LLOoyds/SCM claimform - Lloyds loan **SUMMARY JUDGEMENT DISMISSED ** BATTLE CONTINUES

[Tonka99]

Thanks Andy

 

Im on it now

 

Tonks:)

[Tonka99]

Hi Andy

 

Will this do

 

 

5 The claimant also claims charges. And LPI I refute these are payable. These are default charges levied on the account for alleged late payments. The LPI was Mis sold However no details of how it was concluded have ever been supplied to me via my CPR 18 or Subject Access Request .to enable me to counter claim .The court will be aware that these charge types and the recoverability thereof have been judicially declared to be susceptible to assessments of fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 [The Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National PLC and others (2009). I will contend at trial that such charges are unfair in their entirety.

 

Thanks Tonks:)

[AndyOrch]

Hi Andy

 

Will this do

 

 

5 The Claimants claim also includes charges. These are default charges levied on the account for alleged late payments..The court will be aware that these charge types and the recoverability thereof have been judicially declared to be susceptible to assessments of fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 [The Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National PLC and others (2009). I will contend at trial that such charges are unfair in their entirety.

It is also avered that the claim consists of miss sold PPI charges and the Claimants response to my CPR and S.A.R requests have been totaly disregarded preventing myself from issuing a full and paricularised Counter Claim

 

 

Thanks Tonks:)

Does that sound better;-)

 

Regards

 

Andy

[Tonka99]

Hi Andy

 

Done and ready to post & yes it does sound much more like it

Do I send a copy to Scm as well

 

Very Many Thanks for your help and assistance

 

Tonks:)

[AndyOrch]

Hi Andy

 

Done and ready to post & yes it does sound much more like it

Do I send a copy to Scm as well Yes (as late as possable) the Court must recieve theirs 7 days before the hearing.Dont forget recorded del!

 

Very Many Thanks for your help and assistance

 

Tonks:)

 

I wish you well with your case Tonks.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[Perdita]

subbing - im at similar stage with mine and getting excellent help from Andy also - thanks

[Tonka99]

Hi Perdita

 

Hope you do well ,Andy is a very valuable asset to us

 

Tonks

[Tonka99]

Hello

 

Update for this

 

Have had letter from Lloyds Consumer Debt Recovery dept

It is a Statement for the last year in it says Payment £11.00

Payment £1.00 in August well thats £10.00 SAR & £1.00 CCA

they have got it down as payments to the loan account good

job I have copys of postage and P/O receipts plus the copy

letters.

 

Also had SCM letter with Statement of Costs for the Hearing

7 hours & £90.00:eek:

Issue fess £310.00

AQ Fee £200.00

SJ Application Fee £75.00

Issue Costs £100.00

Fee for Hearing £210.00

Vat £228.75

Grand Total £1753.75

 

It seems to me that 7 hours work and they could not reply to my

CPR 18 & CPR 31.14 is a bit much

 

Any advice for hearing on Tuesday

 

Thanks for looking

 

Tonks:)

[AndyOrch]

Hello

 

Update for this

 

Have had letter from Lloyds Consumer Debt Recovery dept

It is a Statement for the last year in it says Payment £11.00

Payment £1.00 in August well thats £10.00 SAR & £1.00 CCA

they have got it down as payments to the loan account good

job I have copys of postage and P/O receipts plus the copy

letters. This is new legislation Tonks from Oct 1st 2008 amendment to the CCA the Creditor has to inform you the state of account

 

Also had SCM letter with Statement of Costs for the Hearing

7 hours & £90.00:eek:

Issue fess £310.00

AQ Fee £200.00

SJ Application Fee £75.00

Issue Costs £100.00

Fee for Hearing £210.00

Vat £228.75

Grand Total £1753.75 Send one back with yours my heart bleeds:D

 

It seems to me that 7 hours work and they could not reply to my

CPR 18 & CPR 31.14 is a bit much

 

Any advice for hearing on Tuesday Remain calm and stick to your Argument dont be fobbed off

 

Thanks for looking

 

Tonks:)

 

Regards

 

Andy:cool:

[Tonka99]

HI Andy

 

WON :-) :-)

Will update later after another large G&T or Six

 

Very many thanks to Andy and BRW & all who have supported me

The war is not won yet but they have casualtys:grin:

 

Cheers

 

Tonks:grin::grin:

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Tonks!

 

Blurdy marvellous!

 

I really am delighted for you, as I know you have had a tough time.

 

However, hats off to Andyorch, as I was out of the loop on the last stages, and he came up trumps.

 

CAG in action nevertheless.

 

Update us when you can, but chill out and enjoy the moment.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[Dorabell]

Well done have a few for me lol

[citizenB]

HI Andy

 

WON :-) :-)

 

Will update later after another large G&T or Six

 

Very many thanks to Andy and BRW & all who have supported me

The war is not won yet but they have casualtys:grin:

 

Cheers

 

Tonks:grin::grin:

 

Oh well done you. Let me know if I can have the honour of moving this to legal successes.

 

Look forward to the update.

[underdog13]

Congratulations and cheers, Tonka:D:D:D

 

Absolutely delighted for you.

 

We share a favourite tipple; hope I share victory against **** with you one day too:)

[Beck1968]

Happy Days.......Well done Tonka and Andy

[empowered]

Come on Tonka - still quaffing G&Ts? Must be on the floor by now:lol: Well done to all concerned especially our lovely Andyorch:D **** seem to be getting their come uppance recently and not before time;)

[Tonka99]

HELLO ALL

 

Well what a day went to bed at 4.45 am up again at 6.45 had to be

sure that everything was in order .

Got to court at 9am just to be sure our hearing was at 10am

The Court Usher advised us that ****,s Barrister wanted a word before

the hearing she was loverly and asked if we still wanted to proceed to which i said yes lets bat it out now .

We were called in on time it was a nice bright room and the DJ was cracking really nice and made us all feel ok , first he asked the barrister

to give scums side of the case she just read from their WS that we had

taken a loan and had defaulted and not made any effort to contact Lloyds

ect first he went through the copy CCA page by page , then he moved to

the D/N and asked her if she had a copy to which she replied we do not retain copys but it is recorded on the Mida screenshot which we then all

looked at it was highlighted in green ,the DJ then asked her what do these

figures & # mean to which she didnot know , he then asked her again did she have a copy of the original with her to which she said no sir but this

is a copy of the document taken from a website that the defendant has

been posting on , and got up and took it up to the DJ .

The DJ then asked her did she have any doubt that it was delivered to

the defendant to which she replied no sir , he then asked me if I did

received a D/N and I said yes your honour I have it with me and took it up

for him to see at that point i believe the Barrister was taken aback as i

think they thought we were going to say we didnt receive D/N , i went on

to explain to the DJ that yes it was delivered but it did not give the required 14 days to remedy section 87(1) of the CCA1974 and that i would

put the claimant to strict proof of posting to which there was no response

The DJ then asked what did we do after getting the D/N i said that on the

23 April we had received a LBA from the collections centre to say that we

must now pay the full balance the letter was dated the 14April and i had

retained the envelope which was dated the 17th April and posted 2nd collection , then i went on to say that i had requested a SAR on the 28th April with proof of posting ect and on the 1st May we received the D/N

and the arrears could have been made up of charges and mis sold LPI which were in fact were much more than the arrears .

The DJ then asked the barrister if there was in deed unfair charges on the

account she said that no charges were made on the loan statements that

they would have been on the defendants bank account .

I was then asked if i would like to add anything and went on to say that

**** had not responded to my CPR 31.14 & CPR18 or indeed my SAR regarding the PPI and unfair charges , DJ asked barrister about this to which she did not know sir. I then said that because of no disclosure from

**** i was unable to counter claim and could only file an embarrassed

defence .

DJ then asked barrister if she wanted to add anything to sum up and she

said no sir, he also asked me the same question I then played my ACE hand and asked if the claimants barrister had bought the Original CCA with

her to which she said no sir , DJ then asked why if i had a copy already would i want to see the Original i explained that per CPR PD 16 7 .3 inspection of the Original document should be brought to court for all to

see , he then asked me what i thought was wrong with the CCA i explained that the two documents dont seem related to each other and the copy with OH signiture could relate to any thing and went on the quote the judgement of TUCKEY LJ in the case of Wilson and another v

Hurstanger

"33" In my judgement the objective of Schedule 6 is to ensure that as an inflexible condition of enforceabilty, certain basic minimum terms are included which the parties and or the court can identify within the four corners of the agrrement. Those minimum provisions combined with the requirement under s61 that all terms should be in a single document, and backed up by provisions of section 127(3), ensure that these core terms are expressly set out in the agreement itself: they cannot be in the slightest mis stated. As a matter of policy, the lender is denied any room for manoever in respect of them.On the other hand, they are basic provistions, and the only question for the court is whether they are, on a true construcion included in the agreement,more detailed requirements,

which are designed to ensure that the debtor is made aware, so far as possible of specified information are to be found in Schedule 1"

 

Atfer this the DJ was reading my defence which contained the above qouted case he then proceeded to say that a 10 miniute adjournment

would take place now . At which time my heart was going crazy i think it

was the longest 10 mins in my life .

when we got outside the barrister was off downstairs on the phone:grin:

 

When we all went back into the court room DJ summed up that

He thought the issue with the D/N could be put to rights with him being

able to enforce it

The issue off disclosure CPR 18 must be rectified

The CCA Original must be produced as the defendant needs to know that

what he signed was a properly executed agreement for this case to proceed .

The amount of differances on the POC and default notice being due to

the LPI and possible unfair charges

Therefore the Summary Judgement will be dismissed

 

 

Next DJ went on to say that the case will be Multi Track with a Trial Window in around 9 months time to be given a full day

Standard Disclosure 28 days 18th August

Order of Directions

Exchange WS 28 days 15th Sept

List qustionare 8 weeks before the trial

 

 

 

Well as i said what a day so glad its over for now , i was very shakey to

start with but soon got into my stride a couple of things

 

BRW your mantra ONLY THE ORIGINAL WILL DO has stuck in my head

many thanks for that and your advice on the D.N invaluable.

Andy your time and effort just when i needed it most and your last

post to me " REMAIN CLAIM AND STICK TO YOUR ARGUMENT DONT BE FOBBED OFF " to which i did not reply because i didnt want them ****

knowing what was going on , because as what they did today produce

a copy from this website in a court of law beggers belief. Oh iforgot to

say when the barrister produced the D/N i said to the DJ that they had

poached it from an open web page.

 

A donation to CAG will be on its way soon .

Very many thanks for all the help and support given to me during the

last few months i have worn out one computor doing this:-)

 

Citizen B feel free to move it

 

 

A very tired Tonks :-)

[Dorabell]

Thanks tonka for sharing your progress glad it went well you can relax a bit now enjoy your rest:)

[r&b]

well played tonks excellent

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Tonks!

 

Well done indeed.

 

Once the dust settles, then the next step is to plan your main Defence and see if we can get a Counter-Claim in for that PPI.

 

The day went well for you, but a few issues popped out from the above that, when you are ready, need to be discussed to nail them before this bunch take it any further.

 

I noted the following:

 

he then asked her again did she have a copy of the original with her to which she said no sir but this is a copy of the document taken from a website that the defendant has been posting on

That was a bit naughty. I assume that wasn't disclosed before the hearing? Don't let them get away with that next time around, object!

 

I also assume this was a document that did not have your private details visible, and that was taken from, we assume, CAG, where the Poster was not using their real name...!

 

...next time they try something like that, draw the Judge's attention to The Civil Evidence Act 1995 and the issues of adducing hearsay evidence in Court.

 

Also, this:

 

He thought the issue with the D/N could be put to rights with him being able to enforce it

The Judge misdirected himself there, so you need to have that aspect nailed if/when this goes any further. The defective Default Notice is a killer for them, and blows their rights to enjoy the benefits of s87.

 

If you get this right, the other side should be paying you for most/all of the PPI, less any Arrears that were due before they Terminated the Agreement...that's if they can come up with an Enforceable Agreement!

 

If they come back at you, it may be an idea to investigate taking on a good Direct Access Barrister totally familiar with Consumer Credit.

 

I suspect they would have a field day if allowed out in Court next time around, and if you won, the opposition would be paying those Barrister's fees for you.

 

But, if this does go to a full hearing, that will need an all out assault on every one of their weak points. A good Barrister will get that across, and can handle a duffer Judge if you end up getting a poor one next time out.

 

But well done.

 

Cheers,

BRW

Edited July 22, 2009 by banker_rhymes_with
Typo

[AndyOrch]

Hi Tonka and well done;)

 

Well round 1 to you but the battle is not over yet.I fully endorse BRWs comments above and would also make the following points.

Whilst being successful in thwarting the Claimants Application for SJ,they really do need to look at their case and whether to proceed and throw more cost at it.The DJ could have quite easly thrown out the claim at that point.

With regards to yesterday events:-

Whilst Litigants in Person are supposed to have equal access to justice, regardless of whether they are the Claimant or Defendant in a case-that's the ideal, however in reality......!Unless a person can and does argue vehemently about the validity of an agreement and/or Default Notice, as far as the Judge is concerned, the debt is owed and he wants you out of his Court asap, because he is pressed for time! Not right, not fair, but that's how the system regrettably operates!You was lucky yesterday that you did get a DJ willing to listen to your argument and give that benefit.

 

The fundamental arguments to raise in Court, both to get the Judge's attention and to make 100% sure the case goes your way, is to argue that the credit agreement is invalid, and of course the invalidity of the DN which gives them no legal right to collect the debt. Unlawful charges are of course important, but a secondary issue, as is PPI.

 

I admire your strength in dealing with the Judge yesterday, however, I don't think you seazed the opportunity to gain the best and most advantageous point to secure a win,as BRW as already pointed out. I wouldn't let the Claimant's lies distract you from your objective of getting rid of the debt and winning the case. The plain fact is, if a party to a case believes that they will gain an advantage by lying, they will, simple as that! It should make you twice as determined to win the case on the facts, rather than stooping to their level! You cannot stop another party behaving in a particular way, be that lies, or whatever else-but you can make sure that your case is watertight and that you are prepared for what Judges, Solicitors & Barristers will throw at you!

 

My advice is, submit an amended defence-if needs be in light of documents not furnished by the Claimant and file a c/c.You will have to submit a c/c if you are looking to claim back penalty charges and possibly compensation for their addition to the a/c. The same is true for reclaiming PPI plus damages for it's unlawful addition. Furthermore, if the agreement's unenforceable, there will be various breaches under the Data Protection Act 1998, for which it would be appropriate to seek damages. You may also want to add unlawful harassment to the list also!Do both soon!

 

 

I hope that makes things a bit clearer.

 

 

Well done Tonka And BRW

 

Regards

 

Andy

Edited July 22, 2009 by Andyorch

[citizenB]

I have amended your title to show a success in respect of the SJ. Will you be starting a new thread in respect of the follow up ?.

 

I cannot believe they copied a DN from this thread I think people should be very aware to remove ANY identifiers from their documents when posting.

[underdog13]

I have amended your title to show a success in respect of the SJ. Will you be starting a new thread in respect of the follow up ?.

 

I cannot believe they copied a DN from this thread I think people should be very aware to remove ANY identifiers from their documents when posting.

 

This confirms a concern I have held for a while now - I think we need to be very careful what we post up; even with identifiers removed.

[the_shadow]

Well done...

 

Only hope that the potential costs of a multi-track case will now put them off proceeding. Oh that and the fact they will be required to produce the original documents ;-)

 

S.

[steven4064]

With regard to the DN taken off here - did it have your name and address on it? If not, how did they know it was yours?

 

A very big "well done"