IND DCA goes straight to Court - old lloyds debt

[zubo]

Keeping this brief and looking for some answers...

 

Debt placed in dispute 2005/6 dubious agreement ... Stalemate in how to resolve. .. Then debt was passed back to Lloyds who actually owned the debt ... New cards issues from Lloyds ... Not used... Exchange of letters with Lloyds ... Then silence ... Then assignment to a DCA I never heard of I sent them one letter when they threatened me with court... No reply they raised court claim with online MCOL ... I filed defence ...requesting all the NOA agreements etc etc my defence was that they had not proved the debt owed... That was last October and heard nothing since.

 

Now ... MCOL should have sent this to a court to be heard if a defence is filed according to their FAQ so this looks like a admin cockup but I would have expected the DCA to have progressed it but heard nothing for last four months so.... I could do nothing and let sleeping dogs lie or send a draft order to request the case be struck out... Anybody done anything similar ....

 

Also I was trying to sit tight and let six years expire.... Does the click start ticking again if a DCA lodges a claim ??

 

Thanks for any replies

 

Zubo

[unclebulgaria67]

You have checked online as to whether a judgement has been made ?

 

When was the last payment or acknowledgement of the debt ? You mention it was in dispute in 2005/06, so was it statute barred at the time they made the claim ?

 

If they have a CCJ, they have 6 years from the date of judgement to collect the debt.

 

You would have to try to set aside the CCJ on the basis of a MCOL c*ck up. Normally they are not happy with set asides more than a few months after the judgement. You should have been sent a copy of the judgement.

[debbbbsy]

Once you file your defence with MCOL, the case is on hold until the claimant responds.

 

When they are ready to proceed, and unfortunately the cliamant can abuse the court process and miss deadlines and it is accepted. You should then receive an Allocation Questionairre, informing you that the case has been transferred to your local court.

 

When you fill in the AQ, you submit with this your 'Draft Order Directions'.

 

If you have heard nothing since filing your defence, it is not a cock up, it just means the claimant has failed to apply to have the case progress to the next stage. If you are concerned about it just sitting there, you could apply to have the claim struck out because the claimant failed to provide proof that the claim was enforceable, and this is an abuse of the court process.

 

Debbie

[debbbbsy]

Does the click start ticking again if a DCA lodges a claim

 

No.

 

Only a payment acknowledges the debt and stops the clock ticking.

[rameses_qc]

No.

 

Only a payment acknowledges the debt and stops the clock ticking.

 

Not strictly true. ANY acknowledgement IN WRITING ( e.g. asking for time to pay,or asking for a full and final settlement) stops the clock ticky tocking. Beware though, DCAs have been known to "find" payments within the 6 years;however, they have to prove it, not you.

[debbbbsy]

Yes, but we have seen this challenged because the DCA threatens and bullies the debtor into submission.

 

Debbie

[rameses_qc]

Of course yes. The person can't be coerced/threatened/bullied into acknowledgement, which many DCAs will try to do. It can be challenged then, of course yes. I wasn't trying to say otherwise

[DonkeyB]

The issue of a claim stops the clock ticking!

[alangee]

Who is the DCA?

 

Alan

[zubo]

All

 

Thank you very much for your posts.

 

The DCA is IND and I have just checked MCOL and there has been absolutely no progress at all.

 

So claim was issued 16/9/11, I acknowledged receipt and filed defence 17/10/11 as follows:

 

Defence

 

1. The claimant has not shown true title to this debt and the

claim has no merit and is vexatious. The defendant requests that

the court strikes out the claim.

2. The claimant states in his Particulars of Claim that he

complied with Section III and IV and annex B of the PD Pre-Action

Conduct. The claimant has not done so: the claimant sent a letter

dated 2nd September 2011 to which the defendant responded on the

5th September requesting the information detailed further below in

the defence. The claimant did not respond and instead issued this

claim in disregard of pre-Action protocol.

3. In the event that this claim is not dismissed, the defendant

disputes the claim in it's entirety and puts the claimant to

strict proof of the claim by providing the details which have been

requested from the original creditor over the course of the last

four years as follows.

4. In accordance with the Data Protection Act full details of the

account held by the original creditor EasyMoney including

statements containing all transactions on the account.

5. In accordance with the Consumer Credit Act and as requested the

true copy of the regulated agreement in full compliance of the Act

including all the prescribed terms and the terms and conditions of

the agreement as stipulated at the outset of the agreement and in

full compliance of the Act.

6. The claimant is put to strict proof of issue of any Default

Notice and full details of that Default Notice.

7. The claimant is put to strict proof of the Deed of Transfer

from the Original Creditor, EasyMoney to LloydsTSB.

8. The claimant is put to strict proof of the notification to the

claimant of the assignment of the debt from EasyMoney to LloydsTSB

and full compliance with the Law of Property Act S136

9. The claimant is put to strict proof of the Deed of Transfer

from LloydsTSB to the claimant Ind.

10. The claimant is put to strict proof of the notification to the

claimant of the assignment of the debt from LloydsTSB to the

claimant Ind and full compliance with the Law of Property Act S136

11. The defendant being a litigant in person, if this claim is not

dismissed, that the claim be transferred to the zubo County

Court.

 

so now... I am sorely tempted to do absolutely nothing... on the other hand I could issue a Draft Order requesting that the claim be struck ou since the claimant has done nothing for six months and has not contacted me.... BUT ... MCOL would then need to allocate it to my court and prompt IND that they need to do something.

 

So I am now in a Mexican standoff ... IND probably thought that I would roll over and never expected my defence and now ... simply do not know what to do....

 

thoughts???

 

thanks

 

Z

[PGH7447]

IND are good at starting claims but seem reluctant to progress them - I WONDER WHY??

[DonkeyB]

Because it costs money and they haven’t got the documents they need to mount a case!

[May Fly]

can you find out when the last acknowledgement was made, and hence when it becomes statute barred?

 

if you are close to being SB, it may be best to let it be for the time being, and when the debt is SB, then apply for a strike out. that way, if they or anyone else is prompted to chasing you, its already to late.

[DonkeyB]

can you find out when the last acknowledgement was made, and hence when it becomes statute barred?

 

if you are close to being SB, it may be best to let it be for the time being, and when the debt is SB, then apply for a strike out. that way, if they or anyone else is prompted to chasing you, its already to late.

 

What? Er, no. That is plain wrong. A claim has been issued. That stops the SB clock. Be careful what you post!

[May Fly]

yes donkey, I became confused as I was reading 2 boards at once. Not all women can multi task to perfection. my apologies, just going to edit the other forum...

[DonkeyB]

[May Fly]

Anyway, what I meant to say, was that my understanding, based on talks with a solicitor was that the court application stopped the clock for THAT applicant, but not for later, potential applications. So, although the clock has stopped for this creditor, and stays stopped as long as their claim is before the court, if they withdraw that claim or its struck out, any further claim from them is subject to the original timetable for being statue barred. Also, if the creditor should sell the debt, the buyer is also subject to the original timetable.

 

Now, that was explained by a solcitor, but we know how clever some of them are, so some/all of it may not be quite true.

 

If you think about it though, if it wasn't at least partly true, all any creditor would need to do to prevent a debt becoming statute barred, would be to start a claim every 6 years, and it wouldn't matter if the claim was struck out as long as it wasn't successfully defended. They needn't pursue it, as the clock is stopped as long as it is before the court.

 

It would seem obvious that there should be some mechanism to prevent debts being kept live by repeated court applications designed/timed simply to prevent the application of the Limitations Act. Yes, we all know such actions might be construed abuse of process, but extending a debt liability period even for another 6 years would have a big impact - liable for 12 rather than 6 years.

 

As I said, I don't know how much of what I said is true, but that was my meaning in my original post - the clock still ticked for any future purchaser of this debt and maybe even for the current owner if they are struck out and try again.

 

Maybe donkey is smarter than the solicitor I spoke to? (it wouldn't be hard though would it, looking at some of them)

[DonkeyB]

Solicitors are much smarter than me, but they have to make money. There is case law to prevent the issuing of claims to counter imminent SB status.

[bjoh69]

if a dca buys a debt from a creditor can they pass it back to the original creditor

[DonkeyB]

They would have to assign it back, and yes they can.

[JuryMan77]

Solicitors are much smarter than me, but they have to make money. There is case law to prevent the issuing of claims to counter imminent SB status.

 

could you possible cite any examples of this if you have some please?