Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim vague and are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.   1. Paragraphs 1 is noted and accepted that the Defendant has in the past had financial dealings with  Vanquis.I do not recall the precise details or agreement and have sought verification from the claimant and the claimants solicitor by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request who are yet to fully comply.   2. Paragraph 2 is denied. The claimant pleads that the defendant failed to maintain the required payment, arrears began to accrue. Given that the claimant has failed to comply with my CPR 31.14 request and failed to evidence such fact and would not be in a position as Assignee of debt to know the details of any alleged breach. The defendant has never received a Default Notice from the original creditor. As the claimants plead in their particulars precise knowledge of the default, they are put to strict proof to evidence such fact.   3. Paragraph 3 is denied.The Defendant contends that no notice of assignment pursuant to s.136 of the Law of Property Act & s.82 A of the CCA1974 has ever been served by the Claimant as alleged or at all.   4. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of assignment/balance/breach requested by CPR 31. 14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:   (a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence any cause of action and service of a Default Notice or termination notice; and (c) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;   5. After receiving this claim I requested by way of a CPR 31.14 request and a section 78 request for copies of any documents referred to within the Claimants' particulars to establish what the claim is for. To date they have failed to comply to my CPR 31.14 request and also my section 78 request and remain in default with regards to this request.   6. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.   7. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974.   8. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
    • I will get my son to upload the video when he gets in. No down hill slope just a small  gradient and from the turning he came out of its maybe 15 shops until the traffic lights. Maybe it didn't get faster but he feels like it did (not clear on the video)  I'm picking him up from work tonight I'll pay attention to the gradient when I go back.   He'd only changed up to 2nd so he wasn't driving fast    Upside he knows now to always be prepared for ice  
    • Not sure why you keep changing your point 1 back to .....   1. The Claimant claims £2247.91 is owed under a regulated consumer credit account under reference xxxxxxx. I do not recall the precise details or agreement and have sought verification from the claimant and the claimants solicitor by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request who are yet to fully comply.   1. Paragraphs 1 is noted and accepted that the Defendant has in the past had financial dealings with  Vanquis.I do not recall the precise details or agreement and have sought verification from the claimant and the claimants solicitor by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request who are yet to fully comply.   We you the court the claimant already knows ......The Claimant claims £2247.91 is owed under a regulated consumer credit account under reference xxxxxxx. its on the claim form.   Keep it as post #59 add post #66 renumber job done.
    • Hi all   Update, so they still have not provided any statements/documents etc regarding the account (I have the original SAR though) and since the beginning of October I have received a letter stating that they believe the debit is not SB because a payment of £340 was made April/May 2014 (this is credit and refund mentioned earlier in the thread). They have so far not received the statements etc from the bank but will forward them on due course, but if I should contact them to arrange a payment plan.   I have since had a offer of a 50% settlement and then last week a 75% settlement. My view is that they are just hoping I will bite and pay them something but that is not going to happen, I have not communicated to them since that single telephone conversation back in July.   The one thing I have noticed when I use Check My File is that the account status was changed November 7th to Query at Equifax, even though the default expired on November 4th so it should have disappeared by now. The original Satans Bank default was removed on time, but the Cabot account reference is still there albeit not negatively impacting my score it just has a status of 'Q' against November and the balance showing. There is no history showing before November it almost looks like a new account was setup with a Query status against it.   Does anybody have any idea of what is going on here? The cynical side of my is thinking they are forcing me to get in touch with them in writing about the account before their incorrectly perceived April/May SB date passes. I know Equifax does take longer for updates compared to the others agencies and in a few weeks it may be gone.   I'm just wondering what peoples views are, personally my credit score is almost in the excellent bracket and I'm not planning to get any credit soon so it makes no difference to me for now.
  • Our picks

Mr Rex

Statutory Demand looming - Advice Sought

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3665 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Dear All,

 

I have today received written correspondence from Tenon Recovery:

 

"to confirm that a Statutory Demand, under the provisions of section 268 of the Insolvency Act, is being prepared on this account and is due to be passed to our process server".

 

This follows numerous letters from Tenon and previous credit management companies (which date back as far as May 2009) acting on behalf of the Creditor.

 

The debt pertains to a Hire Agreement for which I was Personal Guarantor taken out by a Limited Company of which I was formerly a Director. I subsequently resigned my Directorship and the company in question went into administration some months thereafter. In the opinion of my solicitor, however, as I was Personal Guarantor for the Agreement, I may be liable for the sum demanded. At his request, a previous credit management company (i.e. not Tenon) provided copies of the Hire Agreement as well as the Guarantee and Indemnity. Within this agreement is stated:

 

"The Consumer Credit Act 1974 covers this agreement and lays down certain requirements for your protection which should have been compiled with when this agreement was made. If they were not, the owner cannot enforce this agreement against you without getting a court order".

 

I am unable to ascertain that these "requirements for protection" were provided from the copy of the CCA with which I was provided

 

No information (which was requested) pertaining to what action was taken against the company and its then Directors has been forthcoming.

 

Having read a number of threads on this forum regarding this subject, I would be curious to know:

 

- Whether the apparent lack of the aforementioned ""requirements for protection" would suffice to request the Demand be set aside (assuming it is served).

- Whether the I can request a copy of the CCA from Tenon (as this was provided by an entirely different credit management firm who held the account previously) in the hope that they will be unable to do this. Furthermore, although this information was provided previously, nothing has been presented which specifically quantifies the amount owed.

- How much (as a percentage of the debt owed) is Tenon likely to accept in full and final settlement of the debt.

 

I read with interest on the following web page: Legal Issues Explained - Statutory Demand that "a statutory demand in 90% of instances is 'bluffing technique' used to scare a person into paying up. If a bankruptcy petition does not follow then this will become apparent." What, therefore, occurs in "90% of instances"?

 

Any thoughts or advice would be greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bump

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What, therefore, occurs in "90% of instances"?

 

The debtor and the creditor come to some agreement and the creditor does not pursue the SD/bankruptcy route any further.


I really do appreciate all those 'thank you' emails - I'm glad I've been able to help. Apologies if I haven't acknowledged all of them.

You can also ding my gong if you prefer. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...