Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • A new package to help people with rising energy bills will be funded by a windfall tax on energy firms.View the full article
    • So Johnson is moving on from partygate and feels he should deal with issues the country is facing, rather than resign for the culture in No10 or misleading the commons.   The Good Law Project has issued a legal letter threatening court action unless the Met investigates 'The Three Gatherings' or explains why it doesn't think it should investigate the PM's participation in them.   The law must apply fairly to all - Good Law Project GOODLAWPROJECT.ORG The Metropolitan Police investigated the various gatherings – we use a neutral expression – around 10 Downing Street during the pandemic...  
    • Having reviewed my previous response, whilst the overall position remains the same, where I referred to a Default, this should have referred to the full amount falling due for payment/the demand for full payment.  I apologise for any confusion that this may have caused and have amended my explanation below to replace any reference to the Default Notice.   Our client’s records show that the last deferment date was the 24 April 2011. Once deferment ends, the agreement takes effect in accordance with the terms thereof – i.e. the monthly payments fall due.   The relevant limitation period in respect of this type of agreement is 6 years, pursuant to section 5 of the Limitation Act 1980 (‘the act’).  In respect of this type of agreement, limitation starts to accrue when the full amount owing falls due for payment, as the creditor does not have a cause of action to bring proceedings for the full amount of the claim until that time.  The full amount owing under the agreement becomes due (and the cause of action accrues) in one of two ways, namely:   1.    If the customer fails to make required payments, the creditor can serve a Default Notice pursuant to section 87 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.  In the event that the customer does not pay the arrears in accordance with the Default Notice, the creditor can terminate the agreement.  Limitation then starts to accrue from that date; or 2.    If the agreement is not terminated due to failure to comply with a Default Notice, the full amount falls due for payment when the full term of the agreement expires.  Limitation then starts to accrue from that date.   In this case, the agreement was not terminated under the terms of a Default Notice.  The cause of action and hence, the limitation period therefore, started to accrue from the date when the term of the agreement expired.  This was a 60 month agreement.  When a student loan account reaches its 60th month and there is still an outstanding balance, the account matures. This means it will exit the Terms and Conditions of the agreement and the balance becomes due in full. The maturity date is moved on by 12 months with each deferment period meaning that this account matured on the 31 March 2016, which is when the relevant limitation period therefore, started to accrue.  Limitation would not therefore, have expired until March 2022.  As you are aware however, proceedings were issued against you in June 2019 – i.e. comfortably within the relevant limitation period.   Further to the above, even if limitation did not start to run from the date specified above (which it did) and actually started to run from the date of last deferment in 2011 as you incorrectly allege, you did make some payments in respect of the debt, the most recent of which was on the 28 March 2015 in the amount of £90.73, which was paid to Capita under a direct debit.  Pursuant to section 29(5) of the act, the relevant limitation period accrues afresh upon each part payment.  In view of that payment, even if your view of when limitation initially started to accrue was correct (which it is not), it would have accrued afresh based upon the payment and would not therefore, have expired until March 2021.  Again, as proceedings were issued in June 2019, this was comfortably within limitation.   The Subject Access Request supplied to you by Erudio enclosed a number of letters that were issued to you throughout 2016, in which they clearly informed you that your account was in arrears. These letters made it clear that the client wished to work with you to agree an affordable repayment arrangement and that failure to do so may result in a Default being registered against you. Unfortunately, they were unable to reach an amicable resolution resulting in a Final Demand being produced on the 12 January 2017 and issued to you on the 14 January 2017 and it ultimately, becoming necessary for our client to then issue proceedings against you due to non-payment.   As such, whilst I apologise if you feel that our client deliberately delayed the cause of action in order to prolong the limitation period, I assure you that is not the case. As set out above, as the agreement was not terminated under the terms of a Default Notice, Erudio were contractually obligated to allow a 60 month period between the last deferment date and the account maturity date.  They then acted in a fair and reasonable manner by allowing an additional 10 months after the account maturity date to give you the opportunity to resolve the matter before the Demand in Full was issued.    I have also had sight of an email that you sent to my colleague, Richard Senior in which you requested us to confirm that we have complied with FCA regulation. Having reviewed the matter, I am satisfied that throughout our instruction we have acted in accordance with the relevant FCA regulation.
    • Fraudsters are using the details of firms we authorise to try to convince people that they work for a genuine, authorised firm. Find out more about this 'clone firm'.View the full article
    • More than 90,000 people will get payouts over the installation of emissions cheating devices.View the full article
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Summons received from Halifax


panty54
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4170 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi P.

 

Stick to the court dates as HB says.

So it will be an embarressed defence as they've failed to produce the info. Drag it out of them using CPR. Look at the latter part of the following thread = CPR31.14 and CPR18 - gives them no room to manouvre (unless someone thinks otherwise and i'm being too harsh on them ;))

M

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/236115-pumpytums-goes-northampton-help.html

 

PS Credit to Hungrybear for that one - not my tactics:D

 

M

________________________________________________________________

ALL unsolicited PMs and E-mails should be posted up - Not all on CAG are who they appear to be

 

 

My views are my own. If in doubt, seek professional advice. If I can help though, I will. CAG helped me!!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Thanks all for your responses and in summary I am not unsettled by their actions - only to be expected but enjoying the battle! I was just being very sarcastic when I referred to their graciousness:rolleyes: and of course it is the court which directs now as far as I am concerned.

 

Hungrybear, in response to your enquiry do they know if I have the DN - yes in the sense in that I have told them it is defective in my letter of 9 November when I suggested they withdraw their action. Can you tell me where in the act it says second class post without contrary proof.

 

MandM thanks for that link and I will explore it further over the weekend but in the meantime still not sure what to do? Do I ignore or acknowledge in some form or another?

 

Thanks everyone for your help

 

Panty

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hungrybear, in response to your enquiry do they know if I have the DN - yes in the sense in that I have told them it is defective in my letter of 9 November when I suggested they withdraw their action. Can you tell me where in the act it says second class post without contrary proof.

 

 

 

oh god now you're asking, its a supplementary schedule. I'll have a dig I have it somewhere!

 

anyone got this to hand?

 

btw - it's 100% definitely right. Normal post = 2nd class

Link to post
Share on other sites

The requirement for a valid Default Notice to lawfully Terminate an Account whilst in default

 

1. Notwithstanding the matters pleaded above, the Claimant must under Section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 serve a valid Default Notice before they can demand early payment of sums not yet due under a Regulated Credit Agreement.

 

2. Under the Interpretation Act 1978 Section 7, it states:*

 

Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression "serve" or the expressions "give" or "send" or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post."

 

2. Practice Direction

Service of Documents - First and Second Class Mail.

 

With effect from 16 April 1985 the Practice Direction issued on 30 July 1968 is hereby revoked and the following is substituted therefore.

1). Under S7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 service by post is deemed to have been effected, unless the contrary has been proved, at the time when the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.

2). To avoid uncertainty as to the date of service it will be taken (subject to proof to the contrary) that delivery in the ordinary course of post was effected:-

(a) in the case of first class mail, on the second working day after posting;

(b) in the case of second class mail, on the fourth working day after posting.

"Working days" are Monday to Friday, excluding any bank holiday.

3). Affidavits of service shall state whether the document was dispatched by first or second class mail. If this information is omitted it will be assumed that second class mail was used.

4). This direction is subject to the special provisions of RSC Order 10, rule 1(3) relating to the service of originating process.

 

8th March 1985*

J R BICKFORD SMITH Senior Master

Queen's Bench Division

 

3. Further to point 2 above, CPR rules on service also state the required timescales to be given for serving of documents :-

 

Under CPR 6.26 First class post (or other service which provides for delivery on the next business day) is deemed to be “served” The second day after it was posted, left with, delivered to or collected by the relevant service provider provided that day is a business day.

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks both for your help and I have today received notification from Northampton that they have received my defence which has been served on the claimant. They now have 28 days to indicate if they wish to proceed if the dispute cannot be resolved informally. Shall I draft a response to their letter along the lines of thanks for their response but my defence has already been submitted to court of which they will have received a copy by now and I await their decision within the time frame allowed by the court? I don't want to ignore thier letter altogether particularly if we do go to court as they may argue that they have attempted to settle out of court and I have just ignored their offer. What do people think?

 

Panty

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks both for your help and I have today received notification from Northampton that they have received my defence which has been served on the claimant. They now have 28 days to indicate if they wish to proceed if the dispute cannot be resolved informally. Shall I draft a response to their letter along the lines of thanks for their response but my defence has already been submitted to court of which they will have received a copy by now and I await their decision within the time frame allowed by the court? I don't want to ignore thier letter altogether particularly if we do go to court as they may argue that they have attempted to settle out of court and I have just ignored their offer. What do people think?

 

Panty

 

 

I would write and say that you have filed an defence in line with the court imposed timeframe. Whilst you thank them for the suggested 14 days you wish to remind them that you consider it rather disingenuous and an abuse of process to have begun court action without documentation to hand to determine whether or not it is enforceable or has a realistic chance of success.

 

Maybe point out that they should have your defense by now and given the unlawful rescission which is very clear from the default notice they wish to withdraw now and save costs and prevent a wasted costs claim when the court find sin you favour.

 

DEpends how 'ballsy' you want to be. If the foot was on the other shoe, their solicitor would send such to you 100% guaranteed

 

After all with that DN you have the upper hand

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hi everyone

 

I replied to Halifax along the lines suggested by Hungrybear and pointed out to them that my defence had already been submitted to the court and reminded them that their offer and actions were somewhat disingenuous given the defective default notice and subsequent unlawful recission. I have now today received a statement from Halifax after many months of not receiving any, having not made any payments to the account since I placed it in dispute in December of last year. What are they playing at??? Hmmm:(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone

 

I replied to Halifax along the lines suggested by Hungrybear and pointed out to them that my defence had already been submitted to the court and reminded them that their offer and actions were somewhat disingenuous given the defective default notice and subsequent unlawful recission. I have now today received a statement from Halifax after many months of not receiving any, having not made any payments to the account since I placed it in dispute in December of last year. What are they playing at??? Hmmm:(

 

Hi P,

 

They have to send them out every 6 months now. I still get them off Egg for my loan and just about to go to court :D

 

M

________________________________________________________________

ALL unsolicited PMs and E-mails should be posted up - Not all on CAG are who they appear to be

 

 

My views are my own. If in doubt, seek professional advice. If I can help though, I will. CAG helped me!!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone

 

I replied to Halifax along the lines suggested by Hungrybear and pointed out to them that my defence had already been submitted to the court and reminded them that their offer and actions were somewhat disingenuous given the defective default notice and subsequent unlawful recission. I have now today received a statement from Halifax after many months of not receiving any, having not made any payments to the account since I placed it in dispute in December of last year. What are they playing at??? Hmmm:(

 

 

As m said, this was a new rule brought in by the 2006 act. they have to send regular statements on any account which is basically on their debt book. The statement has no effect on the status of the debt or anything else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Just to update I submitted my defence on 30 November and had a reply from Northampton CC dated 1 December to acknowledge, indicating that a copy had been served to the claimant and if claimant wished to proceed they had to contact the court within 28 days of receipt of my defence. Beyond that time limit the claim would be stayed and the only action the claimant could then take was to apply for an order lifting the stay.

 

I also wrote to Halifax 7 December along the lines Hungrybear outlined suggesting they withdraw as the DN was defective resulting in unlawful recission.

 

Apart from receiving a further statement from Halifax in the interim which has been explained by hungrybear I have not heard a dicky either from the court or Halifax. Any advice as to what I should do next. Do I contact Northampton CC to see what is happening?

 

Panty

Link to post
Share on other sites

The banks Sols always take the time allowances to the limit and beyond (and usually get away with it :rolleyes:). you could ring the court first and see if they,ve heard anything as you've said.

 

On one of mine the court wrote to the Sols telling them their time was up - but then gave them a further 7 days :mad:.

 

M

________________________________________________________________

ALL unsolicited PMs and E-mails should be posted up - Not all on CAG are who they appear to be

 

 

My views are my own. If in doubt, seek professional advice. If I can help though, I will. CAG helped me!!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to update I submitted my defence on 30 November and had a reply from Northampton CC dated 1 December to acknowledge, indicating that a copy had been served to the claimant and if claimant wished to proceed they had to contact the court within 28 days of receipt of my defence. Beyond that time limit the claim would be stayed and the only action the claimant could then take was to apply for an order lifting the stay.

 

I also wrote to Halifax 7 December along the lines Hungrybear outlined suggesting they withdraw as the DN was defective resulting in unlawful recission.

 

Apart from receiving a further statement from Halifax in the interim which has been explained by hungrybear I have not heard a dicky either from the court or Halifax. Any advice as to what I should do next. Do I contact Northampton CC to see what is happening?

 

Panty

 

i would prepare an application to strike out their claim on the basis that they can show no cause of action due to the faulty DN

 

then fax the other side and give them a skeletal argument of what you will use to submit an application to strike out the claim and offer them the opportunity to discontinue without costs,

 

if they do not respond within 7 days you will make the application (40 quid i think) and claim your costs

Link to post
Share on other sites

can i just backtrack in the post

 

when you say you tippexed the date out and wrote it back in- you didnt do this on the original copy did you?

 

if so you might have a problem since yours will be the only copy of the DN in existence and the judge would be none too impressed if it had been tampered with ESPECIALLy since you are claiming that the time for remedy is faulty!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

i would prepare an application to strike out their claim on the basis that they can show no cause of action due to the faulty DN

 

then fax the other side and give them a skeletal argument of what you will use to submit an application to strike out the claim and offer them the opportunity to discontinue without costs,

 

if they do not respond within 7 days you will make the application (40 quid i think) and claim your costs

Hi DD

 

When you say skeletal argument of what to send to the other side do you mean the full WS that I would submit to the court for a SO or more of a brief summary outlining my intentions? Also, should I be so gracious of giving them the opportunity or should I just go straight with the N244 and submit to the court for SO without a hearing? Things have drifted on now since the end of November.

 

thanks Panty

Link to post
Share on other sites

i assume that what you want is an easy resolution

 

also in the event that this is not possible and they continued then you want to be able to say to the judge "well i told them so" (especially in respect of any costs applications).

 

if you have previously pointed out points of law to the other side - they take a risk if they continue to pursue that line and lose

 

thus IMO it is wise to outline to them why you beleive their continuation is bound to fail and invite them to withdraw without costs.

 

if they don't then they only have themselves to blame .

Link to post
Share on other sites

i assume that what you want is an easy resolution

 

also in the event that this is not possible and they continued then you want to be able to say to the judge "well i told them so" (especially in respect of any costs applications).

 

if you have previously pointed out points of law to the other side - they take a risk if they continue to pursue that line and lose

 

thus IMO it is wise to outline to them why you beleive their continuation is bound to fail and invite them to withdraw without costs.

 

if they don't then they only have themselves to blame .

 

OK DD get your drift so I will alert them to my intentions but does this go to the full extent of sharing the WS that I intend to submit with N244 or a just a brief outline?

 

Panty

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...