Merry Christmas!! Look what just hit the mat!!

[Chaufferdude]

Presuming I submit my defence as originally planned can anyone tell me what happens next and rough timescale of events please? Dependent on response of creditor can I then make an offer of payment? Just throwing ideas around at the moment. Many thanks.

[the_shadow]

Presuming I submit my defence as originally planned can anyone tell me what happens next and rough timescale of events please? Dependent on response of creditor can I then make an offer of payment? Just throwing ideas around at the moment. Many thanks.

 

Apologies I got hit by a migraine last night and couldnt stand looking at the computer screen

 

Right... I think you've stated it came from northampton bulk court centre in which case if you file your defence online then next a copy will be sent to the claimant... if the claimant wishes to proceed with the case then they have to pay a fee..... next you'll both be sent Allocation Questionnaires to fill out and then once submitted the court decides on the hearing schedule and whether witness statements/skeleton arguments are needed before hand etc etc....

 

The AQ being sent will be quick once they indicate they wish to proceed so you can expect that in the next couple of weeks... the actual trial date will normally be much later on depending on the schedule of your local court as it will get moved as soon as you indicate you wish to defend.

 

HTH.

 

S.

[the_shadow]

Forgot to say... you can negotiate right up to the doors of the courtroom but obviously this will mean costs will be incurred up to that point.....

 

Right as to a defence...

 

The account number doesnt match your account numbers as obviously they have lumped the two together.. they shouldnt have done that as one is a regulated credit agreement which affords you more protection and the other is a bank overdraft.

 

To prove the loan debt is due and valid to collect they need to show:-

 

a) a loan agreement or a true copy OR pursuede the judge it existed

b) a default notice or evidence one was sent

c) Notice of assignment

 

To prove the bank overdraft is due and valid they need to show:-

 

a) an agreement letter or pursuede the jduge that it existed

b) a formal request for repayment

c) notice of assignment

 

I think these two accounts should have been kept seperate and I expect if you look at your credit file there are two default entries on there, not one! the trouble is the judge may look on it as actually being beneficial to YOU to have them lumped together as it saves on court costs and helps the overriding principle of saving the courts time and money also.

 

S.

[the_shadow]

..Also they dont need to prove anything or show anything until approx 7 days prior to court hearing... they DO have to indicate in the AQ what they are relying on as evidence and whether its the original/copy etc etc but not until then.

 

S.

[Chaufferdude]

Definitely rolled the two into one by Lloyds. Never signed anything with respect to new agreement. The two defaults on credit file were for total sum (about 15k at the time) giving the Lloyds personal account number in both cases! Should not have defaulted twice anyway?

[Chaufferdude]

Defence pointers so far for what its worth!!

 

1). CPR request - no statement of truth? Shaky?

2). Wrong account number in CPR response.

3). I had made some payments as can be seen but these were made under duress as not sure of my legal rights at the time and they were threatening bailiffs etc.

4). Defaulted twice on credit file for same debt which is breach of rules.

5). I have never signed any agreement with respect to this new amalgamated account that the claimant is pursuing.

6). Even back in Novemnber 2010 the claimant was offering 40% settlement figures. Why would they do this if they had the correct paperwork to enforce the debt?

[DonkeyB]

I dare say two defaults is an acknowledgement by them that there are two separate accounts. Screen grab that info.

[the_shadow]

Definitely rolled the two into one by Lloyds. Never signed anything with respect to new agreement. The two defaults on credit file were for total sum (about 15k at the time) giving the Lloyds personal account number in both cases! Should not have defaulted twice anyway?

 

Well thats inaccurate recording as both default should have been for correct amounts not a total of £30k in defaults

[Chaufferdude]

Yes now I know why I was having such trouble with getting another bank account. I had a few CCJs at the time but 30k of defaults would explain alot.

[Chaufferdude]

I have found another old credit report where the two debts are listed separately. This was in July 2007. Certainly on the other one it was listed as one debt with LLoyds TSB and then the same amount with 1st Credit making total of £30,000+. These have now both gone from file as of October 2010. Something funny going on there as 1st Credit were not involved until 2006!!

[DonkeyB]

1st Crud are entitled to take on the original default from the original date. But two defaults for the same debt isn't allowed. However, this is irrelevant to any defence.

[Chaufferdude]

Okay thanks. My other defence points listed, are they useable or not in real terms? Cheers

[Chaufferdude]

With respect to both debts I would certainly have signed an agreement originally in respect of the loan. I had the personal account from about 2000 I think. Would my initial agreement for opening the account constitute part of their case as I have never signed anything else.

 

One of the last letters I received from Lloyds TSB Recovery Department prior to 1st Credit dated 21st September 2006 gives the account number of the personal account prefixed with last four numbers of sort code. This specifies the whole balance of £15,267,45 being due under that one number which 1st Credit then use. The account number they have quoted in the CPR response is actually the reference number on this letter from Lloyds!!

[DonkeyB]

Have you asked specifically for information under CPR18 about how and why the accounts were merged?

 

To me, only point 5 is worth pursuing. I think the key is that you are being denied the protection of CCA 1974 as the accounts have been merged without your knowledge or agreement.

[DonkeyB]

This has some faint similarities to P Wilton...

[Chaufferdude]

I did ask how the original debt figure was calculated and disclose the documentation they were using to substantiate the amount. All I got back was the previously posted response with the wrong account number on it!! Didn't really tell me anything useful whatsoever but 1st Credit only gave me until today 4th Feb to submit defence.

[Chaufferdude]

P. Wilton? Previous case presumably?

[Chaufferdude]

Thanks for that. Looked up P Wilton in search and came across an interesting thread about merged accounts!! Looks like the overdraft is the problem in reality. 1st Credit didn't come up with any documents to substantiate when I asked under CPR18 so am going to go with the presumption that they do not have the proper paperwork. Can I still list my other defence points even though they may not hold too much water? Is it worth sending SAR to Lloyds ( should have done ages ago) just in case it helps even at this late stage?

[Chaufferdude]

Well I have filed defence online now! Took ages as didn't realise you have to 'save' draft regularly or it obviously times out!! Having worded up my first load of old guff it then wouldn't save so had to login again and lost the lot!! Few choice words were said at the time! Anyway all done now and have emailed JP Solicitors to tell them. Is it worth me sending SAR request to Lloyds now just to see what I get back?

 

Anyway many thanks to all concerned for all your help over past few weeks. Will let you know what happens next!! Regards.

[the_shadow]

Defence pointers so far for what its worth!!

 

1). CPR request - no statement of truth? Shaky? Think they'll get away with, see previous posting on that matter.

2). Wrong account number in CPR response. So long as they can show linkage and the fact you should know what its about, that should get them over that hurdle.

3). I had made some payments as can be seen but these were made under duress as not sure of my legal rights at the time and they were threatening bailiffs etc. The fact this would then take it out of the remit of court would probably stop the judge agreeing.

4). Defaulted twice on credit file for same debt which is breach of rules. A no-no as has already been stopped, I doubt you'll be able to show prejudice due to already having CCJ's I believe you stated.

5). I have never signed any agreement with respect to this new amalgamated account that the claimant is pursuing. Correct as per CCA1974 protection however dont loose sight of the fact that bulk of debt is overdraft and the protection is low on this (will post up something helpful in a mo)

6). Even back in Novemnber 2010 the claimant was offering 40% settlement figures. Why would they do this if they had the correct paperwork to enforce the debt? I'm afraid this is of no consequence.. fact is they mostly DO offer discounts and its up to them how much and when, when it gets to court they want to screw you for as much as they can get unfortunately

 

S.

[the_shadow]

Ok Overdrafts....

 

Not fully covered by the CCA1974 but they have some protection....

 

An overdraft is a debtor creditor agreement as defined under section 8 and 13 of the CCA and is running account credit as defined in section 10. This has high court case law - coutts vs sebastyn.

You need to see sight of the agreements to tell how strong there case will be imho. You have your CPR18 response which states there was a loan agreement, I would hit them with a CPR31.14 letter for that agreement NOW.

Right you've sent your defence in... is it just me or does the attachment open small for everyone? did you mention the fact you need to see sight of the documents to plead the defence properly?

S.

[Chaufferdude]

Hi again. Apologies for no update for little while but there was nothing to report. I did receive a letter from the court acknowledging receipt of the defence. It went on to say if no contact from claimant within 28 days of receipt of defence the claim would be stayed. Then heard nothing until today when received letter from LCS (headed paper - LCS but same address/contact details as 1st Credit). This letter encloses a notice of change of solicitor to LCS surprisingly enough!! Then goes on to say they have been provided with my Part 18 request? (previously had the rather vague reply from them already posted on here). Then tells me they have appplied to Lloyds for the historical documentation and will respond to the request as soon as they are able!! The defence was filed on 4th Feb so clock is ticking now!! Is this a good sign? Presumably if they decide to continue then they just need to inform the court in time? Do they need all the documents by then? Many thanks for all your help with this problem.

[alfwithhair]

Good old none existant LCS.

 

this was posted a while back

 

from the Solicitors Regulation Authority regarding LCS Solicitors it reads:

'' I can confirm that LCS Solicitors ceased to practice on 2nd. June 2010 as they have no more solicitors to work for them.

The only solicitor listed as having previously worked for them was Mr. David Davies who is now a former soliicitor.

R D. Marr ''Principal Solicitor'' is in the same category

The Serious Fraud Information Bureau has been informed as have the OFT.

[Chaufferdude]

Hi Alf. The notice of change of solicitor is signed by Colin Watts apparently on behalf of claimant. The description of office or position held - 'Paralegal with LCS solicitors'.

[Chaufferdude]

Presumably then this is a 'legal monkey' they have paid to sign the relevant paperwork to go before court? If as you say LCS no longer exists then that is very promising news!! Thanks all.