Marlin and Remus

[111253]

Great news and thanks for the PM. It so similar to mine, and BTW the court told me that Marlin requested the extension and then failed to put the AQ in on one case and put one in on the other so I,m up in November and really looking forward to it. Hopefully the court will send me a similar letter. Well done.

[steven4064]

remus

 

That's fantastic. What we need to think about now is how that can be used to get your default removed

[car2403]

Hi All, Can you tell me what CPR 3.3(4) covers? (OK I have looked it up, and it is the Courts own initiative without either party being present).

 

Claim is struck out as being an abuse of process:p:D

 

Their POC and a letter sent to me and copy to the court being totally inconsistent:eek:

 

 

What do I need to do now?

What implication has it on my 'relationship' with Marlin/Phoenix etc etc and how should I go forward?

Not forgetting Marlin have defaulted me on this account and I have a stayed claim for charges with HSBC started in april 2007, (same court and I did mention it on the AQ:rolleyes:).

 

Can't wipe the smile from my face!:D

 

Well, well, well...

 

I can't help but think this strike out has came as they have failed to comply with the AQ submission dates.

 

As it's strike out, rather than stayed, they will have difficulty bringing another claim on the same basis. They can but they need the Court's permission, which they probably won't get because they would have to explain what the delay in submitting the AQ was. They may get one, however, so I'd still be chasing them for CCA/S.A.R.'s you've sent them so you're prepared if they do. Imagine they can't send you anything, try to start the proceedings again and then you turn up to the application hearing to show they have failed to comply with these requests - surely that would mean they can't start again, or the chances of that happening are severely reduced, IMHO.

 

The default issue. For me, you need to decide how you want to tackle that one. Is the fact they can't continue with this claim against you enough for you, as they can't claim the debt against you - and you have a decent argument for avoiding paying via a DCA - or do you really want to achieve default removal as well? If you do want the default removed, you may have to take action against them in Court, which could put you back at square one and give them a chance to counterclaim on a different basis, which wouldn't need an application to start over from their side, as they are just counterclaiming your action. Tough call!

 

On the other hand, if they can't substantiate the debt in Court, you may want to consider a FOS/I.C.O complaint, as they may well come a cropper there and you could avoid the Court thing altogether.

[remus]

Hi Car,

the reason the Judge struck it out pursuant to CPR 3.3(4) is the poc (post 48) and the content of Mortimer Clarkes letter to me, copied to court (post 68) was totally inconsistent.

When I received the letter I thought exactly the same and didnt bother replying, just sent my AQ.

They still have 7 days to set aside vary or stay.

 

the only response to my cpr18 was the letter they copied to court, with my current account statements, which asked me if I wanted to continue my defence as it was.

They have merged a loan into a current account (as they seem to have done with a lot of people) and then saying current accounts are not covered by the cca.

 

light bulb moment, have they done this so it doesnt go to court????

have they realised I mean buisness and would have gone all the way,

revealing what under hand tricks they are using?

 

Are they really that stupid? or not?

[remus]

the posts I refer to which are being cagbotted are between 48 and 68

[car2403]

Aren't they just going to say that the overdraft and loan debts were sold off and amalgamated in to a single outstanding balance, which is now being enforced?

 

The difficulty for the Court will be applying interest under the agreements/overdraft contact as the debts are now one lump - I can't see this stopping enforcement, IMHO, though.

 

It's a bit of creative accounting, admittedley, but writing off debts in bulk is a well established process - if they can show the balances claimed are correct on balance of probabilities, they will probably still seek enforcement.

 

I reckon you are going to get an application notice from them seeking the variation of the order striking the claim out and seeking permission to amend the POC. If you don't get this within that period, then you're on a winner, but I wouldn't count your chickens just yet. (Says the voice of reason...)

[remus]

Hi Chris, voice of reason;)

 

just rang the court, nothing from Phoenix/Marlin and their 7 days are up.

 

[blackmanfamily]

server the letter and if you can get a call recorder

diarise all their calls

record them and complain about harassment

they'll soon give up

[remus]

Hi all,

marlin are now ringing daily for me to contact them, after noting my comments re only contacting in writing!

 

Cca'd back in March re the HSBC credit card, they are waiting for HSBC to forward the relevant document (still waiting).

 

Also the letter states "Please be aware that once a credit agreement has been terminated the obligation to provide a copy agreement in accordance with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ceases to apply. There is no penalty for our being unable to provide the copy agreement and, more particularly, the debt remains enforceable against your client."

Are they correct in the above?

[Having_A_Knightmare]

"Please be aware that once a credit agreement has been terminated the obligation to provide a copy agreement in accordance with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ceases to apply. There is no penalty for our being unable to provide the copy agreement and, more particularly, the debt remains enforceable against your client."

 

Proves how stupid they are!!!

[car2403]

Smells of Rankine, to me.