Egg finance taken over by Cabot and trying to get CCJ

[poundster]

Thats a pity.

 

The thread that DB posted should explain the differences between CPR 31.14 and CPR18 and their uses, I'm afraid its just something that has to be known to work the system.

 

S.

 

The_Shadow, Thank you for taking the time to add to this thread. I am just a little, actually allot, concerned that i may make things worse than they need to be. Reading in a separate thread of 4 figure legal bills being submitted by Morons after challenge i found a little disconcerting.

 

I had a very tight window of opportunity to get both documents off correctly and seem to have failed on both. I took templates from other threads in the hope it would be correct.

 

Having looked at post #39 and 47 IYO do u think i have caused more damage to my case than helped?

Edited December 22, 2010 by poundster

[spamheed]

They always tend to advise the defendant that their costs will be an unreasonably high figure even when they have no chance of being anywhere near that figure, this is a tactic they use to influence your decision making in the hope you will become scared and settle

[the_shadow]

The_Shadow, Thank you for taking the time to add to this thread. I am just a little, actually allot, concerned that i may make things worse than they need to be. Reading in a separate thread of 4 figure legal bills being submitted by Morons after challenge i found a little disconcerting.

 

I had a very tight window of opportunity to get both documents off correctly and seem to have failed on both. I took templates from other threads in the hope it would be correct.

 

Having looked at post #39 and 47 IYO do u think i have caused more damage to my case than helped?

 

Ok, I'm going to be blunt here... IMHO Neither of those documents would suffice as CPR 31.14 or CPR18 letters....and as such you may not get a response and certainly I dont think you can apply to court on the back of those letters for any disclosure orders.

 

I'm not sure which thread you took them from but I'm afraid as each case is different, letters and advice are tailored to that particular case.

 

NEITHER letter requires the sending of money, it is your right to use the CPR to enable you to defend a claim properly. The CPR 31.14 letter could only have asked for the assignment document as its mentioned, the loan agreement is suggested but not mentioned so IMO what should have happened is a CPR18 letter FIRST, straight after sending you need to phone the opposing solicitor and advise them of the incoming request and gain agreement on extending time to issue a defence, get this in writing and then advise the courts. The CPR18 letter should have stated clearly it was being sent under the CPR 18 and have a question such as:-

 

1. The Particulars of this claim state the debt is owed under a loan agreement, is this agreement a consumer credit act agreement regulated under the CCA1974 act?

 

Once they respond saying it is then you write the CPR 31.14 letter stating that in an afadavit signed by the claimant on xx/xx/xxxx it was confirmed that this loan was in actual fact a consumer credit agreement and as such you require a copy of said document.

 

Your best bet now may be to file a kind of embarressed defence just clearly stating the facts... something which contains a paragraph perhaps like:-

 

Not knowing exactly what was being claimed for or the amounts sought I sent letters to the claimants solicitor under CPR 31.14 and CPR18 attempting to find more details of the claim so I could understand the claim properly, I now realise these letters may have not been formulated correctly, however as a litigant in person I am at a severe disadvantage in comparrison to the claimant and would have expected the claimants solciitors to respond clearly knowing this.

 

As to costs, yes as Spamheed says, I think its covered on the first day of the debt collecting solicitors training course, how to intimidate people by seeking large costs.

 

S.

[Guest]

As with everything with Cabot, they need to be made to disclose in full, without disclosure how can onyone possibly defend anything, or indeed decide whether they are entitled to "claim" for anything including interest

agreed!

 

..Should just hold up hands and get court to set affordable payments even when i don't believe they have followed the laws of this country.

 

 

poundster

as shadow suggests, maybe don't concede just yet!? you have a bit of time, and a 'stay of proceedings' is always an option once Allocation.

depending on your circumstances, have you considered legal representation if appropriate?

imo.

Edited December 24, 2010 by Ford

[Guest]

for reference re pleading interest correctly:

 

CPR Part 16.4 (2) states;

 

(2) If the claimant is seeking interest he must –

(a) state whether he is doing so –

(i) under the terms of a contract;

(ii) under an enactment and if so which; or

(iii) on some other basis and if so what that basis is; and

(b) if the claim is for a specified amount of money, state –

(i) the percentage rate at which interest is claimed;

(ii) the date from which it is claimed;

(iii) the date to which it is calculated, which must not be later than the date on which the claim form is issued;

(iv) the total amount of interest claimed to the date of calculation; and

(v) the daily rate at which interest accrues after that date.

 

Practice Direction 16 (3.7)

3.7

Attention is drawn to the provisions of rule 16.4(2) in respect of a claim for interest.

 

justice.gov.uk

[poundster]

If anyone can help I have an update and requirement for assistance.

 

The court has sent my defence letter (embarrassed defence due to lack of response from Morons to CPR requests) to the claimant and awaits their direction. They have the usual 28 days it would appear to respond.

 

Morons finally responded to my CPR 31.14 on the 7th Jan having been set a deadline of the 30th December. I want to put a copy of the letter as an attachment on here but not sure how to??

 

I also have a response to my CPR 18 saying they have recieved it and are compiling a response to it.

 

In short what do i do now?? Can i apply for a strike as they failed to respond within the stipulated time frames?

[spamheed]

To be honest these firms seem to get away with murder when it comes to non compliance with orders and breaching CPRs, there is always time to second guess yourself and wonder if you should or shouldn't have done something differently.

 

You should shortly receive the allocation questionnaire and when completing this you have the option to seek an order for disclosure of any documents they will rely on in court.

[poundster]

Thank you Spamheed, how do I put up the documents no here I have received so people are able to advise appropriately?

[spamheed]

start scanning the documents, remove anything that can identify you and then I would suggest you open a photobucket account here and upload the images

[Guest]

........... I want to put a copy of the letter as an attachment on here but not sure how to??

 

.....?

 

one option - could scan it, as a pdf file for eg (or convert into pdf), then attach the pdf using the attachments option?

[toymaker1]

I received a claim form from Northampton CCBC on Friday 17th Dec..... and the notice states:......

Despite demand for payment, 14168.18 remains due. The claimant claims £14458.18.

 

Are they claiming 14168.18 or 14458.8? - which is it, it cant be both amounts, it must be one or the other.

Also, by the way, is that 14168.18 dollars or euros or pounds - it doesn't say does it?

[poundster]

Thank you Toymaker1 for your input. It appears there is a typo as the figures quoted are a direct extract from the court papers. Not sure I can get it thrown out on a technicality for that? There is no monetary symbol so will equally have to throw the question out to the forum if that is a reason for striking the claim?

[toymaker1]

Thank you Toymaker1 for your input. It appears there is a typo as the figures quoted are a direct extract from the court papers. Not sure I can get it thrown out on a technicality for that? There is no monetary symbol so will equally have to throw the question out to the forum if that is a reason for striking the claim?

 

I am not a lawyer, but I dont think the court will accept an incorrectly claimed amount in the POC as "a typo".

Also, it looks as if the claimant has included his costs in the amount claimed. That is not permitted. - that also will not be accepted by the court.

Also re interest they claim, look at post 55, and rule 16.4 in CPR.

[nicklea]

Thank you Toymaker1 for your input. It appears there is a typo as the figures quoted are a direct extract from the court papers. Not sure I can get it thrown out on a technicality for that? There is no monetary symbol so will equally have to throw the question out to the forum if that is a reason for striking the claim?

 

Despite what toymaker says this won't make any difference

[toymaker1]

Despite what toymaker says this won't make any difference

 

Poundster,

 

nicklea appears to be a lawyer, so I would go with his/her opinion rather than mine.

As he/she clearly has knowledge of these matters. I imagine he/she is correct to say that it wont make any difference - ie. the judge wll just ignore the Civil Procedure Rules.

As a layman, who cannot afford a lawyer, I look up the Rules, and naively presume that the judge will act in accordance with what the Rules say. From what nicklea say's, that is clearly the wrong thing to do.

 

for example, I have been naively believing that there is some legal force in CPR 2.1, which states that CPR applies to all proceedings in county courts.

Consequently I have been believing that under CPR 2.3(1), a statement of value contained in a county court claim form is to be interpreted in accordance with rule 16.3, which states that the claimant must , in the claim form, state - the amount of money claimed.

As a lawyer, nicklea clearly knows that the judge will just ignore CPR16.3, and accept that the POC contains a typo, and that he will accept whichever of the two figures the claimant says is correct.

And of course, the judge will obviously just ignore the fact that the clamaint has added the court's costs and his own legal costs to the amount claimed in the POC, and the judge will ignore CPR 16.3(6) which states that the claimant must disregard any possibility that the court may make an award of costs.

I rather foolishly understood that to mean that the claimant should not include his costs in the amount claimed.

And of course, the judge will just ignore Rule 16.4 regarding interest claimed by the claimant, even though the word "must" appears several times in 16.4.

- I took that to mean the claimant was obliged to do it.

[AndyOrch]

"Consequently I have been believing that under CPR 2.3(1), a statement of value contained in a county court claim form is to be interpreted in accordance with rule 16.3, which states that the claimant must , in the claim form, state - the amount of money claimed".

Absolutely correct Toy and with a decent DJ this will follow, although some will allow an adjustment.But if the claimants costs are dissolved into the debt amount then that is a no no and the Claimant must correct before the case can commence.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[nicklea]

Thank you Toymaker1 for your input. It appears there is a typo as the figures quoted are a direct extract from the court papers. Not sure I can get it thrown out on a technicality for that? There is no monetary symbol so will equally have to throw the question out to the forum if that is a reason for striking the claim?

 

toymaker, once again you only bother to read half of what is written.

 

poundstar was asking if this is reason for striking out a claim and I really would suggest that s/he does not try to do this based on a very small technicality. At best, as andyorch says above, the claimant will merely need to correct this.

 

So if poundstar goes ahead and applies for a strike out based on your advice how is that going to help him?

 

At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter what amount a claimant makes a claim for, they have to prove that the amount claimed is actually lawfully owing. Now with a loan it will almost always be an incorrect amount anyway as it often includes a sum for future interest not yet accrued depending on when the loan was taken out and it's end date.

 

Once again, with the interest that is no reason to ask for a claim to be struck out, I would suggest that you really should not suggest to poundstar that he go ahead and ask for a strike out based on that - or did you not bother to read what poundstar actually asked. Egg have always had default and post judgemnet interest clauses in their agreements so it is not possible for them to claim statutory interest as well. However, this is a point for the defence, not I would suggest, to go on the offensive and ask for a strike out.

 

poundstar has three lines of defence

 

1 is the agreement enforceable

2 is the amount claimed lawfully owing

3 has there been a legal assignment

 

Finally, you know quite well that I am not a lawyer but as I said on your own thread I have been successful in a number of county court cases. Obviously I have never been to the High Court like you where you say that you managed to both win and lose the case at the same time - not too sure how you managed to do that.

[toymaker1]

toymaker, once again you only bother to read half of what is written.

 

poundstar was asking if this is reason for striking out a claim and I really would suggest that s/he does not try to do this based on a very small technicality. At best, as andyorch says above, the claimant will merely need to correct this.

 

So if poundstar goes ahead and applies for a strike out based on your advice how is that going to help him?

 

At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter what amount a claimant makes a claim for, they have to prove that the amount claimed is actually lawfully owing. Now with a loan it will almost always be an incorrect amount anyway as it often includes a sum for future interest not yet accrued depending on when the loan was taken out and it's end date.

 

Once again, with the interest that is no reason to ask for a claim to be struck out, I would suggest that you really should not suggest to poundstar that he go ahead and ask for a strike out based on that - or did you not bother to read what poundstar actually asked. Egg have always had default and post judgemnet interest clauses in their agreements so it is not possible for them to claim statutory interest as well. However, this is a point for the defence, not I would suggest, to go on the offensive and ask for a strike out.

 

poundstar has three lines of defence

 

1 is the agreement enforceable

2 is the amount claimed lawfully owing

3 has there been a legal assignment

 

Finally, you know quite well that I am not a lawyer but as I said on your own thread I have been successful in a number of county court cases. Obviously I have never been to the High Court like you where you say that you managed to both win and lose the case at the same time - not too sure how you managed to do that.

 

I did not advise poundster to apply to get the claim struck out. Poundster asked for an opinion from someone in the forum qualified to know if he had grounds for getting the claim struck out. - I have no idea if he had grounds for getting it struck out, so I did not comment on that aspect of his post. I simply pointed how badly worded was the POC, to the extent that it did not comply with the requirements set out in CPR.

I thought he might find it useful to consider the points I made. -but, as I said, if you read my posts, you will see that I have not made any comment as to whether poundster has sufficent grounds for getting the claim struck out. - at the very lease poundster should be able to put the claimant on the defensive, and on the back foot, regarding the points I raised about the POC.

[basa48]

OK guys this isn't helping poundster who is obviously already very nervous about this situation. If he sees two reasonably experienced Caggers arguing the toss he is going to get even colder feet.

 

As I see it the incorrect claim amount may not be a deal breaker. Just a point to be made to make the claimants look less than competent.

 

The lack of an agreement however is a very different matter and the one we should be concentrating on.

[DonkeyB]

If the claim form has inaccuracies, pretty much any judge would (sadly) allow the claimant to simply amend the claim form. I have seen this occur on more than one occasion. I have even known a judge allow the claimant’s name to be changed at a hearing (just ask Broken Arrow... but he won in the end).

 

These things are, in practicality if not in law, de minimis issues. A proper defence needs to highlight some serious flaws in agreements, or lack of an agreement, or issues with assignment and ownership. Verbal handbags on the semantics may not help, but hard facts will.

[nicklea]

IVerbal handbags on the semantics may not help, but hard facts will.

 

:lol: That's a great phrase - I've got to remember that one to use in future

[DonkeyB]

I do have verbal diarrhoea...

 

... just wanted to impart a bit of what I’ve learned from real-life cases from real Caggers. Judges tend to give claimants massive leeway. It’s wrong, but it’s a fact.

 

However, once it gets past the PoC/claim stage and they issue a witness statement, repeating the same errors could then be fatal, as the detail would be greater and accompanied once again by a statement of truth.That’s a different question, though.

[toymaker1]

Hi all,

 

 

I received a claim form from Northampton CCBC on Friday 17th Dec. Any ideas on the best use of my time i have left to do anything worth while or bite the bullet and try and defend in local court when it is transferred? The debt is for £14'168 and the notice states:

 

Despite demand for payment, 14168.18 remains due. The claimant claims £14458.18 and interest under s.69 county courts Act 1984 and costs.

 

Under S 2(3) of The County Courts (Interest on Judgement Debts) Order 1991 interest shall not be payable in proceedings to recover money due under an agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

[Guest]

just to clarify re statutory interest!

the 91 Order relates to statutory interest accrued from the date of judgement (s74 cca) (not allowed re a regulated debt). s69 relates to statutory interest accrued from cause up to the date of judgement (or payment, if before). statutory interest claimed under s69 is claimable re regulated debts (subject to s69(4)). tis then up to the J whether to award or not in the circumstances.

para 6 of this HL judgement (post #22 here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?276445-Dca-adding-8-statutory-interest-to-old-ccj-anyone-know-the-law-on-this-please/page2) sums things up.

[toymaker1]

just to clarify re statutory interest!

the 91 Order relates to statutory interest accrued from the date of judgement (s74 cca) (not allowed re a regulated debt). s69 relates to statutory interest accrued from cause up to the date of judgement (or payment, if before).

 

Where in the 1991 Order does it say that it only applies to interest accrued from the date of judgement?

It just says that interest shall not be payable - no reference as to wether it is interest before, or upto, or after judgement. Just "interest".