Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by barafear799

  1. Just received a letter from Arrow Global. 

    Informing me they are no longer represented by Restons and they will now be handled by their in house legal team.

    I'm still on the AOE order - so cannot see how this affects me in any way.

    In addition, in the letter, they stated they are in the process of "reviewing my defence" and will be in touch shortly.


    I'm not sure if this is a mistake - just a standard template for cases that are "on hold" - or whether they intend to get my monthly AOE payment increased?

    Is this something they can do?



  2. I followed the advice previously to set up instalment plan - my problem was I didn't stick with it.

    I guess you meant "not a chance" -

    So if it hadn't been Restons I might have stood half a chance?

    But basically, I need to continue to pay until it's all paid off including the dodgy charges and VAT and interest and all the other charges they dreamt up.

    Or I could lose my job (which is a real possibility) and then I won't have anything to attach to.....and no possessions?

    But I'm guessing Restons would not relent even in those circumstances.

    N245? That's filling in my I&E and making an offer of repayment by instalments? Yes.

  3. Ok, short and sweet.

    I don't think there is any easy way out of this - but it's worth asking to see if there is something I haven't discovered.


    CCJ obtained against me by Arrow Global/Restons - about 15 months ago.

    It was for a significant amount of money - far more than I could afford to pay in a lump sum.

    Paying by instalments was not an option made available at the time of the court hearing.

    I subsequently arranged this with Restons directly.

    The amount I could afford to pay meant a period of 11+ years to repay.


    After making a few payments, I struggled to keep up - making either partial payments or late payments.

    Eventually - they applied for an AOE order.


    Initially I managed to get this suspended - so did not go to my employer - but I made the payments directly to Restons.

    I made the first couple of payments in full and on time; the next one was about 10 days late and two further monthly payments between 12-15 days late.

    The last payment was made on 11th Jan (due on 31 Dec)


    - and then on/around 20 January, I received a letter (dated 10 Jan) stating it was a copy of a letter to my employer.

    the suspended AOE had now become real/unsuspended.


    At no stage did Restons contact me to "chase up" late payments - they clearly were just waiting to "enforce"

    The whole reason for "suspending" is due to the nature of my job - which was/is at real risk given these developments.

    I explained when making the application for suspended AOE.


    - we are where we are

    - and I probably need to deal with matters now rather than try to bury my head in the sand

    - or wriggle out of it.


    It's still rather galling given I know Arrow Global probably paid about 5p in the £ for the "so called debt" against which I am now "stuck".


    Stime for questions:


    Assuming I continue to work,

    is there anyway to come to a "full and final" agreement to settle a CCJ

    (and obviously get the AOE removed/ended)?

    I'm assuming the answer is no...




    Here's some "silliness/stupidity" regarding the whole "late payment" to Restons.


    Now that it's with my employer

    - they're not going to get a payment for January

    - because the form arrived too late to apply it to my January pay.

    Furthermore, my employer has until the 19th of the following month to get the payment to the court.


    Restons have taken this action and are actually making themselves worse off

    - at least if I had continued to pay 10-15 days late, it's a whole lot better than they're going to be getting.


    then there's the risk (I'm sure they thought I was bluffing or exaggerating the risk) of me losing my job and not having a salary to attach to.


    In terms of possessions of value, I really do not have anything to get bailiffs involved.


    - it appears these are the tactics that Restons use.....

    .so I'm guessing my chances of reaching any further agreement is pretty slim.


    Any help much appreciated.


    Thank you.

  4. I mentioned the "calculations" on the statement of account - not sure the judge took too much notice of it - however, I also added that the other side (thru their advocate and probably their WS) stated that the agreement ended on 28 June - but the statement only went up to 1 June - also the "daily interest amount" seemed to change (lower) on that date.


    The "error" in their WS where they showed "Payday Express" rather than "UK" was "accepted" by the Judge as a simple typo - so did not prejudice their WS.

  5. who does the NOA say they bought the debt from?

    that's the only name they can use in their claim...

    NOA states PDUK. As did their original POC on court claim. It is this WS where they mention PDE


    Then write Template Blank Default Notice......not " The use of a standard “any company” default notice "


    Thank you. Will do. Any ideas for any arguments I may have missed?

  6. Point 15 refers to their template default notice which they included in their witness statement.


    attached for reference.


    Any advice for any more points to raise?


    Is it worth arguing about their mistake in referring to the originating creditor as Payday Express, when it should have been Payday UK?


    Also, is it worth mentioning the issues the company as a whole had with the way they treated customers?


    Any further advice much appreciated.


    In addition,

    given that the loan agreement is the main document they will be relying on

    - do I have a case to query the validity of it?


    I don't want to be sounding like I am accusing them of making it up

    - but given it's an online agreement there is no signature as such

    - and simply because my name and address is enclosed (on the redacted bit)

    - does this make it a valid document on which they can claim?

    default template.JPG


  7. I have made a start on my WS - but am slightly unsure as to how much detail I should go into; at the moment, I'm trying to work through a timetable of events - and trying to focus on the Claimant not following due process - but need some guidance as to how to highlight this - at the moment, I feel I am lacking the killer punch.


    This is where I've got so far - any guidance/comments very welcome.


    Many thanks for the help so far.


    1. I am the DEFENDANT in this case.


    2. I make this Witness Statement in support of my defence (dated xxxxx) and in response to the claimant’s claim dated xxxxx which was submitted through the county court bulk centre.


    3. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.


    4. The Defendant has, in the past, had financial dealings with Payday UK. I do not recall the precise details of the agreement number quoted and have sought verification from the claimant by way of sending a formal request for copies of documents mentioned in the statement of case pursuant to CPR 31.14 and as formal request for a copy of the original agreement pursuant to section 77 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 along with the statutory £1 fee. This was sent to the Claimant’s solicitor on 10 September 2017. The Defendant does not recall a notice of Assignment issued on 09/12/2016.


    5. The required documents were not produced in the timeframe required. The Claimant states that as a debt purchaser, it relies on obtaining documentation from the originating creditor, and this can prove difficult, as they may have been archived. However, the case in question is quite recent, given that the claim is for a loan taken about 18 months prior to the claim, so on this basis, this cannot be used as a reason for failing to produce the requested paperwork in good time.


    6. This information did not arrive before the deadline for the Defendant to file a defence to the claim. My defence was filed on 19 September 2017.


    7. By the beginning of November 2017, the Defendant had still not received any of the requested documents. It was now time to complete the Directions Questionnaire.


    8. The Defendant served the DQ on 11 November and sent a letter to the Claimant’s solicitor (dated 6 November) providing a copy of the DQ together with a willingness to consider mediation. The letter also reiterated that the requested documents had still not been received and that the Defendant looked forward to receiving these.


    9. It was hoped that the documents would be produced during the period of time it took to arrange a mediation appointment. The Defendant was contacted by the mediation service via email on 12 November to arrange a suitable date. Following some negotiations on the phone to arrange a suitable date, this was confirmed by email on 24 November from the mediation service. The date of mediation was to be 13 December 2017. This gave both parties 19 days to prepare, and for the Claimant to produce the documentation, which had still not been received (by 24 November 2017).


    10. The day of the mediation appointment arrived and the documents had still not been sent to the Defendant. At the start of the call with the mediator, the Defendant mentioned this fact. The mediator spoke to the Claimant, and the Claimant stated that they were now available and would be emailed to the mediator to be passed onto the Defendant.


    11. The Defendant stated that this would not allow him enough time to analyse the documents and to seek legal advice if necessary. Although the Defendant tried to reach an agreement during the mediation process, both parties were unable to agree and hence mediation failed.


    12. The documents sent via the mediator were a copy of the original credit agreement and a statement of account showing the original loan amount and transactions on a daily basis.


    13. The Claimant had still not produced either the default notice or notice of assignment mentioned in their original Particulars of Claim.



    One quick question: Is it ok to use "I" rather than the Defendant all the time?





    14. I would contend that under Section 87 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (The Act) the creditor must deliver a default notice which complies with all of the requirement of Section 88 of the Act and of the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 before the Claimant will become entitled to terminate the agreement and make any demand for early payment. It is my case that no default notice which complied in the respects referred to was ever delivered to me by the Claimant.


    15. In the Claimant’s witness statement (received by the Defendant on 12 February 2018), they stated in paragraph 48 that the Claimant is unable to provide a copy of the default notice. It is the Defendant’s assertion that the debt is not enforceable without this documentation.


    16. The Claimant believes that their “supporting documents unequivocally demonstrate the extent of the Defendant’s liability under the Agreement”; however, the Defendant asserts that the copy of the Credit Agreement is very generic in nature, and other than showing the defendant’s name and address details does not prove that this was the agreement relating to the outstanding debt claimed by the Claimant. The Defendant has admitted to having had past dealings with the Originating Creditor in the past.


    17. Within the Claimant’s witness statement, they refer (in paragraph 6) to a “balance of monies due against a credit agreement between the Defendant and Instant Cash Loans Limited trading as Payday Express.” However, the assignment notice produced as part of their witness statement (and not previously supplied to the Defendant as per their CPR request in September 2017) shows a letter from Payday UK and not Payday Express.


    18. Furthermore, the Claimant’s witness statement shows a screen print of the information purporting to relate to the default notice. It is asserted that this does not provide evidence or assurance that this shows an accurate position on which to rely. This is especially relevant as the originating creditor is no longer in the business of providing payday loans, and has in the past needed to provide redress and pay compensation to customers who “may have suffered detriment as a result of the firm’s affordability checks, debt collection practices and systems errors”. Given this, the Defendant believes this screenshot cannot be relied upon as proof that the agreement was in default or that a default notice was ever issued.


    19. The use of a standard “any company” default notice, produced as part of the Claimant’s witness statement is irrelevant to this claim.


    20. The Claimant’s rebuttal of the Defendant’s defence bears little relevance. This suggests that individuals in a similar position to the Defendant should not seek any help in defending themselves against the claims of debt purchasing companies such as the Claimant. The Defendant also asserts that the Claimant and their solicitor rely on template letters and responses when corresponding with their alleged debtors.




    Statement of Truth: I believe the facts stated within this Witness Statement to be true


    I do believe I need to add some more and would appreciate some prompts on which areas I should be focusing on.

    Thank you.

  8. worthy to note page 19 of their WS say

    existing customer...

    so you'd had previous loans with them...was this a rollover/refinance?


    Yes, that is correct. It would have been a new loan - rather than rollover.

    My defence stated I'd had previous dealings with them, but not agreeing to the particular agreement number of this case.


    However, their WS states "the defendent entered into an agreement with the originating creditor, the Defendent does not deny this".

  9. FKO> Thank you. And are you still in deliberations with BW yourself?


    As for my upload - it is quite lengthy.


    First time I properly read through it

    - I did look at it when I received it in the post yesterday

    - but it was late and hardly bedtime reading!!


    On closer inspection, CAG get a mention!! And others - where I also requested some guidance.


    Clearly their WS is suggesting that people that seek help online are somehow exempt from being able to defend their case in court and that DCAs like BW/PRAC are the salt of the earth and should be held in high esteem in every court up and down the land.


    REferring to the other recent case won against BW - seems like they are prone to making the same mistakes.


    Anyway - any assistance greatly appreciated.

    claimants ws.pdf

  • Create New...