Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SF2010

  1. Hi All I wonder if I should receive separate notification of the hearing date by letter of the Court and further to the refusal of my application to strike out? The reason why I ask is I hope that the claimant is required to appear with the original agreement as there are a few discrepancies which suggests to me it is not a true copy of an original. I would expect to know or even slightly recall consolidating a loan. Since this case started 4 years ago, no one I have communicated with has provided this agreement as a result of my request under section 77, but have done so way after and never as a direct result of my request. It has been actively avoided. I am sure that I am not crazy just yet, though mystified by the legal system and it's ability to be manipulated. The burden of proof is certainly on me and I feel attendance at court by the claimant is a key requirement so that they are required to respond to questions I wish to raise regarding the claim. Can I make an application to the court for an Order for the claimant to attend in a small claim? Your advice would be welcomed.
  2. Thanks DX I was having a lot of difficulty with getting the documents in format for posting. Maybe a problem on the computer, but likely to be me and the stress of it all.
  3. Thanks Brigadier. I have much to look into, so I will come back once I have had an opportunity to look at the advice shared by The Mould.
  4. Thank you Mould and Uncle B! I've not given up and will certainly be doing my research. Thank you for being here and all of CAG to point me in the right direction.
  5. Many thanks Mould I do not have a default notice, but a default was registered against my account many years ago and dropped off a few years ago now. I have asked the OC several times for the notices, but they have not been forthcoming. Hence the sale no doubt. I have not had a default notice from Lowells. I am grateful for the time you have taken to provide such extensive information. It will take some time to go through all of this with a fine toothcomb, but I certainly will do. It is unfortunate that I have to go and argue my points rather than be able to write them as a defence. Is it possible that I too could advise I am not attending the hearing and have my statement of truth for the hearing without appearance? In the meantime, the breaches to my statutory rights as I understand are as follows: The agreement is not the original (you will see it says original to dept on the copy they have sent) There is no default notice for me or the court to ascertain if it was in the format required under statute and if I have been afforded the opportunity to correct the default within the required period (I have asked the OC for this, several years ago and they said they don't have to provide me with a copy) There is no notice of termination of agreement Now in my first court appearance the judge advised that I didn't have to have those notices, when I stated these were not provided, however, the CCA is specifically referred to in the statement made by BC, therefore I feel I should be afforded compliance with the statutory requirements of the CCA 1974. It is a difficult thing for a layperson such as myself to respond to what feels like a total disregard, therefore I feel I need to acquire legal representation for this matter. In addition to this, I will also be looking through the information you have provided and thank you all so much for your time in helping me.
  6. I am still trying to get my SAR to do the comparisons Uncle B (30 days and still deliberating about signatures not matching), but I should have that in time for the court date.
  7. Trying again....here goes. Not working picking up wrong
  8. sorry this is not working for me. ive had to delete the post [/url]
  9. Very sorry Citizen B, I will try and find a way to do that and re-post. Thanks for the advice. I thought it looked a bit small on the screen.
  10. Now re-attached final 2 posts. Thanks for the admin assistance with removing promptly. Apologies for any inconvenience.
  11. Hi Mould Your assistance is appreciated. I'm hoping I have attached the documents correctly. I have a few more to send, as I have attached the maximum I can at the moment. Thank you for offering your time to have a look.
  12. Hi The Mould I wonder if I am understanding correctly and causing some confusion as I'm not clear about the particularisation. I will explain: Following the Direction Order of the judge to appear with originals and fully particularise, the papers presented for the first hearing was: Exhibit 1 copy of the credit agreement from 1997 and a copy of an application form Exhibit 2 copy of letter from Lowell's stating they had purchased the debt and a copy of a letter supposedly from OC on un-headed paper stating they sold it to Lowell's. (Andy says this can be sent from Lowell's) both dated September last year (never received) Their accompanying statement includes: The debt was assigned to the claimant on 24 June 2013 The claimants solicitor received a request for information and disclosure under Part 18 and part 31, 29th and 21st December. The claim has most properly been allocated to the Small Claims Track and part 31 and 18 do not apply. 'the defendent states that she made a request for documentation under s77-78 CCA 1974 on 23rd December. The claimant has now been provided with the signed agreement exhibited at 1, any previous breach is denied. (Yet true, no paperwork whatsoever before this was filed) Then after the second order, the same documentation was sent again, along with the unheaded statement of account, under a heading particulars of claim. The judges direction was made UPON the Claimant indicating by letter that they would not be attending the hearing but providing a witness statement UPON the claimant having failed to comply with the order of the court dated 3rd March to file fully particularised particulars of claim in that format by 17th March UPON the Defendent indicating she does not recognise the loan agreement UPON the Defendant indicating that she has never received statements and notices in relation to this loan (not exactly what I said though, I said I have it had any default notices, Statement of account that I have repeatedly requested before the court date) Now if format is the only requirement, then I guess the statement they sent can then be considered particularising the claim. As it shows interest, deductions and payments. If you can just create a document in that format and say here you go, then I guess, right or wrong it has been done Mould. The fight is about truth and who the proof needs to be provided by. It seems it is I who needs to prove it isn't authentic rather than they who need to prove their claim. It has been 30 days since I requested my SAR in order to get more information about the consolidation loan and what it consolidates, but I a getting the run around about signatures not matching etc. I know it is not part of my defence but I do feel there may well be helpful information contained in those documents. It seems BC has got a goer here thanks to these judgements and if that is the case. As Uncle B said, you only need a sympathetic judge towards the claimant and outcomes can be a hard pill to swallow. He seems to have had a couple so far. I must be getting something wrong and I'm not sure where to go with this Mould.
  13. Thanks The Mould I've copied your questions to provide a reply to each. Thank you for getting back to me so quickly. The application notice that I drafted for you was wholly legitimate. I appreciate that The Mould, it was never doubted on my part. How was you to know and indeed how was I to know that on the 25 and 26 of June (date of drafting and date of filing the said application) the Claimant had filed papers with the Court on the 24 June and which the Court is claiming to be his particularised statement of case in accordance with the two Court orders. Agreed and how come I have it received those particulars? If it is the ones that was sent to be under the heading of particulars of claim, this is a list of payments and deductions on unheaded paper. In any event, no particularised statement of case has been served on you pursuant to the said orders and so we have yet to see if the Claimant has indeed complied with the same. Mould, I did receive a list of payments sent as an exhibit, headed further particulars of claim, headed up statement of account with my name and account number on un-headed paper. I can try to scan and post if that would assist in any advice you may be able to give. Are there any directions listed for you and the Claimant in the Courts’ response letter to your said application? There are no directions of rme in the response. It simply says: The Defendents application refused - particularised of claim were received by the Court on 24th June 2014 The case is re-listed for 26 August. When is the matter listed for a further hearing? As above
  14. Thanks Uncle Bulgaria I am very unclear about what the judge wants the claimant to provide too. I was trying to explain that I didn't know what to expect from the 'particularisation in a fully particularised format' and I'm still not clear of the answer, except that what was sent shouldn't be accepted as such, but it would seem that it has been. Im hoping Andy/The Mould can advise some specific points of defence, if I have any. It would seem that statutory rights are not requirements for those who buy a debt. I'm hoping to be corrected. Many thanks for replying so quickly.
  15. Hi Andy and the Mould I went and made the application completed in full as advised the very next morning. I have received a reply to the application and it has been refused. The response says that the particulars of claim was received on 24th June by the court. The 'particulars' that was sent was a list of payments in the form of a statement, as advised earlier. Not on headed paper and no confirmatory paperwork from the OC. It does include quite a lot of £1 payments too. This has now been re-listed for a hearing. I just don't know what to do anymore.
  16. Thank you The Mould! I am really grateful. Im sorry Andy, I didnt know if the fake statement could be considered a particularised claim. Ive have had so many unexpected events with this one over the years. Ill see what happens now! Eternally grateful! Thank you!!!
  17. Apologies Andy The direction order in March States claimant must: Deliver all documents intended to rely on by 14 April Originals brought to hearing Judge may refuse to consider a document or take into account a copy if not sent to the other party as required by the Order Must include statements of all witnesses Neither party may rely on any report from an expert unless permission has been granted by the court beforehand. Claimant to file and serve fully particularised details of claim in a fully particularised format, so that the defendant knows the claim to be met, such particulars to be filed and served within 14 days of service of the order. (That would have been by mid March) Because the Order was made without a hearing, the parties have the right to apply to have the order set aside, varied or stayed. Second general form of judgement or order Upon the claimant failing to comply with the order of the Court, to file fully particularised particulars of claim in that format (what format?) or claim will be struck out. Upon defendent indicating that she has not received statements or notices in relation to this loan. Matter to be relisted when fully particularised details of the claim are provided. So my question is can anything be sent as fully particularised details? The Judges direction order was not explicit, but mentions statements and notices. The statement does of course reach the amount that is being claimed, it is not an OC statement. They have failed to disclose statements that are recognisable and failed to demonstrate that this is in anyway associated with the OC. It is the same regarding the notice of assignment that was in the original documents sent to the court in response to the first Order. I have read and understand the statutory requirements to some degree, but it would seem it is up to me to prove that it is not genuine, even though it is plain to see, rather than the claimant proving their claim with blank pieces of paper created on their own computers. So, there is statement and a NOA, none being recognisable as being from the OC. There isn't even any attempt to make reference to the OC, but that's not surprising given that it's not. Is there an application for an Order I could consider making now, as the SAR has not yet been provided?
  18. Andy Does this explain sufficiently? The statement received was in response to the second order made at Court after I pointed out they had not complied with the first order. It is a single statement on unheaded paper that shows payments, interest etc and covers 17 years. There are a small number of charges on this statement too. That should be reclaimable from OC, as it's supposed to be genuine. It's not an OC statement, so how does it get verified? I sent the SAR and I'm getting a run around. First very delayed response, told signature doesn't match. Next, told I'll have to give them info for nearest branch and they'll let me know when it's ready for collection on production of specific ID. My second response points out the fact that I should not be obstructed from being provided with my personal information. Didn't have any difficulty with corresponding before. Now I've provided details of the mystery consolidated account, the request is not so forthcoming. I have a strong feeling there's either PPI or bank charges and it's significant. I would be grateful if you can advise where I find the calculator to reclaim bank charges.
  19. Hi All, as suspected a 'statement' on un-headed paper was sent me and the courts as particulars of claim and nothing more. It is not a bank statement, it's a list of payments and interest which could easily have been designed from the copy of agreement they sent. It's all coming very peace meal, perhaps for effect and because they were encouraged to put in anything, so why not? So off to court we go again! Can anyone advise if the requirement for notices, default etc and original agreement is still applicable under the law of the property act? Earlier posts suggested more documentation was required, regardless of a claim of purchase, but it is apparent that this is ignored at times. I would be grateful for a reminder on the legal arguments please. I'm sure BC is watching and probably having a good old laugh at how far this has reached. I have nothing to lose and will be seeing my MP about this shortly.
  • Create New...