Claimform from 'Blake Lapthorn' /Arrow Global old Mint debt **STAYED**

[danson79]

Just received a letter from Arrow Global.

 

The front page says 'please find enclosed a Notice of Change by way of service upon you'

 

Page 2 is a form, stating Blake Lapthorn have ceased to act (?) and i assume Arrow are now acting for themselves?

 

This has thrown me a bit - if they thought they would win, why remove the solicitor (or use the solicitor in the first place ?)

 

What next? Cpr to arrow?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Just do not make any further moves until you here from Arrow again or a new solicitor.

[danson79]

Ok, i'll hang back.

 

What does this usually mean though?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Either a new solicitor appointed or they are going to sell or assign to anorther DCA.

[postggj]

are we now all happy about the case being stayed ??

 

what about in six months time when they ask the judge to remove the stay because they have now found the agreement, default notice etc and you are back to square one.

 

the option of a strike out has not realy been discussed has it??

 

i am of the opion that you should be given all options open to you and not just follow blindly advice given on a forum

 

if in doubt ask a solicitor for a free thirty minute consultation (if you can find one) to be given all the facts first

[danson79]

Why would they do this other than to try and confuse the issue? According to the letter they're going to act for themselves.

 

Could it be the Blake Lapthorn thought he was in for an easy £80 and when that turned out to not be the case, the debt got reassigned?

[danson79]

Hi Jessy,

 

I can still go for a strike out I believe. I'm waiting for confirmation that the case is stayed - the deadline for this is up, however I called Northampton CC yesterday and they advised me that Arrow might have responded, they just have an overwhelming mail backlog (!).

 

Once I have confirmation that it's stayed the strike out idea will be on the table.

[postggj]

just consider it

 

thats all i ask

[Mike_hawk]

Why would they do this other than to try and confuse the issue? According to the letter they're going to act for themselves.

 

Could it be the Blake Lapthorn thought he was in for an easy £80 and when that turned out to not be the case, the debt got reassigned?

 

 

BL are in all probability on a fixed fee retainer, when the percentages start to fall to the defendants position a commercial decision would be made as to whether to continue and bear the fees or bring in-house thereby reducing external cost exposure.

 

Strike out.... always possible, just because I don't advocate it it doesn't mean it may not be right for you. I'm sure SJ will bring his/her chequebook along to bail you out if you get shafted for costs for failing to overcome part 24.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

From long experience of Arrow Global and their various solicitors Bryan Carter and others they tend to stand dow/withdraw when anything like a meaningful defence os challenge crops up imo wait and see what happens next.

Care is needed precipitous action could cause problems.

[danson79]

Ok, i'll hang on for now and see what comes up next.

 

Thanks to the three of you for your advice and support.

[danson79]

Just checking in - it's been another couple of weeks and I still haven't received any information from Arrow or an AQ.

[Mike_hawk]

Hi Danson

 

It's usually a good sign, the longer the better

[danson79]

Still waiting - no correspondence at all.

 

At what point should I go for a strike out? I'm concerned that if I do nothing, the case will be stayed indefinitely and my credit rating forever ruined.

[AndyOrch]

Length of stay has no effect on your Credit Rating...if you have defaulted it will remain..irrespective of any outcome ..win or lose.

 

Andy

[danson79]

Hi Andy,

 

That's the whole point. The CCJ thing started because I queried an incorrect default on my credit file. The account should have dropped from my account in July 2012 but they have scammed an additional two years.

[AndyOrch]

I would be dealing with them as two separate matters...leave the claim stayed for now and deal with the ICO and the CRAs as to why its still showing after 6 years. The Claim be it struck out or stayed will not resolve the CRA problem..that is another issue and error.

 

Andy

[danson79]

Hi All,

 

Still nothing.

 

Stayed case aside, what should I be doing to try and force Mint/Arrow's hand regarding the incorrect default? Is it simply a case of forwarding a SAR or is there a separate document where I can request default information specifically?

 

I should also add that a few years ago I requested a CCA and SAR from Mint. The default notice was never included (the sar, despite a slap on the wrist from the ico, remains incomplete to this day).

 

I entered a DMP years ago (early 2006 I believe). All of my creditors defaulted and excepted my terms (with the exception of MBNA, who dragged their heels for three months longer than the others). I understand that once you cease payments or enter a DMP on a credit card accounts are supposed to default within a reasonable timeframe (six months or so?) Does anyone know anything about this?

 

I'd really like to get the ball rolling and put this to bed, instead of having a case lingering in the shadows indefinitely that could crawl out of the wordwork at a moment's notice.

[Mike_hawk]

Hi Danson

 

Not sure if it may be best to leave well alone for the time being.

 

Do you have a full history of all markers on your cra files or can you remember this account specifically being defaulted on notice? Is it possible that the more recent default replaced a previous AP marker but in doing so all monthly markers pre AG assignment have disappeared from your records?

 

I think it's important that you try to reconcile as much of the historical marker info that you can before making any further enquiries with the 'creditor' or CRA's.

[danson79]

Hi Mike,

 

I entered a DMP with the CCCS back in January 2006. It took a few months, but by May that year all of my existing credit card debtors - including Mint (but not MBNA until the september) defaulted my accounts before allowing me to pay the reduced amount each month.

 

According to Arrow Global, the default didn't appear until 2008 (when they took the debt over). This is nonsense and they're just trying to fob me off. I've looked at my credit report (the free noddle one, currently) and this also showed in my experian trial, that the account is under the name 'arrow global' (not Mint/RBS) and defaulted in 2008, with no prior record. The account simply starts at the default with no credit markers beforehand under the Mint name.

 

Hope this makes sense. Of course, Arrow raised the court case referring to this 2008 default that doesn't exist and if I can return to the original default date, the debt is removed from my credit file at least (even if not quite statute barred). I also want to highlight Arrow's foul play in this matter, manipulating my credit record for their own gain.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

If you believe the default date is wrong, (it was most probably defaulted by the orignal creditor not AG) you need to complain to the data contollers of AG and RBS/mint, with proof of the date you claim is correct. So you may need to SAR RBS.

[Mike_hawk]

Hi Brig

 

I believe RBS have already given Danson the finger in response to both a SAR and CCA request.

 

The one issue I can see cropping up is 'if' you can evidence the default date [perhaps with the copy DN] the usual process would be to present a copy to the CRA for it to investigate. It in turn would present a copy to AG, not really ideal whilst the account is in litigation.

 

If I were in Dansons position I'd probably be approaching RBS again in respect of its non compliance, and making a call to CCCS to check its archives for copies of any notices.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Hi Mike,

I agree, the non compliance should be challenged, I've never found cccs very cooperative.

[danson79]

Thanks for the help Mike/Brig,

 

Could I send a SAR to the CCCS? Assuming they still have the information - the DMP was discontinued in 2007 I believe, after I sent CCA requests to my creditors.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Yes certainly, but why not phone first to see IF they have any data and maybe save a tenner?