Marlin/ Mortimer Clarke/HSBC..Claim now issued / Account 39 years old.

[Gallahad]

I have received a claim from Northampton CCBC regarding a credit card debt with HSBC.

Supposedly now purchased by Marlin Europe 1 and using Mortimer Clarke solicitors to bring the claim.

 

Having made a formal request to HSBC in March 2009 Pursuant to s.77/78 Consumer Credit act 1974

they repeatedly declined to respond unless I supplied another request to include my signature.

 

As there is no requirement under the act for me to supply my signature a

nd they had been writing to me at the same address with confidential information for 20 years I declined.

 

As a result of this my request has never been complied with and I am given to understand this in itself is a defence for said claim.

 

They also sent what I believe to be a faulty as it did not allow 14 days for me to remedy the alleged breach.

 

I have acknowledged the claim and notified my intention to defend in full.

 

I am about to send a request for all documents mentioned in the P.O.C under CPR 31.14

and also requesting a further 28 day extension to my defence date.

 

Any advice will be much appreciated

G

[Gallahad]

Not sure who I have upset but I will make one more attempt for some assistance!!

Or have I posted in the wrong foruM?

 

They have agreed an extension for the defence and I have requested copies of the agreement mentioned in the POC

which they say is dated 1974.

 

I believe HSBC may not have existed then.

 

How long should I allow them to respond to my CPR request and what action is open to me should they not respond?

G

[AndyOrch]

Im sure you have not upset anyone Gall and yes you have posted in the correct forum.

 

Your initial post displays that you have a good understanding of the process and procedure and posters have little or any further advice to offer.

 

However with regards to your second post and CPR requests.....A civil procedure request is just that its civil there is no requirement for them to respond pre defence nor little action you can enforce if they dont. Claimants will disclose at the appropriate time (ie Standard Disclosure) as directed by the Court.

Therefore never base your defence on none complience...it wont wash with most DJs..a defence must be based on a genuine dispute or error.The fact that you know they cant comply with your request for the agreement can be brought into your defence without disclosure at this stage.

 

Thats the art of drafting a good defence...refute ..imply...suggest:wink:

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

PS I have edited your thread title in an attempt to get more response.

[Gallahad]

Many thanks Andy.

G

[citizenB]

You can only ask for copies of documents that they mention within their particulars of claim by way of CPR31.14 . For any "information" in respect of items they don't mention, then you will need to use CPR part 18. If you would like draft copies that you can amend. Just say.

 

If the DN did not provide for the full 14 days for you to remedy, then yes, it can be used in your defence - but it shouldn't be ALL of your defence.

 

Non compliance with the s78 request is good

[Gallahad]

Thanks CB that is what is creating my dilema in that S78 request relates to CCA 1974 which did not become law until 1978 so if the CCA does not apply Does the faulty DN?

G

You can only ask for copies of documents that they mention within their particulars of claim by way of CPR31.14 . For any "information" in respect of items they don't mention, then you will need to use CPR part 18. If you would like draft copies that you can amend. Just say.

 

If the DN did not provide for the full 14 days for you to remedy, then yes, it can be used in your defence - but it shouldn't be ALL of your defence.

 

Non compliance with the s78 request is good

[citizenB]

Ouch. Now there is a question.. to which I don't have the answer. Although, I suspect that somewhere along the line, you became protected by the Act and the DN is indeed relevant.

 

Can you post up exactly what it says on their PoC - the reason they are issuing the claim ?

[AndyOrch]

Some elements of the Act came into force on 31 July 1974, the day it was passed, but many were left to be brought in later at the discretion of the government. This process was "painfully slow", with almost nothing apart from the licensing system being active in 1979. Section 141, which requires enforcement actions of a regulated credit or linked transaction to be pursued in the county courts, came into force on 19 May 1985 through the Statutory Instrument "Consumer Credit Act 1974 (Commencement No. 8) Order 1983".The Act repealed the Hire-Purchase Act 1965, the Advertisements (Hire Purchase) Act 1967, the Moneylenders Act 1900, the Moneylenders Act 1927, the Pawnbrokers Act 1872 and the Pawnbrokers Act 1960.

 

The Act was influential outside the United Kingdom, and was studied in both the United States and the Commonwealth of Nations. It formed the basis of a 1979 Directive on Consumer Credit of the European Union.

The Act did not go to the full extent suggested by the Crowther Committee's report, with protection only being available for consumers, not for the credit industry.] The Act was widely supported by all sides of the political spectrum, and by academia. Arthur Rogerson compared it to the Law of Property Act 1925 in that, like the 1925 Act, it "represents fundamental rethinking of an area of great economic significance, which has resulted in the sweeping away of a chaos of obsolete rules, and the substitution for them of a simpler and better enforced body of law"

[Gallahad]

POC Reads

 

By an agreement in writing between HSBC Bank PLC and the defendant dated 1/10/1974 . HSBC agreed to issue the defendant with a credit card upon the terms and conditions set out therein. In breach of the agreement the defendant failed to make payments of not lees than the minimum shown on the monthly statements. HSBC served a default notice on the defendant stating the amount due and requiring the defendant to pay same. The defendant failed to pay and the agreement was terminated. The agreement was assigned to the claimant on the 15/2/2013 The claimant has complied with sections 111 and 1V of practice direction pre action conduct. The claimant therefore claims 1. £xxxx 2. Interest pursuant to section 69 of the county courts act 1984 namely £xxxx and continuing until judgement or sooner payment at the rate of x.xx