Jump to content

UnitedFront

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    742
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by UnitedFront

  1. Ok, firstly I am obviously still a student. I know this information is in my signature, but I have to be sure it has been read: I am NOT an expert in law and nothing I say should be taken as advice, directly or otherwise. Now, you seem to have used the original defence as your reason to have this judgment in default set aside which, in my mind, is less than ideal. Hopefully the court will have some mercy because you are a litigant in person. I would take two copies of the following to court, one for you and, just in case, one for the judge: 1) Copy of the claim form you received. 2) Copy of the CPR Request you sent to Carter. 3) Copy of the Judgment in Default. 4) Copy of the N244 you filed with the court. The basic rule is that a judgment in default may be set aside if you can show that you had a reasonable chance of a successful defense. I'm not sure what else you can take with you, to be honest. What you must do, however, is get your head around the terms because at the moment you're getting them somewhat confused. In this hearing that you will attend, you are the applicant. You are applying to have a judgment in default set aside. Carter etc are the respondent. You are not using a defense in this hearing. Because as above, you are not a defendant in this hearing. At this point in time, with all the paperwork submitted and the hearing listed, I think you just have to go in and see what happens. If you have a decent judge you may be ok, if not you wont. Are you aware if Carter etc have responded to your application to set aside in any way? Sorry I can't be of more help. Cheers UF
  2. I take it you filled out the N244 to get to this stage? What did you write on that? And did you attach a witness statement to it?
  3. Hi I'd start a new thread for your issue. Do you have that in writing stating that they will issue a statutory demand??? Unless something has changes significantly since the last time I looked, the minimum amount you could be made bankrupt for is £750, in which case I would complain to Trading Standards and the OFT about that threat. I would also complain to the company, quoting the OFT Guidelines on Debt Collection and the Consumer Protection From Unfair Trading Regulations!!! They are not supposed to threaten actions they cannot lawfully take; and if the debt is less than the bankruptcy limit then they cannot issue a Statutory Demand because that is simply a precursor to a petition for bankruptcy!! Like I say, I'd start a new thread including as much detail as you can and, if possible, a copy of the letter they have sent you with all personal details removed. Have you sent any company chasing this debt a cca request? Cheers UF EDIT Taken from the insolvencyhelpline website:
  4. Since the debt became due, has there ever been a clear gap of at least 6 years (5 in Scotland) where no payment or written acknowledgement had been made? When was the last payment you made? What was the debt originally for? Cheers UF
  5. I'll jump on it in the morning and see if I can spot any relevant case law Cheers UF
  6. Ummmm....... If all they are enquiring after is the fact that you work there and to confirm your Date of Birth and address, then surely none of that information is REQUIRED for legal proceedings? I mean, they don't need to know where you work to take action against you, it's irrelevant; they don't need your date of birth to take action against you, it's irrelevant; and they don't need to know your address to take action against you, the are entitled to take action at your last known address!!!! In my personal opinion, this is clearly just a ruse to embarrass you into making payments and, personally, I think this type of behaviour is despicable!!!!! Cheers UF EDIT: Beaten to it by above posters haha
  7. Where the alleged debt is recognised, I always think a cca request is a good place to start. But first, I wonder if you have a few more details? - When was the account taken out? - When was it defaulted? - When was the last payment on the account? More people will be along shortly with advice etc. Cheers UF
  8. In my personal opinion........ Making continued threats of litigation where there is clearly no intention of carrying that threat through could be seen as harassment.... Bringing an action, however, will not be vexatious simply because you are unable to pay more. Quite simply, if money is owed, the person to whom it is owed has the right to secure that debt with a Judgment. If there was no real chance of success (i.e. obtaining such a Judgment) then the action could be vexatious. It would not, however, be vexatious simply because the debtor is unable to pay more. That issue would be taken into account by the court when deciding what order to make as to payment of the Judgment debt. Do look at the British Gas case, but at the same time, you shouldn't always read all too much into such cases because, simply put, every case will turn on its own facts. Having said that, some weight must ultimately be placed on the number and frequency of any demands / requests to pay more. Much the same, some weight surely must be placed on the issue of how you are contacted; i.e. ignored requests only to be contacted in writing. Cheers UF
  9. Any contract between parties such as this would, almost certainly, have a clause allowing the creditor to assign the debt to another organisation for the purposes of debt collection. This being said, if the account has not been sold, then the DCA will be acting under an equitable assignment, thus, under the contract the OC would be entitled to simply refer you back to the DCA. Whist many OC's would be willing to communicate on matters directly, many will not. In such a situation I personally feel that refusing to deal with the DCA would be counter productive. Firstly, it's a self-made barrier to actually concluding matters and secondly it may show you in poor light in any future court proceedings. Just my thoughts though. Cheers UF
  10. No problem I'm always a little wary about posting such information in threads such as this where the information kind of fits but may not be directly applicable, so I'm glad it may prove to be of some use Cheers UF
  11. Without wanting to detract from the OP's thread, I think it is worth mentioning also that whilst to have a judgment set aside because the claim was issued at a previous address, the general rule is that you need to show that you would have a reasonable chance of a successful defence, this is not always a stance set in stone. I have (very recently) successfully had a judgment set aside because the claim was issued at my previous address. I admitted the debt and had no dispute over the claim, as such. However, I argued that case law stipulates that where, had they been aware of the claim, a debtor would have taken action to settle the debt instead of getting an embarrassing CCJ, the judgment can be set aside. (as per May LJ in Godwin v Swindon Borough Council [2002] 1 W.L.R. 997). The same authority, I argued, gave grounds for not awarding costs thrown away. I also submitted the case of Manx Electricity Authority v JP Morgan Chase Bank [2002] EWHC 867 (Comm), LTL 16/5/2002, as adding weight to the stance that the above would be cause for having a judgment set aside. Whilst I accept that the above was possibly a somewhat risky path to take, it was successful and the matter is now fully resolved; and I saved a substantial amount of money because when the set aside was successful, costs were removed. I would not advocate or suggest using the above without great thought, research and independant advice. I know that this information is not directly relevant to the OP's case, but it may be useful to the many many people that come across the site by chance as well as regular and existing members, that read this thread in the future. Cheers UF
  12. IMHO that would not be the case; the debt would only not be statute barred for the purpose of the stayed claim (the claim where judgment was set aside), as far as I am aware this process would not increase the limitation period; but if the claim that already exists was started within the period then I believe that claim would not be barred. If they had to issue a new claim altogether then this would clearly be statute barred. Just my thoughts though and definitely not to be taken as gospel. Cheers UF
  13. As previously stated, definitely seems to be statute barred. And, also as stated, even if their was a payment made in 2007; if there was a 6 year gap in payments prior to that and with no written acknowledgements, then the debt would have been statute barred at the time the payment was made and, thus, the payment served nothing to their cause. Once a debt is barred by the Limitation Act, no payment or part-payment or acknowledgement thereafter is capable of ending the statute barred status of a debt. Cheers UF
  14. It is my understanding that when a judgment is set aside, the case returns to the claim stage; the claim is usually stayed for a period of time inside which the claimant can re-commence. In my mind, I would be wary to state that they could not re-commence, because if the case is only returned to the claim stage and not ended all together, then the claim would have been started, potentially, within the required limitation period. Of course, this would only be the case if the original claim was brought within the required time limit; if not then that, in itself, would be reason to have the judgment set aside. Definitely agree with posts so far, get all the details and as much information as possible before taking the next step. Cheers UF
  15. I would report it to the police, whilst I know very little of Scottish law I do know it is illegal to impersonate a court official in Scotland.... a journalist was cleared of the charge a few years ago if I remember correctly. Cheers UF
  16. I've used the following previously when in similar positions, hope it helps. Cheers UF ____________________ Dear Sir/Madam I DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE ANY DEBT TO YOUR COMPANY OR ANY COMPANY YOU PURPORT TO REPRESENT To be treated as an official dispute of this alleged debt Thank you for your letter dated XXXXXX, the contents of which are noted. Please be advised that I shall not be furnishing you with any of the additional information requested in your correspondence. I note that I have no duty to do so and, indeed, that you have no authority to make such demands. I am aware that it is listed within the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) guidelines on Debt Collection as Deceptive and/or Unfair Practice to require an individual to provide additional information to prove they are not the debtor in question. For this you should be aware that I intend to make a full complaint to the OFT with regards to your request. I note your contention that this information is required to prevent a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998. I further note that up to this point you have been satisfied that you have been communicating with the correct person and you have demonstrated this by releasing personal information in the form of your demands for payment of an alleged debt. If you have not been certain that I am the person to whom you should be corresponding then you would have clearly acted in breach of this aforementioned Act of Parliament. For this reason you should be informed that I now intend to make a full complaint regarding your conduct to the Information Commissioner. Be aware that my dispute of the alleged debt for which you have contacted me is still valid and you are obliged to investigate my dispute and provide any relevant documentation to show that the alleged debt exists and, in the unlikely event that it does, that I am the person from whom it owes. I note that it is listed in the OFT guidelines on Debt Collection as Physical/Psychological Harassment to ignore and/or disregard claims that debts have been settled or are disputed and continue to make unjustified demands for payment. I look forward to your written response. Yours faithfully ____________________
  17. This is an old account.... have you checked if the agreement they've sent you is enforceable? Can you scan it and post it up (remove personal or identifying details) so that people can have a look and see what they think? Cheers UF
  18. Surely the cause of action is missing the payment? Not issuing the default? Fair enough, they can't take action without issuing the default but it is not the default that leads to the action.... their right to take action against you for breaching the contract occurs when you miss the payment. Therefore, strictly in my personal opinion, the date would be the first payment date that was missed after January etc. On a side note, it has made me an immensely happy person to see that we are all moving away from the blanket "6 years from last payment" lines that has been peddled so inaccurately for so long. I have seen creditors and DCA's in the past try and claim that the date starts when they register the default, but I have yet to see any such argument actually seen through. In my personal opinion, such an argument is a non-existent point merely attempting to resurrect the dead. If no payments have been made since the account was terminated, I say the magic date = date of missed payment. If payments have been made since the account was terminated (eg to DCA or OC etc), the magical date = date of last payment. As always, just my personal opinion. Cheers UF
  19. Just thought I'd let people know that since I last posted in this thread, I have obtained figures relating to the number of prosecutions commenced since 2006. Since 2006 there have been a total of 9,482 instances of a S127 charge being made and reaching at least first hearing at Magistrates Court. So there are charges being brought under this section, it's just not massively publicised. The other interesting thing is that the number of charges each year has consistently increased year on year since 2006. Obviously I've no way of knowing who any of the parties to the cases were, other than those published as mentioned earlier in the thread. Cheers UF
  20. If I were you I would complain to everyone that will listen, including the water company concerned. The agent that called has told a bare faced lie!! Water companies cannot disconnect a domestic supply as a result of water arrears!! http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/your_world/consumer_affairs/water_supply.htm#Water_arrears So whatever you do, don't worry about them disconnecting your supply because if they know the house is occupied, they can't do it!! Cheers UF
  21. In the case where no payment had ever been made, the clock would start at the date on which the first payment was missed. This is clear from the wording of S5 Limitation Act which, as previously stated, stipulates that the clock begins at the date the cause of action occurred. How the hell can signing the agreement be deemed as the cause of action? IT CANNOT!!! Missing the first payment is the cause of action. People get confused with the payment date issue because in the vast majority of cases, payments have been made that restart the clock and, thus, are the date to be concerned with. In this thread, it is clear that as no payment was EVER made the date would be the second - the date on which the first payment was missed because this was the date on which the lender had reason to take action - cause of action!! I really don't see how this issue can cause so much trouble to learned people. The wording of the Act is clear, as is the application of it by the courts. Cheers UF
  22. Yes the thread was started at the time... A member revived the debate yesterday... Obviously this is still a touchy subject for some...
  23. Excellent responses which, I'm glad to note, show that the Cabot Fan Club is still thriving on the CAG!!!! :)
  24. Cabot have very few friends on this board, if any!! Unfortunately the tactics employed by the company are often nothing short of despicable!!! So if you're asking me to feel sorry for the poor folk at CrapBot then you are definitely out of luck!!! I could give hours of tape recordings full of the lies and deceit peddled out on a daily basis by the morons manning the phones there so no, I will not pity the fools!!! They may just be doing their jobsm but they don't abide by the rules or the laws, so tough!!! You say people should pay their debts... This is true and few would argue... But if it is right that people pay what they owe, then it is right for dca's to stick to the rules and follow the laws of the country as well. They don't, in my experience. And looking at the boards here... Few members would disagree!!!
  25. I know, S40 was so precise in the way it applied to DCAs in their every day practices!! The new rules don't seem quite so crisp and there is the whole question of what constitutes "justified" etc.... In some cases this will obviously be very clear, but in others I fear it will not... Do stop by when you've read them and let us know what your thoughts are on them... Cheers UF
×
×
  • Create New...