Jump to content

dipsydave75

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    31
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About dipsydave75

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. This was back in november 2016. 2 years ago. To update:- Mortimer Clarke filed in court. I submitted the defence as above to which MC admitted not having the documents and would return to the originator creditor to obtain them. Nothing. 3 whole years have passed. Today I received a letter from MC. It says, And very helpfully includes a financial recoed form for me to fill in The last case is still sitting on Northampton CCBC for the last 3 years still awaiting the paperwork proving the debt is valid (which it isnt as the balance has significant PPI and interest added to that) They must be desperate! XD Obviously enticed the inexperienced office junior with a christmas bonus to push their luck. Think Im going to let them sweat this one out then if they file in court again Ill go for a counter claim for damages and abuse of process. Unless anyone wants to have a laugh with this one and give MC some grief on my behalf.... If you need any further info or docs posting let me know. Not sure if I still have the paperwork so gonna have a hunt on t'interweb and my HDD to see what i can find. Think I still have my CCBC log in, tho i cant remember it
  2. Im having a similar problem with HMRC claiming an overpayment of £11 000. (Yes 11k!) it seems on a year by year basis they keep getting our details and income wrong for pretty much 10 years and the 11k is from one year when they alledge that we never completed the renewal and are claiming an entire years worth of credits. (We have NEVER received that amount in a year and I dont think anyone else does either) Suffce to say the supposedly owed amount changes every few months and HMRC seemingly cant make their minds up. Ill start my own thread anyway but do I go for DX's advice on post 4 and ignore DCA number 3 thats badgering the wife?
  3. Interestingly, it has taken 14 months but I have received a letter from Mortimer Clark. It contains an agreement from Welcome Finance and myself dating from when the debt was renegotiated. It doesnt contain the original finance agreement detailing the various insurances that made up part of the finance agreement, nor are there any deeds of transfer from Welcome to Cabot. They have also offered me 30- days to accept a 50% discount on the remaining balance "Without prejudice save costs" As Im out with the kids Ill scan and post these up once I get home.
  4. I have also received this from Mortimer Clark We have received your defence. We acknowledge your receipt for documents pursuant to Section 77 of the CCA1974 For the avoidance of doubt, this firm acts on its clients instructions. This firm does not hold the documentation you have requested. We have asked our client to provide them and will come back to you as soon as we can. In the meantime the matter has been placed on hold and no further action will be taken Surely tho in order to proceed to court they would need to prove i owed the money and should have these documents already in their posession, it shouldnt be up to me to challenge them for the proof. Oh well, such is out legal system, far to reliant on naievety of the law in order to win......
  5. Acknowledgement received from the court. It states that Copy has been served to the claimant who may contact me to attempt to resolve the dispute. If the dispute cannot be reaolved the claimant will inform the court that he wishes to continue. The court will then inform me what will happen. Claimant must contact the court within 28 days after receiving the defence, after that period the case will be stayed. The only action that can then be taken is to apply to the judge for an order lofting the stay. Usual response i expect.
  6. Thanks andy. Just about to head out to work, so once there will log into mcol and submit
  7. Thanks! Im liking this reference....... The definition of ‘creditor’, contained in Section 189(1) of the CCA 1974, is “the person providing credit under a consumer credit agreement or the person to whom his rights and duties under the agreement have passed by assignment or operation of law, and in relation to a prospective consumer credit agreement, includes the prospective creditor”. Bear in mind Mortimer Clark are trying to claim that under the assignment they have the benefit but not the liability of the account. They believe they can pursue the full claim amount but any discrepancy remains with Welcome Finance Edit:- damn, look as tho im repeating myself, sorry!
  8. Always thought that would be my strength. After all if account was in dispute, then default cannot be accurate and therefore incorrect and void and should never have been sold. Mortimer Clark argue they are entitled to benefit from but not the liability of the account, surely suggesting this is not an assignment absolute. In which case they cannot take me to court. Or they are indeed liable for the responsibility then they would have to prove this and therefore the actual amount they actually paid for the account must be disclosable to prove ownership - so id like to think anyway..... Taken out earlier but renegotiated at same time. Again also in dispute over UTCCR charges, ppi etc. Thanks!
  9. Yeah, the renegitiation is dated 10/2008. I have the original dispute letter, proof of postage and the acknowledgement but nothing further. The dispute and the acknowledgement are nearly 4 months apart, in that time further threat letters were received from welcome. Cca request proof of postage, return letter etc got all that aswell sitting in my file ready for if and when needed. Looks good to me. Thanks guys!
  10. I have been reading up, holiday and work shift patterns havent helped. Ive not been using that website, i have followed your advice thus far as you have been the most credible, and i appreciate the guidance Particulars of Claim 1. By an agreement between Welcome Finance (WL CF) and the defendant on or around 17/10/2008 (The Agreement) WLCF agreed to loan the defendant monies. 2.The Defendant did not pay the instalments as they fell due and the agreement was terminated. 3.The agreement was assigned to the claimant. The claimant therefore claims XXXXX Proposed Defence. 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. 1. Paragraph 1 is denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant. The claimant has failed to provide any evidence of agreement/contract/breach as requested by a Section 77 request. 2. 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. 3. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed 4. On the alternative, if 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 consumer credit Act 1974. 5. On the 9th August 2015 I made a legal request by way of a section 77 request to the Claimant. The Claimant has failed to comply and therefore is in default of this request and as such unable to request any relief until compliance. 6. By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief. I was getting ahead of myself. I was trying to prepare my full case when at this stage i just need the above response so i understand. I have previously mentioned the account was subject to dispute and was sold on without the dispute being dealt with, so it it worth me mentioning it at this time as i may expect to rely on it at a later date, or leave it out for now? There is an additional line i have posted 5a, 5a. On the 26th July 2015 i made a legal request under the provisions of Practice Direction - Pre Action Conduct - Annex A Section 4.2 (7) for documentary evidence which the claimant would be relying on as evidence of the alleged debt. The claimant has failed to comply with this request, but has indicated that all action is on hold at this time This is based on the CPR letter and the response from Mortimer Clark, is this worth adding to the defence statement due to the ambiguity of the "hold" ?
  11. Need to make up my defence. Friday being my cut off day. No documentation received. Still awaiting CCA, So i guess in my defence i put in copies of letters of CCA and CPR with proof of delivery and responses received so far and point out to the court that without proof of debt i am not in a position tot defend myself, which goes against civil proceedure principles, nor can there be a debt to answer to if the plaintoff hasnt provided proof of it There is always hope bank holiday caught mortimer clark napping and they have forgotten about this case!
  12. Already endosed on the rear CCA use only. Ok, will write it out to them and send "another" CCA!
×
×
  • Create New...