Jump to content


hsbclinkdcms

Help needed with a very tight one...thank you!!

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3660 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hi

If they dont file their AQ ontime then they will be issued with a Unless Order alowing a final throw of the dice,if they still fail they lose their case and the claim will be struck out.

 

Regards

 

Andy;)


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I've just been trawling around referance the section 69 interest and the claimant not being able to add this or claim for it as some posts have stated and I have come across this linked here;

 

House of Lords - Director General of Fair Trading V First National Bank

 

 

Of particular interest is paragraphs 5 and 6 which seem to state that pre judgement interest can be added and claimed for and the basis for County Courts (Interest on Judgment Debts) Order 1991 (SI 1991/1184) is for post judgement interest.

 

5. But a lender seeking to enforce a regulated credit agreement is in a different position. He is obliged by section 141 of the 1974 Act to sue in the county court. Until the Lord Chancellor, exercising his power under section 74 of the County Courts Act 1984, made the County Courts (Interest on Judgment Debts) Order 1991 (SI 1991/1184), the county court lacked power to award statutory interest on any judgment debt and, when such a general power was conferred by the order, judgments given in proceedings to recover money due under agreements regulated by the 1974 Act were expressly excluded from its scope. It was further provided in the order:

 

    "3 Where under the terms of the relevant judgment payment of a judgment debt -


      (a) is not required to be made until a specified date, or


      (b) is to be made by instalments,

    interest shall not accrue under this Order -



        (i) until that date, or



        (ii) on the amount of any instalment, until it falls due,

    as the case may be."

6. Thus a lender under a regulated credit agreement who obtains judgment against a defaulting borrower in the county court will be entitled to recover the principal outstanding at the date of judgment and interest accrued up to that date but will not be entitled to an order for statutory interest after that date, and even if the court had power to award statutory post-judgment interest it could not do so, in any case where an instalment order had been made, unless there had been a default in the due payment of any instalment. The lender may recover post-judgment interest only if he has the benefit of an independent covenant by the borrower entitling him to recover such interest. There is nothing to preclude inclusion of such a covenant in a regulated credit agreement, unless it falls foul of the fairness requirement in the regulations.

 

Any comments please on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bump...any comments on the above please as it is quite pivotal to my case and could affect others, thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

I use this in my defences to cover the above should the claimant try for section 69 interest in their P.O.C

 

 

Regarding that which is denied, the claimant seeks to claim statutory interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum. It is therefore averred that this claim is brought in relation to a personal loan which is credit as defined within the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the defendant notes that the claimant is not entitled to do so and attention is drawn to The County Courts Interest on Judgment Debts Order 1991 Section 2 (3)(a) which sets out that this is the case as this claim is in relation to a debt regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

The Claimants have not established any legal right to issue a claim or proven that any debt exists. It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant’s claim is entirely spurious and without merit and should be struck out for the aforementioned reasons

 

Regards

 

Andy;)


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi

 

I use this in my defences to cover the above should the claimant try for section 69 interest in their P.O.C

 

 

Hi Andy,

 

have you used this successfully ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Andy,

 

have you used this successfully ??

 

It will prohibit them from being successful on the Statutory Interest side of the claim that's for sure

 

however if the agreement provides for post judgment interest, then they may be able to add that on in its place

 

I have used the same sort of wording in a few successful defences for a few of our clients so it does work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks PT, I have asked for allocation to SCT being based on them not being able to claim section 69, the claim for interest in the POC puts it above the 5K limit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all, still not received a copy of their AQ's though they did supply to the court on time.

 

Anything I should do about this ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

You need to inform the Court you have not recieved a copy of their AQ .

The Court expects each party to file their AQ at Court, and each party is required to serve a copy on their opponents. The exchange of documents between parties, is expected from the beginning of the case. So that would include AQ's, disclosure statements and pre-trial checklists as an example. AQ's are not confidential and if you don't send your opponent a copy, chances are they will file an Application Notice looking for your case to be struck out,and visa versa this option is open to you also.

 

I trust the above is of help

 

Regards

 

Andy;)

Edited by Andyorch

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks again andy.

 

Would this form a breach of pre hearing protocols ?

 

I still have not heard a thing from Link, I have had a letter stating in response to my latest SAR that the requested documentation is 'still on order' and apologising for the delay. It's been 68 days since I first requested the information and they are 14 days late submitting there AQ's to me!

 

I don't understand what is going on, they either have or haven't got the CCA, but surely they must be able to supply the NOA and default ????

 

Rang the court last week and Link supplied their AQ's to the court on time and it was supposed to be before the judge for allocation on the 1st September but the court had not proceeded. (???)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you request a copy of the claimants AQ from court? you are entitled to see their response and as previously advised the exchange of all documents is expected The Court expects each party to file their AQ at Court, and each party is required to serve a copy on their opponents. The exchange of documents between parties, is expected from the beginning of the case. So that would include AQ's, disclosure statements and pre-trial checklists as an example.

if you have not requested a copy i would advise you to insist on one and speak to the case Manager,for all you know they might have made an Application which is also another reason why you must see their AQ.

 

Regards

 

Andy;)


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well actually there has been a development in that I spoke to the court today for a progress update and mentioned that they have not served me with an AQ and the guy said " Well actually now that I've looked at this they haven't even supplied us with their AQ yet and the judge was supposed to be looking at this on the 1st of September !!! "

 

So they have not supplied and are 14 days late with supplying the court let alone myself.

 

This then raises other issues, should I approach the court pointing out the fact that they have not followed procedure or if left will the court get to the point where they throw it out ??

 

Advice please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got to be worth writing to the court asking them to strike out the claim....AND pay your costs !!


PLEASE NOTE - I am not a legal expert, what is stated is my own opinion and from what I have learnt from this forum and my own experiences.

 

DEBT COLLECTION LETTER/SAR/AGREEMENT TEMPLATES ARE HERE - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?65-legislation

 

IF WE HAVE BEEN HELPFUL -PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE GIVE A DONATION TO HELP US TO CONTINUE HELPING YOU

 

I AM HAPPY TO RECEIVE PM's AND I WILL RESPOND IF I FEEL I CAN ASSIST BUT WHEN YOU DO CAN YOU PLEASE PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD ON WHICH YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO COMMENT - THANK YOU

 

IMPORTANT - If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.

Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Private message facilities are offered for users to communicate issues that are/or could be seen to be inappropriate for posting on the main forum.Site rules explain this in more detail.

If you are approached by private message with a view to asking you to visit another website,please inform the site team via the report icon.

 

Forum rules - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/forum-rules-please-read/9-forum-rules-please-read.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Claimant's failure to file the AQ on time leads to two breaches by [1] the non-filing of the AQ and [2] the non-payment of the AQ fee.

 

Both these breaches can be tackled by the court under CPR 3.4(2)© and CPR 3.7 respectively and there is nothing further for you to do because, in the situation you describe, the court will very shortly issue an order (you will be sent a copy) in which it will be stated that unless the Claimant files his AQ and pays the AQ fee by (a date usually being not in excess of 14 days from the date of the order) the claim will be struck out.

 

If the Claimant persists in disobedience, on the claim being struck out, you will have an automatic right to costs under CPR 3.7(6).

 

x20

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent, thank you very much for that x20 and 42man, I have just been in contact with the court again for confirmation of the non supply of AQ and they confirmed that no AQ has been submitted by the claimant and no fee has been paid. The court rep said the file was already with the judge, that it was 'shocking' and that I should wait to see what the judge states.

 

So I'll sit back, thanks again guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a quick update the judge has decided that an order should be drafted that unless they supply the AQ within 7 days of the issue of the order the claim will be struck out, however due to delays the court officer on the phone said that the order was unlikely to be issued for another week due to a backlog in the system.

 

Anything I should do about this ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, got home today to find they have sent me a default notice.....not the original but one dated 23/09/08 and including the section 69 interest included in the original POC.

 

I have not got a clue as to what is going on now ????

 

Any ideas or suggestions ????

 

They still have not supplied the court with a fee or their AQs and will be served with an order demanding they supply these within 7 days by the court tomorrow.

 

What is going on ???

 

Comments welcome please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is going on? Good question. The piece of paper they have sent you is relevant only to the point of demonstrating the other side is not beyond manufacturing documents.

 

Just sit back and count the days down to when those 7 days are up.

 

x20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes that is the right answer but surely thay cannot be so inept as to include in the defaulted balance monies (the section 69 interest) that should and cannot be included in the balance until the court awards such and that is well post the default notice stage in any case :???:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes that is the right answer but surely thay cannot be so inept as to include in the defaulted balance monies (the section 69 interest) that should and cannot be included in the balance until the court awards such and that is well post the default notice stage in any case :???:

 

Can you think of a smart reason for doing what they did? Or may be a reason which would discount ineptness? I can't coz there ain't no good reason for this whatsoever. It is ineptness at the most infantile end of the scale.

 

x20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The piece of paper they have sent you is relevant only to the point of demonstrating the other side is not beyond manufacturing documents.

 

:lol::lol::lol:

 

sorry but that one tickled me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advice taken x20, time to wait and see what the cloud cuckoo dca come up with next !!

It's like a Dali 'masterpiece'.....Interesting to that lot on paper but do any of them really understand what the f*** is going on ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK.... 4 pm deadline today so I rang up the court......the girl who I spoke to did not sound too sure of herself but Link have not supplied their AQ's as per the unless order issued a week ago.

 

I said to her that this must now mean that the case is struck out to which she replied that she presumed so....a little bit ambiguous, is there anything else that I need to do with regard to this ???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose that this means that I have won (?) :???:

 

Do I need to do anything with regard to what the court said this afternoon ?

 

What about costs etc ?

 

What is the likelyhood of any further action and is there anything that I should do with regard to the CRA's ?

 

Is there anything I should do with regard to Link, they have not responded to CCA or Data Protection Act request ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...