GE Debenhams store card sold to CL finance

[beachcomber60]

Just going through the paperwork again & found an entry in the Comms log:- **/08/2008 Balance sold to Lewis Group.

 

As there was no DN or TN does this prove unlawful termination & sale to DCA.

 

Postggj where you gone?

 

Beachy

[pt2537]

Now you have gone and spoiled it8)

 

as a claim has been issued, on the claim being withdrwn, no further court action can be started

 

part 38 discontinuence

 

res judicata

 

 

Entirely wrong, Res applies where there has been a final decision in a matter,

 

See Lennon v Birmingham City Council

 

if the party discontinues he must seek leave of the court to restart a claim unless no defence was filed in the first matter.

[beachcomber60]

Just going through the paperwork again & found an entry in the Comms log:- **/08/2008 Balance sold to Lewis Group.

 

As there was no DN or TN does this prove unlawful termination & sale to DCA

 

Beachy

 

Bump for advice on this

[beachcomber60]

Ill email you the docs later tonight

 

postggj, why you ignoring my posts & pm's, if you didnt want to assist why string me along for the week, I am now left with no defence & three days to file at court, at the moment we feel like accepting defeat & the CCJ and feel badly let down by a fellow CAGGER (especially from a Royalties Account holder with in excess of 17,000 posts).

[pt2537]

Beachy,

 

Im not sure whats happening here, havent really been following this thread.

 

Has there been a previous claim which has been discontinued? or was that just conjecture.

 

Have you received disclosure of the documents which the claim is based upon? a brief summary would assist

[beachcomber60]

Beachy,

 

Im not sure whats happening here, havent really been following this thread.

 

Has there been a previous claim which has been discontinued? or was that just conjecture.

 

Have you received disclosure of the documents which the claim is based upon? a brief summary would assist

 

Morning PT,

 

Thanks for looking in, very briefly Cohens have issued a Court claim via Northampton on behalf of CL Finance with whom OH's GE/Santander account has been sold 'Absolute' August 2008.

 

GE never issued a Default Notice or termination notice.

 

CL sent a Welcome letter/NoA, didnt challenge it at the time so carried on with payment arrangement.

 

CCA sent to CL after the 12+2 days they failed to supply the agreement & payments were stopped.

 

After over 12 months of being in dispute they supplied a very bad & unreadable copy of a microfiche 'Storecard Application/Agreement Acc. No. starting 6000' replied with a 'this is completely unreadable dispute continues' letter to which CL responded with their own Default Notice quoting Account No: 55---------------- Credit Card.

 

As soon as the remedy date expired a court claim was issued by Cohens via Northampton & the POC states the claim is for monies due under Agreement starting 55. CPR 31:14 sent to Cohens & in reply they supplied another unreadable Microfiche copy of the Storecard application which bears a completely different number to the one referred to in the POC.

 

The store card was upgraded to a creditcard back in 2006 but no new agreement was signed.

 

Judging by feedback so far it appears that it has been incorrectly sold to CL.

 

Really appriecate your input on this.

 

Have acknowledged the claim with intention to defend in full, but owing to a family bereavement & funeral this week I have not been able to devote much time - postggj prepared a defence but for some reason, beyond me, has declined to forward it to me.

 

Regards,

Beachy

[pt2537]

ok so its illegible?

 

Right,

 

Easy then, did you make a s78(1) request?

 

If you did Bingo, if you didnt, well then it gets tricky, although, not unwinnable.

[beachcomber60]

ok so its illegible?

 

Right,

 

Easy then, did you make a s78(1) request?

 

If you did Bingo, if you didnt, well then it gets tricky, although, not unwinnable.

 

 

On the 19th March 2009 a request was made to CL Finance for a 'True copy' of agreement no: 55 ----- under s77/78, they replied (eventually) with a illegable microfiche 'StoreCard Application/Agreement' Account No: 6000------

 

On the 8th June 2009 a request was made to GE/Santander for a 'True copy' of agreement no: 55 ----- under s77/78, they replied with the same illegible microfiche 'StoreCard Application/Agreement' Account No: 6000------

[DonkeyB]

I believe post has a knackered computer – he mentioned this a couple of days ago. Also a big broadband outage yesterday. I’m sure he’ll be back.

[beachcomber60]

I believe post has a knackered computer – he mentioned this a couple of days ago. Also a big broadband outage yesterday. I’m sure he’ll be back.

 

Thanks DB,

 

If thats the case I sincerely apologise.

 

However when there is regular contact which suddenly stops with PM's going unanswered combined with the knowledge that the cagger is still posting elsewhere on the forum I became very suspicous.

 

Once again I sincerely apologise to postggj.

 

Apart from the good news yesterday, its been a horrendous two weeks for us, combined with the fact that Monday is our deadline to file something at court by post or Tuesday on line.

[pt2537]

Beachy,

 

In the event that

 

a) postggj passes you the defence

 

or

 

b) he doesnt pass you a defence

 

Either way, let me know , you have my contact details, as if you are going to file a defence you must do it properly, not one of these half baked things that pop up from time to time.

 

You know what we had to do with your link job, we had to amend as the defence wasnt pleading what it needed to, so give me a shout first and i will see what i can do to assist you in my free time

[postggj]

ime not ignoring you beechy

 

my internet conection keeps dropping out every 20 seconds

 

bt are on it

 

or so they say

[beachcomber60]

Beachy,

 

In the event that

 

a) postggj passes you the defence

 

or

 

b) he doesnt pass you a defence

 

Either way, let me know , you have my contact details, as if you are going to file a defence you must do it properly, not one of these half baked things that pop up from time to time.

 

You know what we had to do with your link job, we had to amend as the defence wasnt pleading what it needed to, so give me a shout first and i will see what i can do to assist you in my free time

 

Roger that PT, many thanks.

 

Bit of a panic going on - hour glass is rapidly emptying, claim issued 4th Oct so think I got Monday or Tuesday to file on OH behalf.

 

Beachy

[beachcomber60]

ime not ignoring you beechy

 

my internet conection keeps dropping out every 20 seconds

 

bt are on it

 

or so they say

 

OK postggj,

 

Ditto to what I've just posted up for PT.

 

Plus

 

My sincere apologises - panic & red mist syndrome

[debbbbsy]

Hi Beachy,

 

I can understand your frustrations.But everyone, especially Postggi cannot be available 24/7.

 

I am now becoming increasingly concerned, even I do not understand exactly what it is you want from us.

 

Are you defending this claim because of the PPI or that the Storecard agreement supplied is not the agreement they refer to & rely upon to enforce a claim for a Credit Card ?

[pt2537]

Hi Beachy,

 

I can understand your frustrations.But everyone, especially Postggi cannot be available 24/7.

 

I am now becoming increasingly concerned, even I do not understand exactly what it is you want from us.

 

Are you defending this claim because of the PPI or that the Storecard agreement supplied is not the agreement they refer to & rely upon to enforce a claim for a Credit Card ?

well, and im sorry if this is somewhat blunt,

 

But, my view is that Beachy is looking for someone to help him through this and offer advice. It is glaringly obvious as matters stand the only point which can be pleaded is the fact that the document is illegible, therefore, no further pleadings can be advanced until such time as legible copies can be provided.

 

It also seems to me, seeing honest hard working people in my day job as i do, who are NOT legal professionals, that the offer of assistances such as those made by Postggj can often be seized upon by people , as it gives them a sense of hope, and when a promise is made, people expect it to be honoured rightly or wrongly, as most people who cannot afford a lawyer simply have no other hope but for the help from these forums.

 

It frustrates me that the system does not allow people to get justice and benefit from legal advice, it is only the minority that benefit from firms like us who offer to act on no win no fee.

 

 

 

Going back to beachy, he just needs guidance and pushing in the right direction

[the_shadow]

Beachy,

 

If the s78 response is illegible then it doesnt meet the tests established by Waksman in Carey vs HSBC imvho and your defence should focus on this.

 

S.

[beachcomber60]

Hi Beachy,

 

I can understand your frustrations.But everyone, especially Postggi cannot be available 24/7.

 

I am now becoming increasingly concerned, even I do not understand exactly what it is you want from us.

 

Hi Debs,

 

I can honestly tell you what I DONT want & that is OH to get a ccj by default which is now a grave possibility due to time left, this I understand is Cohens speciality.

 

I know you keep telling me via the thread & PM to submit an Embarrased Defence - that I'm afraid is a complete No No.

[pt2537]

you plead an embarrased defence and your done for

 

I have a number of clients now who have followed the embarrassed Defence line, one just got a 3k Costs order against them, one has an order for costs in the case, and a number of them are now faced with difficulty due to these embarrased Defences.

 

Carey, Hfo v Patel etc all tell us that its no longer acceptable for an embarrased defence, furthermore, the CPR requires where there is a denial there must be a positive averment as to the facts relied upon in that denial

 

So, as ive said many time, and people still dont listen, an embarrased defence is not enough, it needs more, beachy above all knows this, as i drafted his defence to the link case professionally.

 

so im afraid to say he is spot on

[pt2537]

hmm just rethinking a bit more...

 

IMO Need a SAR to original creditor asking specifically for the default notice and comms log amongst usual stuff.... the aim is to find that they DID default you and hopefully TERMINATE the agreement prior to selling in which case the DCA **CANNOT** issue another default notice.

 

S.

 

 

WRONG answer

 

A SAR during the course of litigation is a nonsense, DPA is avoidable when there it legal proceedings on going, so a worthless exercise for the record.

 

There are applications available to the Defendant such as disclosure pursuant to CPR 31.14 and also non party disclosure to a third party, shame people dont get advised to use this approach more often, i put a complete library in the team area, and over a year not one person used it so i took it when i left.

 

Ok, until a claim is allocated, it is multi track in principle so if you need docs, then apply if the party will not disclose them

 

Or use CPR 18, which i did a thread on and which has now been lost.

 

Shame but there we go

[the_shadow]

WRONG answer

 

[sigh]

 

A SAR during the course of litigation is a nonsense, DPA is avoidable when there it legal proceedings on going, so a worthless exercise for the record.

 

There are applications available to the Defendant such as disclosure pursuant to CPR 31.14 and also non party disclosure to a third party, shame people dont get advised to use this approach more often, i put a complete library in the team area, and over a year not one person used it so i took it when i left.

 

Ok, until a claim is allocated, it is multi track in principle so if you need docs, then apply if the party will not disclose them

 

Or use CPR 18, which i did a thread on and which has now been lost.

 

Shame but there we go

 

Nicely taken out of context there PT2537,

 

The post previous to this advised the OP to make a CPR 31.14 request for the documents mentioned in the POC's. The SAR was to the original creditor not the new owner of the debt and was to ascertain the facts on the sale of the debt.

 

S.

[pt2537]

[sigh]

 

 

 

Nicely taken out of context there PT2537,

 

The post previous to this advised the OP to make a CPR 31.14 request for the documents mentioned in the POC's. The SAR was to the original creditor not the new owner of the debt and was to ascertain the facts on the sale of the debt.

 

S.

sigh all you like,

 

it takes a minimum of 40 days for a SAR, when in the course of litigation that is an eternity, i repeat, you are much better served seeking an application for non party disclosure, and of course, then you dont lose any ground in the action by waiting 40 days in the hope the otehr party will comply.

 

 

 

and of course, what if the data you seek isnt in a relevant filing system?

 

 

but thats of course fine, the DPA is of course the best way forward, what do i know

[pt2537]

and actually, under the DPA the party may be able to avoid disclosure, under an order of the court it cannot.

 

IMHO, the route forward is NPDO over DPA.

 

Also, you would be able to stay the filing of a defence til you get the disclosure, but there is also consideration to be given to CPR 18, if used correctly, it becomes a very powerful tool, and one which can win you the case, part 18 won against Cabot on Friday, as a part 18 reply must be served with a statement of truth and so can be relied upon heavily.

 

why is it that no one ever gets pushed in that direction on these forums?

[pt2537]

beachy,

 

I will give you a buzz later today, to go over this mate and push you in the right direction

[debbbbsy]

well, and im sorry if this is somewhat blunt,

 

But, my view is that Beachy is looking for someone to help him through this and offer advice. It is glaringly obvious as matters stand the only point which can be pleaded is the fact that the document is illegible, therefore, no further pleadings can be advanced until such time as legible copies can be provided.

 

It also seems to me, seeing honest hard working people in my day job as i do, who are NOT legal professionals, that the offer of assistances such as those made by Postggj can often be seized upon by people , as it gives them a sense of hope, and when a promise is made, people expect it to be honoured rightly or wrongly, as most people who cannot afford a lawyer simply have no other hope but for the help from these forums.

 

It frustrates me that the system does not allow people to get justice and benefit from legal advice, it is only the minority that benefit from firms like us who offer to act on no win no fee.

 

I agree, wouldn't it be a wonderful world where we could all get free impartial legal advice on how to deal with a consumer related problem. Unfortunately, this is the real world, and we have no choice but to take whatever advice is made available. Again, I agree, some advice given can be complete nonsense.

 

Beachy's problem is more complex then just an illegible Storecard Application/Agreement. Its fundamental issue relates to GE's "Storecard Conversion".

http://www.oft.gov.uk/news-and-updates/press/2004/09-04

And also the fact that GE failed to issue a default notice before assigning the account to CL.

 

The advice I have given has been based entirely on my own experience. My case being almost identical to Beachy. I spent hours & hours trawling this forum, reading posts & gathering information from this fantastic forum,from brilliant people like you.Because of this, I successfully challenged HC to provide the Credit Card Agreement they referred to in the POC, & forced them to discontinue.

 

I used CPR 31.14 & informed Beachy on the 22/10/10. Had he used it then, the 7 days would be up.

 

Debs