MandM vs Egg Loan ***Won with Strike Out***

[MandM]

Bumping

[AndyOrch]

Hi MandM

 

I personally would not allow inspection its obvious they dont have a copy and will copy and doctor it to their advantage.If you do allow make it obvious that its your copy and mark it to make it unique.

 

 

Regards

 

Andy

[seriously fed up]

I would only add to Andy's comment that the courts regard disclosure as important so best not to give them any advantage there: so either

 

1. mark the notice in such a way that they cant mess with it; OR
   
2. you might want to provide them with a copy along with confirmation that its a "true copy" - after all sauce for the goose ......
   

[MandM]

Thank you both for your replies. Nice to hear from you again AndyO .

 

They do have a copy already. It was submitted when my defence went in as I didn't want to be seen to be ambushing them in court with it or i'd be the bad guy.

 

If I were to deny them permission to inspect it would the court frown on this? Not sure what they've told the court and i'll check the paperwork when I get home this evening.

 

My gut feeling is that they think i've doctored it to remove the prescibed wording - and to an extent I can see that they need to satisfy themselves that this is not the case. I'm more than happy to show it but I don't want it to leave my possession for obvious reasons.

 

Would you invite them to your home to make an inspection along these lines? New ground for me again here lol.

 

M

[AndyOrch]

If you have already disclosed a copy with your Defence submission then refuse on the bases that they already have possession.

 

 

Andy

[gh2008]

does that count as an 'unless' order? So that you don't have to go back and ask for it to be struck out and they won't get extra time?

 

Yep that's an 'unless order' just worded differently an 'unless order' normally says "Unless the claimant do comply ...."

 

Have some news - and need some advice. Just had a call from Mrs M to say that a bundle has arrived from the Sols in the post today.

 

They seem to have produced similar bits as produced before but with some notes with regards to the balance and the CCA.

 

BUT the DN (hopefully) has them on the run. My feeling is that they think it's a forgery! They have stated that they are going to put me to strict proof regarding the existance of my DN. They have further stated that their 'client' wishes to inspect the DN in the next 14 days and that I am to make arrangements to organise this.

 

Any ideas????

 

M

 

Hi M

 

IMO You need to check that they have fully complied with the order and if not inform the court at the end of the week when their 28 days are up.

 

re. inspection - could you not state that you have already filed and served a true copy and that you are following Standard Disclosure protocols unless ordered otherwise by the court. You could also state that you will be bringing the original to trial and that you assume they will do the same

 

Was their request made under CPR or just a general request?

 

I must admit I would be uncomfortable with the idea of possessing a document that proves the other side's submitted 'true copy' is actually nothing of the sort and a new creation, (which IMHO, if accompanied by a statement of truth, puts the other side in contempt of court, if not accompanied then it's just heresay anyway I think) and then allowing inspection at home. I think I'd speak to the court or write to them - maybe it could be inspected there if the court felt it necessary?

 

good luck

[seriously fed up]

Andy is right that if they have a copy then there is no need for them to see it again. Tell them to get lost that they already have a copy.

However if this is not the case, I dont think it would do you any favours to be seen as obstructive by the Court. So I would let them have sight, but at all times within YOUR sight. What that means is up to you - yes invite them to your house if you are comfortable with that. Go along to their office with it if you are comfortable with that (though dont let it out of your sight).

[MandM]

Thank you all. Will have a good read of the docs when I get home as speaking to the Mrs again it looks like they may have fallen foul on 2 of the 3 points now .

 

I can almost feel a strike out brewing lol.

 

M

[tdmoggy]

better still, rather than allow physical inspection, send a certified true copy

which you can get at any local solicitors firm, usually for a fiver. Point out that this is exactly the same as was previously served on them, only this time it has been certified.

 

This is a genuine substitute to allowing their physical inspection. Additionally, inform them that you are taking this step as a precaution but that you will be bringing original to court.

 

this should suffice

tdm

[MandM]

better still, rather than allow physical inspection, send a certified true copy

which you can get at any local solicitors firm, usually for a fiver. Point out that this is exactly the same as was previously served on them, only this time it has been certified.

 

This is a genuine substitute to allowing their physical inspection. Additionally, inform them that you are taking this step as a precaution but that you will be bringing original to court.

 

this should suffice

tdm

 

ty tdm for making me your very 1st post . And a very valid consideration too.

 

M

[diddydicky]

it is my understanding that in inspection of documents- the inspector has to travel to the document, and not the other way around therefore either invite them to you home or perhaps your sols office.

 

you COULD refuse in a simple one liner and say that you have already disclosed it- i dont think it would upset the court if you refuse inspection of a document that you have already disclosed

 

 

you could even send a copy of it to the court to be placed on the file and a note that you consider the other side may be seeking to attempt to replicate it themselves in order to cover their own backs

[DonkeyB]

MandM, I have house in the Outer Hebrides, and I would gladly store the document there for you; they would, of course, be very welcome to come and inspect it.

[MandM]

 

 

you could even send a copy of it to the court to be placed on the file and a note that you consider the other side may be seeking to attempt to replicate it themselves in order to cover their own backs

 

Got my copy in already . I think they're hoping my original is a photoshop job lol. Looks like it's rattled them.

 

Outer Hebrides, now there's an idea.

 

M

[diddydicky]

MandM, I have house in the Outer Hebrides, and I would gladly store the document there for you; they would, of course, be very welcome to come and inspect it.

 

nice one donkey!!

 

i am sure you already did some months ago-when you offered to check them over - perhaps you need to check your files and cut down on the porridge oats as they are blurring your memory

[gh2008]

any news on the contents of the bundle and whether they have fully complied with the order?

[MandM]

OK. Have read it all now and it seems they fall short in a number of ways .

 

Taking each item as it is requested in the Directions:

 

First, the agreement. The Directions say:

* Copies of the Credit Agreement referred to in the Particulars of Claim, and any documents referred to within it which complies with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) as amended, which the claimant seeks to rely upon. Copies of original document only will suffice.

 

Now, at AQ stage they attached an agreement (online) and a set of terms and conditions. The T&Cs do not tally with quite a few references on the Agreement and I raised this in my defence. From memory I think I picked up 5 instances where it didn't cross reference. I considered this to be a minor point and following the directions I assumed that they would just issue the correct T&Cs.

 

These donuts have just re-sent the ones they sent with the AQ and commented "The agreement was taken out online therefore just a box was ticked to show acceptance of the agreement". Obviously didn't bother reading the defence then lol.

 

Second point - the Statements. The Directions say:

* Copies of all original statements for the duration of the alleged agreement, used to establish a balance on the claimants Particulars of Claim dated XXXXXXX

 

They have not produced these. They state "Statements are produced on an annual basis. Copy statements have been requested but it is unsure as to when these will be received. The screen prints provided show all payments made to date".

 

They have attached 4 screen shots of around the right time. None of the figures shown tally with the POC figure. I do have statements from the year from Egg - and again this point was raised in my Defence as none of the figures I had came closer than a few hundered pounds of the POC figure. That is still the case as the screen shots again only take it to within a few hundred pounds.

 

Also, the screenshots show only payments made and the account balance - but this is incalculable as the interest etc is not shown. So these are completely useless and do not comply with the directions.

 

Third point - The DN. The Directions say;

* Copy of the Default Notice compliant with s87 (1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) as amended, as issued to the Defendant and which the claimant seeks to rely upon.

 

They have attached the same pants specimen that they attached with the AQs. If any one has been following this thread you will be aware that my original happened to be missing some rather important prescibed text. They have identified this in their statement and stated "The Claimant would put the Defendant to strict proof of this and require sight and inpection of the original Default Notice".

 

All of the above is on the Index of Documents to the court.

 

Now, the cover letter to me says "It is noted that you state in your defence that the Default Notice served upon you did not disclose the prescibed wording 'Served under section 87(i) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974'. In the circumstances, our client requires sight and inspection of the original Default Notice. Please arrange this to be made available to us"

 

The 28 days given by the court for them to comply runs out at the end of next week. So where to next? I don't have any worries about showing the DN - the look on their faces will make me smile . But i'm pretty pee'd off with their lack of response here.

 

The statements and proving the POC figure should have been a doddle for them. Getting hold of the right T&Cs should also have been a walk in the park (PM me and i'll tell you why lol). The DN was expected as they cannot escape this.

 

Any suggestions.

 

M

Edited February 4, 2010 by MandM
typo

[gh2008]

ok, so, in effect all they have done is submitted the same docs that the court had BEFORE the court made the order.

 

You have *got* to go for a strike out - as it was an unless order - just worded differently

If the Claimant fails to comply with this order, the claim will be struck out without further order.

 

Write to the court point out there errors and respectfully requesting that it is struck out as per the order.

 

Point out that the docs are just repeats etc - they are wasting the court's and everyone else's time by trying to pass off these documents as the ones requested when they know they are not.

 

JMHO

[MandM]

My feelings to. Just needed to hear it .

 

I'll PM you about this bit - will give you a laugh and you'll see how inept these muppets really are.

 

Getting hold of the right T&Cs should also have been a walk in the park (PM me and i'll tell you why lol).

 

M

[the_shadow]

My feelings to. Just needed to hear it .

 

I'll PM you about this bit - will give you a laugh and you'll see how inept these muppets really are.

 

 

 

M

 

IMVHO the default kills the case dead... it cant be a de minimus issue as how are you expected to know how serious a document is if its not served under the correct regulations, too many letters are disguised to be more important than they really are.

 

As a sophisticated financial institute they are required to get their legal notices checked out before sending and if they havent then tough crap to them the default probably contains statements that say things MAY happen as well as WILL happen so its mixed messages without that all important section 87(1) bit

 

Just my thoughts tho.

 

S.

[MandM]

ok, so, in effect all they have done is submitted the same docs that the court had BEFORE the court made the order.

 

You have *got* to go for a strike out - as it was an unless order - just worded differently

 

 

Write to the court point out there errors and respectfully requesting that it is struck out as per the order.

 

Point out that the docs are just repeats etc - they are wasting the court's and everyone else's time by trying to pass off these documents as the ones requested when they know they are not.

 

JMHO

 

Well then, time to bring things to end ,

 

M

 

IMVHO the default kills the case dead... it cant be a de minimus issue as how are you expected to know how serious a document is if its not served under the correct regulations, too many letters are disguised to be more important than they really are.

 

As a sophisticated financial institute they are required to get their legal notices checked out before sending and if they havent then tough crap to them the default probably contains statements that say things MAY happen as well as WILL happen so its mixed messages without that all important section 87(1) bit

 

Just my thoughts tho.

 

S.

[MAGDA]

Good luck m&m, Hopefully, you will finally see them off!

 

Magda

[MandM]

Good luck m&m, Hopefully, you will finally see them off!

 

Magda

 

Thank you MAGDA, I don't suppose you realised the significance of your early posts on this thread at the time. It's gone some distance now.

 

M

[MAGDA]

Thank you MAGDA, I don't suppose you realised the significance of your early posts on this thread at the time. It's gone some distance now.

 

M

 

Hi again, yes, I don't suppose you'll be sorry to see the back of this one, will you? You deserve to get a really good result with this, and I'm sure you will.

 

All the best, Magda

[diddydicky]

i would write and point out that they have already been sent a copy of the DN and they are welcome to come and inspect the original - at which time you would like them to show you the original agreement but under no circumstances will you part company with the original until it is produced to the court at trial, and that they will be put to strict proof of any allegation that you may have "tampered" with the document (copy to the court)

 

I would also ask them to notify you in ample time if they intend to make allegations of tampering so that you may make an application to the court to call an expert forensic witness to examine the document and give evidence

IMO

[MandM]

i would write and point out that they have already been sent a copy of the DN and they are welcome to come and inspect the original - at which time you would like them to show you the original agreement but under no circumstances will you part company with the original until it is produced to the court at trial, and that they will be put to strict proof of any allegation that you may have "tampered" with the document (copy to the court)

 

I would also ask them to notify you in ample time if they intend to make allegations of tampering so that you may make an application to the court to call an expert forensic witness to examine the document and give evidence

IMO

 

Have thought long and hard about this now for the past 24+ hours and I think i'm pretty much there.

 

I have 2 trails of thought and think I should do them both.

 

Firstly, the DN . I think I should write to the solicitors and point out that i am under no obligation to produce this purely on their say so. They had ample opportunity to do so when the DJ ASKED both parties for further directions. However, they declined to respond and the copy and explanation of the DN had been in their possession for some considerable time i.e. in my defence.

 

However, in consideration of the overriding objectives I would be prepared to consider allowing this upon written receipt of their explanation of their purpose of such an inspection and what results are likely to be achieved from it. If it is no more than a fishing excercise to establish its existance, then they can go take a run and jump as I have already confirmed this by way of submission of my defence, and ultimately the 'original' will be produced when we meet in court - so a pointless waste of time.

 

IF the reason is to establish that there is no way forward for their case then that surely is a different matter and I would gladly accept that they discontinue. If they suggest the unthinkable on the other hand i.e. tampering, then they'll be opening a big can of worms for themselves.

 

I will also point out that if I do not hear from them then I will be writing to the court when the 28 days is up and I will be requesting a SO due to their ignorance on all 3 issues.

 

Secondly the SO. I will write to the court at the end of next week and explain how they have frustrated me on all 3 items directed by the court. I will confirm any changes between now and then that may or may not have happened in relation to the DN and enclose the latest correspondance. Unless of course I get that letter saying 'show us the DN and we'll show the white flag'.

 

Of course, the DN stays in my grasp - i've never seen one like it but i'm sure it can't be the only one that went out that day so i'm sure they won't want it popping up in court.

 

Any thoughts?

 

M

Edited February 4, 2010 by MandM
typo