Welcome finance and Hegarty Court Claim

[AndyOrch]

Ok sytra

 

Could you type out the Particulars of claim from the PDF (verbatim) so I can cross check/refer.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[sytra]

Could you type out the Particulars of claim from the PDF (verbatim) so I can cross check/refer.

 

This is what is written on the claim form.

 

The Claimant claims for sums due under

Fixed Sum Loan Agreement(s) regulated by

the Consumer Credit Act 1974 entered into

between the Claimant and the Defendant. The

Defendant failed to pay the contractual

instalments in compliance with the terms of

the Agreement(s). The Claimant complied

with Section III and IV and Annex B of the

PD Pre-Action Conduct.

And the Claimant Claims:

Personal Loan Account Number xxxxxx

balance of £xxxxxxx as of 5/12/11.

interest under s69 of the county court Act

1984 at the rate of 8% a year from 5/12/11

to 26/4/13 of xxxxxx and also interest at

the same rate up to the date of judgment or

earlier payment at a daily rate of 0.90

AND costs.

[AndyOrch]

Ok thanks

 

Will finalise tomorrow now.

 

Past my bedtime

[sytra]

Just a bump, as need defence in today ideally as away this weekend so can't guarantee I can do it sat

[Peterbard]

I intervene solely to prevent the OP from following the wrong road so that he can concentrate on winnable issues.

 

This is a fixed sum loan that has gone past it's term, they did not need to send a section 87 notice.

 

The registration of a default on the credit file is an indication of the payment history and absolutely nothing to do with a notice under the consumer credit act.

 

The OP needs to forget about the DN issue completely.

Edited May 30, 2013 by citizenB
Incorrect information.

[sytra]

they did not need to send a section 87 notice.

 

The registration of a default on the credit file is an indication of the payment history and absolutely nothing to do with a notice under the consumer credit act.

 

But they should have issued one before the account was defaulted which was while the acc was still active, we are just trying to get them to admit whether one was sent when it should have been, my brother doesn't ever remember getting one,

"IF" not then we hope to try and trip them up somehow

[Guest]

dodgeball

i do see what you mean, ie if they haven't deemed to have terminated or sought any earlier payments etc (ie its run its course without action) then a dn is not required.

but, if any doubt, is there any harm in including the issue and putting them to proof about that? and then for the J to decide and say thats n/a?

Edited May 30, 2013 by Ford

[Peterbard]

But they should have issued one before the account was defaulted which was while the acc was still active, we are just trying to get them to admit whether one was sent when it should have been, my brother doesn't ever remember getting one,

"IF" not then we hope to try and trip them up somehow

 

No they only need to issue a DN if they intend to enforce. They did not enforce whilst the agreement was active. They waited until it terminated itself.

 

The problem is that to much attention is being focused on this . it is irrelevant. Has anyone considered the enforceabilty issues raised by the mis-selling of the PPI and it being included within the total credit, or checked the agreement for TCC issues ? Checked the APR ?

[Guest]

dodgeball, ppi, illegibility, and prescribed terms have also been mentioned in defence afaik? please do answer my q prior? is there any harm in including the issue and thus letting the J decide on it?

[AndyOrch]

The basis of the defence to be drafted are in Post#74 Dodgeball...you will note that I do not refer to any Default Notice.

[Guest]

i know, thats also what i refer to that dogeball seems to have missed? but, is there any harm in briefly mentioning the dn issue if in doubt? let the judge decide? if its n/a, then its n/a!

Edited May 31, 2013 by Ford

[AndyOrch]

sytra if you are still around...looking at the defence you proposed there is no reference to illegibility of the CCA and T&Cs? you need to big that up and also further detail as to the Notice of Arrears.

[sytra]

I will have a go, see if i can do anything with it

[caro]

i know, thats also what i refer to that dogeball seems to have missed? but, is there any harm in briefly mentioning the dn issue if in doubt? let the judge decide? if its n/a, then its n/a!

 

I know you weren't asking me but IMHO judges prefer not to get bogged down reading long defences with technicalities thrown in by LIPs trying to look like they know what they're talking about (no offence intended to anyone).

 

There is a danger that if they see mistakes they may not waste more of their precious time reading the rest of the defence and decide the defendant is just trying to wriggle out of paying.

 

So yes, I think there is a danger in including it in the defence.

[Guest]

wasn't really asking anyone specifically, open q to anyone?

i did say 'briefly mention'! yes, defences can be too long winded/technical. a couple/few lines should cover the issue, if OP decides to include it. perhaps re their cpr 18 response, maybe something along the lines of putting the claimant to proof that they are not required to serve a default notice as they stated in their cpr 18 response'? or contending that a def notice should've been required, or the like, then for the J to decide? i don't know, am not an expert, so will leave it to you guys!

Edited June 1, 2013 by Ford

[caro]

I'm no expert either ford. Most of us aren't, but it's always worth looking at all the options before making a decision.

[Peterbard]

Yes I think the danger is that you P*ss the judge off. Putting a party to strict proof is usual for evidence purposes , this would be a matter of law I think.

 

Looking at this I think the main contender is the PPI, I haven't gone through the thread in detail although I did have a look at the agreement and the APR checks out, forgive me if I have missed this, but has the OP commenced a claim for miss-sold PPI?

[Guest]

....Putting a party to strict proof is usual for evidence purposes , this would be a

matter of law I think.

a bit of both would be involved i would think. the judge decides on the evidence in accordance with the law?

Edited June 2, 2013 by Ford

[Peterbard]

I think that if you were to put the judge to strict proof of a requirement of the law he would point you in the direction of his legal qualification and then tell you to sit down and be quiet(if you sere lucky).

[Guest]

I think that if you were to put the judge to strict proof of a requirement of the law he would point you in the direction of his legal qualification and then tell you to sit down and be quiet(if you sere lucky).

 

am not saying put the judge to strict proof of anything!! the J doesn't have to prove anything!

the law says xyz, the parties' evidence (proof) shows whats happened in a case, the judge considers the evidence, then decides, on balance, in accordance with law! ie re s87, is it applicable, did they terminate, yes or no, did they demand any earlier payments, yes or no, etc. (ie, as i said, both law and evidence involved )

Edited June 2, 2013 by Ford

[sytra]

Update, the just contacted the court and the claim has been stayed.

 

What do you think the likely hood is that they will pay to lift the stay?

I don't suppose that now a claim has been brought and stayed the 6yr SB ruling still applies does it? just wondered because I believe the last payment was now over 6 years ago.

[Jimmy Jangle]

I think Andy mentioned on prior threads that the clock stops on SB when a claim is filed.

 

The longer a claim is left stayed though, the harder it'll be for them to push through to court - am I correct?

[sytra]

Thats what i thought about the SB, worth a go though

[sytra]

OK, we knew it was to good to be true, Hegarty have had the stay lifted (hopefully docs attached), I am assuming it is all above board, please can someone help with the AQ so we can get it sent off.

 

Seems a bit off that they ticked that no one should be served with the N244 application and that no evidence is involved

[Guest]

yes, a bit sneaky. it looks in order. but, if you want to object/vary with reason to the lifting of the stay and want a hearing, then can make an application (at cost unless exempt) accordingly under cpr 23.10 as you didn't receive any notice? what would be the reasons though for objecting to the lift? but, could then also include any application you think may be appropriate?

otherwise, continue with the directions q.

check though with andy etc