with the remortgage with the restriction in place. I thought that we only had to inform them that we are remortgaging? Surely as long as we keep paying the agreed monthly repayments, they can't push for more/force a sale? Does anybody have any advice please on how to proceed - also, am i right in thinking that legally they should have provided us with 6 monthly statements of accounts at least? Can i lodge a formal complaint etc about that, or is there not much point, do you think? Anyone been in a similar situ? I'm not sure what would be best to ask the solicitor to do, unless i give them our big pile of paperwork from over the years to go through :/ Thank you very much for your help, Mpols x
  4. Heya huni - Long time.... Hope you well? Yep t'was with cabot re littlewoods & cap one - long story will fill you in later & try to update thread. Needless to say it didnt go to court but didnt end up nec' the way we would have liked either - We have had soooo much happen the last few months and are desperately trying to make a go of everything plus to be honest am just too bloomin' tired to keep arguing with everyone. Ideally we would just like to get everything paid & cleared & disappeared as we wanted in the first place but with all the dcas refusing to return our acc to the oc it is more than frustrating as you know! I was planning on trying to offer them a pro-rata so that we can approach all 3 of hubbys current outstanding amounts at the same time (all 3 with dcas not oc as well) but means they would only get approx 23-26% of outstanding amounts based on what i think i can raise in the first place as a lump sum to share between them - D'ya reckon they might go for it? considering this has been going on a few years now? Cheers again for lookin in hun & catch up soon. M'pols x
  5. Morning all - Update! We have heard nothing from Link (or cap one) other than the regular statements since above, until last night when a very insistent caller got a tad snotty! Hubby answered sec' questions without thinking, as has been so long and then realised who it was etc grrr so he repeatedly asked them to put anything they wanted to say in writing, but the gent on the end of the line was insistent on discussing it there and then so i took over the phone, refused to give my name and re-iterated that they had all info regarding the acc on record and that anything they wanted to discuss should be i writing only. erm.. then put the phone down. Hope they DO record their calls, should be a laugh to hear that one back at some pont beings as the bloke was so arrogant! Anyways, i detract from my point. Our financial situation is actully worse now to what it was before as hubby has since lost his job & rather than be UNemplyed, had no choice but to set up on our own and become SELFemployed a few months ago so we actually have less income but also more worry lol, however, we reallllllly really want rid of all this so that we don't have the nec' concern over being taken to court whilst trying to run a business etc plus all the phonecalls/comms again. Am considering trying to offer a f & f but to all hubbys creds on a pro-rata basis. (Not sure how much cash could muster together but ,might be able to get fam to help etc) however, have never claimed anything back on our accs and never got anything back from Cap One on this either so am wondering whether might be able to reduce the balance then attempt f&f? Am more concerned as to the time it will all take. Input greatly appreciated. Many thanks as always, M'pols x
  6. Good Morning, Could some of you please take a quick look at this thread, in particular posts #1,5 & 8. Am very unsure as to how to approach this case if am in a position to at all? Many thankyous! M'pols x http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?184665-Northern-Rock-Q-Whats-wrong-here
  7. Thankyou sincerely for taking the time. There's probably a lot more that i could put but only once they are dealt with individually if you can understand, because they have lumped the two together. Unfortunately, time was of the essence with this in particular so at least it is done now & i can look to the next stage with a bit of breathing space. Many thanks again hun. Mpols x
  8. Ok, Can someone please just comment if below makes sense & is ok to send asap please? They still haven't sent me anything else so i am going with a fairly basic embarrassed. Thanks as always, Mpols xx 1. I, xxxxxxxxxx, am the defendant in this action and make the following statement as a defence to the claim made by xxxxxx 2. Except where otherwise mentioned in this defence, I neither admit nor deny any allegation made in the Claimant’s Particulars of Claim and put the Claimant to strict proof thereof. 3. The Defendant notes that the Claimant has combined two separate account sums in their particulars of claim in an attempt to conveniently wholly dispose of them in the same proceedings under CPR 7.3, however each sum involves separate accounts with their own original lender, account references, terms, conditions and legal status and can not possibly be “conveniently” disposed of in a single claim, therefore CPR 7.3 can not apply in this instance. 4. a)The Particulars of Claim are vague and insufficient and do not disclose an adequate statement of facts relating to or proceeding the alleged cause of action. No particulars are offered in relation to the nature of the contracts referred to, the method the Claimant calculated any outstanding sums due, or any default notices issued or any other matters necessary to substantiate the Claimant's claim. b) A copy of the purported 'assignment' that the Claimant cites in the Particulars of Claim, and which appears to form the basis upon which these proceedings have been brought, has not been served attached to the claim form or provided for clarification. 5. The Claimant did not send a letter before action as required under the Pre-Action Protocols. 6. The Claimant has so far failed to disclose and clarify appropriate information to support the Particulars of Claim, requested pursuant to CPR 18, which leaves the Defendant at a disadvantage and unable to plead effectively or at all. Even if the Defendant were able to plead they should be allowed to plead effectively to each account on its’ own merit. The Defendant is embarrassed in pleading to the Claim as it stands. 7. The Claimant has not provided any documents to support the particulars of claim and as such have shown no provision within the terms and conditions of either account which would allow interest to be applied after the termination of either account, therefore as the Claimant has not provided proof of the debt or the sums claimed the Defendant denies the Claimants claim for interest pursuant to s.69 of the county court Act 1984. 8. The Defendant did request in writing an extension of deadline for filing a defence pursuant to CPR 15.5, however the Claimant has not, thus far acknowledged or agreed to the request which in turn has also put the Defendant at a disadvantage for filing a defence, by not allowing enough time to file a suitably amended defence once requested points of clarification have been received. 9. The Defendant denies that they are indebted to the Claimant for the sum of £xxxx, including costs and puts the Claimant to strict proof of this sum. AND the Defendant; 10. Seeks an order that the Claimant’s action is struck out under CPR 3.4.2 (a), or otherwise dismissed because the claimant has breached CPR 7.3, has failed to support their Particulars of Claim with the relevant documentation and on the grounds that any claim cannot succeed and that the Claimant do pay the Defendant’s costs incurred in defending this action. To avoid any confusion in case it is suggested that the claim falls under the Consumer Credit Act 2006. It is drawn to the Court’s attention that Schedule 3, Section 11 of the Consumer Credit Act 2006 prevents Section 15 repealing Section 127 (3) of the 1974 Act for Agreements made before Section 15 came into effect. Since the Agreement would have commenced prior to the inception of the Consumer Credit Act 2006, Section 15 of the 2006 Act has no effect and the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is the relevant act in this case.
  9. Hi again, I have edited the draft in Post #23 - Fingers xed i am kinda 'getting there' - Would appreciate comments as to yay or nay so far please?. Also, should i add something along the lines of "to avoid any confusion in case it is suggested that the claim falls under the Consumer Credit Act 2006. It is drawn to the Court’s attention that Schedule 3, Section 11 of the Consumer Credit Act 2006 prevents Section 15 repealing Section 127 (3) of the 1974 Act for Agreements made before Section 15 came into effect. Since the Agreement would have commenced prior to the inception of the Consumer Credit Act 2006, Section 15 of the 2006 Act has no effect and the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is the relevant act in this case." (plus relevant info) Many thanks xx
  10. Would it make sense if i incorporate the following points as well please? -The Particulars of Claim are vague and insufficient and do not disclose an adequate statement of facts relating to or proceeding the alleged cause of action. No particulars are offered in relation to the nature of the contract referred to, the method the Claimant calculated any outstanding sums due, or any default notices issued or any other matters necessary to substantiate the Claimant's claim. -A copy of the purported notice of assignment that the Claimant cites in the Particulars of Claim, and which appears to form the basis upon which these proceedings have been brought, has not been served attached to the claim form. (Although i thought if served through n'hampton, then the doc did not need to be attached?) -The Claimant did not send a letter before action as required under the Pre-Action Protocols. Should i also add the following? "to avoid any confusion in case it is suggested that the claim falls under the Consumer Credit Act 2006. It is drawn to the Court’s attention that Schedule 3, Section 11 of the Consumer Credit Act 2006 prevents Section 15 repealing Section 127 (3) of the 1974 Act for Agreements made before Section 15 came into effect. Since the Agreement would have commenced prior to the inception of the Consumer Credit Act 2006, Section 15 of the 2006 Act has no effect and the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is the relevant act in this case." (plus relevant info) Mpols x
  11. It's me getting wording confused - sorry - am thick as sh*# - i was advised to use part 18 for clarification of certain points rather than requesting actual docs as their poc are so vague & didn't give me much to go by. I s'pose i have made a huge balls up so i need to change a couple points i tried putting in the defence above. will edit that post now. Thank you. x HAVE EDITED POINTS 5,6 & 10 IN DEFENCE DRAFTED ABOVE. x
×
×
  • Create New...