Jump to content

ChrisS1968

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    53
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About ChrisS1968

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Hi folks, After a couple of successful claims against Lloys/TSB for PPI we had one more for a card with Lloyds. Lloyds refused to pay up claiming in their eyes we were not missold. We were using Claims Guys to act on our behalf (I know, lazy & costly) and they wrote to us stating that Lloyds had written to them advising them of their decision. we went direct to the FOS to appeal and the FOS decided in our favour. Four weeks later and we have had a letter from the Claims Guys asking for their share even though they were unsuccessful in their attempt. Any ideas if they can do this as with a no win no fee arrangement then I would say not. I appreciate that they did a fair bit of leg work so am happy to pay them but the full amount? I was wondering what others thoughts on this might be? Cheers, Chris
  2. Morning all, By my reckoning Restons/Cabots have now had 5 weeks to respond to my wifes defense but havent according to MCOL. Im guessing that they have a time limit of 4 weeks to do so. That being the case has this claim ground to a halt unless a fresh claim is made for the same account? We never did receive any of the info we requested such as CCA and CPR. Additionally, I had a claim against me last year which I defended as SB with the guidance of you lovely people. That is still showing as in defense on MCOL. Can I do anything to have that removed as its like an axe hovering? Cheers, Chris
  3. That was Restons Ford with the CPR request. Cabots returned the CCA request on the grounds that the PO wasn't made out payable to them. Obviously no one in the office that day had a biro to hand!
  4. Not a development as such but got this come through from Cabots (PDF Attached) Surely if they bought the alleged debt from Lloyds/TSB they would have had the sense to get a copy of the agreement at the time? Cabots.pdf
  5. Thanks DX, just wanted to check Time to do a bit of reading up and see what the best course of action is, its not like theres a shortage of threads concerning these parasites.
  6. Hi all, We ended up making the cataclysmic mistake of placing our mortgage with SPML about 7 years ago after rather foolishly taking the services of an independent mortgage broker. Unfortunately like so many others at the time we got into arrears during the "credit crunch" period. I wont go into all the details of the arrears my my concern is that over the phone today I was informed by Acenden that my arrears still stand at 5 months (this I already knew, some £3500) but the various charges they have applied have added a further £4500 plus change taking our current arrears to in excess of £8000. Now we can afford our monthly contractual payments and we are also paying an additional £70 a month to clear the arrears so we are currently in good shape for that. My question is that I want to challenge the charges. I have read threads on here and it certainly sounds like a real possibility. What I am worried about is that if I do challenge them, being 5 months behind will I be at risk of opening a can of worms that could result in them starting repossession proceedings?
  7. Thanks everyone, I had an idea it was just Restons puffing their chest out trying to unnerve us but just wanted to make doubly sure.
  8. Hello everyone, Hope your all having a good weekend so far. Ive attached a PDF of a letter that arrived from Restons about 20 minutes ago in which they acknowledge receipt of my wifes defense and basically dismiss it as rubbish. They go on to explain why and then very kindly invite her to withdraw her defense using the form N9A which they have also very kindly provided. Am I right in thinking they want us to do their job for them? Anyway, best course of action anyone? Maybe i'm being a shade optimistic but it almost sounds like they lack the paperwork to support their claim? I'll leave it to my learned friends to advise if you'd be so kind :madgrin: :madgrin: Restons 2.pdf
  9. Sent it back next morning. I did make out the payable to section to them but nothing at all sent to either Cabot or Restons has been signed at all.
  10. Dont know if this information is of use to anyone, but Cabots have returned the CCA request I sent them because the postal order wasnt made out to them. I left it blank as suggested in the CCA request thread. On another note, now that a defense has been submitted, is it still worthwhile to make the postal order out to them and resend it? Afterall, they have very kindly provided a prepaid envelope.................
  11. This arrived Yesterday folks. Im guessing theres nothing I need to do this end is there apart from wait and see? Defense.pdf
  12. Cheers Andy. Defense submitted, now to wait and see............
  13. Really do appreciate your help folks, you are the unsung heroes of internet land I shall be making a donation forthwith. One last question, as I have a few days till the deadline to submit the defense on MCOL. when would be best to do it? Leave it as long as possible as to give Restons less time to respond?
  14. Hi Martin, Trust me when I say I have read many, and I mean many threads along the same lines as mine and I still find it seriously difficult to cobble together a defense statement as to be honest, the ones that I have read so far are written in what a layman would call legal jargon a lot of which makes very little sense to the average Joe. My main concern is that were I to go it alone i'd end up helping Restons/Cabot or keep reposting incorrect attempts one after the other for people like yourself and DX to tell me its wrong or something is missing etc. with reference to DX's suggested post in Marlin/Restons thread I have copied the defense and read through it. Particulars of Claim 1.The claimant claims payment of the overdue balance due from the defendant(s) under a contract between the defendant(s) and Lloyds bank dated on or about Apr 24 2008 and assigned to the claimant on Jun 27 2014 Particulars a/c no *************** Date 04/02/2016 Item Default balance value 7458.73 Post Refrl Cr NIL Total 7458.73 What is the value of the claim? £7969 inc 1. The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. 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. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have in the past had financial dealings with Lloyds Bank. I am unaware of what alleged debt the claimant refers to having failed to adequately particularise its claim. 3.Paragraph 1 also states this alleged contract has an overdue balance. This is denied I am unaware of what account or contract the claimant refers to nor ever recall receiving any Default Notice pursuant to the CCA1974. 4.Paragraph 1 also states this alleged contract was assigned to the claimant. This is denied I do not recall receiving any Notice of Assignment from either assignor or assignee pursuant to the LoP1924 5.It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of assignment/balance/breach requested by CPR 31. 14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and (b) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and © show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 6. On receipt of this claim I requested by way of a CPR 31.14 request and a section 77 request for copies of any documents referred to within the Claimants particulars to establish what the claim is for. To date they have failed to comply to my section 77 request and remain in default along with none compliance to my CPR 31.14 request. 7. As perCivil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief. Now from what I can see points 1 to 4 of this defense are relevant to the POC in this case and 5 to 9 I assume are directed at their lack of paperwork as per CCA request and CPR 31.14. So I'm hoping this will fit the bill for a suitable defense? Cheers chaps, Chris
×
×
  • Create New...