Jump to content

Iddon Leo

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    63
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

0 Neutral

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Kearns sent a letter today citing Rankine v American Express with a load of photocopies of statements etc and concluded in asking for proposals for settlement. The cheeky blighters! Any thoughts, presumably we can leave this alone? Thanks for your help
  2. OK, stayed, Thx - but what does that mean realistically?
  3. We've not heard anything from CCBC or LC Asset following initial acknowledgement of defence from CCBC on 23 Sept 2020 and now being beyond the 28 days notice we're wondering what's next. Presumably CCBC will dismiss or stay the claim?
  4. Thanks. The tone of their letter suggests contacting them regarding arrangements - something that I've no intention of doing.
  5. Hi all, received a Statement of Account from Link regarding this ongoing issue. Still not received anything from them regarding a copy of the agreement to the Claimant and the CPR 31:14 request to Kearns, their solicitors. Any feedback or guidance will be gratefully accepted.
  6. Received standard acknowledgement from CCBC and advising that a copy of the defence has been sent to LC Asset giving them 28 days to respond.
  7. I thought as much. I'll email the defence and send a hard copy this afternoon. Thanks for your assistance. Will keep you posted
  8. Thanks Andyorch. One further question, do I make any mention of the period that my wife, the defendant, was hospitalised for 3 months during 2016 and 7 months during the period 2019 to 2020?
  9. Updated, in bold, my apologies. 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. 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. 2. Paragraphs 1 & 3 are denied .The Claimant claims £3897281 is owed under a regulated agreement with HBOS on 27/08/2016. I have had past financial dealing with HBOS but I do not recognise any details of the agreement number referenced. The Claimant fails state what type of credit this agreement relates to in their vague particulars of claim. 3. On receipt of the claim form, the Defendant sent on date 28 August 2020 a request by way of a section 78 pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974, for a copy of the agreement to the Claimant and on date 28 August 2020 a CPR 31:14 request to their solicitors. To Date both remain in default of my requests and have failed to reply. 4. Paragraph 2 is Denied. I have never received a Section 87 Default Notice form either the Original Creditor nor the Claimant dated 05/08/2019 5. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence any cause of action and service of a Default Notice (c) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 6. As per Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 7. 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 82 A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 8. 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.
  10. Would the defence example posted I posted on Saturday look like something i could utilise? I seen many similar examples going through the site - this does appear to be consistent with our situation.
  11. This particular defence appears particularly relevant given my wife's circumstances: Particulars of claim 1.The Claimant ('C') claims the whole of the outstanding balance due and payable under an agreement referenced “ref number” and opened effective from 27/08/2016. The agreement is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974, was signed by the Defendant ('D') and from which credit was extended to the Defendant. 2' The Defendant failed to comply with a default notice served pursuant to s87, . CCA and by 05/08/2019 a default was recorded. 3.As at -/-09/2019 the Defendant owed “Bank of SCOTLAND” the sum of 3897281. 4.By an agreement in writing the benefit of the debt has been legally assigned to the Claimant effective -/09/2019 and made regular upon the Claimant serving a Notice of Assignment the Defendant shortly thereafter. 5.And the Claimant claims- 1. 397281 2. Interest pursuant to Section 69 County Court Act (1984) at a rate of 8 % per Annum from -/09/2019 to -/08/2020 of 26171 And thereafter at a daily rate of 82 to date of judgment or sooner payment. Date 28/08/2010 Defence 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) and 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 1 is denied. Whilst I have had dealings with Barclaycard in the past, I cannot recall the specifics of the alleged agreement. 4. Paragraph 2 is denied. I have no knowledge of who the claimant is, nor have I been provided with any Notice of Assignment pursuant to the Law of Property Act 1925. 5.Paragraph 3 is denied. I am not aware of service of a Default Notice by the original creditor or Legal Assignment the claimant refers to within its particulars of claim . 6. It is denied that any amounts are due under any agreement. 7. On receipt of this claim I requested information pertaining to this claim from Link Financial & Kearns Solicitors by way of a CPR 31:14 request sent via recorded delivery on xxxxx. To date, neither Link Financial or Kearns Solicitors are yet to furnish me with the requested information. 8.Therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:- a) show and disclose how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; b) show and disclose how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed for; c) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a Default Notice pursuant to Sec 87 (1) CCA1974. d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 9. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5 (4) it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 10. 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 1974.6. 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."
  12. Received letter back from Kearns Solicitors advising they: Require time to acquire requested documents That a hold has been placed on the account and no default judgement shall be requested within 14 days of the date the documents are to be provided. They do not consider it necessary to file an application seeking time to provide said documents, thought if required by defendant that they will do so. Any thoughts or comments on this? PDF attached Kearns PDF reply.pdf
×
×
  • Create New...