RBS... Irwin Mitchell... Help!

[elizabeth1]

Lots of these companies (Banks, CC Companies, Loan Companies, DCA's) are so eager to get people through court etc.. they "forget" to follow the correct procedures with their claims - there is a tendancy to hop, skip and jump over certain elements - this will be their downfall cause it's where you'l have strengths in your defence

 

Maybe this will help - were the correct procedures taken by the company involved prior to taking court actions ??

 

Regulations and rules are there for these companies to follow too - seems many of these companies think they don't have to adhere to such rules and regulations doesn't it?

 

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/33174-consumer-credit-act-agreements-181.html#post610967

 

 

 

PRE-ACTION BEHAVIOUR IN OTHER CASES

 

4.1 In cases not covered by any approved protocol, the court will expect the parties, in accordance with the overriding objective and the matters referred to in CPR 1.1(2)(a), (b) and ©, to act reasonably in exchanging information and documents relevant to the claim and generally in trying to avoid the necessity for the start of proceedings.

 

4.2 Parties to a potential dispute should follow a reasonable procedure, suitable to their particular circumstances, which is intended to avoid litigation. The procedure should not be regarded as a prelude to inevitable litigation. It should normally include –

(a)the claimant writing to give details of the claim;

(b)the defendant acknowledging the claim letter promptly;

©the defendant giving within a reasonable time a detailed written response; and

(d)the parties conducting genuine and reasonable negotiations with a view to settling the claim economically and without court proceedings.

 

4.3 The claimant's letter should –

(a)give sufficient concise details to enable the recipient to understand and investigate the claim without extensive further information;

(b)enclose copies of the essential documents which the claimant relies on;

©ask for a prompt acknowledgement of the letter, followed by a full written response within a reasonable stated period;

 

(For many claims, a normal reasonable period for a full response may be one month.)

(d)state whether court proceedings will be issued if the full response is not received within the stated period;

(e)identify and ask for copies of any essential documents, not in his possession, which the claimant wishes to see;

(f)state (if this is so) that the claimant wishes to enter into mediation or another alternative method of dispute resolution; and

(g)draw attention to the court's powers to impose sanctions for failure to comply with this practice direction and, if the recipient is likely to be unrepresented, enclose a copy of this practice direction.

 

4.4 The defendant should acknowledge the claimant's letter in writing within 21 days of receiving it. The acknowledgement should state when the defendant will give a full written response. If the time for this is longer than the period stated by the claimant, the defendant should give reasons why a longer period is needed.

 

4.5 The defendant's full written response should as appropriate –

(a)accept the claim in whole or in part and make proposals for settlement; or

(b)state that the claim is not accepted.

 

If the claim is accepted in part only, the response should make clear which part is accepted and which part is not accepted.

 

4.6 If the defendant does not accept the claim or part of it, the response should –

(a)give detailed reasons why the claim is not accepted, identifying which of the claimant's contentions are accepted and which are in dispute;

(b)enclose copies of the essential documents which the defendant relies on;

©enclose copies of documents asked for by the claimant, or explain why they are not enclosed;

(d)identify and ask for copies of any further essential documents, not in his possession, which the defendant wishes to see; and

 

(The claimant should provide these within a reasonably short time or explain in writing why he is not doing so.)

(e)state whether the defendant is prepared to enter into mediation or another alternative method of dispute resolution.

 

4.7 The parties should consider whether some form of alternative dispute resolution procedure would be more suitable than litigation, and if so, endeavour to agree which form to adopt. Both the Claimant and Defendant may be required by the Court to provide evidence that alternative means of resolving their dispute were considered. The Courts take the view that litigation should be a last resort, and that claims should not be issued prematurely when a settlement is still actively being explored. Parties are warned that if this paragraph is not followed then the court must have regard to such conduct when determining costs;

 

It is not practicable in this Practice Direction to address in detail how the parties might decide which method to adopt to resolve their particular dispute. However, summarised below are some of the options for resolving disputes without litigation:

 

Discussion and negotiation.

Early neutral evaluation by an independent third party (for example, a lawyer experienced in that field or an individual experienced in the subject matter of the claim).

Mediation – a form of facilitated negotiation assisted by an independent neutral party.

 

The Legal Services Commission has published a booklet on ‘Alternatives to Court’, CLS Direct Information Leaflet 23 (www.clsdirect.org.uk/legalhelp/leaflet23.jsp), which lists a number of organisations that provide alternative dispute resolution services.

 

It is expressly recognised that no party can or should be forced to mediate or enter into any form of ADR.

 

4.8 Documents disclosed by either party in accordance with this practice direction may not be used for any purpose other than resolving the dispute, unless the other party agrees.

 

4.9 The resolution of some claims, but by no means all, may need help from an expert. If an expert is needed, the parties should wherever possible and to save expense engage an agreed expert.

 

4.10 Parties should be aware that, if the matter proceeds to litigation, the court may not allow the use of an expert's report, and that the cost of it is not always recoverable.

[elizabeth1]

Tide YES they are from here

 

PRACTICE DIRECTION – PROTOCOLS -

[elizabeth1]

It's amazing how much these companies mess up isn't it?

 

Seems they forget there are procedures to follow ?

[elizabeth1]

What surprises me more is these companies of solicitors who actually file these claims within courts etc.. against consumers.

These solicitors are fully aware that these cases/claims won't stick once the defendant defends and counterclaims etc.. - the solicitors are aware the protocols haven't been followed prior to filing the claims and they've either not seen the correct paperwork (CCA, default notices etc..) yet they still go ahead and waste court time.

 

It seems that the DCA's and solicitors are relying on the consumers never to question these claims and defend such claims? These companies really do push their luck.

[elizabeth1]

A lot of solicitors set up "paper firms" which they then rent out to DCA's ( a practice frowned upon , and being investigated by the law society)

 

Most Solicitor's letters sent by DCA's have never been viewed by a real solicitor, they are merely a bullyng tool sent out by a higher echelon of bottom feeders within the DCA

 

Because of sites like this I think a lot of DCA's will have ceased trading within 12 months or so

 

Wouldnt it be great if the directors of these companies started getting phone calls and threats through the post................from the people they owe money too

 

Iceman Yes this is what many of us have found = the DCA's like Cabots are actually sending out template letters on behalf of their solicitors Hodsons who are based in Rugby with a messaging service where they electronically phone people harrassing for money etc..

 

The templates show up in the SAR's showing dates issued etc.. as the Pre Lim and Letter Before Acton - then they'll tell solicitor to issue cour claim after they've checked the Land Registry to check the person has enough equity in their home to do a !quicky" loan to pay debt off. Cabots did have on their website (likenumerous other DCA's) a loan company ready to refinance people.

 

All the solicitors will issue the cour claims regardless of never having seen proof that such a debt exists and is enforceable through courts etc.. - seems solicitors just "act on their clients instructions" as Hodsons so readily say in their replies. But once the defendant questions claims and CCA/SAR etc.. they'll back off and let cases be struck out of court. Hodsons have begun filing claim online more recently as it stops people like us challenging the solicitor who signs the court claim.

 

My own thoughts are that the solicitors involved should be more diligent and question the validity of claims they are filing in courts to ensure that cases are correct and will stand as enforceable in courts etc.. that their clients have followed procedures leading up to court claim etc..

 

However it seems that these solicitors don't check the validity of claims and file claims on behalf of the DCA's hoping that the consumer doesn't challenge the claim and will just pay up to avoid a CCJ etc.. As we all know many people will just pay up as court scares us all - so they win on the basis that the consumer doesn't know how to challenge the validity of claims - which is a shame as the DCA wins despite being wrong in many cases/claims.

 

It will be interesting to see whether the recent OFT findings will change the way some of these companies operate with their collection activities - it will be nice to see that things are changing within the debt collection industry. Thankfully this forum and many others like it are allowing the consumer to learn their rights to challenge the shoddy behaviour from these companies.