CapQuest SD from the ficticious Barry Davies - WON WITH COSTS

[robcag]

Hi Zozz

 

You Did The Right Thing

 

Now Repeat Tomorow

 

Its Rule 6.2 Of The Insolvency Act

If You Cant Speak To Barry Davis ON REQUEST, It Invalidates The Stat Demand:D

 

the famouse barry davis (ghost)

 

right you need to phone crappyquest tomorow and ask to speak to him

 

you will not get put through and have some cretin with no hair on the nether regions threatning to hang draw and quarter if you dont sell your soul

 

just say you are getting the sd set asside and then hang up

 

dont get into any conversation with these muppetts

 

let me know what happens and we then move up a gear

 

its a set and tried routine so just enjoy the ride

 

Well well, would you believe it, I've just had a call from the elusive Barry Davies (allegedly) !

 

Following postggjs advice I tried the phonecall business. First time I didn't give any details, but then called back about an hour later and identified myself.

 

First time I was told BD wasn't available to which I replied; " strange how he is never available", and hung up.

 

Second time, after identifing myself, I was told he was in a meeting. I said I didn't believe he existed and the person speaking said he would get BD to call me, which I told him not to do. I told him to make a note that I was intending to apply to setaside the SD and claim full costs.

 

Anyway, long story shortish, BD then called unexpectedly about 45 mins later. I told BD that he shouldn't be issuing a SD to me when I've never been provided with a copy of a properly executed agreement (first requested from CrapOne around the time Cr@pQuest allegedly took it over).

 

He said something along the lines of "We have an agreement here that you made with Capital One for a credit card, and it was used by you."

 

He kept asking me if I disputed the debt to which I kept telling him I did. He asked if I ever had a credit card from CrapOne in some disillusioned attempt to get me to admit the debt (which I was very careful in answering), then he even tried to get me to agree that he should ring the police if I thought some fraud had taken place!

 

I kept coming back to the point that at this stage the reason I disputed the debt was because I had not received a copy of my agreement in accordance with s78 CCA1974.

 

The result of the conversation was that he is going withdraw the SD (and confirm in writing), to send me a copy of my agreement (easily obtained from CrapOne says he ), and we would take it from there.

 

I pointed out that the agreement would need to be fully legible and contain all the prescribed terms in order to be properly executed and therefore enforceable, to which he replied that he knew the requirements.

 

I then said that in that case, perhaps he should take responsibility for checking my agreement personally, and if it fell short of the requirements he should admit so, and cease action .

 

I told him that if I didn't receive his letter of withdrawal of the SD within 2 days, I would be going ahead with my setaside application of the SD.

 

He said that once I receive the agreement he then expected me to enter some dialogue about repayment, failing which I should expect another SD.

 

I told him that the courts took a dim view of creditors using insolvency in an attempt to enforce a debt rather than court action, and he then seemed to agree that they would take court action if I failed to respond. Of course I reminded him that it all depended on the validity of the alleged agreement, and we would have to wait and see!

 

Cheers

Rob

[postggj]

Hi Rob

 

Typical Crap From Crappyquest

 

Do You Realy Think That Was Barry Davis Who Phones You Back

 

You Need To Speak To Him when You Call

 

Carry On With The Set Asside, Get Some Costs And Crappyquest Will Never Be Able Again To Issue A Stat Demand

[robcag]

Hi postggj

 

Cheers

Rob

[postggj]

Dont Bother About The Letter Of Withdraw

 

You Need To End This Once And For All

 

I Can Post Up My Template For Godebt If Required

 

Just Ammend As Needed

[robcag]

Thanks for the kind offer postggj.

 

I'm busy doing my defence for another case ATM which has to be submitted online by the end of today, struggling to get it under the maximum 8000 characters.

 

I might get back to you in a couple of days though when I've finished doing a 'Disclosure by List' for yet another case which has to be done by 4:00pm this Thursday if the aforementioned letter doesn't materialise.

 

Cheers

Rob

[postggj]

Sorry if I'm hijacking the thread, but the letter I was promised yesterday by 'Barry Davies' arrived in todays post.

 

As stated, the dogs are being called off regarding the SD pending Cr@pQuest obtaining my 'agreement' from CrapOne.

 

I doubt if anyone wants me to post the letter up, but will do so if requested.

 

Oh, and as others probably expected, although the letter refers to yesterdays " ... conversation with our Mr Barry Davies ..." it was not signed by him

 

Cheers

Rob

 

 

continue with the set asside

[robcag]

 

Hi postggj

 

You'll probably be pleased to know I decided to follow your persuasive advice , and I finally got my SD setaside application filed at the court this afternoon (despite their letter of withdrawal).

 

So hopefully another point to notch up against Cr@pQuest, and another nail in their coffin.

 

Cheers

Rob

[postggj]

 

 

:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D

[robcag]

Hi postggj

 

You'll probably be pleased to know I decided to follow your persuasive advice , and I finally got my SD setaside application filed at the court this afternoon (despite their letter of withdrawal).

 

So hopefully another point to notch up against Cr@pQuest, and another nail in their coffin.

 

Cheers

Rob

 

:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D

 

Hi postggj

 

Apologies to zozz for continuing to hijack this thread, but I just thought I'd let you know that I just received a hearing date for my SD setaside against Cr@pQuest.

 

It's set for 22nd July so I've just got to remember not to forget! (and to get a schedule of costs filed and served at least 24 hrs. beforehand).

 

Hopefully another donation to CAG will then be possible.

 

Cheers

Rob

Edited June 19, 2010 by robcag
typo

[robcag]

Hi All

 

Well I went to court today to see off my own Cr@pQuest SD which I've mentioned on one or two other relevant threads.

 

The hearing was at 12:30pm (in another town, so travelling time involved), but would you believe it, the doorbell rang at about 10:45am and there stood the postman with a 'Special Delivery Ambush' from Cr@pQuest!

 

I'm guessing there was a sudden panic in their office yesterday because I'd faxed them my detailed Schedule of Costs, at about 12:15pm (just outside the 24hrs limit ) but on which I'd added a statement to the judge requesting him/her to consider awarding costs on an indemnity basis (already mentioned on my affidavit), alternatively to award my detailed costs.

 

The thrust of the ambush was definitely aimed solely at reducing CQs costs. There was a witless statement enclosed which I can say definitely contained several porkies and inaccuracies, and the Judge picked one of these up himself although I'd noticed it even though I only had about half an hour to partially read the stuff. The witless statement was full of arguments refuting my own points on the affidavit. It also stated that they had already withdrawn the SD and that it should be considered a nullity, as per my phone call of 1 July 2010 (their info, I've not checked the date) with Barry Davies - allegedly .

 

Also in the envelope was loads of stuff which you'd normally get from CCA and SAR requests, such as a purported agreement, representation of a DN, loads of statements. Their reason for enclosing this stuff was to try and show that the claims I'd made on my affidavit refuting the enforceability of the debt, no DN issued, no lawful assignment etc. were untrue, and there was no lawful reason to set aside the SD. This was their attempt to reduce costs.

 

In their covering letter they asked to be excused from attending as they didn't feel they could be of any further assistance to the court in this matter.

 

 

Well the first thing I tried to say to the Judge was that I'd just received this large envelope just before I left the house (holding it up in the air), but he was already on the case and interrupted me, saying he'd received 'late submissions' himself by fax the previous day which he had no intention of acting upon. He had obviously read through at least some of it though because he mentioned an inaccuracy in the witless statement when it referred to something in my affidavit.

 

Anyway, after dismissing the contents of the 'late submissions' he immediately explained that because CQ had withdrawn their SD I had won by way of consent.

 

He then went on to the issue of costs, explaining that as a LiP I was entitled to some costs. "Damn" (or words to that effect ) I thought to myself "he hasn't received my Schedule of Costs" (not unheard of), so I chirped up that I had sent my SoC to the court by fax on the 20th and confirmed with the court staff that it would be added to the file, and would he like a copy.

 

He rummaged through his file and found the SoC, but obviously he hadn't read my application for costs to be awarded on an indemnity basis which mentioned the public OFT warning given to 1st Credit (of which I taken some copies along). He glanced at the first page, seemed to ignore it (he definitely didn't read it) and then went on to my detailed schedule.

 

He then started slashing the hours I had claimed for various things until he had got it down to under half of what I had started with before moving on to my 'disbursements' which he also cut slightly by not allowing the amount I had put down for telephone charges .

 

I had started lightly protesting at some of the cuts as he made them, but then decided I'd better not upset him as he might become more slash-happy! With that in mind I did not try to interupt him to press the point of costs on the indemnity basis.

 

The final figure he arrived at was slightly over £150 (I can't remember exactly) which seemed to be £90 something for the time element, and £56 for the remainder of the disbursements (including stationary-printing, mileage, and parking charges).

 

He added the time for the hearing on to the final amount (which I'd indicated and left a space for ;-)), saying that as he'd kept me waiting slightly before I entered the room he'd allow 15 minutes! How very generous of him .

 

So as you can see from the previous paragraph, the whole thing only took about 10 minutes (maybe less).

 

He wrote an order that CQ have to pay by 12 August 2010 (saying that he was allowing a week for court backlog/delays for the order to be produced).

 

So when I get the cheque banked and cleared I'll be able to make another donation to CAG .

 

Cheers

Rob

Edited July 22, 2010 by robcag
punctuation

[fuzzybobble]

Congrats. Shame the judge didn't go with more costs though. That's the way the cookie crumbles though. But you won, made a few quid out of it, and Crapquesty go away with their tail between their legs once again.

 

That's the real win. Get a DCA in a court and make them pay you something for doing so. :D:D

[Halibutt]

Congratulations Rob. A win's a win. And £150 is better than nowt!

[miss muppet]

Well done Rob, loved the bit about the witless statement:lol:

[dx100uk]

;)nice one

 

dx

[UnmoderatetheNet]

My heart warms to stories like this.

 

Solicitors fees

 

Court fees

 

Profit Nil

 

Capquest must be feeling it.

 

I reckon we are going to see more and more stories like this, what do our guests think:cool:

[robcag]

Shame the judge didn't go with more costs though.

 

 

Yes, I agree FB. But thinking about it after the event, I think he was probably whittling it down to about the same as a solicitor would charge for 1 hours work, which if true is clearly wrong.

 

 

 

And in case you're reading this Cr@pQuest, or should that be when you read this, just one of the porkies in your witless statement was the accusation that I had downloaded my affidavit from the Internet because you are familiar with it " ... because I have seen many letters and applications in similar terms ... ". I hope the "many" you refer to is many more than we have actually heard about on CAG.

 

That was clearly untrue because my affidavit ran to 1.5 pages of point 9 text (to get more info within the available space on the form), and was personal to my particular case. The only familiarity was the inclusion at the end of the small quote of caselaw to support indemnity costs being awarded, and you were obviously rattled by that!

 

Neither was it " ... prepared by anonymous and un-licensed debt advisors." But it's good to know that CAG (and possibly other sites) are a thorn in your side.

 

And to counter your point of " ... the facts do not accord with the respondents records." is quite simple; The respondents records are inaccurate.

 

Cheers

Rob

[robcag]

 

 

I reckon we are going to see more and more stories like this, what do our guests think:cool:

 

Hopefully some of the 'guests' are actually people who are obtaining information to use against companies like Cr@pQuest, but for one reason or another haven't registered, or perhaps have simply not signed in.

 

However, if they haven't registered, why not do so. It's free, although voluntary donations are welcome as the site needs funds to keep going, and you will be made welcome if you are genuinely seeking help.

 

Cheers

Rob

[Seminole]

Yes, I agree FB. But thinking about it after the event, I think he was probably whittling it down to about the same as a solicitor would charge for 1 hours work, which if true is clearly wrong.

 

 

 

And in case you're reading this Cr@pQuest, or should that be when you read this, just one of the porkies in your witless statement was the accusation that I had downloaded my affidavit from the Internet because you are familiar with it " ... because I have seen many letters and applications in similar terms ... ". I hope the "many" you refer to is many more than we have actually heard about on CAG.

 

That was clearly untrue because my affidavit ran to 1.5 pages of point 9 text (to get more info within the available space on the form), and was personal to my particular case. The only familiarity was the inclusion at the end of the small quote of caselaw to support indemnity costs being awarded, and you were obviously rattled by that!

 

Neither was it " ... prepared by anonymous and un-licensed debt advisors." But it's good to know that CAG (and possibly other sites) are a thorn in your side.

 

And to counter your point of " ... the facts do not accord with the respondents records." is quite simple; The respondents records are inaccurate.

 

Cheers

Rob

 

Quite right and, in any event, why shouldn't people use templates that work? It's unreasonable to expect everyone to develop legal arguments from first principles. CQ's attitude perpetuates the myth that the legal system is some sort of ivory tower to which the plebs shouldn't have admission without the equivalent of a legal qualification.

 

The hypocrisy is also stunning. As someone who's had a lot of involvement with contract documents and complex loan agreements it's amazing how legal firms boiler plate essentially the same documents to numerous clients. But that's OK because they're legally qualified

[molly13]

Well done Rob.. Really pleased for you:)

Regards

Molly:)

[sillygirl1]

I love the bit about the templates from the internet, shows how low Capquest stoop to get what THEY want regardless of whether it is accurate and just.

 

Capquest themselves use templates from the internet.

 

I wonder why they focussed on the un-licenced bit, it is rather juvenile of them to do so as their own debt people do not have a recognised licence.... perhaps this is something that is going to be in future legislation....

[merlin100]

Nice one rob, a trip down the pub methinks?

[robcag]

Nice one rob, a trip down the pub methinks?

 

I think "Fish & Chips and a couple of beers .... £12.00" was one of the things the Judge didn't allow on my costs.

 

But I think I can stretch to that tonight maybe

 

Cheers

Rob

[jayne123]

best take the cost of chinese and a bottle of plonk off mine then !!!!

[robcag]

best take the cost of chinese and a bottle of plonk off mine then !!!!

 

I see you're a bit more 'up-market' than me, what with your 'case' for your documents as opposed to my Morrisons carrier bag, and your choice of celebratory fayre!

 

Cheers

Rob

[ScarletPimpernel]

And in case you're reading this Cr@pQuest, or should that be when you read this, just one of the porkies in your witless statement was the accusation that I had downloaded my affidavit from the Internet because you are familiar with it " ... because I have seen many letters and applications in similar terms ... ". I hope the "many" you refer to is many more than we have actually heard about on CAG.

 

 

 

It's difficult to see what their point is. They use template letters all the time; in fact, they rarely send anything else, which is one reason why it's so difficult to have any sort of meaningful correspondence with them.

 

Secondly, what if a document is prepared by 'anonymous and unlicenced advisors'? Are they suggesting that no-one should discuss matters with family, friends or work colleagues, then? More seriously, are they suggesting that the law is only for those who can afford solicitors? The law is for everyone, and it is everyone's right to be heard in court.

 

Maybe it's Capquest who need a professional legal advisor...