Pumpytums goes to Northampton Help Please!

[supasnooper]

Congrats and well done.

 

Make sure that you do hit them for costs....I'll post some links below.

 

They would be foolish if they came back again.....Res Judicata is what you would cite to them if they did.

 

WASTED COSTS THREADS

 

Have a look at the pdf's that Surfaceagentx20 has attached at the bottom of the post on a letter for wasted costs -

 

Surfaceagentx20 wasted costs

also

 

Liabilty for Costs CPR 38.6

Sharpman v Nationwide credit card services ***WON WITH WASTED COSTS***

 

Welcome/Cohens - case withdrawn ***WOO-HOO ***

 

have a look at this post by IGNM on costs as well -

 

IGNM post on costs

 

and a B_R_W post on what else you can claim - B_R_W additional costs you can claim

Time limit for claiming costs - Surfaceagentx20

[pumpytums]

Here we go again,

just had what I think was a default notice from Santandur. Not headed as such but the text is correct as is the account number. Apparently I have changed surname and gender as well which is very confusing.

 

Apparently if I don't pay the arrears they may close my account take legal action blah blah. Now this is a bit strange because I have it in writing that all rights were assigned to a certain aggressive DCA and that they are now the legal owners. The Legal owners then terminated the account, demanded the full amount and finally discontinued in court.

 

So do I sent Santandur a bemused I acknowledge no debt to your organisation, because the account now belongs to the DCA and I have received no assignment letter.

 

 

Muppets

 

Pumpytums

[MandM]

Here we go again,

just had what I think was a default notice from Santandur. Not headed as such but the text is correct as is the account number. Apparently I have changed surname and gender as well which is very confusing.

 

Apparently if I don't pay the arrears they may close my account take legal action blah blah. Now this is a bit strange because I have it in writing that all rights were assigned to a certain aggressive DCA and that they are now the legal owners. The Legal owners then terminated the account, demanded the full amount and finally discontinued in court.

 

So do I sent Santandur a bemused I acknowledge no debt to your organisation, because the account now belongs to the DCA and I have received no assignment letter.

 

 

Muppets

 

Pumpytums

 

Hi Pumpy, almost missed this - have been scarce for a bit while dealing with other issues.

 

Nice one for getting this far! Have a look at my egg loan thread post 542 onwards. I got a 2nd DN - there's loads of good info to make a fitting reply.

 

M

[nicolee2931]

Here we go again,

just had what I think was a default notice from Santandur. Not headed as such but the text is correct as is the account number. Apparently I have changed surname and gender as well which is very confusing.

 

 

Congrats on your win with Sink, I would keep that strange DN from Santander just in case you never know, how on earth can yu change gender and surname.

[pumpytums]

Hiya,

they are a complete bunch.

 

I had an interesting conversation with one of their managers. The outcome been that they would look into my complaint. My complaint been how can they reinstate an agreement that has been terminated in both word and deed and that I also consider to be terminated.

 

It was quite funny to be honest the first line of their customer service stated quite categorically as they did not issue a DN that they were allowed under law to have a second go and do everything correctly. I then asked what part of law allowed them to unlawfully terminate an agreement then presume that the agreement continued after they had sold terminated, demanded full payment, mark my credit file as defaulted, proceed to litigation, attempt a summary judgement then finally discontinued. The new DN is hilarious to be honest in content and form. Shame they didn't do things correctly in the first place, their loss. I even have letters I sent to both Dur and sink stating that they had not issued a DN something they all chose to ignore. A little like my DSAR which took them 7 months to comply with. To be fair when I asked to speak to a manager they knew what they were talking about, they actually said that it sounds like we have broken our contract which I agreed with. I also made my position 100% that the account was now terminated.

 

Muppets

 

Pumpytums

[pumpytums]

Well looks like Santandur consider the account very much alive. How very strange as the legal owner confirmed it terminated, then demanded the full balance and finally discontinued. So if Sink did't have the right to terminate were they acting fraudulently. If they did have the right then the account is indeed terminated. Think is Santandur have confirmed that Sink did in fact have all right and duties as it was legally assigned.

 

Letter from Santandur

 

 

 

They have in fact not only broken the CCA 1974 but also their own T&C, breached the contract, harassed me, damaged my credit rating and failed to abide with the data protection act 1988 thus causing me damage.

 

The prompt action did in fact take them 11 months after I accepted their breach. I love Santandur DN sticky plasters they make everything right.

 

I not going to mention the DN they sent.

 

Muppets

 

Pumpytums

[bazaar]

so theyve terminated illegally and trying to ressurect, what a joke

[pumpytums]

I think I will let them terminate again before I send my nice letter.

 

Give them some more rope.

 

Pumpytums

[silverfox1961]

Hang on a minute. Santandur have admitted they sold a debt without a valid DN. To sell a debt means it has to have been terminated. They cannot then re-activate this account unless they have your permission.

I'd like to see them convince a judge that the actions they took were lawful.

[pumpytums]

Hiya Silver,

exactly the part that's most amusing is that they think by "promptly" repurchasing the debt then issuing a DN that everything is now OK. The point is that they did sell it in an absolute assignment if they ever deny this the Link would have committed fraud by demanding money by deception. The deception been that they owned the debt and entered litigation alone and the sums were due to them. The reason Link discontinued was due to financial consideration (their words) not that the debt had been incorrectly assigned or that no default notice was issued. Legally Link could have probably claimed the arrears hence why they discontinued.

 

They could have sold it if Link issued credit cards or it was just an equitable assignment but it wasn't it was absolute and Santandur considered it terminated.

 

I believe Santandur were withholding my DSAR on purpose to deny my the right to a defence. All very damning and I have every right to do them for damages.

 

So far we have

 

Harassment

Repudiation of Contract

Damage to Credit

Damages due to Failure to abide by the Data protection act.

Miss-sold PPI (that amazingly they are still applying)

Unfair charges

Costs due in previous discontinued litigation.

 

I really think they should let this one go their failure to issue a DN even goes against their own T&C.

 

As I said above I made the OC and Link more than aware that no DN was issued yet they kept up the alleged deception that everything was OK they even tried for a summary judgement which they failed at.

 

Pumpytums

[AndyOrch]

Hi Pumpy

 

Would appear that Santy are trying to rewrite the CCA974 see here :- Default Notice - Case law

 

 

Regards

 

Andy

[pumpytums]

Thanks Andy,

so basically if old Santy try it on the claim will be exactly the same as the one that was discontinued by Sink. Just with a different name in the top left. I did file a defence it was an embarrassed one but still a defence.

 

I wonder how many DN's they failed to send as an "oversight".

 

Pumpytums

[AndyOrch]

Absolutely talk about u turns and after the horse has bolted:lol:

[pumpytums]

I would post the offending document but it's too funny people could actually die or be badly injured.

 

Pumpytums

[emandcole]

Amazing - can these 'organisations' get anything right?!

 

I'd be very tempted to bring action over this - absolute waste of time and very stressful to boot.

[pumpytums]

Amazing - can these 'organisations' get anything right?!

 

I'd be very tempted to bring action over this - absolute waste of time and very stressful to boot.

 

 

Most definitely,

Just a thought under 38.7

 

Discontinuance and subsequent proceedings

 

38.7

 

A claimant who discontinues a claim needs the permission of the court to make another claim against the same defendant if –

(a) he discontinued the claim after the defendant filed a defence; and

 

(b) the other claim arises out of facts which are the same or substantially the same as those relating to the discontinued claim.

 

 

As the Claimant will be different but the facts will remain the same does CPR 38.7 actually apply?

because if it doesn't the OC could farm it out infinitum to any DCA willing to purchase and litigate.

 

Pumpytums

[emandcole]

I believe the focus here is the word 'defendant'. You could have the same claim recommenced over and over as you've stated, however the one common factor each time is that the defendant is the same.

 

So, I believe that the potential claimant needs the courts permission to commence action against the same defendant, especially given the fact that the case is likely to be no different and that the claim itself is materially the same as the one that a previous party discontinued on.

 

In essence a DCA would have to be very stupid to actually purchase a debt that has already gone through the courts and been subject to the previous claimants discontinuance, all the more so if the reason for the previous discontinuance was an incorrectly documented assignment (no deed of assignment and invalid notice of assignment etc) as the selling DCA would actually have no right to sell it to another DCA. Just not worth the bother.

[pumpytums]

Thanks Emandcole,

The name of the Claimant is immaterial their relationship to the account is exactly the same as are the facts as is the Defendant.

 

Pumpytums

[pumpytums]

Just a brief update no dreaded brown envelope to report.

 

A quick recap account was sold to Link, they demanded the balance etc issued proceedings discontinued once I requested a copy of the DN which never was issued.

 

A Default is placed on my CRF in Links name

 

Account is bought back by Santander who issue a laughable DN. I complain about their treatment they assure me that everything they have done is legal (right) they assure me the default was removed from my CRF which is a lie. Apparently the reason they have behaved in such a manner is mine for losing my high paid job and got a lower one.

 

Santander start resending statements and charging PPI.

 

Santander issue another DN this time it's actually correct (in form at least)

 

They terminate the PPI again for none payment (bear in mine no payment has been made

 

I start receiving calls all day from just after 8am right up-to 8.55pm.

 

I attempt to use their complaints procedure which is a complete joke.

 

I change my home number due to the stress it's causing myself and family. I also block their numbers on my mobile.

 

Viking Debt collections send their hello letter etc (Santanders inhouse monkeys)

 

Viking issue a letter saying that the account may be passed back to Santander Cards Ireland LTD who MAY issue proceedings which is news to me. Also I now apparently have a retailer account??

 

So in Santander land you can terminate PPI due to 3 months no payment which is in their T&C, sell an account ignoring the CCA 1974 and also the T&C of the the account. Issue proceedings with no legal right. Blacklist someone's CRF and lie about it. Blatantly lie on a claim form. Buy an account back with no NOA, start charging interest again and PPI then stop PPI after 3 months for none payment again. Harass people to the point of having to change their number and basically behave like a money lender of pre-1974.

 

You have to laugh though.

 

Pumpytums

[emandcole]

Hi, nice to read an update. I suppose Santy will carry on unchecked but ultimately the only way any of this will be resolved is with court intervention, theirs or yours. Might be worth a chat to some local solicitors on a pro bono basis for damages maybe?

 

You have enough to throw at Santy, I think if a well constructed claim were commenced against them Santy might well remove the blinkers and start engaging with you properly. Failing that I'd package the whole sorry mess up and politely demand that the OFT/FSA get involved as you are being ignored and pushed about by a very large institution who have clearly lost the plot!

[pumpytums]

Hi Cole,

just drafting up a nice letter to viking. In my opinion if a company goes to court in full knowledge that they cannot are not allowed to claim all monies outstanding are they not committing deception which of course leads to attempted fraud? The company (who we love of course) then discontinues because of economic viability doesn't really excuse them does it. If they say for example a default was issued and it clearly was not and they know this is this classed as misleading the court? If they were told a DN was issued by the OC is the OC then committing deception as they know full well one never existed not simply lost or misplaced or in the correct form?

 

Their claim was clearly based on certain facts they then attempted to get summary judgement and hence realised their hand was caught in the cookie jar. The company in question cannot plead ignorance as I sent them prior to action a recorded letter outlining my concerns and confusion.

 

You are right I would be very tempted to take them to court the DPA failure alone would be worth pursuing.

 

In my opinion both the DCA and OC should be bought to bare the DCA would blame the OC I'm sure of it but does that excuse their actions?

 

Out of interest the CRF entry by numpties is still active and present. The OC has now changed their entry from settled to in arrears. The OC informed me in writing the negative entry was removed, give them some more rope springs to mind I may wait until the OC lodges a default in their name before I act.

 

Pumpytums

[emandcole]

Unfortunately you're caught up in the reality of modern day debt collection practices - we all know it's riddled, they know it, you know it, the court knows it, the government knows it, the regulators know it, heck, Elvis Presley on his 'secret' island with Shergar and Michael Jackson know it but who'll do anytihng about it? No one. That's what sucks, nothing changes and this kind of practice goes on day after day, the weakest and least well prepared often taking the brunt of it all when they cannot defend properly.

 

All comes down to the banking and finance influence on the government, eg it is them who dictate what actually happens rather than the government who pretend or at least like to think they're the ones in charge. One reason I don't believe for a second that we live in a democratic country, I mean would the taxpayers collectively if asked been happy to use their hard earned cash to prop up the gambling dens that pose as respectable banks? Another argument of course but the sad reality is you're unlikely to get much joy unless you're prepared to risk life, limb and wallet to get the blind and/or ignorant duffers at the top to wake up.

[pumpytums]

Well I wrote a nice letter to Viking, who passed it on to Satans bank after 2 month's I'm not joking over 8 weeks.

 

I'm now getting nice letters from Lewis Debt Recovery the latest from Our old friends Howard Cohen entitled "notice of Pending Legal Action" bring it on I say.

 

Satan have sent a DN after the account was terminated and the new owner Sunk attempted enforcement via the county court. They also applied for a summary judgement. This was before any DN was ever issued they have admitted that this was an oversight in a letter. The OC and the DCA were fully aware that no DN was issued prior to the original case as I asked why I had not received one.

 

Luckily claim will still be under the magic £5k so lets see what the postman brings.

 

Pumpytums

[pumpytums]

Well I had another letter from Satan, this has taken them 2 months basically consists of 2 paragraphs of bobbins the rest is standard flannel. This is word for word the relevant bits.

 

"Whilst I appreciate your concerns regarding the above account I can confirm in ###### 2010 we made the decision to not take our case to Court."

 

"In making this decision to withdraw from County Court action it gave you the opportunity to make payments to clear the balance"

 

Explain the second paragraph it contradicts the first makes no sense which is pretty much Satan's' MO.

 

So basically they decided that I would be allowed to continue to make payments but for the privilege of doing so they would reinstate their side of the agreement charge me interest, charges and PPI. Sounds like a deal. Oddly I have never agreed to any such reinstatement neither have I ever mentioned the dreaded UR phrase.

 

So if they had taken me to court(and won) at the time technically I would be better off as the balance was lower. do-nuts. Come back Link all is forgiven.

 

 

Pumpytums

[TheFonz1]

Hi Pumpytums

A very intriguing thread one I'm reading with much interest as Drydens Lawyers are allegedly going to issue proceedings in Northampton Bulk County Court. Although a little nervous having read your informative thread I feel a little easier should the above occur.

 

Please keep us updated well done so far and thank you for sharing your experiences.