Jump to content

balina2

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    85
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About balina2

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Hi, I wanted to update on the result of the hearing today at small claims. The Judge ruled in Shoosmiths/Arrows favour and awarded full claim plus costs. The focus of the hearing was actually not on my defence but was a quite personal line of questioning about why I had defaulted, why I had spent certain monies on the bank statements I had provided. The bank statements showed that I had not made the payments that Arrows had claimed I had but this seemed to be of no interest to the Judge who instead asked me about why I had spent money in Morrisons and John Lewis but had failed to keep up payments on my loan. Her summary was that my defence was not unreasonable but that she was making a judgement on the balance of probability which has a threshold of 51%. No parts of my defence were discussed. All in all it was very much a huge verbal and financial slap round the chops for having defaulted on a loan, disregarding the fact it is statute barred. I am minded to appeal the decision but I have no idea whether this is possible/advisable. I am also unaware of the best approach to negotiating an installment plan with them so any advice here appreciated. The Judge rather unhelpfully advised that if she were to do this today it would be recommended as £400 a month, even though she had no knowledge of my current financial status/earnings/outgoings etc You can see I find the Judge somewhat prejudiced......
  2. Thank you for your advice and I will also put in the SAR In the meantime, I confirmed back to S-miths that, as they stated, I have responded to their requests for further information (those that are relevant and pertain directly to the matter). I have also provided sufficient evidence of this debt being statute barred, as per my defence (dated Jan 2017) and its accompanying Exhibits. I said their organisation asked me for further information via email and I responded in kind. I said that their statement that this is insufficient as per Part 18 is denied as a result and I would expect that the matter falls actually not under Part 18 but Part 27. Their response As set out in my email below, your response to my client’s Part 18 request for further information is spread out over a number of emails. It is incoherent and insufficient for the purposes of Part 18. For your convenience, I provided you with a copy of my client’s request with space for you to detail your reply. I attach a further copy and ask that the document is completed and returned to me, by no later than 4pm on 24 January 2018. In default, I will have no alternative but to seek an Order from the Court, compelling you to provide a sufficient response. You suggest that the matter falls under Part 27 and not Part 18. The matter has been allocated to the small claims track, the procedure for which is set out in Part 27. Part 18 covers requests for further information. Should I ignore them at this point? And is there anything else I should be preparing for the hearing (SAR evidence if received in time)? My defence from Jan 2017 has already been received by the Court and S-smiths. Thank you again.
  3. The saga with S-smiths continues, after an absence of hearing from them until yesterday. I would be grateful for further advice as follows... Context: My submitted defence (of January 2017) had not been responded to in at all by S-smiths until yesterday. In the meantime the Deputy District Judge considered the statements of case and directions questionnaire filed and allocated the claim to the small claims track. Having considered the papers in the case, the court stated they believed that the case is suitable for mediation. A court hearing has been set for March this year. However when I contacted Mediation they wrote back to the Court (and myself) to say it wasn't suitable for mediation. This is because it is a defended claim. I don't know why the Court labelled it for mediation as they are aware it is a defended claim..... Reminder of my defence - I defaulted on the loan agreement with Egg in 2007. This is confirmed by the Default Notice exhibited within S-smith's Witness Statement. I have not made any payments or made acknowledgement towards this debt since 2007. Given that a period of six years or more had elapsed between the date of the last payment and the date the claim was issued, the debt is, therefore, statute barred by virtue of the limitation act 1980. Consequently, the Claimant has no legal recourse in this matter. In the Claimant's Witness Statement, they disclose an account statement. The statement covers the period of August 2010 to August 2011 and includes a number of sporadic payments for the amounts of £3.61, which were deducted from the debt balance. They make the claim that further payments were made thereafter. I deny that these payments, or any payments for that matter, were made by me or on my behalf in the six years prior to the claim issue date. In email communications with the Claimant's Solicitor, their response is that their client is not obliged to provide me with details of where the payments came from. Again, I reiterate that these payments, or any others, supposedly made by me or on my behalf within the six years prior to the claim date are denied. The Claimant is, therefore, put to strict proof to disclose the specific details of any payments made towards the debt in the six year period prior to the claim date. The details should include payee name, payment amount, payment method, account or reference number, and any other details they believe will assist with identifying the source of the alleged payments. The Claimant has not provided this to date. At the point the Claimant first sent me the alleged proof of payment in May 2016; I requested my bank statements from the alleged payment dates (May through to August 2010) which were sent to S-smiths (Royal Mail tracked and signed for on Friday 13th Jan 2017) as Exhibit B in the defence. As I informed the Claimant in email correspondence, these statements show that these payments were never made and it for this reason I requested strict proof of payment. In the Claimant’s current Witness Statement they have alleged that a further payment was sent to the Claimant by the original creditor on 10 December 2010 and a further payment of £1.00 on 6 June 2011. The most recent payment they claim was made via NCO Europe Ltd in June 2011. They base this information on a barely legible screenshot from the Claimant’s system as alleged evidence. Again no payment details are shown. This information was never provided in their initial response pack. These alleged payments are entirely false. I cannot understand why the original creditor would have made a payment in 2010 and 2011, given they had sold the debt on at this time. I can assert with all certainty and honesty that I have made no payment(s) to Egg (since the original default in 2007) nor NCO Europe. In fact the latter are a company I have never had any knowledge of or correspondence with. It's a definite fabrication. What S-Smiths have FINALLY come back to me on as of yesterday Your response to my client’s Part 18 request for further information is spread out over a number of emails below. This is insufficient for the purposes of Part 18. For the ease of reference of both parties and the Court, I have attached a further copy of my client’s request with space for you to detail your reply to each point. Please can you detail your response to each and every point and return this document to me, within the next 14 days. For the avoidance of any doubt, if you do not provide a compliant response by 4pm on 24 January 2018, I will be seeking an Order from the Court that unless you provide a compliant response within 14 days of the Order, your Defence will be struck out. They then attach a number of further questions - I can share these if useful However I received an immediate additional and separate email straight after from a different solicitor at S-Smiths that read: WITHOUT PREJUDICE SAVE AS TO COSTS We write with reference to the above matter and further to your Defence dated 9 January 2017. We have responded to you regarding our client’s Part 18 request, in open correspondence, under separate cover. However, in the interest of drawing the dispute to a close at this stage, we write to put forward a settlement offer for your consideration. In your Defence you acknowledge that you defaulted on the loan agreement in 2007, however, you allege that you have not made any payments towards the debt, or acknowledged it, since 2007. On this basis, you allege that our client’s claim is statute barred by virtue of the Limitation Act 1980. We have provided you with copy statements detailing various payments made towards the account, however, you deny that these payments or any payments, were made by you in the six years prior to the claim issue date. To date, you have not provided any evidence to substantiate your defence, however, we have provided you with statements as evidence of payments you have made and are confident that our client will be successful in its claim. Not withstanding the above, in an attempt to settle this matter and avoid the need for further costs being incurred, our client has confirmed that it is willing to accept the sum of £8,000.00 from you, in full and final settlement of the claim, on the terms that this payment is received at our offices within 28 days of the date of this letter. Please note that this offer remains open for acceptance for a period of 14 days, otherwise it will be withdrawn without further notice or reference to you. What advice I need... There is no way I am settling on a debt that is statute barred. Not only that but it carries missold PPI on it and I have already had to pay £1000 just to amend my defence. I disagree that I have not provided any evidence to substantiate my defence. I have provided bank statements from the date they claim payments were made to show they were indeed not. Do you have any advice on what you would do next if you were in this situation?
  4. Thank you ever so much for your suggestion
  5. Thank you for your replies. Would you suggest then that I reply to question the validity of what they are requesting? On the basis it is not relevant and is a hell of a lot of personal data I don't really want them to have. What would the best response be? Have I any legal backing I can cite as to why I won't provide (unless court ordered)? To be honest I would really rather it ended up in court again for a final decision as it is a constant stress having them always after me like this. As per previous question - I was ordered to pay the £1000 court courts to Shoosmiths in order to amend my defence. See post from 29th December
  6. I have heard nothing further from the Court. They referred it for mediation. Mediation then told me they referred it back to the Court (they told me this over the phone but I have received nothing further in writing from either them or the Court). The only correspondence I have had since is Shoosmiths emailing me regularly with income and expenditure request forms to be completed and then changing tact now to this 'request for further information' when I pointed out to them they had never responded to my defence therefore there was nothing to mediate (which is what the mediation service had advised me on the telephone). If I ignore their request entirely would this in any way prejudice me if it does go back to Court again? Or should I acknowledge it and respond to say it isn't appropriate/feasible/legal (?) that I have to provide all of that information?
  7. Hi, May I request some further advice on this matter as it is still ongoing. I agreed to mediation, however upon contacting the mediation service to arrange an appointment they advised me that as I have a defence (which Shoosmiths have not responded to) that the matter should be passed back to my local county court as it isn't suitable for mediation. They told me they would advise Shoosmiths the same. However, Shoosmiths continued to pursue me via email asking me why I have not contacted mediation. I informed them of the date/time I contacted the mediation service and I told them exactly what they had told me (aka they had put a note on the file to say it is being passed back to my local county court). I told Shoosmiths to contact the mediation service directly as opposed to hassling me. This was back in May. I then heard nothing until last week when Shoosmiths emailed me a request for further information pursuant to CPR Part 18. With a deadline of the 16th August no less. As a reminder, the debt they refer to is statue barred but they have fabricated some payment dates that they claim I have made in the last 6 years. The only "evidence" they have on this is an Egg statement (which looks reconstituted). My defence outlines the fact I never made the payments and I also provided bank statements to them and the court showing these alleged payments never came from my account. The bank statements I provided covered the dates they claim I made the payments. However they are now asking me for the below - which seems ludicrous. Surely the burden of proof is on them not me? I have already £1000 in court fines in order to get my defence submitted and further monies retrieving old banks statements. HSBC have told me they do not provide proof of closue for accounts this old, they told me this face to face in the branch. Should I be complying with their request below? Also they are asking for statements for accounts more than 6 years old which is not feasible and also not relevant surely? I am not sure how to respond. Your advice here would be hugely appreciated. I would like to be able to say I am not willing to provide this unless court ordered, I really would rather they took me to court and a final decision was taken then all of this constant to and fro with them. But I am not sure this is the right response/approach. CLAIMANT’S PART 18 REQUEST FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ______________________________ 1. At Paragraph 5 of your Defence dated 9 January 2017, you refer to payments of £3.61 made between August 2010 and August 2011. You state that “I deny that these payments, or any payments for that matter, were made by me or on my behalf in the six years prior to the claim issue date”. Please provide the following further information/clarification in relation to your case: i. Fifteen payments of £3.61 were made between 9 June 2009 and 20 August 2010. Please confirm whether you deny making these payments. ii. You have enclosed statements for a Santander account at Exhibit B of your Defence. On 22 June, 22 July and 22 August 2010, you made payments of £800.00, via Direct Debit, to “XXXXXXXX” with the reference “Bills”, under mandate number 0089. Please confirm: 1. the identity of XXXXXX; 2. their relationship to you; 3. which bills the £800.00 covered; and 4. the reason why said bills were not paid from your Santander account directly. iii. On 26 October 2016, we asked you to provide statements for your HSBC Bank Account numbered XXXXX, sort code XXXXX being the account you set up a Direct Debit from when you entered into the agreement with Egg Banking Plc, as well as statements for any other current accounts held by you, covering the period from 1 January to 31 August 2010. On the same day, you confirmed this account was closed as of 23 August 2007. Please provide: 1. proof of the closure of account numbered XXXXX, sort code XXXXXX, on 23 August 2007; 2. Details of all personal Bank, Building Society and National Savings Accounts held by you from 1 June 2009 to 1 September 2010; and 3. Copy statements for the period of 1 June 2009 to 1 September 2010, for all above detailed accounts. The Claimant expects a response to this request from the Defendant by 16 August 2017.
  8. Hi, I have a further update on this. The Court has ordered that the case is suitable for mediation and referred me to the Small Claims Mediation Service. Am not quite sure how mediation will work given I have a statute barred defence so there isn't, from my point of view, anything to negotiate on. Surely it needs a ruling to say either my defence is struck out or their claim is and cannot see a mediation assisting that. Was tempted to contact Sh-miths and ask them what their intention is regards this offer of mediation but appreciate that is probably pointless. Any advice on what is likely to happen? I assume I have to accept the order and agree to set up a mediation meeting.
  9. I have received a directions questionnaire. It asks me if I agree to the case being referred to the small claims mediation service and if I also agree whether it is appropriate for the small claims track. Should I say no to both on the basis the claim relates to statute barred debt and should be struck out?
  10. What do you think the likely next steps are once these questionnaires are submitted? I have no idea what to prepare for. I cannot work out if this if is now more of a worry or less?
  11. It says you must by 20th Feb 2017 complete the small claims direction questionnaire and file it with the court office and serve copies on all parties. Isn't that an action for Shoosmiths though?
  12. Hi, i just wanted to provide an update on this. Shoosmiths have gone quiet post my amended defence submission. Today though I received a 'Notice of Proposed Allocation the the small claims track'. It says to take notice that this is now a defended claim. A copy of the defence has been sent to you by the defendant. It appears this is now suitable for the small claims track. Am I right to assume this is a copy of what they have sent to Shoosmiths? And am I right to assume they would have to take me to small claims court which is different to them applying for a CCJ? Am not sure if I need to do anything or if I indeed can do anything? I have no idea what the likely next steps are here so any advice would be appreciated.
  13. I would be grateful for your feedback on the below. Particularly on the final two paragraphs and whether there are any further points I should add (especially in reference to CPR legislation) 1. I am the Defendant in this case and I make this amended defence in response to the evidence provided by the Claimant. It should be noted that the Claimant did not furnish me with the requisite information until 3rd May 2016, not 15th December 2015 as they have claimed. The only contact I have had from the Claimant (or any party associated with them) in regards this debt has been since 28th April 2016, when they sent me an initial letter to confirm they were applying for Summary Judgement. This is evidenced in the Claimant’s email correspondence exhibits. 2. In the absence of information with regards the nature of the claim, my initial Defence was set out so as to gain clarity on the source of the alleged debt and validity of the case put forward by the Claimant. 3. The Witness Statement of the Claimant confirms the debt to be a loan agreement I entered into with Egg in 2004. 4. I defaulted on the loan agreement in 2007. This is confirmed by the Default Notice exhibited within the Claimant's Witness Statement. I have not made any payments or made acknowledgement towards this debt since 2007. Given that a period of six years or more had elapsed between the date of the last payment and the date the claim was issued, the debt is, therefore, statute barred by virtue of the limitation act 1980. Consequently, the Claimant has no legal recourse in this matter. 5. In the Claimant's Witness Statement, they disclose an account statement. The statement covers the period of August 2010 to August 2011 and includes a number of sporadic payments for the amounts of £3.61, which were deducted from the debt balance. They make the claim that further payments were made thereafter. I deny that these payments, or any payments for that matter, were made by me or on my behalf in the six years prior to the claim issue date. 6. In email communications with the Claimant's Solicitor, their response is that their client is not obliged to provide me with details of where the payments came from. Again, I reiterate that these payments, or any others, supposedly made by me or on my behalf within the six years prior to the claim date are denied. 7. The Claimant is, therefore, put to strict proof to disclose the specific details of any payments made towards the debt in the six year period prior to the claim date. The details should include - payee name, payment amount, payment method, account or reference number, and any other details they believe will assist with identifying the source of the alleged payments. The Claimant has not provided this to date. 8. At the point the Claimant first sent me the alleged proof of payment in May 2016; I requested my bank statements from the alleged payment dates (May, June, July August 2010) which I attach as Exhibit TBC (I will add these). As I informed the Claimant in email correspondence, these statements show that these payments were never made and it for this reason I requested strict proof of payment. I did not send these statements directly to the Claimant until now because, given my experience of their practice to date, I was concerned that they would use the personal date contained therein to further produce fabricated alleged proof of payment. 9. In the Claimant’s current Witness Statement they have alleged that a further payment was sent to the Claimant by the original creditor on 10 December 2010 and a further payment of £1.00 on 6 June 2011. The most recent payment they claim was made via NCO Europe Ltd in June 2011. They base this information on a barely legible screenshot from the Claimant’s system as alleged evidence. Again no payment details are shown. This information was never provided in their initial response pack. These alleged payments are entirely false. I cannot understand why the original creditor would have made a payment in 2010 and 2011, given they had sold the debt on at this time. I can assert with all certainty and honesty that I have made no payment(s) to Egg (since the original default in 2007) nor NCO Europe. In fact the latter are a company I have never had any knowledge of or correspondence with. 10. By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to any further relief. I have reimbursed the Claimant, as instructed by the Court, for Summary Judgment administration/application costs of £1000 in lieu of my submitting a Witness Statement as oppose to an amended defence. Statement of Truth. I believe that the facts stated in this statement are true.
  14. I haven't paid the £1000 yet but intend to find a way to as otherwise I've no ability to submit an amended defence. I feel damned if I do and damned if I don’t. But I can't let S-smiths get away with making up payments. The reasoning the Judge gave as to why I should pay the costs are because he believes S-smiths gave me opportunity to submit an amended defence which he said had I done then it may have negated the need for the hearing. I explained that I didn't submit an amended defence, despite S-smiths asking me for one, because the Court had told me I couldn't frankly I didn't trust S-smiths when they said to submit an amended defence to them. But he said in his opinion I had every opportunity to have submitted one.
  15. Hi Would you be kind enough to review my amended defence and offer me some feedback on it?
×
×
  • Create New...