Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Phantom943

  1. Heres my draft defence: In the xxxxxxx County Court Claim number xxxxxxx Between Arrow Global Limited- Claimant and xxxxxx- Defendant Defence 1. I xxxxxxxxxxxxx am the defendant in this action and make the following statement as my amended defence to the claim made by Arrow Global Limited. 2. At the point where my defence was required I was not in possession of documents from the claimant, which were vital to my ability to defend this action and placed me at a distinct disadvantage. The claimant failed to include the written agreement, which formed the basis of this claim in accordance with part 16 and practice direction 16 of the Civil Procedure Rules. 3. On 26/10/2016 I requested disclosure of all the documents which the claimant is reliant upon to allow me to prepare my defence (see Exhibit CGQ4) I requested the claimant supply this information within 12 days which I do not feel was unreasonable given that the claimant would surely hold such documentation as they had instigated legal action based upon such documentation. 4. The claimant refused to supply the requested information within the requested time frame so accordingly I could only file a minimal defence. The Claimant has kindly provided evidence of this (see Exhibit CGQ4, Letter dated 22/11/2016) I respectfully ask the court to consider a letter from the claimant which was contained within their witness statement (see Exhibit CGQ3, letter dated 13/09/2016), which clearly states Notification of Account Transfer to New Agency, and clearly states that all enquiries, correspondence and payments should be directed to Restons. The original claim form also included such references; therefore, I can see no reason other than to frustrate the proceedings why the claimant would refuse any requests for information. However, the claimant has supplied some of the information, and now after consideration of the documents which have been supplied I can now make a fully particularised defence to the claimants Particulars. The Claimant has submitted a second Witness Statement: 1st Statement of Amy Wagg. Contained within that statement are a number of comments which are denied by the defendant. At 5.2 the claimant assets that it was not in default of the Section 78 request “she made a request pursuant to Section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 prior to legal proceedings being issued…” And refers to Paragraph four of the defendant’s witness statement, the defendant’s actual words are totally contrary to Wagg’s statement in that there is absolutely no doubt the defendant clearly stated: “4. Save insofar of any admittance it is accepted that a contractual relationship did once exist between myself and Marks & Spencer Financial Services Plc. On receipt of this claim I could not recall the precise details of the agreement or any debt and sought clarity by way of a section 78 request. At the time of submitting my defence the claimant was in default of this request and refused to comply with this request and was therefore unable to proceed and enforce the claim or request any relief. The claimant is put to strict proof to verify and confirm that the exhibits at paragraph 2 marked CGQ2 are the true terms and conditions as issued at the time of inception and execution of the agreement. The claimant further asserts at 5.3 that: The Defendants request was not compliant in that it did not contain the Defendant’s signature and the statutory fee was made payable to my firm, no valid request has been made” The claimant fails to cite any law where it states any such request must contain a signature or provide any evidence of such a requirement, the issue regarding the statutory fee is addressed above at the beginning of paragraph four. The request was and remains in default 5. After consideration of the documents referred to in point 4; I consequently deny the allegations made in the claimant’s particulars of claim and accordingly place the claimant to strict proof that I am indebted to them thereof 6. The credit agreement supplied is not compliant with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) 7. Under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 there are certain conditions laid down by parliament which must be complied with if such agreement is to be enforced by the courts 8. Firstly, the agreement must contain certain terms under regulations made by the Secretary of State under section 60(1) CCA 1974, the regulations referred to are the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553). 9. The prescribed terms referred to are contained in schedule 6 column 2 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) and are inter alia: - A term stating the credit limit or the manner in which it will be determined or that there is no credit limit, A term stating the rate of any interest on the credit to be provided under the agreement and A term stating how the debtor is to discharge his obligations under the agreement to make the repayments, which may be expressed by reference to a combination of any of the following— 1. Number of repayments; 2. Amount of repayments; 3. Frequency and timing of repayments; 4. Dates of repayments; 5. The manner in which any of the above may be determined; or in any other way, and any power of the creditor to vary what is payable 10. It is submitted the credit agreement supplied falls foul of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) in so far that the prescribed terms are not contained within the agreement but in a separate document headed Terms and conditions. There is no apparent link between the terms and conditions and the credit agreement. The prescribed terms must be with the agreement for it to be compliant with section 60(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 11. Furthermore, on the copy of the purported credit agreement supplied and that the claimant exhibits as CGQ1 which they refer to as a true copy of the executed agreement. It is averred that the disclosure purports to no more than an application form a pre-executed application form which is deficient of the prescribed terms. This renders the exhibit as unenforceable pursuant to section 127 (1) & (2) of the CCA1974 as the alleged date of the agreement is dated 14th October 1989 and the amendments of the CCA2006 are not retrospective to agreements entered into pre-April 2007. Furthermore the exhibit comprises of a single side (front) which is incomplete and barely legible. 12. I refer to the judgment of: TUCKEY LJ in the case of Wilson and another v Hurstanger Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 299 "[11] Schedule 1 to the 1983 Regulations sets out the "information to be contained in documents embodying regulated consumer credit agreements". Some of this information mirrors the terms prescribed by Sch 6, but some does not. Contrasting the provisions of the two schedules the Judge said: "33 In my judgment the objective of Schedule 6 is to ensure that, as an inflexible condition of enforceability, certain basic minimum terms are included which the parties (with the benefit of legal advice if necessary) and/or the court can identify within the four corners of the agreement. Those minimum provisions combined with the requirement under s 61 that all the terms should be in a single document, and backed up by the provisions of section 127(3), ensure that these core terms are expressly set out in the agreement itself: they cannot be orally agreed; they cannot be found in another document; they cannot be implied; and above all they cannot be in the slightest misstated. As a matter of policy, the lender is denied any room for manoeuvre in respect of them. On the other hand, they are basic provisions, and the only question for the court is whether they are, on a true construction, included in the agreement. More detailed requirements, which are designed to ensure that the debtor is made aware, so far as possible, of specified information (including information contained in the minimum terms) are to be found in Schedule 1." 13. Furthermore the courts attention is also drawn to the authority of the House of Lords in: Wilson-v- FCT [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul) which confirms that where a document does not contain the required terms under the consumer credit act 1974 and the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) and Consumer Credit (Agreements) (amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI2004/1482) the agreement cannot be enforced. 14. With regards to the Authority cited in point 21, I refer to LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD in the House of Lords Wilson v First County Trust Ltd - [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul) paragraph 29 " The court's powers under section 127(1) are subject to significant qualification in two types of cases. The first type is where section 61(1)(a), regarding signing of agreements, is not complied with. In such cases the court 'shall not make' an enforcement order unless a document, whether or not in the prescribed form, containing all the prescribed terms, was signed by the debtor: section 127(3). Thus, signature of a document containing all the prescribed terms is an essential prerequisite to the court's power to make an enforcement order." 15. Therefore, I respectfully request that the court order the claimant produce the original signed agreement before the court to show the form and content of it and that it complies with the regulations referred to in this defence, otherwise the courts powers of enforcement are surely limited in these circumstances. 16. should the claimant be unable to produce the original agreement signed by both debtor and creditor and containing the prescribed terms, I request that the court uses its powers under section 142 Consumer Credit Act 1974 and declare the agreement unenforceable. 17. In addition to the credit agreement being irredeemably flawed, the claimant has failed to provide any evidence that a Default Notice has been served under s87 (1) Consumer credit act 1974. Thereby the alleged original creditor has failed to comply with the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561). The claimant is therefore put to strict proof that such notice was served as required. The notice should clearly state the date by which the breach must be remedied before and allow the prescribed time frame required by the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) which states, Regulation 2(2) schedule 2 Details of breach of agreement and action required to remedy, or pay compensation for, the breach A specification of:-- (a) the provision of the agreement alleged to have been breached; and (b) the nature of the alleged breach of the agreement, specifying clearly the matters complained of; and either © if the breach is capable of remedy, what action is required to remedy it and the date, being a date [not less than fourteen days] after the date of service of the notice, before which that action is to be taken; or (d) if the breach is not capable of remedy, the sum (if any) required to be paid as compensation for the breach and the date, being a date [not less than fourteen days] after the date of service of the notice, before which it is to be paid. 18. The claimant asserts they have been assigned the account in question but has failed to provide any evidence other than hearsay to confirm their position with references to the claimants in house correspondence, furthermore they assert in Quinn’s Witness statement at 7.3 “It is the claimants position that a notice of Assignment was issued to the defendant around the time that her account was assigned by Marks and spencer Financial Services PLC.” The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that said document in the prescribed format was delivered to the defendant. 19. I put the claimant to strict proof that any default notice sent to me was valid. I note that to be valid, a default notice needs to be accurate in terms of both the scope and nature of breach and include an accurate figure required to remedy any such breach. The prescribed format for such document is laid down in Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) and Amendment regulations the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/3237). Failure of a default notice to be accurate not only invalidates the default notice: (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain and Co - [2001] GCCR 2255) but is a unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the court enforcing any alleged debt, but give me a counter claim for damages Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119. 20. The claimant has had in excess of fourteen months in which to supply the requested documentation, and to date has failed to produce any evidence offering a reasonable excuse as to why it has failed to do so. Statement of Truth I xxxxxxxxxx, believe the above statement to be true and factual Signed ..................... Date
  2. I see where you are coming from with this, however the court's direction was to file a Substansive defence by Friday. I ve made my point about the so called agreement and highighted a few other omissions and had a dig at their second witness statement. Will post the draft up in a while once ive completed it.
  3. Their POC is very Vague and consists of the foillowing: The Claimant claims payment of the overdue balance from the defendant/s under a contract between the defendant/s and Marks and Spencer Financial services PLC dated on or about Oct 14 1989 and assigned to the Claimant on Feb 21st 2013.
  4. The application was for Marks and Spencer Account Shopping. The form then goes on to say its a Marks and Spencer Account Card. I have just noted a few more points, The 1989 document only mentions Budget Card and Charge Card no mention of M+S Account card as per the application form. Thinking more widely, if these supposed T&C's were on the back of an application form, then the account holder did not receive them as they formed aprt of the application which was sent away to be signed off. There is absolutely no evidence at all that they were sent out an any point thereafter. As for the 2004 T&C's there does appear to be a discrepancy, the document correctly identifies the account type as being ACCOUNTCARD (note the typo) then goes on to say "the clauses below are taken from the M&S Account card terms and conditions. The definitions and other terms and conditions are set out in full in your copy of the terms and condition. Theres then a clause relating to interest and variations of interest which says "Interest is chargeable as explained in clause 7" only problem is clause 7 in the supposed 1989 document does not relate to interest. i suspect very strongly the 2004 document has been made up, particularly regarding the Typo's and some of the strange spacing used in setting out a number of paragrapghs. Neither document has an M&S logo.
  5. Apologies for any confusion. We have a photocopy of the application form which is signed by both parties from 1989, they have provided two copies of T&C's one of which they say is from 1989 The other they say is from 2004, though interestingly they are saying that these T&C's were in place when the account was terminated in 2011
  6. Looking at the application form with regards to T&C's. Post No9 page ten. In the top right hand box it makes reference to "see over" relating to lost or stolen cards. The purported T+C's supplied (there were two) are obviously not a photocopy of the original as the print is far too clear but does corresppond to the section mentioned on the application form. My question is then, does this confirm that the T&C's were not within the four conrers of the form, or could it be successfuly argued that they were supplied at the the point of inception. In any case my point would be they are not a copy of the actual form or part of at the point signing the application form. I note also that the supplied copy is not complete as there is clearly parts missing from both the top and bottom of the form, but is this enough to state it is incomplete. Cheers.
  7. Interesting, however this may not be of much use to me as i cannot be sure that the card was changed and even if it were i have no evidence it was changed or indeed when that would of been. My gut feeling is that it was changed hence the rather vague details provided regarding transactions etc, which only show debits and credits to the account and are watermarked M&S bank, not M&S Fincial services. Another issue ive noted is that the application form appears to have been over stamped with a serial number, however thsi number does not reflect any part of the account number, in effect there is no account number on the application form/ agreement either before or after inception.
  8. I will be drafting the defence throughout the day. Two quick questions. 1. A 1989 M&S Storecard/ Charge Card: what type of credit agreement would of been inferred would it be a rolling credit account or credit card at the point of inception. 2. PPI: would this forma part of the same application or be treated as a wholly sperate matter. Im assured nothing re PPI was ever sent only verbal information by the individual filling o
  9. Good morning and Happy New year. Pages 11&12 of their WS are the two seperate documents in question.
  10. Many thanks. They have provided two sets of what they say are T&C's my point will remain they are not contained within the four corners of the application form. No notice of assignment, from memory i think thier WS points to theres suficient information contained within other documents, im going to be making a big point that their agent went to court and stated that the docs were available, just not on the day then back tracked a little and was in the process of saying it takes time to produce, at which point the Judge stopped her. I'm looking for a nice choice of words to suggest that 13 months from request is reasonable amount of time in which to have supplied these and they havent or have witheld them for whatever reason. Some help with suitable words would be great. The point about authorised payments.... this would of been payplan or similar i wasnt involved in that aspect and the other half has no recollection of what the arrangements would of been. Again soem suitable words may be hellpful if its thought this avenue is worth following. I saw a thread regarding costs, im unable to find it again but there did appear to be some good argeuments against their costs, if someone canb recall the thread and point me in the right direction that would be helpful. Theres also contained within their WS references to Default notice, we are sure there was no default notice sent to us or indeed a termination notice, again pointers on how to cover this aspect may be helpful. Many thanks once again.
  11. Seasons greetings all. I have some work to do this week in assembling a defence for this matter. Starting with the original Application for credit, im looking for people's views on this. The document can be found in post 9 and is page ten of the attached PDF. Im particularly looking for views on whether or not this is enforceable as my thrust of arguement will be that it does not include the prescribed terms and conditions within the four corners of the document. Is there anything else which could constitute a defect? and how do i go about setting this out in document form. Many thanks in advance.
  12. Apologies for the typo it should of course read substansive defence Sorry you've lost me with this, please explain.
  13. Update: Over booked court list which resulted in a very very short hearing over what should of been lunch break. Judge made it clear he didnt want to spend very long on this and gave each parrty five mins max to have their say. Restons (im assuming agent) took the usual line theres a credit agreement, failed to pay and wanted defence struck out and summary judgement etc. Judge was desperate to get rid of this informs me i havent produced a substansive defence and he has to ask if i have one and therefore would it be worth allocating to small claims court. I wasnt about to be put off by what was a glaringly obvious attempt to get me to say game over, went for the unenforceable credit agreement, not the full agreement as what was provided was a poor scan that didnt include the full document and was barely legible. Threw in non production of default notice, termination notice and allocation notice. Restons not happy and claims they are avialble just that she didnt have them with her on the day, brwakign with protocol i chipped in that they've been properly requested and should of been produced therefore no reason not to do so. Outcome was their application was dismissed and an order for Substasive defence to be filed by 5th Jan, Restons by the 15th of Jan if they want to reply and allocation questionaires to be completed by early February. I will struggle with the substasive dfence in part due to the lack of documents, i suspect Restons if they do have them will wait for the defence to be issued and then produce them or whatever they want to pass off as the required material. They made a massive thing about costs, the judge wasnt having any of it and has reserved costs. So im going to be after some quite detailed help on this one please.
  14. Many thanks for the replies, very helpful. I will update after the hearing tomorrow. Thanks again genuinely appreciated
  15. The hearing due tomorrow morning, i received this in the post today dated 12/12/2017. i havent scanned the last page as its the signature etc. They have also attached another Costs Schedule in excess of £1600. A second statement that essentially gives their take on the above statement. I dont know enough about the technicalities to challenge them on some of thier responses in particualr the issue over what is a credit agreement and what is an application form. If someone could take a look at this and provide any last minute advice i would be grateful. REST2.PDF
  16. Good evening all. Not entirely sure that this is sufficient but this is my attempt at collating what i thibk is relevent from other witness staements, please feel free to comment accordingly. For ease the claimants documents are in a PDF in post 9. I do have a few questions that im not sure are worth adding to the statement. 1. PPI appears to have played some part in this although it appears that less than a dozen payments were which were less than the minimum payment were made against the account, is there any relevence in this? 2. Restons refused to deal with the CPR and Sect 78 requests on three occcassions, initially claiming they wouldnt deal with an unsigned letter, then they were solicitors and wouldnt process the request, thought the claim and indeed the purported notice of assignemnet both statre all should be dealt with by Restons, are there implications that can be used in this regard? 3. What they say is a notice of assignment is actually titled notification of account transfer to new agency, issued in 2013 we saw this fir the first time in 2016, is there anything in this that can be used? 4. They say they have provided staements of all transactions, they have included two differently formatted docuents that show essentially some credits and ebits bearing the Logo of M&S Bank not M&S Financial services, i seem to remember reading something about a change of card and possible issues, is this relevent in any way? The County Court noticiation does not mention the production of witness statements or any time scale, Restons in their application say at lest 7 days before the hearing, im aware of a 14 day rule so do i go for seven or forteen days? Here is the cut and paste witness statement i have put together: IN THE xxxxxxxxx COUNTY COURT Claim No. xxxxxxxx BETWEEN: Claimant Arrow Global Ltd AND Defendant xxxxxxxxxx _________________________ ________ WITNESS STATEMENT OF xxxxxxx _________________________ ________ I xxxxxxxxxx being the Defendant in this case will state as follows; I make this Witness Statement to oppose the claimant’s application for Strike Out/Summary Judgment in view of my defence submitted to the claim dated 11/08/2016 pursuant to CPR 24.5 (1) a&b. 1. The claimant’s witness statement confirms that it mostly relies on hearsay evidence as confirmed by the drafts person in the opening paragraph. It is my understanding that they must serve notice to any hearsay evidence pursuant to CPR 33.2(1)(B) (notice of intention to rely on hearsay evidence) and Section 2 (1) (A) of the Civil Evidence Act. 2.It is my understanding that the claimant is an Assignee, a buyer of defunct disputed or bad debts, which are bought on mass portfolios at a much reduced cost to the amount claimed ...10p to 15p in the £1 and which the original creditors have already wrote off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income. Then issues claim to circumvent and claim the full amount of debt to maximise profit. 3. As an assignee or creditor as defined in section 189 of the CCA this applies to this new requirement on assignment of rights. This means that when an assignee purchases debts (or otherwise acquires rights under a credit agreement) it also acquires certain obligations to the borrower including the duty to comply with CCA requirements (such as the rules on statements and notices and other post-contractual information). The assignee becomes the creditor under the agreement. This ensures that essential consumer protections under the CCA cannot be circumvented by assigning the debt to a third party. The Background 4. Save insofar of any admittance it is accepted that a contractual relationship did once exist between myself and Marks & Spencer Financial Services Plc. On receipt of this claim I could not recall the precise details of the agreement or any debt and sought clarity by way of a section 78 request. At the time of submitting my defence the claimant was in default of this request and refused to comply with this request and was therefore unable to proceed and enforce the claim or request any relief. The claimant is put to strict proof to verify and confirm that the exhibit at paragraph 2 marked CGQ2 are the true terms and conditions as issued at the time of inception and execution of the agreement. 5. Contained within the claimants’ correspondence dated 22 November 2016 submitted as an exhibit “CGQ3” within its witness statement the claimant pleads that the defendant has failed to make contractual payments under the terms of the agreement and that a default notice “would have” been served upon the defendant pursuant to S.87(1) CCA. The claimant provides no proof of such pursuant to section 87(1) of the CCA1974. It is therefore contended that the original creditor failed to serve a valid Default Notice pursuant to section 87(1). Service of a notice on the debtor or hirer in accordance with section 88 (a “default notice”) is necessary before the creditor or owner can become entitled, by reason of any breach by the debtor or hirer of a regulated agreement. The claimant is put to strict proof to further evidence and verify the service of the above. 6. Paragraph 3 is noted and partially addressed at my point 2. Referring to its business as charged off debts may be one description. The claimants state the debt was assigned to its claimant on or around the 21st February 2013 and confirms that a Notice of Assignment was sent 13th September 2016 some forty-six months later. It confirms that a reconstituted version is relied upon at exhibit CGQ3. Pursuant to the Law of Property Act 1925 there is no reference to reconstituted versions of Notice of Assignments but what equates to a valid Notice with its prescribed terms and inclusions for the assignment to be valid. A reconstituted version is not proof that it was ever served or the assignment was valid. The claimant is put to strict proof to evidence further the Notice of Assignment is a true copy or possibly disclose the Deed of Assignment as to verify its authenticity. 7. Paragraphs 4 is noted token payments were made by a third-party agency but are not an acceptance of any liability of the debt or assignment. 8. Paragraph 6 is accepted in that a claim was issued some 3 ½ yearsafter the purported assignment to which a defence was submitted along with requests for documents vis a CPR 31.14 and section 78 of the CCA1974. Stay of Proceedings 9. Paragraph 8 is noted but unfounded and misleading to the court. The claimant misleads the court in its reasons. The reasons for the stay are explained above and has to why. They were not in a position to proceed because they could not disclose any agreement or further documents. Therefore, the request to lift the stay should be denied as the above is not a true or accurate reason or occurrence of events. Application to strike out/Summary Judgment 10. Paragraph 9 should be denied. I believe I have every opportunity in defending this claim successfully and it should be allowed to proceed to trial. The claimant is put to strict proof to respond as to why it presumes my defence has no reasonable grounds for defending given that all its exhibits are questionable or invalid with the current legislation. Paragraph 2 the claimant refers to exhibit CGQ1 which they refer to as a true copy of the executed agreement. It is averred that the disclosure purports to no more than an application form a pre-executed application form which is deficient of the prescribed terms. This renders the exhibit as unenforceable pursuant to section 127 (1) & (2) of the CCA1974 as the alleged date of the agreement is dated 14th October 1989 and the amendments of the CCA2006 are not retrospective to agreements entered into pre-April 2007. Conclusion 11. Having regard to the above it is respectfully requested that the claimant’s application is denied and the application for strike out/summary judgment is dismissed. In the circumstances the court is invited to conclude that there are reasonable grounds to suppose that I will be able to successfully defend the Claimant’s claim at trial. Statement of Truth I, xxxxxxxx the Defendant, believe the facts stated within this Witness Statement to be true. Signed: _________________________ _______ Dated: _________________________ _______
  17. Maany thanks. Post 9 has the attached witness statement which begins at page four of the pdf. No default notice has been received, nor produced as part of their bundle.
  18. Can anyone offer any advice or pointers as to the content of the witness statrement. I have had a look at a number of other threads and successfully managed to totally confuse myself. Many thanks.
  19. Received yesterday from our local county court notice of a hearing date: 15/12/2017. The hearing has been allocated 45 minutes. I now need to consider what if anything i add to the embarrassed defence given that they have since provided some but not all of the information requested. Many thanks.
  20. Heres the copy of the original 1989 application form. A copy of the "Assignment" documents: Hopefully this has worked this should contain all the relevent documents other than the claim form. For the purposes of clarity the documents that Restons say are statements have been blanked out. Any advice on how to proceed with this going forward would be most welcome as i am at a loss as to what to do next. Many thanks. WS .pdf
  21. The Clainant is Arrow Global. Since the claim was issued the only thing from the court was acknowledgement that defence was entered. As previously stated, i submitted i could not enter a defence as i had no documentation other than the claim form at that time. The N244 says. 3. What order are you asking the court to make and why? " An ex-parte Order to: Lift the stay on these proceedings; and Strike out the defence pursuant to CPR 3.4(2) of the civil proceedings rules on the basis that it discloses no reasonable grounds for defending the claim and or is an abuse of the court process; and Enter Judgement for the sum of £3k+
  22. They are requesting strike out defence judgement plus costs and any new allegations they will ask for a adjournment plus costs. looks they are after a judgement in their favour without having to be challenged
  23. A little long winded im afraid but to try and keep this concise. Other half opened a M&S account in September 1989. The last payment via Pay Plan was made in July 2011. Nothing heard until we received a letter from Restons acting for Global Arrow asking for payment of some £2k in September 2016. Followed by a county court claim issued via Northampton in October 2016. Particualrs of claim are: Dated 21/10/2016. Particulars of Claim: 1.The claimant claims payment of the overdue balance due from the Defendant(s) and Marks and Spencer Financial Services Plc dated on or about October 14th 1989 and assigned to the claimant on Feb 21 2013. Particulars a/c no - xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Date 12/09/2016. Default Balance £2xxx.xx Claim was acknowldged within time and option to defend all the claim. The day after the claim was issued CCA request along with payment and CPR request were made. All correspondance returned with Restons using the excuse they are solicitors not the creditor. The claim was defended on the basis no defence could be entered as there was a lack of documentation to back up the claimants claim and none were included in the claim. There was a brief spell of letter exchanges as we resubmitted the CCA aand CPR requests which were returned and the usual unsigned letters debacle etc took place. Nothing else happened until May this year when they sent in the post a copy of the original application, a print out of payments and Terms and Conditions they claim were applicable in 2011, and again demanding payment. Today we recieve quite a hefty bundle from them where effectively they are apparently applying to the court: "We enclose by way of service a copy of our Application Notice and supporting evidence which has been filed with the court today. We have asked the court to deal with the Application without a hearing as we do not consider a hearing is necessary. Once this has been referred to a judge, he or she should then either make an Order in the terms requested or they may decide that the application needs to be considered at a hearing. eEther way, you should receive an Order from the Court in due course which confirms the decision made. They have enclosed N244 Application Notice dated 06/09/2017. Also included is a witness statement of some 5 pages. copies of letters and their costs which total some £900. Im trying to get my head around how they can still be in time with this as its some 11 months since they issued the claim, that they are saying was stayed although we have heard absolutely nothing from the court to this effect. Any suggestion on how we deal with this as its a new one on me. Many thanks.
  • Create New...