Help Cout date and CCJ with charging order!!!

[gh2008]

are the original Particulars of Claim anywhere on the thread.

 

This order requires you to answer them fully - if you don't then they will reinstate the judgement against you without a hearing.

 

Need the POC to be able to answer them

[gh2008]

POC are what they wrote on the N1 form - that's what you've been ordered to answer - but you can add the other bits as well

 

BUT the defence MUST answer the allegations put forward in the POC first

[gh2008]

Have a read on here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/224300-mandm-egg-loan-mandm.html I think that thread has got just about everything you could need.

 

You are starting a quite serious and difficult fight - you need to be fully aware of the risks if you are not fully prepared for the case.

 

Have you considered worst case scenario?? - best?? - most likely??

[gh2008]

Let me topeka that for you

 

they've sold out - it used to be Google

 

stick it in Google and the first result is the one you want - (Compact Law)

 

May have something to do with the date .....

Edited April 1, 2010 by gh2008
lmgtfy.com sold out :(

[gh2008]

Strange how we believe a faulty DN will carry us through yet I read on here a couple of days ago that a Judge ruled that creditors do not need to have issued a DN to terminate an account?

 

They don't (as long as they are not terminating because of a breach by the debtor).

 

If they are terminating it because 'they feel like it' then they can only demand repayment of the arrears at that point they can then enforce payment of them (as long as they have kept up with their obligations under the CCA that is).

 

gh

[gh2008]

If they are withdrawing their claim then that's fine. BUT it would be nice to get the whole thing a little better 'tucked up'

 

You are not entitled to claim your wasted costs and in exchange for that you can get a bit more out of them.

Have a look here for a negotiated agreement.

 

I doubt you will get the CRA bit, but the rest and the wording should be useful

 

Well done

[gh2008]

What you want to avoid is a situation where they serve a good DN on you and then make a new claim.

 

Clearly that would be a DN served after termination but again you would have the hassle of a claim.

[gh2008]

Well, whatever happens, you have won this claim

 

IMHO your best result is that they trash your credit file for 6 yrs and then go away.

 

Much more likely, again IMHO is that they send you a compliant DN and then issue another claim against you saying that there is nothing in the CCA that says they terminated the account, if they did it was a mistake, and they have corrected the mistake and they issue another claim.

 

I am not saying they can lawfully do that, just they could do that - others have done .....

 

If you can get it wrapped up now, whilst they are on the back foot, then all the better.

 

The reason for teh letter is that in order for them not to get heavily hit by costs (see BOS -v- Mitchell) they are trying to seek your agreement for them to discontinue. As I said you are entitled to your costs and you can use that as a bargaining tool now to try and get a better deal.

 

But yes, go to the pub :D

[gh2008]

Ok, not trying to put a dampener on things (please I'm not) BUT IMHO this is the situation.

 

From the creditors POV

There is still a debt

You still owe it

they may try all sorts to get their money back

there is also an agreement where you agree to CRA processing

 

The thread I linked to before has a very good basis of an agreement for you - I would use it to try and get this deal sorted.

 

Here is a thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/237396-n150-assistance-needed-please-19.html where NGEddie has won (they discontinued) Eddie is now going for costs and low and behold a new Default Notice turns up with threats of court action ........ sound familiar ........

 

They are on the back foot at the moment and this is your best time to get a deal to put this to bed.

 

JMHO

[gh2008]

If they are withdrawing their claim then that's fine. BUT it would be nice to get the whole thing a little better 'tucked up'

 

You are not entitled to claim your wasted costs and in exchange for that you can get a bit more out of them.

Have a look here for a negotiated agreement.

 

I doubt you will get the CRA bit, but the rest and the wording should be useful

 

Well done

 

Ooooops should really have put the link in for you ....

 

here it is http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/242517-storecard-claim-served-what-10.html

[gh2008]

ok, the DJ will no way 'wipe the debt' as it does still remain, albeit unenforceable.

 

You *may* get some joy writing to the CRAs and trying to get them to remove the data, BUT if there is an agreement anywhere they will rely on that to keep processing for 6 yrs from default.

 

You CAN get your wasted costs though, see tha last few pages here for info http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/237396-n150-assistance-needed-please.html

 

Well done

[gh2008]

did you look at the thread in my post #207?

 

the poster there is claiming £1k ish as is another poster on another thread

 

£9.25/hr of *all* your time spent on teh case inc research etc + all out of pocket expenses

 

if they reject your claim it will cost *them* £300 to dispute it as well

[gh2008]

Start from about the 5th from last page - I think that's where the costs started - if you read the whole thread you will lose the will

[gh2008]

without comment from anyone else all I can say is that IMHO, they will laugh and throw it back at you.

 

Why do you think that the debt is discharged and that you don't owe the money any more?

 

They may not be able to enforce repayment, but it still remains, unless you can prove otherwise. (which will involve action similar to the Rankines')

[gh2008]

If I were playing Devil's Advocate (or an employee of the bank) I would say that they are entitled to sell the debt, however it is only that, a common-law debt permanently unenforceable.

 

Egg have just done *exactly* this to me - so it does happen

[gh2008]

don't bank on getting £1k in costs ..... everything has to go in your favour to get that BUT saying that it does happen. In BOS -v- Mitchell BOS discontinued at the last minute and were ordered to pay the defendants costs on an indemnity basis in excess of £15k

 

You've got nothing to lose with the CRAs and everything to gain, so it has got to be worth a go.

 

Have a hunt around for OFT guidance on reporting to CRAs - i'm sure I read somewhere that if they have tried & failed in Court then really they should not be reporting. Find that and it adds a powerful argument to you.

[gh2008]

Well, if I received a letter like that I would be reporting them to the OFT & Trading Standards.

 

The wording of the letter is considered unfair according to the OFT.

 

They are licensed by the OFT and have to abide by their rules.

 

Make a formal complaint to them - that is a *very* naughty letter

 

I'll pm some people to have a look - letter writing is not my strong point at all.

[gh2008]

Ok, here is teh CPR that shows what is needed byt a Letter Before Claim PRACTICE DIRECTION – PRE-ACTION CONDUCT - Ministry of Justice

 

You may notice that the letter does not quite fullfil the requirements.

 

They then say they "SHALL OBTAIN AND ENFORCE A COUNTY COURT JUDGEMENT AGAINST YOU"

They will will they - hmmm there are a few 1000 District Judges that may disagree that it is the Courts that decide. This is a VERY unfair and misleadin statement made by an company that hold a CC licence and must abide by the OFT's guidance.

 

They also state they will apply statutory interest to your account. Again this is wrong statutory (S69) interest is specifically excluded from CCA claims.

 

very naughty .....

[gh2008]

Because of the amount involved I would try and be more proactive rather than just sit back and let them trample you

[gh2008]

Thanks dd

 

There you are Worsteve - dd has produced a letter that should certainly ruffle a few feathers at Link - or at least alert them to the fact that you are not going to just 'roll over' for them

 

Can I just check that this was a CCA regulated account i.e. it was under £25k at inception?

 

(The letter is fine whether it was or it wasn't)

[gh2008]

IMHO they are not demanding the arrears, they have simply sent you a 'statement of arrears' as required by S86(a-c) or whatever it is.

 

But this does mean they are suggesting the account is still live.

 

IMHO you do need to write rejecting their statement as the account is terminated etc etc

[gh2008]

The County Courts (Interest on Judgment Debts) Order 1991 (No. 1184 (L. 12)) - Statute Law Database

 

Is the claimant seeking interest upon a part of the debt which already bears interest thats what you need to establish.

 

 

Andy

 

IMHO that is the wrong 'bit of Law' as that is concerned with interest on judgement debts i.e. after the trial and if you lose.

 

The bit (S69 interest) that applies up to the trial is this one http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1984/cukpga_19840028_en_6#pt3-pb9-l1g68

 

69 Power to award interest on debts and damages

(1)Subject to [F1rules of court], in proceedings (whenever instituted) before a county court for the recovery of a debt or damages there may be included in any sum for which judgment is given simple interest, at such rate as the court thinks fit or as may be prescribed, on all or any part of the debt or damages in respect of which judgment is given, or payment is made before judgment, for all or any part of the period between the date when the cause of action arose and—

(a)in the case of any sum paid before judgment, the date of the payment; and

(b)in the case of the sum for which judgment is given, the date of the judgment.

(2)In relation to a judgment given for damages for personal injuries or death which exceed £200 subsection (1) shall have effect—

(a)with the substitution of “shall be included” for “may be included”; and

(b)with the addition of “unless the court is satisfied that there are special reasons to the contrary” after “given”, where first occurring.

(3)Subject to [F1rules of court], where—

(a)there are proceedings (whenever instituted) before a county court for the recovery of a debt; and

(b)the defendant pays the whole debt to the plaintiff (otherwise than in pursuance of a judgment in the proceedings),

the defendant shall be liable to pay the plaintiff simple interest, at such rate as the court thinks fit or as may be prescribed, on all or any part of the debt for all or any part of the period between the date when the cause of action arose and the date of the payment.

(4)Interest in respect of a debt shall not be awarded under this section for a period during which, for whatever reason, interest on the debt already runs.

(5)Interest under this section may be calculated at different rates in respect of different periods.

(6)In this section “plaintiff” means the person seeking the debt or damages and “defendant” means the person from whom the plaintiff seeks the debt or damages and “personal injuries” includes any disease and any impairment of a person’s physical or mental condition.

(7)Nothing in this section affects the damages recoverable for the dishonour of a bill of exchange.

[F2(8)In determining whether the amount of any debt or damages exceeds that prescribed by or under any enactment, no account shall be taken of any interest payable by virtue of this section except where express provision to the contrary is made by or under that or any other enactment.]

Annotations:

Amendments (Textual)

F1

Words in s. 69 substituted (27.4.1997) by 1997 c. 12, s. 10, Sch. 2 para. 2(2); S.I. 1997/841, art. 3(b), 4©

F2

S. 69(8) substituted (1.7.1991) by Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (c. 41, SIF 37), s. 125(3), Sch. 18 para. 46; S.I. 1991/1364, art. 2, Sch.

 

Basically if the debt is still with the OC they need to show exactly when the account was terminated i.e. the contractual interest ceased.

 

If the debt is with a 5rd party them they will have to show that the assignment was absolute, that they are the creditor and the exact date they became the creditor.

[gh2008]

what's the date of the DN can't see it?

Have you got a copy of teh agreement? are those term(s) (that they allege you have broken) in the agreement?

[gh2008]

I hae found a company however that buys your debt off you. 10% + £250. If my egg card works with them, then I will just go to them. I don't mnd paying a little over my arrears to get them fettled.

 

I'm afraid they are a con.

 

AFAIK You have no right in law to 'sell' a debt. There is certainly no provision in teh CCA to allow for this.

 

The Rakines operated a business doing exactly that and they were jumped all over from a great height.

[gh2008]

If it were that easy then all of us would just be setting up Ltd Companies themselves, selling all their personal debts to the Ltd Co. and then that would be sorted.

 

The reason the banks can do it is that they are selling an asset. Big difference