LTSB/SCm Claim Form received credit card

[hammyhound]

Do I take everything SCM/Lloyds have sent me and perhaps prepare a bundle. What will happen at the hearing?

 

HH

[hammyhound]

Just a polite bump. I just need to know what will happen at the CMC. I have got a copy of ****'s AQ. They say "no reasonable prospect of success and will apply for summary judgment". They asked that the hearing be for 3 hours 30 minutes.

 

Do I take everything that **** have sent to me to the CMC in case the judge wants to look at anything. Will the Judge dismiss my defence and issue a judgment - my mind is working overtime.

 

I have read through dozens of pages and what I think will happen is that the judge will allocate a track and then order disclosure - am I right - can anyone help.

 

Thanks

 

HH

[empowered]

Just a polite bump. I just need to know what will happen at the CMC. I have got a copy of ****'s AQ. They say "no reasonable prospect of success and will apply for summary judgment". They asked that the hearing be for 3 hours 30 minutes.

 

Do I take everything that **** have sent to me to the CMC in case the judge wants to look at anything. Will the Judge dismiss my defence and issue a judgment - my mind is working overtime.

 

I have read through dozens of pages and what I think will happen is that the judge will allocate a track and then order disclosure - am I right - can anyone help.

 

Thanks

 

HH

 

Hi Hammy

Your last para is right... went to court this week with OH for a BOS CMC. BOS never turned up. Judge allocated track and ordered disclosure of docs by BOS within 3 weeks. OH had a quick lesson on how to retrieve all the info I had put in a file for him:p, but judge had already read both AQs and didn't want to see anything. I was a nervous wreck beforehand but it was all over within about 5 mins:)

[hammyhound]

Thanks empowered, I was wondered why no disclosure had been mentioned in the order just a hearing date and panic set in thinking that the judge will dismiss my defence and order a judgment.

 

Will try to relax.

 

HH

[lilly white]

H.

 

trying times i know however you have come very far so try to chill i see you have your answers.

 

 

i must away now i will keep a watch

[hammyhound]

Well other side turned up - got a shock thought it was a CMC they wanted my defence thrown out - judge told them no you haven't made an application so tough.

 

Really nice judge.

 

Matter is now stayed until resolution of the "enforceability cases" good news me thinks will relax for a few months!

 

Was told by other side later they will make an application to lift the stay - now I know what they are trying to do I will prepare.

 

HH

[debtsurvivor]

Just Subbing Hammy

 

**** are acting for Lloyds regarding my CCard

 

Looks as if you & the Judge have things covered for the time being well done.

 

Best Wishes DS

[Capricorn1601]

subbing

[vint1954]

Here are the terms overleaf.

 

http://i375.photobucket.com/albums/oo198/hammond39/TermsandConditions-Lloyds.jpg

 

Surely if the account had been transferred to another number I should have received a CCA for that number (which incidentally is my original account number) never used the one they are quoting above

 

The 16th June 2000 is on the opposite side of the April 2000 date.

 

If they are relying on this then they should quote this account number in the POC and in which case there is no balance.

 

for example:-

 

45 - opened in 1981

 

49 - signed application form no card received cancelled immediately was told continue to use 45 as before.

 

45 - all debt on this account.

 

CCA requested on 45

 

LTSB can't find CCA on 45 (so bloody old)

 

Solicitors sent the above application form with terms above regarding 49.

 

LTSB says 49 account was sent to archive in 2000.

 

POC says 45 but solicitors are relying on 49 account number.

 

Their letter states here is application form.

 

Heading account number 45 transferred from 49 so where is the CCA for 45.

 

Thanks for your help.

 

Thought it would be easy but looking now I now I have a fight.

 

Sorry quite confusing but I thought this would make you understand.

 

HH

They are obviously trying to misslead by saying that the ballance from 49 went to 45. If they had any sence, they would have checked that there were never any transactions on 49. Twits.

[vint1954]

Hi Hammyhound, forgive me for jumping in after all this time but:

 

If 45 is the account that has been running since 1981, then that is the CCA that they must produce.

 

If 49 has never been activated, card sent, signed and used, then it is as if it never existed. They are trying to muddy the waters there.

 

I do not see the reason for the stay in this situation. The stay does not involve cases where there is no agreement, as there clearly is not here. Looks like they are trying to confuse the situation and have confused the court.

[hammyhound]

Oh it does really get better. A few weeks before the hearing they produced another agreement saying that is the one they are relying on. It is dated 1981 and that this was then transferred to my present number. After checking with Lloyds pretending to be a customer they told me "that is not a credit card number it has too many digits".

 

Then Lloyds TSB sent me a reconstructed agreement a week before the hearing.

 

I am confused, the Judge confused everybody else confused.

 

I dont know why the Judge imposed the stay either, the agreement is there (no prescribed terms though).

 

HH

[underdog13]

Wishing you the best of luck with this one, hammyhound:) Sounds like they are tieing themselves in knots - give 'em enough rope and let them hang themselves;)

[hammyhound]

Not heard a jot from the court since my hearing. Cant believe it was 6 months ago now. No doubt will be posting up when something lands on the doormat.

[empowered]

Not heard a jot from the court since my hearing. Cant believe it was 6 months ago now. No doubt will be posting up when something lands on the doormat.

 

Hi Hammy

Ring the court... We did cos we had heard nothing and they told us that Lloyds had discontinued but hadn't bothered to tell us! You may be sitting worrying for nothing:)

[hammyhound]

I have a hearing coming up soon and just need clarification on two points.

 

The solicitors are using a template default notice and saying the Claimant doesn't keep copies. They also say "it was sent by first class post". How would they know that it was and is there any case law to say that a "screen shot" can be used in court.

 

Secondly, this was a credit card which although they have the original agreement and are using a reconstructed agreement in court the account was changed to a different type of credit card account and number 2 to 3 years later I think, they are saying "the account was changed over to a new account so we will rely on the original agreement which has a different number. Would they have to produce the agreement for the account they are presently claiming on. BTW the original agreement is dated 1989 if that helps.

 

Hope that makes sense.

 

HH

[miss muppet]

I have a hearing coming up soon and just need clarification on two points.

 

The solicitors are using a template default notice and saying the Claimant doesn't keep copies. They also say "it was sent by first class post". How would they know that it was and is there any case law to say that a "screen shot" can be used in court.

 

Secondly, this was a credit card which although they have the original agreement and are using a reconstructed agreement in court the account was changed to a different type of credit card account and number 2 to 3 years later I think, they are saying "the account was changed over to a new account so we will rely on the original agreement which has a different number. Would they have to produce the agreement for the account they are presently claiming on. BTW the original agreement is dated 1989 if that helps.

 

Hope that makes sense.

 

HH

 

Looks to me as if they are up the duff on all counts HH - You would of course require them to produce the evidence that the original of this so called template default notice was actually posted to you, since they never use recorded delivery they will have a problem with this, I would have thought.

 

The usual way of thinking with regard to the agreement is that they can produce a reconstructed agreement but would need the original to enforce in court and if it is c.1989 thats going to be unlikely!

[hammyhound]

Thanks, they do have the 1989 agreement in microfiche with a copy of the terms and conditions they say would have been sent to me but this agreement has the original account number, a couple of years later the card was upgraded and my most recent card, this is the number they are relying on, not the original account number. I am so confused. I dont know how to disagree with what they are saying regarding the DN and that's why I wondered whether there was case law to say they can produce a screen shot. I will point out to the court that for them to say "it was sent first class" I assume they would have documentation to prove that - if you see what I mean.

 

HH

[Old Cogger]

Let them try where are the four corners to the agreement for a court?? also if MBNA UK 2nd class is used therefore 4 working days to be received by you.

[Guest]

...but this agreement has the original account number, a couple of years later the card was upgraded and my most recent card, this is the number they are relying on, not the original account number.....HH

 

hi all. what's the view on this point?

[hammyhound]

Thanks for your help folks, in previous SJ hearings I have been confident and have won with various issues this one I feel is totally different. This has been adjourned once because the other side said they had not received my WS despite signing for it so this is the adjourned hearing.

 

In their new WS they have produced my original agreement albeit a microfiche, they then produce a blank agreement to which they say here is a better copy of the one you took out roughly the same time - it is the same except there is one major flaw - there are cancellation rights on the blank copy, mine does not have any so I need to find out when cancellation rights came into force to discredit them in that it was certainly not the same agreement I would have took out at the time.

 

Then there is the reconstructed copy well they sent two actually, one with my present name and address no account number and one with my present name and address no account number no cancellation rights.

 

There are also some amended terms and conditions which they have sent which are for some 12 and 13 years later and are amending the original terms which they have not sent but if they are amending the original conditions of use the numbering is incorrect.

 

Am I to send in another witness statement to reply to theirs.

 

If anyone can give me some advice on how to proceed with this I would be more than grateful.

 

HH

[bazaar]

OK they are making clear statements here, like their client doesnt keep copies of DN's even though they are an important part of the legal process to enable them to claim, do the dates tally up OK on the template?

Also, they state it was sent 'First Class" OK Then, wheres the proof?? without such proof, then the DN is to be deemed as sent by second class.

 

On the agreement side, OK they will rely on the original, so did they provide a full set of account statements from the inception? If not demand it via CPR. Give them 7 days or report them to court, you need to see what charges have been put on there since the start of the aggreement.

 

Youve already noted differences between the 2 agreements, so what are they specifically? Did the original lack something that was required? Does the new one include something that has no clear reference to the previous one?

 

If you get things listed like this, you'll build up a pretty good argument against whatever they can come up with

[hammyhound]

Hi Bazaar thanks for looking in.

 

The new blank agreement has cancellation rights and mine doesn't so that proves that the agreement was not used at the same time as mine.

 

They have provided my agreement which states terms overleaf, the conditions of use which I think are the terms and another regarding acceptance of conditions which also states terms overleaf. How can a 3 page document be made into duplex.

 

With regard to the DN it is blank no name, address or date zilch so I can check any dates but they are using a screen shot.

 

I am confused.

 

I have not received the terms and conditions from inception as they don't have them but have produced amended terms and conditions from 4 years ago but at the bottom there is a date of 02 - they must be mind readers to know what the terms and conditions would have been some 4 years later!!!!

 

HH

[miss muppet]

Hi Bazaar thanks for looking in.

 

The new blank agreement has cancellation rights and mine doesn't so that proves that the agreement was not used at the same time as mine.

 

They have provided my agreement which states terms overleaf, the conditions of use which I think are the terms and another regarding acceptance of conditions which also states terms overleaf. How can a 3 page document be made into duplex.

 

With regard to the DN it is blank no name, address or date zilch so I can check any dates but they are using a screen shot.

 

I am confused.

 

I have not received the terms and conditions from inception as they don't have them but have produced amended terms and conditions from 4 years ago but at the bottom there is a date of 02 - they must be mind readers to know what the terms and conditions would have been some 4 years later!!!!

 

HH

 

Rather puts me in mind of mystic Meg - what was it she said "yooo could be lucky tooo!" Don't think this will wash with the DJ.

 

They (Optimistic Legal) did this with me too, enclosing a blank "copy of an agreement", have just been looking at it, its dated November 2008 at the top, considering that they had already admitted by letter that they didn't have a copy of the application form -and my account was c.1998; they also supplied a very fuzzy copy of the terms and conditions, same date.

 

Its rubbish, they can try to use this in court but will look very foolish.

Edited August 15, 2010 by miss muppet
wanted to add something

[underdog13]

any updates, Hammy?