Lloyds claim - **WON _ Amazing win based on UTCCR's**

[Guest]

if the ct says it is out of time, is their call. i could be wrong.

maybe also loyds hasn't filed with the court as required?

ps, you've done the app'n, so see what court decides?

Edited January 22, 2014 by Ford

[orfoster]

I'll double check with them tomorrow, it will of course be my luck that they will have just scrapped through though.

 

I guess the judge either way will consider my application for judgement and will order either way but I'll ask the court staff tomorrow.

 

What you say makes sense though if I think logically, of course I'm not thinking objectively but I'd like to argue they had a clear day as it arrived at 6:55am on the 6th.

 

Their defence has also freaked me out a bit, just their language and it's quite extensive.

[orfoster]

Thanks Ford, yes I just need to wait and see now. I may call tomorrow as I'm not sure how long they judge would take to review it.

I guess I'd built myself up but feel deflated now.

[Guest]

even if not dealt with yet, ct should have a record of anything received. so could be worth a call to see if they have received anything, and what they might be doing? chin up.

[orfoster]

Cheers.

Have read part 6 of CPR which says deemed day of service was the 6th as the next business day from when I posted it on 3rd, 14 days thereafter takes me to the 20th doesn't it?

 

Yeah I'm basically gonna tie myself up in knots, I will check with the court when they open tomorrow to see what they say their view is.

[orfoster]

On reading Part 6 (service of documents) I might be wrong.

 

If it's posted on the Friday the court deem it served on Tuesday. But I have proof it was served on the Monday so I don't know if that matters.

 

Again though, service of their documents on me that were posted yesterday (as dated) aren't served until tomorrow and they have no proof otherwise.....food for thought.

[2Grumpy]

On reading Part 6 (service of documents) I might be wrong.

 

If it's posted on the Friday the court deem it served on Tuesday. But I have proof it was served on the Monday so I don't know if that matters.

 

I think that if it's deemed served on Tuesday then it's served on Tuesday whether it is delivered on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday (or never) so long as it was sent 1st class or better ...

[orfoster]

Ok, so I went into the court today.

They actually received the defence on Monday (in time) by email.

Its deemed served on me today so it was out of time arriving with me.

 

Is that nit picking? As I say the application went in to the judge anyway, but I imagine the fact it was out of time with me won't really matter.

[Guest]

hi

did the court say it was out of time being served to you?

[orfoster]

Good evening, she didn't want to say either way to be honest. It's dated 20th so in line with the courts CPR's it was served today which is out of time.

 

It wasn't so much she didn't want to say I asked twice and she said it would seem so and then I asked her again and she hmmm'd and then I went all British and didn't want to ask the 3rd time.

 

I guess I can only wait, the thing is though my application now doesn't have any of these arguments in it. So I don't know if I should put a different one in.

[Guest]

hi

ok, down to the judge then to decide.

you mentioned failure to comply with order in your app'n?, j should then consider whether there was non compliance?

don't know whether is poss to 'add' to it with further info if required, and allowed?

what different application would you do?

Edited January 23, 2014 by Ford

[orfoster]

Yeah I mentioned non-complaince. I said that it was sent on X date received on X date and non-compliance. What I haven't done is say that the defence was served on me put of time because it was dated 20th and by their method of service it wouldn't have been possible to have complied in time.

[Guest]

hi

if deemed served on 6th as you say #161, i still think time would start the next day from 'service' so would be 21'st inclusive? what was their method of service? (according to the cpr you mention (6.26?), first class post (or other service which provides for delivery on the next business day) is deemed served the second business day after posting. would work both ways? email before 4.30 is the next business day). then there is cpr 3.1 etc re management powers?

anyway, is before the J to decide, and J should be aware of the rules and decide accordingly.

[Guest Angel235]

The judge will just give an unless order for 7 days anyway and even if it is struck out they will just make an app to reinstate

 

Nit picking over a day or few hours

 

Wasted application but like you said see what judge thinks

 

Just my opinion

[orfoster]

Its been a weird week. After making my posts on here I received another letter from SCM saying "We've already served our amended defence on the court and had already sent this to you on 20th" the letter was dated 21st....given they weren't aware I'd been considering a strike out etc I'm not sure why they'd send me a 2nd letter with the defence in it....I wonder if some prying eyes on my thread prompted this.

 

Anyway, despite calling the court to check on a number of occasions and them telling me that no fee was to be paid for a judgement application I've now had a letter from the court telling me they got it wrong and I'd have to pay a fee if I want it to go through.

 

I think Angel you are correct in that I'm sure the judge would simply allow it through anyway.

 

Hearing is on 27 Feb so I'd better get preparing my bundle....what sorts of things should I include?

[Guest]

hi

had thought you did n244 with fee?

as there was no auto strike out an application for strike out and judgment would require a fee? (a request for judgment may require a fee anyway even if re an auto strike?)

maybe prying eyes, its not unknown for loyds etc, or 'ghosts in the machine', to look in/be on cag. but maybe they have just checked with the court?

any case law, legislation, witness statements, further info re claim as mentioned, exhibits, etc. all that you rely on.

[orfoster]

Sorry no I didn't do the fee, I put the N244 through the door after hours and called them the next day to pay fee over the phone but was told I didn't need to, the courts letter admits they got it wrong but never mind. I don't believe the judge would have supported me anyway.

 

Ok so I need to find some case law around BCOBs and DPA (incorrect date for default) etc if there are any.

 

They also quote the supreme court case although I haven't mentioned at all the UTCCR issue around fairness but they believe that because of that case despite BCOBs charges cannot be regarded as unfair which I think is interesting.

 

I should probably post up their defence alongside my POC's.

[Guest]

oh ok, so is courts fault. did they say that it wasn't being auto struck? up to you now then whether to now pay the fee so it can be put before the J? if they're not auto striking it, then seems they think at first sight all was compliant. double check though.

re DPA, there is the ICO guidance on defaults. check their site. also the oft.

re bcob, afaik the oft site has a list of cases re unfairness which may be apt.

there is that oft case (i presume) they mention, but there seems to be the issues as to whether that case applies generally to consumers, or just to the oft's remit in challenging? some serious research needed!

[Guest]

here is the ico guide re defaults

http://www.scoronline.co.uk/files/scor/high_level_prinicples_document_final.pdf

http://ico.org.uk/for_organisations/sector_guides/finance

 

bcob http://fshandbook.info/FS/html/handbook/BCOBS

 

case law search http://www.bailii.org/

[orfoster]

Thanks Ford for all of your help.

 

Silly question maybe....in Court bundle would court accept double sided? Before I wind up the printer.

When I spoke to the Court last Monday they told me it would be automatically struck out, they told me that again when I called on Tuesday as well and told me no fee required. TBH I don't think the judge will go for it but I will call them and see what they think though.

 

Will get reading. Anything else you think that would be useful please send it my way.

 

Cheers

[Guest]

wouldn't do double sided imo.

[orfoster]

Okey dokey. Onwards with my reading. Thanks

[Guest]

could check with the court though, never know they might well accept double sided?

[Guest]

orfoster

for a giggle re 'ghosts in the machine' mentioned see #66 here explained http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?321812-Where%92s-the-Barclaycard-Rep-gone/page4

[orfoster]

Why can't I find these regulations (Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1993) when I look on Legislation website? They're referenced within Woodchester case.

 

Does anyone have any other default removal case law that might be useful? Re inaccuracy of defaults.

 

Cheers

 

O