Arrow Global/Brian Carter court proceedings - need help!***Discontinued***

[Mike_hawk]

Hi,

 

Just had a quick look at other threads by people "in the same club" as me but can't find anyone else who has been offered an extension of 14 days after receiving documents. Others have had no reply, offered a general extension of 14/28 days.

 

Say Bryan Carters send documents - would I need to contact the Court and let them know I've received them so that the 14 days could start or would the onus be on Bryan Carter to let them know? Also, should they not send documents what would happen then - would the case just stay as "pending" indefinitely?

 

Also, I sent the letter CitizenB kindly drafted for me (recorded delivery) which was received by the court yesterday. Is is a good idea to follow up with a phone call just to make sure all is ok or is this overkill?

 

Thanks.

 

Hi DCA

 

The rule is for an extension of 28 days maximum by agreement of the parties, ie; defence to be filed 56 days post aos, in your case now 42

 

Parties can't agree to extend the period of defence to a future unknown service date of documents + 14 days as this could be an indefinite period.

 

I don't believe BC would intentionally abuse the rule and file for default or sj absent defence after agreeing to an extension, there is I suppose estoppel in effect

 

From reading the threads on here it does appear to either end up stayed and/or bounced back to the claimant to act or appoint counsel. CPR 15.11 applies to cases absent defence. Copied below for reference

 

Claim stayed if it is not defended or admitted

 

15.11

 

(1) Where –

(a) at least 6 months have expired since the end of the period for filing a defence specified in rule 15.4;

 

(b) no defendant has served or filed an admission or filed a defence or counterclaim; and

 

© the claimant has not entered or applied for judgment under Part 12 (default judgment), or Part 24 (summary judgment),

 

the claim shall be stayed(GL).

 

(2) Where a claim is stayed(GL) under this rule any party may apply for the stay to be lifted.

 

 

 

Not sure why it agreed 14 with you and anything from 0 to 28 with others, could just be that its treated as a production line and it wants to retain a balanced case load during holiday season.

 

It may be sensible to chase again [if no disclosure] a few days prior to the 42 day deadline and see if it wants to agree a further 14 day ext.

Edited September 7, 2012 by Mike_hawk

[Mike_hawk]

I think it's a fairly standard response from BC, there are a few others dotted around the forum with similar.

 

I'd be inclined to keep an eye on the date for filing defence, if nothing received by say 7 days prior to extended filing date [that's 28 days max by agreement] chase for disclosure.

 

If no response and still no docs it would seem sensible to file a defence on time based on the known, ie, poorly plead statement of case, unable to understand the cause or quantum of claimants case, claimant in default of request for disclosure, relief to amend defence if claimant deigns to disclose in the future etc etc.

 

There's a fair few defences on here that you could adjust to suit your own individual circumstances. Take some time to read a few other cases and you'll get an idea of possible defence positions.

 

Hi DCAt

 

Just read my post again and it didn't make much sense, that's what happens when posting and BBQing at the same time I guess :-)Amended a couple of lines above so it should appear a tad more logical.

 

Do you ever have days when something made perfect sense only to realise your fingers overtook your brain when typing!

 

Change this from the previous post:

 

'The rule is for an extension of 28 days maximum by agreement of the parties, ie; defence to be filed 56 days post aos, in your case now 42'

 

to this........

 

'The rule is for an extension of 28 days maximum by agreement of the parties, ie; defence to be filed 56 days post service, in your case now 42 post aos period'

Edited September 9, 2012 by Mike_hawk

[Mike_hawk]

Hi DCAt

 

Is the POC at post #1 verbatim? Was there no mention of assignment or does it just refer to an agreement with the claimant?

 

Visa Classic [bC response] really doesn't identify an original creditor, if I search online now I can find the brand Visa Classic offered by Cap 1, Barclays, HSBC, RBS to name but a few.

 

If no disclosure don't get drawn into making a case for them by referring to any possible known creditor in defence.

[Mike_hawk]

I wouldn't be inclined to help them with that information If I understood your earlier posts regarding service correctly; issue date 13.08 deemed service 18.08 your last possible extended day of filing defence would be 12th October [13th being a Saturday and assuming no disclosure in the meantime]

 

You should have ample time to consider your possible defences. Assuming they can't provide documentation in time you can only defend on the known elements. 'If' they can sort themselves out with documentation do you have any indication of the 'true' balance at default with Natwest, and whether any post default notices have ever been sent regarding app of interest or charges?

[Mike_hawk]

Deadline for defence is effectively now variable depending on the other sides response, ie; disclosure tomorrow, file defence by 24th Sept, disclosure 17th, file defence by 1st october... and so on up to last extended filing date available of 12th October.

 

Check with the court that they've interpreted in the same way.

 

My opinion of the standard BC response is to catch out the unwary and file for default absent any defence.

 

Imagine a scenario where the defendant is not procedure savvy, receives a response as yours, decides that having not received any disclosures does not need to enter a defence. The likelihood is that [whether intentional or not] a default judgment would be filed, whilst I imagine there would be cause to set aside its not really an ideal argument to have.

 

BC and his ilk do not spend too much of their resources on concerning themselves with cause or evidence, for them its just a cost defined system for managing cases.

 

As for Natwest, they aren't [by most accounts] doing too well with SAR responses at the mo. If you need any info urgently and time is pressing give me a nudge and I'll sort out a few contact numbers for you.

 

BBQ......... way too much lager, and wine, and cider and whatever else it was I drank........ paying for it today though

Edited September 9, 2012 by Mike_hawk

[Mike_hawk]

Hi DCAt......... just got your PM. I'd agree with Cb and Andy, it's an issue that really does need bringing to the courts attention within your defence....... far too many cases like yours that appear purely speculative.

[Mike_hawk]

You don't 'know' what the cause it yet until it responds to the CPR request. Tbh, you really don't want to be giving them any clues by making CCA requests for unknown accounts. If it turns out they have something enforceable you may be able to counter with the earlier CCA dispute if the quantum of claim is made up of interest in default etc.

[Mike_hawk]

Hi Cb

 

I don't believe there has been any contact from AG with the exception of the claim..... post #1 contains a brief outline of events.

 

Perhaps Dcat can confirm

[Mike_hawk]

 

Is it advisable to chase up my CPR requests with Arrow or just sit tight (as BC are now not dealing with it)?

 

I wouldn't be inclined to remind it of anything, it has your requests....... if it fails to comply and proceeds with the case you can add a draft order for disclosure at AQ. Depending on whether the court agrees with you that would be the time to look at your options again.

[Mike_hawk]

I'd err on the side of caution..... make an app now and you expose yourself to being tucked up with compliance at a disposal hearing and hit with costs assessed on the indemnity basis.

[Mike_hawk]

Sensible choice DCAt, this is small claims...... keep everything in proportion to the case and always consider your exposure to possible costs before making a decision.

 

I think it's a waiting game for you now, it has a while yet to consider if it wants to proceed to allocation and stump up the fee. The older the account the greater difficulty it will have in releasing the agreement etc from the original creditors archives.

[Mike_hawk]

Hi DCAt

 

I'd send reminders to both.

 

Treat both individually, don't think there would be any reason to bring one to the attention of the other

 

Moorcroft...... probably won't have anything anyway, as for Natwest you could look at filing a claim in the future. I can help you with that if/when the time comes.

[Mike_hawk]

You could remind Moorcroft of s.35, it'll probably reply with the usual 'CPR is king' type response but if it won't comply with either it'll have serious problems making a case stick in court.

 

As for Natwest, probably cheaper by e-mail..... wouldn't mention s.35 to it though, not yet anyway

 

From: Tudor, Joyce \(Retail Compliance, UK Retail\) RBS.co.uk>

0131 626 1669

 

From: Mackenzie, Margaret (Risk, UK Retail) [email protected] .uk

0131 626 0734

 

 

 

DPA s.35 is here

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/section/35

 

35 Disclosures required by law or made in connection with legal proceedings etc.

 

(1)Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions where the disclosure is required by or under any enactment, by any rule of law or by the order of a court.

(2)Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions where the disclosure is necessary—

(a)for the purpose of, or in connection with, any legal proceedings (including prospective legal proceedings), or

(b)for the purpose of obtaining legal advice,

or is otherwise necessary for the purposes of establishing, exercising or defending legal rights.

[Mike_hawk]

Hi dcat

 

Oh yeah, sorry...... got my moorcrofts muddled with my AG's

 

Just send it a stern reminder that it hasn't complied and it is now causing financial damage in its non compliance. I'm sure it'll get the idea and send what it has.

 

As for the case, I'd do nothing for now, the case is effectively stayed if no aq filed. It's possible an aq is on it's way to you but I have my doubts AG will want to continue at the mo.

[Mike_hawk]

Hi Dcat

 

Another option would be at post #102 on this thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?364090-DCA-letters-chasing-a-debt-I-do-not-know-anything-about.-Payday-UK-claim-form-received&p=4033098#post4033098

[Mike_hawk]

Hi Dcat

 

Add a month/28 days to each [usual timeline for sct disclosure] ... aq 14.11.12, disclose/evidence/exchange at 12.12.12, stay to 09.01.13

 

You may end up with an additional couple of weeks, disclose week 2, exchange/evidence week 6, stay to week 10...... the judge will set the dates on reviewing the case and in accordance with the practice directions. Wouldn't get too hung up on exact dates.

 

Copy to AG at the stated service address

 

You will receive notice of transfer to your local county court and directions/order post filing of aq........ not much more for you to do until you have sight of directions.

[Mike_hawk]

So finally, after almost 3 months Natwest finally respond to my SAR with a letter saying that my address doesn't match records. I moved a few years ago so easy enough to send them certified copy of driving license. The other thing they say is that they need a signed authority to release information. I signed the original request using secure digital signature tool downloaded from CAG. Isn't this enough? I am reluctant (for obvious reasons) to sign an authority by hand.

 

 

Usual delaying drivel from Natwest....... if it required further information it should have made the request within the 40 day compliance period.

 

No problems really with supplying them a signature [although there is no requirement], I can't imagine it's staff keep making the same mistakes. Might be prudent to send a reminder to it within a LBA though with a suggestion that it's tardiness has brought it to non compliance.

 

Tbh, knowing what I now know I'd sue every time but ultimately that will have to be your decision whether to press the issue in court.

[Mike_hawk]

Oh and....... e-mail is fine for reminding it of it's duty to the act, although if you are considering filing against it at a later date it would seem sensible to send additional copy by recorded delivery:

 

From: Tudor, Joyce \(Retail Compliance, UK Retail\) RBS.co.uk>

0131 626 1669

 

From: Mackenzie, Margaret (Risk, UK Retail) [email protected] .uk

0131 626 0734

 

NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK PLC

135 BISHOPSGATE

LONDON

EC2M 3UR

[Mike_hawk]

Hi Dcat

 

Just got your PM, tbh I'd probably do the same but then its relatively low in quantum and possible costs exposure........ and it would be my money I'd be gambling with.

 

As the others have pointed out its pre 2007 so the original agreement should be required, whether you can convince the dj of that is another matter entirely. You just need to get your ducks in a row and feel confident in countering the other sides argument if it progresses to trial.

 

Just wondering whether it would serve any purpose to send a s78 dispute to them now with reference to Moorcrofts response in 2008. If nothing else it gives you a further reference point to bring to the courts attention in your w/s.

[Mike_hawk]

Hi Dcat

 

Looks OK to me too, no need to copy the court. Probably sensible to send rec del and retain proof of posting, you can file copy with your witness statement if required at a future date.

[Mike_hawk]

Nice result DCAt