Jump to content


stuscfc

Capquest new type of letter

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3628 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

My wife has been sent a letter by this lot today.

Basicaly in the first paragraph they said they are decided to take court action then they go on to say if they take action lol.The interesting bit is they are going to PART SUE as you do not issue for the full ammount but they are going for half the debt.They say they can do this as it will go on her credit file and keep the time ticking for 6 years.Also by doing this(wait for it) the cost to us as in fees wont be as great sso they are trying to keep the costs down for us lol.They then go on to say they are not looking for an immediate payment in full as they can offer varied repayment methods so LETS WORK TOGETHER lol.

So i didnt think that when you sue someone it went on there credit history as there is no credit involved when sueing someone or am i wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only if their claim is successful.

 

As for keeping the fees down this is Bryan Carter's excuse. In practice it means keeping his fees down because, although you will have the liability of paying them, you probably won't in practice and he will have to.


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

It is also unlawful. Report him to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replies.Im not that clued on law so in which way is it unlawful as i would have to point it out to the authorities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is in breach of the County Courts Act which states that claims cannot be divided.

 

There is a thesis (untested in the courts) that the Act is not breached until the second claim is made.

If this is true (and I'm personally taking this stance) then you can pay off the amount claimed in the first claim knowing that the claimant cannot claim for any more. In effect the claimant is letting you off the amount not claimed for in the first claim.

In your case this would be half of the debt. In my case I've been let off a much larger percentage.

  • Haha 1

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

i would say that the offence is committed at the outset- if the creditor is suing for part of the debt whilst in the full knowledge that he is not allowed to do so (IMO)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A claimant can claim for any amount at all - including any amount less than the total debt. There could be good and valid reasons for this. It is not until a second claim has been lodged that it is apparent that the claim has been divided.

A single/first claim for less than the total is therefore not in itself proof that the claim has been divided, and any challenge on that basis is unlikely to succeed. If you can convince a judge otherwise then you can choose to present your case on that basis. But I wouldn't.

  • Haha 1

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

yes i take you point

 

i was swayed by the fact that they have indicated in writing that they intend to part sue and the reasons that they gave (cost savings) would not be reason that would be acceptable to the court

 

given their "previous" for this sort of thing therefore i think that they would be on a very sticky wicket first off not to mention their particulars of claim which would have to detail how the sum claimed has been arrived at

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi so i should report this to the oft and ts then.Also she had a letter off hl legal today for a door step visit(they cant visit we have no door step) i know its a template letter.Only ever had one doorstep visit and that wasnt by this lot and she soon got rid of him and a right chav he was to lol.Part of that Moorcraft network.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its quiet funny realy i had dealings with this lot myself this time last year for a SB debt went all the way to a set a side hearing and they ended up paying me and then with great pleasure phoneing them and threatening a warrent of execution on them as they hadent payed up so i know about there hl legal letters.The debt does seam to keep rising by £ 10 a time with no explination of this.So is it that they are trying to get to the golden figure of 750 to issue a State Demand maybe who knows.Would be interesting to see them justefy to a court where these charges come from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course if you are a complete twit (hello brian) you split the claim and sue for £300 on a £4000 debt with the threat that they will sue 13 times to get the whole lot - muppet.

 

They can sue for what they want - less than the total but it's the one and only time they can!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is another aspect to this which I doubt anyone else has considered.

 

Normally your CCJs die after six years. If the creditor only claims for part, but then claims for another part when the six years is nearly up, then your credit record is trashed for 12 years, not six.

 

Naturally Mr Carter would never have thought of this. No, never at all...


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
There is another aspect to this which I doubt anyone else has considered.

 

Normally your CCJs die after six years. If the creditor only claims for part, but then claims for another part when the six years is nearly up, then your credit record is trashed for 12 years, not six.

 

Naturally Mr Carter would never have thought of this. No, never at all...

 

 

CPR rules do not allow a second claim on the same matter. So any second claim would be struck out if you defend it properly, even if the paperwork was enforceable. It is not possible in law to split a claim the way Mr carter et al try, unless of course the defendant does not know how to defend the 2nd claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been thinking that Carter's action for just a fraction of the alleged debt may not be for his costs but for the total amount he and his cronies have actually paid for the debt. £300 on a £3,000 account sounds about right for an old, undocumented, statute barred and otherwise unenforceable debt.

 

Challenging this muppet - Capquest, Carter or whoever - to come up with paperwork usually means he'll crawl back under a stone and leave you alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i hat bryan farter sue me for a cap one card he took me to court for £250 of a £1200 debt , it was great i paid the £250 plus court costs , then when he tried for the rest i used the already been sued for this debt defence and he dropped the claim instantly brilliant result

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Normally when Bryan issues the first claim he states this is for HIS costs and he acknowledges that he can/will claim later for the actual balance.

 

I say this as i have seen it on POC posted on this forum.


OFT debt collection guidance

 

Please remember the only stupid question is the one you dont ask so dont worry about asking the stupid questions.

 

Essex girl in pc world looking 4 curtains 4 her pc,the assistant says u dont need curtains 4 a computer!!Essex girl says,''HELLOOO!! i,ve got WINDOWS!!'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Normally when Bryan issues the first claim he states this is for HIS costs and he acknowledges that he can/will claim later for the actual balance.

 

I say this as i have seen it on POC posted on this forum.

 

 

as usual, bri is trying to create a loophole that does not exist

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...