Lloyds v Me

[Viano]

Hi all,

 

Just a quick thank you to you all for your help so far. I feel that I have just got to step back for a few hours to clear my mind before next weeks onslaught.

 

I will be back!.

 

V

[Viano]

OK, I'm of to Court today for my (allocation) hearing, wish me luck.

 

V

[Dorabell]

good luck:)

[Viano]

Thanks.

 

Quick update. It really WAS an allocation hearing, all done and over in 10 mins although we were booked for 30.

 

One point emerged though, regarding track allocation we are over the £15k mark. We, the opposition and I had agreed that if possible we go the fast track route. HH asked the other side if the claim included interest, yes she said!. Will, if they 'find' a DN and include the full sum (including interest) on the claim form affect the validity of the DN?

 

By the way the trial date is 20/25 weeks away.

 

V

[citizenB]

Thanks.

 

Quick update. It really WAS an allocation hearing, all done and over in 10 mins although we were booked for 30.

 

One point emerged though, regarding track allocation we are over the £15k mark. We, the opposition and I had agreed that if possible we go the fast track route. HH asked the other side if the claim included interest, yes she said!. Will, if they 'find' a DN and include the full sum (including interest) on the claim form affect the validity of the DN?

 

By the way the trial date is 20/25 weeks away.

 

V

 

If the Default note contains penalties/charges then that will affect the claim as they cant be included so I guess any interest on those charges will make the sum asked for incorrect. Do you have statements that you can check the figure against if there are any penalties included on the statements then you should be able to see if the DN is incorrect. Did you do a Subject Access request, if so, is there an activity log, you could probably see from there if and when a DN was sent and possibly what the sum in arrears was at the time.

 

20 + weeks give you a bit of time to prepare:)

[Viano]

Hi cB,

 

I do have statements and the do include penalty/charges.

 

I haven't SAR'd them, they say that they sent a DN in August 07, this is the one I've not received. It will contain penalties and charges I'm sure.

 

I will no doubt get a copy of the DN - if they have one - at the disclosure stage. Suffice to say that I have letters showing different alleged balances!.

I have also just discovered that in the amended PoC's that the alleged DN was sent in August 07, but I have a letter dated May 07 saying "despite serveral reminders including the issue of a Default Notice". How does this work? How many times can you be be defaulted on the same account?.

 

By the way I was told by the opposition yesterday that despite the CPR 31.14 request they don't need to comply as all the docs will be available at the disclosure stage.

 

V

[citizenB]

Sadly they can issue as many default notices they like until such times as they terminate the account.

 

YOu say you have letters that say

 

"Despite several reminders including the issue of a default notice"

 

Is that from the solicitors and does it say it is a FORMAL DEMAND and does it ask for the full balance outstanding ?

[Viano]

Hi cB,

 

Sorry for the delay, but I managed to get a few days away.

 

Yes it is from the solicitors, and yes it makes "formal demand", and yes it asks for the "account balance as demanded above"

 

V

[citizenB]

Hi cB,

 

Sorry for the delay, but I managed to get a few days away.

 

Yes it is from the solicitors, and yes it makes "formal demand", and yes it asks for the "account balance as demanded above"

 

V

 

 

Then I would say, if they DIDNT send a Default notice then they are on dodgy ground because they must follow procedure.. ie DN (correctly issued), Formal Demand/Termination. If they issued a Dodgy DN, ie not the correct format, insufficient time, perhaps issued the formal demand/termination before the remedy date was up then they are on even dodgier ground.

 

You need to see a copy of that Default Notice. Did you send a Subject Access Request, in that was there a communications log which perhaps detailed all the action on your account ie telephone calls, letters sent. If so, check around the time the Formal Demand was issued say a month backwards and see if it is recorded that a DN was issued.

[citizenB]

By the way I was told by the opposition yesterday that despite the CPR 31.14 request they don't need to comply as all the docs will be available at the disclosure stage.

 

V

 

when you say "told" was this in writing or via a telephone call?. They are expected to comply with CPR and leaving it right till the last minute to provide documents is not good. I believe you can ask to amend your defence if they provide information you havent seen before. If this was in writing, then include it in your court bundle for the DJ to see how difficult they have been.

[Viano]

I was told this when their barrister and I met before the allocation hearing.

 

I didn't SAR them but I did send a CPR 31.14 request Their answer (as posted earlier) says they (as I read it) don't have supply the info as this will be included at the disclosure. Somehow this does not seem right to me!

 

V

[citizenB]

Hi Viano,

 

X20 provided an insight into this in the link below.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/159445-getting-them-reveal-their.html#post1707671

 

 

IMHO, the idea of CPR 31:14 is to sort out a few issues regarding the existence of documents before hand and is part of the Over riding objectives.

 

Still, it would seem the claimants are saying they are "not obliged". It is probably a good idea to make sure the court is aware of this kind of response.

 

I think you have the right to ask to be able to amend your defence in the light of new or previously unavailable paperwork and if they "ambush" on the day you with stuff not previously provided or disclosed, you can ask for an adjournment (sp) to study the paperwork.

 

Have a read of X20's thread, he might have covered this problem more fully in later posts.

[Viano]

Thanks cB,

 

I'll study in depth!, do you think I should inform the Court sooner or latter?

 

(sp)?

 

Viano

[creditcardmug]

Sadly they can issue as many default notices they like until such times as they terminate the account.

 

YOu say you have letters that say

 

"Despite several reminders including the issue of a default notice"

 

Is that from the solicitors and does it say it is a FORMAL DEMAND and does it ask for the full balance outstanding ?

 

I don't actually agree with this CB, it will take a lot of convincing, no offence to you, but im getting fed up of the same points coming up on DNs, so lets clarify my position.

 

My take from CCA 1974 is that

 

1. They issue a DN....you fail to remedy, they send another letter to saying pay up, this constitutes a Termination Notice (not withstanding the fact that most of them have not been produced in the prescribed format and are therefore invalid anyway)...End of!

 

2. You remedy in the required time frame, then when you default next....another DN

 

3. THERE CAN ONLY EVER BE ONE DN, (if the 1st one was not remedied) THIS IS THE FIRST ONE WHICH HAS NOT BEEN REMEDIED.

 

I have tried to clarify point 3 on here so many times, and have had no reply that, 1, i believe i am correct, 2. im fed up of raising the subject so give up

Edited June 16, 2009 by creditcardmug

[steven4064]

CCM

 

AFAIAC you are right - there can only ever be one valid DN at any given time for a given account

[citizenB]

Sadly they can issue as many default notices they like until such times as they terminate the account.

 

 

I don't actually agree with this CB, it will take a lot of convincing, no offence to you, but im getting fed up of the same points coming up on DNs, so lets clarify my position.

 

My take from CCA 1974 is that

 

1. They issue a DN....you fail to remedy, they send another letter to saying pay up, this constitutes a Termination Notice (not withstanding the fact that most of them have not been produced in the prescribed format and are therefore invalid anyway)...End of!

 

2. You remedy in the required time frame, then when you default next....another DN

 

3. THERE CAN ONLY EVER BE ONE DN, (if the 1st one was not remedied) THIS IS THE FIRST ONE WHICH HAS NOT BEEN REMEDIED.

 

I have tried to clarify point 3 on here so many times, and have had no reply that, 1, i believe i am correct, 2. im fed up of raising the subject so give up

 

CCM

 

AFAIAC you are right - there can only ever be one valid DN at any given time for a given account

 

Sorry CCM, I didnt mean to wind you up on this issue:) This is my understanding of the CCA1974 as well. However, many DJ's are finding in favour of the claimant.. take PF's recent court case in which he had not just one, but two Dodgy DNs. However, there was no specific Termination notice.

 

 

Please, please do not give up

[Viano]

Hi All,

 

Thanks for the comments, any ideas as to where I might find the definitive info?

 

If my replies are spasmodic I apologise, but I use Orange Mobile for my internet and either they or I am having problems with the signal and/or "atmospherics".

 

Viano

[citizenB]

I think it is probably Orange. They seem to have a bad rep at the moment.

 

I think you will find all you need in the statutes library linked below

 

http://www.consumerforums.com/resources/templates-library/57-statutes/176-consumer-credit-act-1974-and-related-regulations-

 

Or perhaps using BRW's post below, which seems to have the specific information linked rather than trawling through the statute library.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-2166205.html

 

HTH

[Viano]

I spent HOURS on the phone yesterday to Orange-they admitted that they had had a major failure, that my SIM card and/or my "dongle" might have failed, and, that someone might have stolen some of the valuable kit from the local mast!!

 

I will look at BRWs thread and hopefully digest. I hope, and it looks like it, that they may have fouled up.

 

The score so far, agreement/application with no prescribed terms on the signature page, no apparent or possibly two DNs, and I need to find a reference to a termination notice. All this on top of a complaint over charges to the FoS in June/July 2007!!!.

 

Oh happy days.

 

And I've just lost the (wireless) signal - again.

Viano

[citizenB]

Oops, hope you get your connection sorted out.

[Viano]

OK Team, an update. BTW The internet seems to be 'on song' again

 

I am now even more confused than ever. On my return after a few days away I got home (this morning) to a re-Amended PoC.

 

Now!

(1) The Claim number is the same, as is the Claimants name, but, the Claimants reference is different.

 

(2) In the re-Amended PoC it is stated that ' In compliance with this order the Claimant filed and served an an Amended PoC on the **/**/**. However, paragraph ** referred to a DN being issued on the **/**/**, when in fact the correct date for issue was the **/**/**. Further paragraph ** referred to the Formal Demand being issued on the **/**/**, when in fact the correct date for the issue was the **/**/**. As a result of these errors the Amended PoC included reference to the incorrect dates.

 

(3) If the Claimant is permitted to re-amend its Claim, it is accepted that permission would have to be granted to the Defendant to re-amend the Defence, if required. It is submitted that permitting the amendments is in the interests of justice because it ensures that the real issues between the parties are properly before the Court.

 

(4) The Court is respectfully asked to make an order in the terms of the draft order appended hereto'.

 

They have requested an order that (as I read it):-

That the Claimant has permission to amend the PoC in the form supplied to the Defendant and the Court. Further serving and filing be dispensed with. Followed by dates of service etc.

 

I will post further details if required.

 

I hope para 2 above made sense with the asterisks

 

What does this mean, what do I do now, answers on a postcard please to....

 

(Also I have to do the disclosure, witness statements etc thing but more of this latter.)

 

V

[steven4064]

It just means they want to change their POC (again) to correct various dates. If the court lets them, then the magnanimously say you can amend your defence as well

[Viano]

Is it the Courts decision? and once again they have a wrong ref. number, a number not related to anything, do I point this out?

 

V

[steven4064]

Yes and yes

[Viano]

To the Court obviously, but when?

 

V