Brian Carter/Arrow Global county court Summons - old MBNA C/card

[Guest]

maybe leave a bit in about permission to amend (but not the bit about intending to apply for disclosure. ie in the blue brackets in my post above)

imo

Edited May 27, 2011 by Ford
typo

[eggy12]

The Defendant is unable to plead due to the Claimants failure to*

comply with its CPR 31.14 duties in disclosing requested documents

 

The Claimant has failed to agree to an extension of time given by*

the Defendant to file a defence due to the claimants non*

compliance to CPR 31.14 duties

 

The Defendant reserves the right to amend this defence

 

Claim Status

A claim was issued against you on 27/04/2011

Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 11/05/2011 at 20:18:22

Your acknowledgment of service was received on 12/05/2011

Your defence was submitted on 26/05/2011 at 22:18:07

[Guest]

Claim Status

A claim was issued against you on 27/04/2011

Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 11/05/2011 at 20:18:22

Your acknowledgment of service was received on 12/05/2011

Your defence was submitted on 26/05/2011 at 22:18:07

 

 

[eggy12]

right im off to bed Ford, thanks for your support on this so far you have been most excellent.

 

Eggy12

[citizenB]

Particulars of claim

 

The claimants claim is for the balance due under an agreement which is now all due and payable.

 

The defendant agreed to pay monthly instalments under account number ******* but has failed to do so.

 

And the claimant claims the sum of 5***.**

 

The claimant also claims interest thereon pursuant to S.69 county court act 1984 limited to one year to the date hereof at the rate of 8% per annum amounting to ***.**

 

Total amount 6***.**

 

Darn, it looks like you may have already submitted your defence now..

 

I see he fails to mention that the agreement is one that is covered by the CCA194 regulations and that he is also attempting to claim s69 interest, which after all these years of submitting crummy claims he should know he isnt entitled to.

[Guest]

citizenb

 

i think the holding def was done

 

re interest-

generally, s69 interest is claimable re a regulated agreement. it would then be up to the J whether to award or not in the circumstances.

s69 relates to statutory interest accrued from cause up to the date of J. (though it seems that it maybe becoming practice to only claim 'up to one year'? following recent case law no doubt!)

s74 (and the associated Cty Cts (Int on Judgements Debts) Order 1991) relates to interest accrued from the date of J. ie no post J statutory interest is allowed re a regulated debt (or any debt below 5k).

any interest must also be pleaded correctly (CPR 16.4 (2) for eg)

imo

Edited May 27, 2011 by Ford
typo

[citizenB]

[eggy12]

well they did send the letter agreeing to an extension of defence that was delivered to me today and also added " We will also be prepared to agree a general extension until 14 days after we have reverted to you with reasonable disclosure" !!!!

 

That sounds a bit odd

 

Eggy

[Guest]

so, the letter produced a result? that's good to know. (although too late now!). did they specify the date, and agree to compliance within 14 days as per the letter?

Edited May 27, 2011 by Ford
typo

[eggy12]

yes agreed to extension till date asked for but there last line as mentioned above does not add up in my head..

 

We will also be prepared to agree a general extension until 14 days after we have reverted to you with reasonable disclosure" !!

 

What they trying to say.. That the cpr rules give them 14 days AFTER they get said documents... ?

[Guest]

did they specifically agree to 31.14 compliance within the 14 days that you requested in the letter?

[eggy12]

give me 5 mins i will scan it

[eggy12]

[Guest]

ok. maybe they did not specifically agree to 31.14 compliance within the 14 days that you requested. so, it seems that maybe what they were saying is that, although they agree to the specified def extension, they will respond to 31.14 within what they consider a 'reasonable' timeframe and that if following that compliance there is not then 14 days leeway up to the currently agreed extension, they will then 'be prepared' to agree to a further extension 14 days from the date of their 'reasonable disclosure'? (recall your 31.14 letter asking for at least 14 days time after receipt). if that all makes sense!

imo

Edited May 28, 2011 by Ford
typo

[eggy12]

is there a layman's term for that

 

Does that actually read yes we accept your offer of an extra 14 days from yhe date I sent them our letter?

 

cpr states 7 days so they accept extra 14 days to get docs to me is how im now reading it !

 

"after we have reverted to you with reasonable discloser" is confusing me

[Guest]

is there a layman's term for that

 

[eggy12]

so reverting takes it back to original cpr request, 7 days + 14 ? Not that it much matters as you say as defence has kicked in...

 

Will update as and when.

 

Thanks Ford and have a good night

 

Eggy

[Guest]

Does that actually read yes we accept your offer of an extra 14 days from yhe date I sent them our letter?

 

not sure. as per my previous post. they say '..will also be prepared..' '..extension until 14 days after..' they disclose? recall your 31.14 letter which said that if they require more time then you would require at least 14 days between their disclosure and the date for filing a defence. i think that's what they maybe getting at? anyway, it is academic now as you have submitted a defence. they will get a copy of your def just now. and, they will prob continue to try and obtain the docs you requested, and then decide whether to continue or not.

imo

Edited May 28, 2011 by Ford
typo

[caro]

citizenb

 

i think the holding def was done

 

re interest-

generally, s69 interest is claimable re a regulated agreement. it would then be up to the J whether to award or not in the circumstances.

s69 relates to statutory interest accrued from cause up to the date of J. (though it seems that it maybe becoming practice to only claim 'up to one year'? following recent case law no doubt!)

s74 (and the associated Cty Cts (Int on Judgements Debts) Order 1991) relates to interest accrued from the date of J. ie no post J statutory interest is allowed re a regulated debt (or any debt below 5k).

any interest must also be pleaded correctly (CPR 16.4 (2) for eg)

imo

 

Sorry to disagree with you on s69 interest Ford, but that's for claims where there's no other interest. CCAs have contractual interest.

 

(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.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/28

 

Eggy, as you've only just submitted your defence, you could phone MCOL first thing on Tuesday and tell them that the claimant agreed to an extension AFTER you submitted your defence because they hadn't complied with your CPR request yet. They might be able to stop it going any further if you're quick.

[Guest]

yes, am aware of 69 (4). hence said 'generally', but should've mentioned the proviso.

yes, s69 doesn't apply where interest is already running (s69 (4)).

but, usually contractual interest has been frozen/stopped from the default/cause of action and is therefore n/a ie not running. as 69 (4) says - no s69 stat interest during '..a period during which...interest on the debt already runs'. if there is no contractual interest running during 'a period' from date of cause of action then s69 statutory interest could be claimed for that period.

s69 (1) '..for all or any part of the period between...' date of cause of action and date of judgement, or date of payment if before.

yes, if creditor is still applying any applicable contractual interest from date of cause of action then s69 (4) would be applicable. and, if claimant wants to try and claim any applicable contractual interest then they would have to plead it as per CPR 16.4(2).

imo

Edited May 29, 2011 by Ford
typo/rephrase

[steven4064]

Ford

 

I'm not sure I undertand the last post. Anyway, here is the lowdown on interest - more details in the interest turorial linked in my signature - I haven't read the tread so some details may not apply.

 

If you have a loan, credit card, etc you will be charged interest at some commercial rate. If the creditor adds unlawful charges, mis-sold PPI or some other dubious thing, they will have added this interest onto those charges as well. Interest on an unlwful charge is itself effectively an unlawful charge and should be reclaimed at the same time.

 

However, you are entitled to something on top of that for your trouble. Section 69 of the County Courts Act 1980 says you can add 8% simple interest on top of everything from the date of the charge to the date of settlement of the claim.

 

Now, many people claimed that this was nonesencse - in what other sphere of actovity do people charge simple interest? This was at the heart of the case Sempra Metals v Inland Revenue.

The creditor' wrongdoing has two effects:

 

1. They may have used their ill-gotten gains to make a profit. The law says this profit is unlawful. It is called unjust enrichment.

 

2. The other party may have suffered damage in that they have been deprived of money rightly theirs and had to borrow money to replace it.

 

Both of these can be represented by compound interest at commercial rates:

 

1. A financial institution will have made a profit by lending the unlawfully obtained money at interest. Compound interest at commercial rates is a good estimate of this profit.

 

2. If the other party had to borrow money to replace what had been unlawfully taken by the creditor, they would have hd to borrow it at interest. Compound interest at commercial rates is a good estimate of their loss or damage.

 

There is a legal principle called restituition which says that, in the case of wrongdoing like this, things must be put back as nearly as possible to what they were or what they would have been as possible - unlawful profits must be surrendered, damages made good. Making the creditor pay you compound interest at commercial rates does both of these things - the unlawful profit (estimated as compound interest on the money taken) is surrendered and damage (also estimated as compound interest on the money taken) is made good.

 

This is all supoprted by the House of Lords judegment in Sempra Metals v Inland Revenue.

 

Of course, if you claim compound interest, you cannot claim s69 interest as well.

[Guest]

Ford

 

I'm not sure I undertand the last post. .........

 

hi there

 

haven't read through your references yet!

but, for now. in short, am saying that in most cases statutory interest under s69 is claimable as no other applicable interest would be 'running' (s69 (4)) for 'a period' from 'the date of the cause of action' (s69 (1)) as for eg the APr 'contractual interest' (that Caro refers to?) has usually been stopped (at some point).

if for eg 'contractual interest' was still running then wouldn't it be more profitable for the creditor to legitimately claim that instead of statutory interest which would invariably be lower?

imo

Edited May 31, 2011 by Ford
typo

[eggy12]

Interest on this "account" stopped when it supposedly got sold on !

 

Tried ringing the court today but phone battery ran out ! Nothing seemed to go right today hahahaha

[steven4064]

But s69 interest and interest claimed in restitution have nothing whatever to do with 'running' interest.

 

You claim charges PLUS interest charged by the company ('running' interest) PLUS either s69 OR compound interest in restitution.

 

Read the tutorial.

[Guest]

they're only claiming s69!!?

 

s69(4) refers to 'interest on the debt' that 'already runs'! but, maybe though not in the sense that you maybe interpreting it in this case?

 

imo

Edited May 31, 2011 by Ford
typo