Arrow (MBNA) v IGNM pt 2

[Chalkitup]

ah ha IGNM, i see you are havin some fun with Arrow Global LLC, are Copes their lawyers in this case?

 

the reason i ask is a "friend" was in court against them today and his counsel, Mr Turner who happened to do Dimond and Lovell in the House of Lords gave them a wee bit of a bloody nose. there were a lot of defects in their claim and i was wondering if you had the same problems my mate had so to speak

 

Hello pt2537,

 

I am having fun with the Transcom / Copes / Arrow Global LLC shower .... not at court stage yet but Copes keep sending me a "taking you to court" letter !!

I have many issues with them so if you have any advice it will be greatly appreciated.... had an interesting telephone chat with a Transcom worker back in November re Copes (their in house solicitors so I was told) see post 62 here ... Chalkitup v MBNA / ARROW GLOBAL / CBS TRANSCOM - Page 2 - The Consumer Forums

 

Thanks

 

Onwards and Upwards

 

Chalkitup

[noomill060]

Download this and print it out.

 

http://experian.metafaq.com/resources/experian/Downloads/standardAppdec08.pdf

 

Fill it in and send it along with a £2 postal order to Experian. Keep the reciepts and get a Proof of Posting certificate (free)

 

This request for credit report is under s.7 of the Data Protection Act and they have to provide your report within 7 days or you can sue their arses off.

[I've got no money]

A brief update - I've just spoken to the Court - a DJ has directed that there be an allocation hearing with a time estimate of 45 minutes...you'd normally get 15 minutes - so the Judge obviously thinks that this is complicated...

[I've got no money]

Download this and print it out.

 

http://experian.metafaq.com/resources/experian/Downloads/standardAppdec08.pdf

 

Fill it in and send it along with a £2 postal order to Experian. Keep the reciepts and get a Proof of Posting certificate (free)

 

This request for credit report is under s.7 of the Data Protection Act and they have to provide your report within 7 days or you can sue their arses off.

 

The other thing I've just discovered is that if you take a free trial through a cash back site they pay you for the privilege

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello IGNM!

 

The other thing I've just discovered is that if you take a free trial through a cash back site they pay you for the privilege

Beware of anything on-line that has Experian lurking in the background, either via their own Web Site, a Price Comparison Web Site they run without making that fact clear, or any one of the thousands of daft sites that sell Data to the CRAs as part of their normal business.

 

Once you fill out an on-line Form, they'll be harvesting your inside trouser leg measurement before you know it, IP Address, email, anything that is entered will shoot straight back to their Servers to be cross-checked and indexed, to see if it's of use to any of their Debt Industry mates (ranging from the DCAs to all of the other detritus that is out there waiting to sell you something worthless and expensive that you really don't want).

 

The paper £2 Statutory Report is quite comprehensive, and has the main advantage that when asking for one, you can give them only the minimum Data they need.

 

Cheers,

BRW

Edited June 3, 2009 by banker_rhymes_with
Tripe-O

[the_shadow]

Hello IGNM!

 

Beware of anything on-line that has Experian lurking in the background, either via their own Web Site, a Price Comparison Web Site they run without making that fact clear, or any one of the thousands of daft sites that sell Data to the CRAs as part of their normal business.

 

Once you fill out an on-line Form, they'll be harvesting your inside trouser leg measurement before you know it, IP Address, email, anything that is entered will shoot straight back to their Servers to be cross-checked and indexed, to see if it's of use to any of their Debt Industry mates (ranging from the DCAs to all of the other detritus that is out there waiting to sell you something worthless and expensive that you really don't want).

 

The paper £2 Statutory Report is quite comprehensive, and has the main advantage that when asking for one, you can give them only the minimum Data they need.

 

Cheers,

BRW

IGNORE ME

S.

Edited June 3, 2009 by the_shadow
Message made no sense on reading back.. totally of no value :-D

[I've got no money]

Hello IGNM!

 

Beware of anything on-line that has Experian lurking in the background, either via their own Web Site, a Price Comparison Web Site they run without making that fact clear, or any one of the thousands of daft sites that sell Data to the CRAs as part of their normal business.

 

Once you fill out an on-line Form, they'll be harvesting your inside trouser leg measurement before you know it, IP Address, email, anything that is entered will shoot straight back to their Servers to be cross-checked and indexed, to see if it's of use to any of their Debt Industry mates (ranging from the DCAs to all of the other detritus that is out there waiting to sell you something worthless and expensive that you really don't want).

 

The paper £2 Statutory Report is quite comprehensive, and has the main advantage that when asking for one, you can give them only the minimum Data they need.

 

Cheers,

BRW

 

Point taken - I thiink that I'll pay the £2

[citizenB]

IGNORE ME

S.

 

OK

[I've got no money]

I got my scanner to work...somebody had unplugged it

 

Their defence to my counterclaim and the request for further information I'm going to send tomorrow

 

Any comments, as usual, would be appreciated

 

Well they acknowledged the Request for further information and asked for an extension of time to the 3rd of July to allow them to respond...Guess what - No reply.

 

I've sent them a chasing letter threatening an application to the court if they don't reply...

[shakespeare62]

Good move ...also it may be an idea to obtain a free certificate of posting from the Post Office for any correspondence which you don't send by Recorded Delivery

[I've got no money]

I've had a response...

 

They have refused to answer my Part 18 Request - I'll post their response later - I can feel an N244 coming on.

 

Interestingly they've refused to answer the question on securitisation question as they say it has no relevance to the claim.

[citizenB]

I've had a response...

 

They have refused to answer my Part 18 Request - I'll post their response later - I can feel an N244 coming on.

 

Interestingly they've refused to answer the question on securitisation question as they say it has no relevance to the claim. [/quote]

 

It does if they dont own the account, surely ?

Edited July 10, 2009 by citizenB

[I've got no money]

I've had a response...

 

They have refused to answer my Part 18 Request - I'll post their response later - I can feel an N244 coming on.

 

Interestingly they've refused to answer the question on securitisation question as they say it has no relevance to the claim.[/quote]

 

It does if they dont own the account, surely ?

 

My thoughts exactly...

[postggj]

can you post what you put in the part 18 request or pm me

its very relevent

 

meny thanks

[I've got no money]

No problems - in fact it is on this thread already - although the one on here doesn't include the request on securitisation - I only added that bit after it was suggested by BRW (I think)

 

I'm going to post their reply - which includes the request

[I've got no money]

What I'm going to do is make an application on an N244, supported by a witness statement dealing with each of their points, for an Order that they provide substantive responses. I'll do that early next week.

RepyPart18.pdf

[shakespeare62]

hmm...just wondered if there might be any merit in 'throwing in' a CPR 31.15 request for inspection of the original document(s) mentioned in their claim. Failure to acquiesce to CPR 31.15 or 31.14 leads to CPR 31.21 which states they can't rely on a document for which they fail to permit disclosure or inspection.... unless the court gives permission.

 

Alternatively..in your N244 application, their failure to fulfill your CPR 18 request could arguably frustate proceedings as you have been hindered in filing a fully particularised defence...dunno ...just 'tossing ideas'

 

There is a link here to a claim which was won against a claimant who failed to fulfill a part 18 request. Although it looks like the actual strike out occurred because it failed to pay the subsequent AQ fee following an order to do so :-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/147913-curiodeb-howard-cohen-case-2.html#post1584038

Edited July 13, 2009 by shakespeare62

[shakespeare62]

CPR 31·11 (1) states "Any duty of disclosure continues until the proceedings are concluded"

 

It seems to me that if the interests of justice are to be served, disclosure of the requested information is critical as it is crux to the claimant being able to prove it's claim. Also it is not about trial by ambush, so you need to see these docs / information in advance.

 

Also they will have a right to possession of a document if it has been mentioned in their case (poc), so it should not be unreasonable to disclose it to you for inspection etc.

Edited July 13, 2009 by shakespeare62

[I've got no money]

hmm...just wondered if there might be any merit in 'throwing in' a CPR 31.15 request for inspection of the original document(s) mentioned in their claim. Failure to acquiesce to CPR 31.15 or 31.14 leads to CPR 31.21 which states they can't rely on a document for which they fail to permit disclosure or inspection.... unless the court gives permission.

 

Alternatively..in your N244 application, their failure to fulfill your CPR 18 request could arguably frustate proceedings as you have been hindered in filing a fully particularised defence...dunno ...just 'tossing ideas'

 

There is a link here to a claim which was won against a claimant who failed to fulfill a part 18 request. Although it looks like the actual strike out occurred because it failed to pay the subsequent AQ fee following an order to do so :-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/147913-curiodeb-howard-cohen-case-2.html#post1584038

 

Actually I was thinking about that - I made a CPR 31.14 request a long time ago - to which their response was to make an application for summary judgment.

 

The DJ at the hearing rather than deal with the CPR 31.14 said that he wanted to transfer the whole case to a chancery county court where they'd deal with it...

 

I haven't done a CPR 31.15 yet - I think at this point that what I'm going to do is apply for an order on my Part 18 and my earlier 31.14 and ask the court to list them for hearing at the CMC that is due in mid August.

 

I think that you're right about the failure to reply to the Part 18 frustrating the proceedings - not only are their responses inaccurate but they are misleading. As an example I asked them to particularise the amount claimed by statements or a detailed calculation - they say they've already provided statements - well yes they did provide some statements but the opening balance on the first one was over £4500...

[shakespeare62]

Looks like there are some weapons in the CAG arsenal you could deploy :-

 

Form N268 - notice to prove documents at trial (in relation to any disclosure under CPR 31.14) - just click the link below - it works for me

The requested resource (/HMCSCourtFinder/tiles/Her Majesty's Courts Service -Forms and Guidance) is not available

 

Court of Appeal Case Law :

 

Judge Wrong to Refuse to Vacate Trial where Party Awaiting Disclosure

Gilbart v Graham (A Firm) [2008] EWCA Civ 897 (24 June 2008 )

The Court of Appeal held that, having regard to the overriding objective, the judge had been incorrect to refuse to grant a defendant’s application to vacate a trial. The Appellant had realised that specific discovery of certain documents had not occurred and applied to the court on the basis that the Respondent had not given up the documents that were pertinent and required. The judge had held that the parties could comply with the discovery requests before the commencement of the trial. The appeal court disagreed, noting that there was a substantial sum of money at stake and that the Appellant would need to instruct an expert following receipt of the disclosure.

Edited July 14, 2009 by shakespeare62

[shakespeare62]

the above is mentioned briefly in the forums here :-

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/84285-ccas-dave-against-world-51.html#post1689529

Edited July 14, 2009 by shakespeare62

[shakespeare62]

It seems that you have been unduly prejudiced by the claimant's failure to provide disclosure whilst at the same time you been forced to comply with the strict timetable set by the judge for submitting your defence ...

 

The Claimant's failure to disclose under Civil Procedure Rules is also arguably generating unecessary Court Costs...

Edited July 14, 2009 by shakespeare62

[I've got no money]

Just to update Guys

 

The other side wrote and asked if I would agree to mutual discontinuance with no Order as to costs - I spoke to them and we agreed that the claim and counterclaim be dismissed with no Orders as to costs.

 

So case over - we've filed a consent order and the hearing listed for the 17th of August was vacated.

[the_shadow]

Just to update Guys

 

The other side wrote and asked if I would agree to mutual discontinuance with no Order as to costs - I spoke to them and we agreed that the claim and counterclaim be dismissed with no Orders as to costs.

 

So case over - we've filed a consent order and the hearing listed for the 17th of August was vacated.

 

haha Well done mate.

 

S.

[Spamalot]

Congratulations IGNM... Well Done

 

Spam.