Help - Mum being taken to court by Link Financial.

[pt2537]

I would consider an application under CPR 3.4 as the statement of case discloses no grounds for bringing the claim and is an abuse of the process

[pt2537]

Hi,

 

Sorry to say , the 14 day time frame came into effect on 19th December 2006

 

 

Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices)

Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561)

 

 

 

Para 3: in sub-paras ©, (d) words "not less than fourteen days" in square brackets substituted by SI 2006/3094, regs 2, 3.

 

Date in force: 19 December 2006: see SI 2006/3094, reg 1.

 

Para 6: words "not less than fourteen days" in square brackets substituted by SI 2006/3094, regs 2, 3.

 

Date in force: 19 December 2006: see SI 2006/3094, reg 1.

 

so as long as the notice conferred a minimum of 7 days at that time it would be compliant

 

As a side issue, i have the case of Chartered Trust v King as well should you require a copy

[pt2537]

X20, if you want to PM me your email addy, i will forward you the case of CT v King

[pt2537]

So we finally received some paperwork from the court about two weeks ago ordering:

 

(points 2 and 3 have been copied completely from the letter)

 

1) - Link as of today haven't provided any documents as ordered by the court and the deadline has gone (on initial reading on the form I did think today was the deadline not the 2nd - but they have had plenty of time now)

 

Do we now write to the court telling them no documents have been supplied and ask the court to throw the case out?

 

2) - the defence being struck out is this normal or a bad sign (does it need to be struck out before a new defence can be filed?) - we basicly stated they have failed to supply the docs and what they have supplied is full of errors (is it possible that the court weren't given all the docs we were, as their AQ only attached half the contract, two default notices and sale of debt letter).

 

3) is a little difficult at the moment due not having new info (I take it this is their plan dont sent any docs so we cannot defend and they think they win?) can we ask for this to be extended if the court does not throw out the claim - to 14 days after they supply the docs if they ever do.

 

Again thanks for any help

 

Also shouldn't these companies get into trouble for ignoring orders from courts, lying and ignoring the rules - the orginal docs sent were provided outside the timescale required by law, they submitted their AQ past the deadline and lied on it, and have now ignored an order from the court.

The correct and proper course of action when the claimant is in default of an order is to make a formal application on a N244 asking for the case ot be struck out

 

i am unsure of what the defence contained but i would suggest that without the agreement which the other side relies upon you are unable to plead effectively or at all

[pt2537]

Is there a way of doing it without having to send a N244 as that costs money - can we just send a letter to the court informing them that Link have ignored the order and we cannot resubmit a complete defence until the docs as ordered have been supplied and leave it upto the court to either reorder the docs, proceed without or throw it out?

sadly if you want to make sure then a N244 is how to proceed.

 

Of course you will get the costs back at the hearing unless you lose

[pt2537]

are you entitled to a fee remission?