Jump to content

Beamengine

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    98
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Beamengine

  1. You might SAR Robinson Way to find out whether they do actually have authority to pursue the debt. I received a letter from them claiming that they are pursuing a debt on HBOS but with a Halifax card number. Halifax are part of the Bank of Scotland as shown on their statements but HBOS is not recorded as one of the trading names for BOS in their Consumer Credit licence. I have pointed this out to them and they claim that they are acting within the regulations but they sent me a much nicer letter when I told them that I was considering action for breach of contract and would be content to let a judge decide that question
  2. One of my family has accumulated debts of £50k and had intended to use CCCS to repay them but the time taken would have been 13 years. I offered to make third party settlements (60%) to all of them a year ago but they all refused and since then have been dealing with the creditors as his authorised representative. Sadly only one of them has behaved as I would expect - thank you Capital One :-) Towards the end of last year some of the creditors asked for a revised financial statement whilst others simply terminated the repayment agreement. MBNA were one of these and also showed that the debt had increased by 10% when they had stated in response to a previous complaint that it would be reduced to zero. This was resolved, all of the interest and charges were removed as a result of a second complaint so I suggested that the full & final offer should be repeated and was encouraged to do this. I therefore sent an offer using the standard CCCS template (sorry it was on file) and was surprised to receive a phone call, the surprise was that it was directly to my family member. When I rang the 0800 number I was put through to Louise who informed me that the offer was acceptable, the amount owing on the card would be reduced to zero but the default would remain on the CRA for 6 years. After checking that I could afford to make the payment she was insistent that I pay immediately by authorising the amount from my debit card. I asked for the acceptance to be put in writing before payment. Two days later, I received the letter which was for a partial settlement, there would still be 40% of the amount outstanding but MBNA agreed not to pursue the debt. I rang and was told that full & final meant that the full amount had been paid and this was only a partial payment. Louise claimed that this was the only form accepted by their legal department despite my protests, I obtained the advice from Citizens Advice which confirmed the proper legal meaning and sent it off asking for their legal department to comment. The result was another direct call to the debtor asking for me. The next phone call to them threw light on MBNA's practices as I went through three Louises before reaching the one I had previously spoken to. She dismissed the CitA advice as being merely a voluntary organisation with no credibility. I also discovered that they are a "telephone bank" so can't deal with letters so mine had been summarised and recorded on their system. This would certainly have explained why they did not use my phone number which was at the top of the letter. Louise was aware that Bank of America were getting out of the European credit card business - not surprising as there had already been redundancies where she worked. I was told that the only letters they responded to were complaints but that would only get back to her so it would go round and round in circles. I have already sent Halifax a letter before action and am awaiting their considered response. I need to do the same to MBNA claiming breach of contract for failing to deal fairly with customers. However, I have discovered that MBNA are in breach of an OFT requirement dated December 2010 which prohibits them from making contact with a customer rather than the representative. I also believe that the initial phone call was a deliberately misleading inducement to make a part payment which I thought was a full & final settlement. Even their letter was misleading as it did not preclude anyone who bought their business (Virgin!) from pursuing the outstanding debt. I am tempted to cite the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 as well as the FSA principle 6. Comments please.
  3. Why don't you write to the court asking for costs on the basis that the claimant acted in a vexatious manner by failing to provide the correct bank account details in his initial claim which caused you to seek advice form a solicitor. You were advised to defend the claim because of this failure and the claimant sought leave to modify the account details but failed to do so. I thought that you had already done this as part of trying to find out what was going on. What were the reasons given for striking out the cliam as this may also help your claim for costs?
  4. Sounds like good news, you will have to wait for the judge's decision but it looks as though Largo don't have enough evidence to continue. The judge should look at the Allocation Questionnaire's costs and decide what should be awarded under the circumstances. The wheels of justice grind exceedingly slowly and solicitors are very good at waiting until the very last minute to take advantage so wait and see.
  5. It sounds as though the judge has decided that, on the evidence presented so far, that the claimant has failed to provide evidence of the debt. What does the letter say as I might have expected him to strike out the case on those grounds unless he have the claimants a deadline for changing the POC. Depending on the judge's decision you may have to apply for the case to be struck out on those grounds with a request for costs.
  6. I agree, you may wish to add that the claimant's failures (request to amend POC and failure to do so, disclosure, etc.) may amount to vexatious behaviour. Send a copy to the solicitor which will certainly provoke a reaction if that is what you are looking for.
  7. Largo don't appear to be able to prove their claim and HSBC may have mase it impossible. Whatever happens they must show title to the debts that you have admitted but this is looking increasingly unlikely. To establish their claim they must show that 1. the debt was properly assigned (deed of assignment) 2. that it is made up of the debts you have acknowledged 3. HSBC could legally amalgamate the debts into a single current account You have already asked the court to enforce disclosure and to set time limits and invited the judge to dismiss the claim if they fail to provide supporting documentation. What was the date for the bundle to be sent to the court and were the claimants responsible for producing it? If so you should contact the court on that date explaining lack of contact and ask for the claim to be stayed as it is impossible for you to provide a defence.
  8. The longer Largo delay the more likely it is that they can't get the documents to support their claim. You could write to the court pointing out that the claimant has failed to comply with the directions on disclosure and respectfully request the judge for an order that the claim be struck out if they do not comply within seven days. The debt claim following the bankruptcy was easily avoided by pointing out that it was included in the bankruptcy petition and nothing further was heard.
  9. Is primary estoppel an issue in this case? I have seen nothing to suggest that there has been acceptance of any offer by any of the parties involved.
  10. Why should you pay - simple, you owe money and the DCAs will not give up until the debt is satisfied one way or the other. I dealt with one DCA who sent an authorisation form fpr me to act on a friend's behalf that included a statement that I assumed responsibility for the debt. As my friend was dying I obtained the standard authorisation and informed them whey they died. Six month later I had a call from another DCA threatening legal action. I referred them to the "solicitors" for the other DCA and heard no more. I've also had demands following a bankruptcy so ensure that the debt is either legally unenforceable or is settled.
  11. Be patient, it sounds as though the court is realising that the claimant is having problems with the documents and the judge may well strike out the claim under these circumstances as Largo will have to demonstrate that your debt and the one they have bought are the same. Interesting scenario if this happens as it would make it difficult for them to use the bankruptcy route. Have you made a complaint to the FOS about HSBC assigning a debt in dispute? You could always offer them what they were paid by Phoenix in full and final settlement
  12. It seems to be standard procedure for solicitor to ignore deadlines in the hope that it will encourage you to settle without any disclosure. As they have yet to amend their POC it could well be that their documents aren't in order and they don't want to make you aware of this. Perhaps you should wait until the deadline for inspection and then point out to the court that they have failed to allow you time to investigate their claim on the timescale set out in the directions. You could then either ask for the claim to be struck out because of their failure to particularise it (unlikely to succeed) or to submit you own list of documents and ask for an order to disclose them. This would put pressure on them especially if you request the deed of assignment and it may help the settlement process.
  13. Your defence statement does state that you did have an overdrawn current account, a personal loan and a flexi loan. Although you haven't admitted the claim, you are disputing it, my statement was that you have admitted that a claim is valid as you go on to dispute only the default charges and accrued interest. Despite this admission your solicitor included the requirement for strict proof. In the absence of a valid notice of assignment for all three debts you might be able to persuade the judge that only your overdrawn current account can be enforced which if it reduces the debt to the small claims level which would remove the costs element. Your debts remain even if their claim is dismissed so Phoenix will simply sort out the technical issues and have another go. The fact that HSBC may be in breach of contract does not render the assignment invalid although you might be able to recover your defence costs from them.
  14. An All Monies claim lumps all of the debts irrespective of how they arose into a single claim. It appears that HSBC did this before selling it on to make it easier for the DCA to handle as otherwise there would be three separate claims with costs on each. In view of babegem's admission ot the HSBC debts Phoenix would only have to show that HSBC consolidated the three that were related to the current account before selling them on .
  15. If you are admitting that the claim is valid then I am not sure what you are trying to achieve as you've already admitted the debt and now the amount. The confusion over the lumping together surely comes from HSBC who can do this by treating it as an All Monies claim. If they have claimed that you defaulted on payment you must have had an agreement which you failed to meet or you failed to reach an agreement on payments. Either way they are entitled to sell the debt on but they should have informed you of the closure of the accounts and the formation of a new one. If they failed to do this then you should claim the costs incurred as a result of this failure from them. If you do admit to the debt you should ask the judge to not award costs on the basis that you have tried all that you could to avoid the court claim. You should also ask that Phoenix should be treated in the same way as any other creditors who have agreed to freeze interest and accept payments you can afford.
  16. PS I hadn't realised that they have already had one bit at the cherry in a previous settlement. This should also be included in your list as it undermines their case for lumping some or all of the other debts together. The Deed of assignment should show this. Did you get a separate NOA for the other debt or was it included in the one you have received?
  17. You will probably find that the judge has already accepted the change to the POC so they have already been amended. If you could be sure of having their claim dismissed because of a technicality then there would be no need to provide details of other debts. However, you have admitted that you are in debt to HSBC but that you have reached agreements with the other creditors that you have kept up. Have you had any other loans from friends or relatives to pay off Largo as you could always include those in your list. You are only providing a list of documents for disclose rather than the full set of documents so you might get away with a blanket item on the list rather than a detailed account. They will not be particularly interested but it will stop them frm being able to claim that they are the main creditor. You will also need to file a modified defence but you can only do that once you know exactly what they are claiming and how it is broken down. Perhaps you should write to the court pointing this out and asking for a stay until the situation is clarified. After all you could end up with no defence and you would not wish to waste the court's time if this were to be the case. Largo/Phoenix would still have to show that the debt(s) was properly assigned which may well be a difficulty for them.
  18. If you read the notes accompanying Part 46 it does explain the meaning of the terms used in their context. I believe that the cost of attendance at a hearing is covered by the advocacy costs - did you find out whether their advocate was a solicitor? Tomorrow's deadline is for the list of documents for disclosure and you should include any other creditors as part of the list together with any agreements that you've reached with them and whether interest has been frozen. This might become important if they are thinking of applying for a charging order as it could prejudice the interests of any other creditors. It is also important to show any HSBC debts that come under the CCA (this may include overdrafts) as this should stop interest accruing under a charging order. Did I understand correctly that you have only received a Notice of Assignment for your bank account. If they have amended the POC to include other debts have these been notified. Perhaps you should ask for the breakdown of the only NOA you have as if its value is incorrect it may invalidate the notice. Notices can take almost any form and give very little, even the date is not mandatory but as you have already acknowledged a debt to HSBC there is little point in denying it, only whether Phoenix have title as claimed. Notices can also be sent with proof of postage, recorded delivery is not a good means of ensuring delivery as, unless the postman leaves the letter if you're not in, it is automatically returned to sender after 7 days. DCA's often use dummy addresses which means that this is likely to happen. At least the government have backed down on allowing a court order fo a sale folowing a charging order provided the agreed payments have been made.
  19. You can find the complete set of Rules here CPR - Rules and Directions - Ministry of Justice You should look at Part 46 which sets out the costs awarded on fast track cases but the other parts are also relevant. The deed of assignment should provide the details of who assigned the debt and the amount paid for it. In your case there is some doubt about the assignment so you should be able to claim that this is an essential document. You should really try to get HSBC to recall the debt as this would leave Phoenix out of the loop although they decide to join Phoenix in the claim. If, as seems likely, the debt was sold on without their knowledge it leaves them in a difficult position as far as the Banking Code is concerned so I would not be too harsh with them, at least initially.
  20. It looks as though they are going through the motions by making and offer that you can refuse simply so they can claim that they have done so. If the judge finds for more than the offer then they will try to claim costs which you should resist on the grounds of their failure to follow CPR. BTW they appear to be claiming more costs than the CPR limit - £690 plus advocates fees so you might challenge them on that although you should wait until they have quantified them. In view of the problems with the initial POC you should request disclosure of the Deed of Assignment and Largo's agreement with Phoenix to satisfy yourself that they both own the debt as claimed and are authorised to claim it. Even if you settle before the hearing you should be satisfied of both of these.
×
×
  • Create New...