Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • you need to ring northants bulk and ask for a copy of the judgement and the claimform by email pdf. it is quite usual for them to not have a copy of the claimform. so you need to record the call and ask them to read out the particulars of claim and the address it was sent too.     old wives tales , if you have a debt owing that shows on your credit file or you know exists from say the last 7yrs you should NEVER move without WRITTING to the debt owner with your new address. never run from debt which falls within the above .     all mortgage style SLC loans that were not deferred with erudio following the gov't sale in 2013 and that did not have a court claim raised within 6yrs are SB'd.   drydens simply did this because they wrote to your old address, got no response, and knew they'd get a default roboclaim CCJ where no human checks anything.   shot yourself in the foot.      
    • yep.   if all these are still owned/with the original creditors and you are not paying any powerless DCA's  then little point in any CCA requests at this stage unless any (non OD A/C's) are say pre 2000 opening.   our pro rata letters are the way to go you'll find those in the debt collection section of our library.   get any income payments on going or otherwise moved into a parachute A/c.   it is most probable that whatever you do most A/c's will be defaulted once this is done if not already. bearing in mine your wish to re mortgage or move in a future, it is most probable that the quicker you do default , the earlier a DN will be registered thus the earlier these will not show following their 6th birthday. this might involve you thinking about stopping all payments now ensuring this does happen, then resuming payment under a pro rata scheme self administered , once this happens.   just be aware that no DMP providers will ever question enforceability, should that be relevant.     
    • LL would have Absolutely no chance of getting the smart meter changed back.....
    • slow down ...read what i'm asking , stating and trying to clarify.. it all might seem useless or totally irrelevant but it's important information moving forward with the whole situation and useful in the SPC claim moving forward     there was not 2 loans - the litigated OD is not a loan but it appears from your comment here..     sorry but then you did get scammed on many fronts... they allowed you to settle the loan exploiting your confusion over thinking it was the litigated account. they didn't tell you either and they would also have been aware of your statement filed response form:   The respondent had a junior account with the Bank of Scotland since a young age.  The Bank of Scotland offered the Respondent a loan of around £2500. This Respondent serviced the loan until losing her source of income and ran into some financial difficulty resulting in defaulting in servicing the loan.   they settled for a discounted sum... why? we usually find this is because they hold no enforceable paperwork at all. or was full of charges , charges could have been the discount or it could have been due to 'a business decision' ...   but sure as eggs is eggs there is no way 1st credit would not have raised a court claim for both the OD and the loan unless there was a very good reason. they didn't that smells...badly.   OD 's are notoriously difficult to litigate upon if defended properly...but with a loan in the same claim, with enforceable paperwork, they would have almost been guaranteed to win.   it's also a shame you didn't come where before you did anything but we are where we are.   now the above might seem harsh..even petty but our posts are not only for you and your issue they are also for future readers that find us via search engines or read like threads here alerting debtors to frequent pitfalls and innocent wet myself actions many do that all these dca's will and have exploited time and time again over the last +40yrs .   i'll try and get around to properly redacting all your pdf's tonight and get them back up. but before i finish and get on with the above........the status of the claim as it stands now.   From what i can gather the claim now hinges upon proving her ex at the time settled by a discounted payment to HBOS well before the sale to Intrum and the SPC Claim.   In all honestly and with regard to your comments in your previous posts upon his character, i seriously doubt this ever happened. the disclosures from Intrum contain all the OD statements , should that have happened, it would be detailed in those.   there is little point in the claimant hiding that info as they would be in far more legal trouble should they have doctored them than insuring a mere +£1k claim win. Even 1st credit wouldn't pull such stunts.   Sorry but there is little point in requesting HBOS to attend any future hearing, nor hoping the SAR shows anything different to the statements the claimant has disclosed . That will cost you more money , and more money in terms of the claimant attending another hearing.   there is one exploitation i see. that being the mention of a default notice. the claim states:  The respondent fell into arrears under the Finance Agreement. A Default Notice was Issued by the Original Creditor .   now default notices are not issued for OD A/C's (which ties in to the possible loan confusion and scam settlement i mentioned) . This tallies with a common mistake that many DCA's, including why i keep mentioning 1st credit, which is the previous name for Intrum, made on numerous claims and was one of the reasons for the name change. To Hide that They lost many Statutory Demand and court claims over the non existence of a DN or proof of it's issuance by the OC (a DCA can't issue a DN) .. No copy of a default notice is fatal to to successful  litigation.   even though in this OD case one was not ever needed. (Poor particulars of claim showing copy and paste, and never expecting a claim to be defended but responded to by a wet themselves response , which you did by settling a loan which you believed was the claimed debt when it never was)    other than that you indicate you made an OOC F&F offer in 09-20  have you advanced this option since ?   dx
  • Our picks

    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies
    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies

PRA MBNA Credit Card***Settled by Tomlin Order***


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1641 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hi guys

 

Just need a quick bit of input from Andyorch, when you have time Andy.

 

It's been a couple of months since I've been on here - just been too busy to look in.

 

Anyway, unfortunately one of my old post-2007 credit card debts has raised its ugly head in the meantime. I knew it was looming as PRA had resumed activity a few months ago, then their mates J&P sent an LBA a month back. I was hoping to intervene before they could issue the claim but I'd been away and they didn't hang about. Claim form duly received! :-(

 

I've done the acknowledgement and now just need to enter a defence. I haven't sent off the usual CPR or CCA requests as PRA had already sent the online agreement and I have no intention of going to court on this. I just want to buy some time and eventually try to negotiate something.

 

I'd be very grateful if you could run your eye over the defence below.

 

Particulars of claim:

 

The claimant claims the sum of £8xxx.xx for debt and interest.

 

1. On xx/xx/2008 the defendant entered into an agreement with MBNA Europe Ltd for a credit card under reference 1234567890123456.

 

2. On xx/xx/2013 the defendant defaulted on the agreement with an outstanding balance of £6,xxx.xx.

 

3. On xx/xx/2013 the debt of £6,xxx.xx was assigned to Aktiv Kapital Portfolio AS Zug Branch, who itself, assigned the debt to PRA Group (UK) Ltd on xx/xx/2014.Notices of assignment were sent to the defendant in accordance with s136 Law of Property Act 1925.

 

And the claimant claims:

 

1. The sum of £6,xxx.xx

2. Statutory interest pursuant to Section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8.00% per annum from xx/xx/13 to xx/xx/16 £1,xxx.xx, and thereafter at a daily rate of £1.xx until judgement or sooner payment.

------------------------------------------------------------------

 

PROPOSED DEFENCE

 

1 The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature.

 

The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.

 

2. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have, in the past, had an agreement with MBNA Europe Bank Ltd but I do not recognise this specific account number.

 

4. Paragraph 2 is denied. I have not been served with a valid Default Notice pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

3. Paragraph 3 is denied. I am not aware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment pursuant to the Law and Property Act 1925 Section 136(1)

 

 

4. It is therefore not accepted with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to:

 

a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement and;

b) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for and;

c) show the nature of the breach and evidence by way of a Default Notice pursuant to sec 88 CCA1974

d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim

 

5. As per Civil Procedure 16.5 it is expected that the claimants prove the allegation that the money is owed

 

6. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of section 136 of the Law of Property Act and section 82A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

7. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.

 

Is the above ok to submit? Do you have any further comments to add.

 

Many thanks!

 

Sham

Link to post
Share on other sites

That will suffice Shammy....I would send a CPR 31.14 though and include it in your point 2. as an addon to seeking clarification....it will bolster your point 4 also.

 

Regards

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just one thing Sham...those figures are not stacking up....6k - 8K ? Section 69 is at the discretion of the court...cant be included in the debt claim.

 

Its inflating the debt and also the claimants book figures?

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seen a few of these this week...hope the courts are picking up on it...they can ask for it and they write it in the Particulars along with their calculation...but they cant add it.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well unless MCOL have changed their system..which I am not aware of...you input section 69 interest separately after the debt entered figure.

 

As it stands you owe £6,xxx.xx...not £8xxx.xx...so its inflated.

 

Look at how they drafted their first line.....

 

Particulars of claim:

The claimant claims the sum of £8xxx.xx for debt and interest.

 

Then look at the last part.......

 

And the claimant claims:

 

1. The sum of £6,xxx.xx

2. Statutory interest pursuant to Section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8.00% per annum from xx/xx/13 to xx/xx/16 £1,xxx.xx, and thereafter at a daily rate of £1.xx until judgement or sooner payment

 

Very sneaky...but run with it for now then you bring it to the courts attention in your Witness Statement that the claimants are falsifying their claims by inflating the base debt with 8% interest.

Therefore their pleadings are untrue.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, thanks Andy. I'll run with it for now as you suggest but will look into it.

 

Besides the POC box, the front page finishes with figures for: 'Amount claimed' - 'Court fee' - 'Legal representative's costs' - 'Total amount'.

 

Any claim forms I've received previously have always included statutory interest in the total.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean that the 'Amount claimed' had the interest included. I'll see if I can get my hands on one of the previous forms tomorrow to check, but it's not overly important at the moment anyway, as my negotiation won't be starting any higher than the defaulted figure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I mean that the 'Amount claimed' had the interest included. I'll see if I can get my hands on one of the previous forms tomorrow to check, but it's not overly important at the moment anyway, as my negotiation won't be starting any higher than the defaulted figure.

 

True...but as you can see from the above...that's the correct way....and even worse if your debt was 9K and they got you into Fast Track:-)

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Andy. My new thread has somehow become merged with my old thread?

 

Just noting on the attached example, the POC does not state a defaulted figure, but states that the claim includes interest. We can only conclude that the Amount Claimed includes the interest. Am I getting that correct?

 

Furthermore, looking back at page 1 of this thread where I have given an overview of my POC on that claim, the format seems pretty similar to this more recent one...except that it does not state a figure for interest added. I guess I'll have to dig the actual form out.

 

Anyway, I'll bear all this in mind and will address it at the correct time. Maybe it will have actually sunk in my then! ;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

ignore sorted.

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread title amended....Section 69 interest should not be added to any figures (in the total boxes) it can be wrote in the particulars at the end of the PoC and show the calculation (days etc) and can show the figure they would like to claim if they get judgment ...but it cant be added to the debt at any time.

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Andy. I very much appreciate you taking the time to go through this with me.

 

At which point should they formally ask for interest to be applied on top - after judgement? Or is this at the judges discretion, and based solely on the request made within the POC?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Once they have judgment ....section 69 may be allowed on the judgment..at the courts discretion...maybe not the full 8%..some only 4 %..depends how the claimant has behaved during the process ...(pre action protocol etc)

 

Check MCOL...i bet its down as a £8xxx.xx and not £6,xxx.xx ...also your CRAs....and then we get in to the realms of incorrect data reporting with the ICO.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers Andy! I'll follow those points up in due course. Defence is due over next couple of days so I'm going to get the CPR request off today and then submit the defence.

 

I'm not expecting too much from this due to being post-2007 online application, but it will be interesting to find out if any cracks show up.

 

Sham

Link to post
Share on other sites
Once they have judgment ....section 69 may be allowed on the judgment..at the courts discretion...maybe not the full 8%..some only 4 %..depends how the claimant has behaved during the process ...(pre action protocol etc)

Andy the act uses the wording of "simple interest, at such rate as the court thinks fit or as may be prescribed,"

The Judgment Debts (Rate of Interest) Order 1993 is where the 8% comes from the base rate was about 6% then (so heaven knows why it hasn't been changed) the base rate is now 0.5 and has been since 2008 so is the rate for the entire term in any likely money claim.

 

So the equivalent rate of interest would be 0.66% (a third more than 0.5 same as 8 is a third more of 6).

Surely this would be a valid argument to put to a judge based on the wording of the act and that 8% represents a punitive rate and that an 8% rate merely encourages the claimant to wait longer close to the sb limit in order to basically obtain a windfall - assuming that they win of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've often wondered why a claimant wouldn't wait for as long as possible to issue a claim and accrue 8% interest rate. Some people are happy to get that return on their property rentals. I know Andy has already answered one aspect of this - i.e. it can be requested, but not guaranteed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Andy the act uses the wording of "simple interest, at such rate as the court thinks fit or as may be prescribed,"

The Judgment Debts (Rate of Interest) Order 1993 is where the 8% comes from the base rate was about 6% then (so heaven knows why it hasn't been changed) the base rate is now 0.5 and has been since 2008 so is the rate for the entire term in any likely money claim.

 

So the equivalent rate of interest would be 0.66% (a third more than 0.5 same as 8 is a third more of 6).

Surely this would be a valid argument to put to a judge based on the wording of the act and that 8% represents a punitive rate and that an 8% rate merely encourages the claimant to wait longer close to the sb limit in order to basically obtain a windfall - assuming that they win of course.

 

Very true MB...this has been subject for review over numerous years and yet it still trundles along.Rather than hijack Shamy's thread I will start a thread in the future on this very subject.

 

Regards

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...

Hi guys

 

Just a quick update. I've negotiated a F&F settlement on this by way of a Tomlin Order. The Order looks straight forward, but do you advise having it checked over by a professional, or can you suggest any common pitfalls that may be built in and I can check for?

 

Regards,

 

Shamrocker

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...