Jump to content

Tauty

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    31
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Tauty

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Just checked all of that dx, so my question is - do I have to send CCA's before I am filling PPAPLOC? Sorry, I am realy bad in all this law stuff
  2. Thanks dx! Do I have to send 3 CCA's direct to lowell, or their solicitors? I had some problems abroad, so was away from UK for a while to sort everything out, so received letter from them recently.
  3. Hi lads, I have received letter from lowell saying they will take me to court, what should i do next? LOwell PAPLOC.pdf
  4. I thought i hide everythig, my bad. So now just nees to wait and track my post box for any update from them.
  5. Good point, how did I missed that, Point 6 sorted. 6. On receipt of this claim I requested by way of a CPR 31.14 request and a section 78 request for copies of any documents referred to within the Claimants particulars to establish what the claim is for. To date they have declined to comply to my section 78 request and remain in default. Therefore, the claimant in their none compliance to my requests have frustrated my attempts to clarify their claim and failure to comply with Pre- Action Protocol should be considered when the question of costs arise.
  6. 1.BY AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN SAV CREDIT RE AQUA & THE DEFENDANT ON OR AROUND 23.06.2017 (THE AGREEMENT) SAV CREDIT RE AQUA AGREED TO ISSUE THE DEFENDANT WITH A CREDIT CARD. 2.THE DEFENDANT FAILED TO MAKE THE MINIMUM PAYMENTS DUE & THE AGREEMENT WAS TERMINATED. 3. THE AGREEMENT WAS ASSIGNED TO THE CLAIMANT. 4. THE CLAIMANT THEREFORE CLAIMS £421.20 2. COSTS 1. The Defendant contends that the particulars of the 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. The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017.It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC. 3. Paragraph 2 is noted but not admitted. I do not recall receiving a Default Notice pursuant to CCA1974 section 87.1 PD A&E from the Original creditor to facilitate any agreement to be..(a)to terminate the agreement, or (e)to enforce any security. Therefore the claimant is put to strict proof to evidence the alleged breach and service of a Default Notice. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. I do not recall receiving any Notice of Assignment from either assignor or assignee pursuant to sec 136 of The Law of Property Act 1925. 5. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has not yet provided any evidence of assignment/balance/breach requested by CPR 31. 14, 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 and evidence the breach and that a Default Notice was issued pursuant to Sec87.1 CCA1974; © 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 78 request for copies of any documents referred to within the Claimants particulars to establish what the claim is for. To date they have declined to comply to my section 78 request and remain in default To date they have declined to comply to my section 78 request and remain in default and have failed to reply with regards to my CPR. Therefore, the claimant in their none compliance to my requests have frustrated my attempts to clarify their claim and failure to comply with Pre- Action Protocol should be considered when the question of costs arise. 7. As per Civil 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 consumer credit 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. So looks like last touch up has been done, and I should upload it by tomorrow 4pm
  7. 1.BY AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN SAV CREDIT RE AQUA & THE DEFENDANT ON OR AROUND 23.06.2017 (THE AGREEMENT) SAV CREDIT RE AQUA AGREED TO ISSUE THE DEFENDANT WITH A CREDIT CARD. 2.THE DEFENDANT FAILED TO MAKE THE MINIMUM PAYMENTS DUE & THE AGREEMENT WAS TERMINATED. 3. THE AGREEMENT WAS ASSIGNED TO THE CLAIMANT. 4. THE CLAIMANT THEREFORE CLAIMS £421.20 2. COSTS 1. The Defendant contends that the particulars of the 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. The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017.It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. I do not recall having received notification that the agreement was terminated. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. I do not recall receiving any Notice of Assignment from either assignor or assignee pursuant to sec 136 of The Law of Property Act 1925. 5. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has not yet provided any evidence of assignment/balance/breach requested by CPR 31. 14, 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 and evidence the breach and that a Default Notice was issued pursuant to Sec87.1 CCA1974; © 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 78 request for copies of any documents referred to within the Claimants particulars to establish what the claim is for. To date they have declined to comply to my section 78 request and remain in default and with regards to my CPR 31.14 request. Therefore, the claimant in their none compliance to my requests have frustrated my attempts to clarify their claim and failure to comply with Pre- Action Protocol should be considered when the question of costs arise. 7. As per Civil 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 consumer credit 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. So basically looks like that, as it seems to be working on Thread were lad was defending, exactly same claim.
  8. So last year i was paying it and then i had an emergency to go back home(abroad) due family issues. Then came back and it was already sold to cabot
×
×
  • Create New...