Lloyds TSB Credit Card - Claim form received

[The GodMother]

glad it made u smile micheal.

[mcuth]

Interesting, I was just looking at the Default Notice they supplied (that they are no longer relying on, of course - except I'll make an issue that it must be relied upon):

http://s135.photobucket.com/albums/q157/mcuth/CAG/default_1.jpg

 

It was dated 1st December 2006 and required action by 12th December 2006 - i.e. 11 days later. Now, the minimum period back then was 10 days, but was that from the time of service of the DN on the debtor, or the date of the notice? If it's from time of service, how long is allowed for service?

 

Cheers

Michael

[car2403]

Wasn't it 7 days, which was extended to 10 days?

 

As a rule of thumb, the Court says 2 working days for service of documents by first class post.

[mcuth]

Wasn't it 7 days, which was extended to 10 days?

 

On 19/12/06 it was extended to 14 days, I've just found a post from PT (here, replying to me ) that says it was 7 days before then. Not sure where I've got 10 days in my head from..... would be nice if that's the case!

 

As a rule of thumb, the Court says 2 working days for service of documents by first class post.

 

Thanks - I've just seen that the enforcement notices regs say that it's the prescribed amount of time from the date of service, which is handy to know

 

Cheers

Michael

[citizenB]

It would certainly be good if you could force this out into open court. It doesnt come anywhere close to being a default notice methinks.

[car2403]

It would certainly be good if you could force this out into open court. It doesnt come anywhere close to being a default notice methinks.

 

What makes you say that, citizen?

 

Is there another page to the Default Notice?

[mcuth]

What makes you say that, citizen?

 

Is there another page to the Default Notice?

 

Yeah, there's a 2nd page:

http://s135.photobucket.com/albums/q157/mcuth/CAG/default_2.jpg

 

I don't think there's too much wrong with it overall, I just had thoughts about the period of time for action that was all....

 

Cheers

Michael

[car2403]

I don't think there's too much wrong with it overall

 

Agreed.

[citizenB]

Ah, the 2nd page hadnt been posted up and that was what I realised was missing.

 

However, post 325 in this thread ( I think the link will take you directly there) details not only the importance but the requirements for a default notice.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/95027-cabot-county-court-claim-17.html#post1601276

[The GodMother]

hang on dot they have to prove certain Documents were sent to you and recieved by you.

[mcuth]

Ah, the 2nd page hadnt been posted up and that was what I realised was missing.

 

It'd been posted up some time ago, but for the question I was asking I didn't see a need to link to it again

 

However, post 325 in this thread ( I think the link will take you directly there) details not only the importance but the requirements for a default notice.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/95027-cabot-county-court-claim-17.html#post1601276

 

Thanks

 

hang on dot they have to prove certain Documents were sent to you and recieved by you.

 

Proof of sending them is one thing, but receipt I don't think they have to prove....

 

Cheers

Michael

[tinkerbell20]

It'd been posted up some time ago, but for the question I was asking I didn't see a need to link to it again

 

 

 

Thanks

 

 

 

Proof of sending them is one thing, but receipt I don't think they have to prove....

 

Cheers

Michael

 

 

No they only have to prove they sent it ------------unfortunately:rolleyes:

[mcuth]

Well, I've received a letter from SC&M giving further disclosure under CPR31.11 - their legal letter guide, card carrier template, default notice template and some correspondence from PayPlan. I'll scan the template/guides when I can, but IMHO the PayPlan correspondence is just them adding stuff to the "avoiding debt on a technicality" angle (something I'm planning to address at length in my Witness Statement ).

 

They also state that they won't be able to exchange Witness Statements by 22nd Sept (the original order said:

8. The parties shall exchange witness statements of witness of fact exhibiting any other documents which are relied upon by 4pm on the 22nd September 2008.

), and they propose a new date of 1st October - "as this extension does not effect [sic] the final hearing of this claim please confirm you will not have any objections" (appalling use of the English language!).

 

Now, in principle I have no objections as I could do with the extra time meself - just wondering whether it is the best thing to do or not....?

 

Oh yeah, and the line about not meeting the 22nd Sept deadline is just a simple "Please note we will not be able to exchange Witness Statements by the 22nd September", no reason, apology, etc.. just simply that!

 

Cheers

Michael

[The GodMother]

now me just to be awkard would tell them.

 

the extention is not acceptable and if you dont follow court orders u will consider your options regarding this.

 

without telling them you will inform the courts of there failure and you want the courts to demand they produce the docs within 7 days or the case thown/struck out of court.

[car2403]

It would be quicker to agree to the new directions, then fight for them to comply with the original ones.

 

If they don't comply, you'd need to apply to the Court to have the directions enforced, which would probably take longer than agreeing to the directions extensions.

 

Being reasonable is probably wise in this case, IMHO.

[The GodMother]

yeah i did not say mcuth should not i just said what i would do cause i can be awkard at times.

 

it is really up to Mcuth but if he feels the time would be helpfull then that is fine but remember it has to be cleared by the courts aswell as it was a court order.

[mcuth]

without telling them you will inform the courts of there failure and you want the courts to demand they produce the docs within 7 days or the case thown/struck out of court.

 

Well, if it was a case of requiring docs for the Defence, I might well try this avenue, though the strike out is easy for a switched-on Claimant to combat - see earlier on in this thread! In this case, it's just the Witness Statements and it isn't prejudicial to wait for them...

 

It would be quicker to agree to the new directions, then fight for them to comply with the original ones.

 

If they don't comply, you'd need to apply to the Court to have the directions enforced, which would probably take longer than agreeing to the directions extensions.

 

Being reasonable is probably wise in this case, IMHO.

 

Thanks Chris, thought as much

 

Cheers

Michael

[The GodMother]

well it is really up to you as i said i just said what i would do to be awkard but if i was in a nice mood and felt like being helpfull i would do as car suggests.

 

If thought it is alright with the courts as a court order should be followed.

[mcuth]

I know what you mean GM - I don't feel like being particularly helpful, but at the end of the day I don't think being obstructive would get me anywhere....

 

Ok, this is the stuff I said I'd scan in.

 

1. Letter guide (umm, ignore the scanned staples!):

http://s135.photobucket.com/albums/q157/mcuth/CAG/080919_LTSB_letter_guide.jpg

 

2. Card carrier template:

http://s135.photobucket.com/albums/q157/mcuth/CAG/080919_LTSB_cardcarrierp1.jpg

http://s135.photobucket.com/albums/q157/mcuth/CAG/080919_LTSB_cardcarrierp2.jpg

 

3. Default notice template:

http://s135.photobucket.com/albums/q157/mcuth/CAG/080919_LTSB_defaultp1.jpg

http://s135.photobucket.com/albums/q157/mcuth/CAG/080919_LTSB_defaultp2.jpg

 

Interesting - note how the default notice template is substantially different to the actual default notice that they've previously submitted to Court (that they're no longer relying on, strangely enough...), below:

 

http://s135.photobucket.com/albums/q157/mcuth/CAG/default_1.jpg

http://s135.photobucket.com/albums/q157/mcuth/CAG/default_2.jpg

 

That's going to be a good one for them to get out of!

 

Cheers

Michael

[citizenB]

I like the discrepancies between their template and the actual Default notice. I can well see why they wont want to rely on the original, however, you will be pointing these discrepancies out in court wont you. Apart from anything else it shows how they would have tried to manipulate things had you said you didnt receive one.

[mcuth]

I like the discrepancies between their template and the actual Default notice. I can well see why they wont want to rely on the original, however, you will be pointing these discrepancies out in court wont you.

 

I think it would be substantially negligent of me not to point them out to the Court I think they may well have been too keen to withdraw their reliance on the orignal one (detailed here). Shame that they'll be wanting to rely on this default notice template as "an example" of the type of default notice that they sent out and it is different to the one previously submitted. I think I'll be going through both DNs and comparing to the regs...

 

Apart from anything else it shows how they would have tried to manipulate things had you said you didnt receive one.

 

Well, as yet, I haven't actually admitted or denied receiving a Default Notice It is also another string to the bow of how LTSB's evidence has been flawed in this case since their first submission....

 

Cheers

Michael

[citizenB]

[The GodMother]

I know mcuth and in the end you need to remember that they have been ordered by the courts to produce the info i wounder if they will be asking courts permission to file late as my courts have always told me that the courts need to be asked.

[mcuth]

I know mcuth and in the end you need to remember that they have been ordered by the courts to produce the info i wounder if they will be asking courts permission to file late as my courts have always told me that the courts need to be asked.

 

Yeah, but the info to be produced is a Witness Statement, not "normal" docs per se - so I don't think the strictness of the timescale really needs to be enforced. They probably do need the Court's permission, but it'll just be easier for them to present it as an agreement anyway...

 

Cheers

Michael

[mcuth]

Small update for you - we've exchanged witness statements (I was late with mine and SC&M made an application to get an unless order - I complied with that order) and SC&M are putting together the trial bundle.

 

While putting together my witness statement, not only did I add in the detail on the differences between the DN template and the actual DN, but I came across a nice little find on my Experian CRF - turns out that LTSB reported the default date as 4 months after what they say is the date of the DN, and indeed the amount of the Default is incorrectly reported too. I think that could be potentially explosive for them in court

 

Anyway, on the same day I received the draft trial bundle, I received a WP offer from SC&M - they say their client is open to settlement negotiations and opened the bidding as follows: A repayment plan for the original amount of the claim (not less the penalty charges) or a lump sum of £2.5k - in both options, no fees/costs are to be included and will not be pursued. I've rejected this offer as unacceptable and countered with the following: £1k lump sum paid to me, along with all LTSB CRA data removed as compensation for their incorrect default procedures & reporting; balance to be written off with no further liability on either side; case to be discontinued with both parties bearing own costs

 

So, waiting to hear back from SC&M, but at the moment we're ready for the trial on 28th November - scheduled to last 1 whole day

 

Cheers

Michael