Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Here is my Defence: 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 Capital One but do not recognise this specific account number or recollect any outstanding debt and have therefore requested clarification by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request.. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. I am unaware of having been served with a Default Notice pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment pursuant to the Law and Property Act 1925 Section 136(1) 5. The Defendant has sent a request by way of a section 78 pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974, for a copy of the agreement, the Claimant has yet to comply and remains in default of said request. 6. A further request has been made via CPR 31.14 to the Claimants solicitor, requesting disclosure of documents on which the Claimant is basing their claim. The Claimant has not complied and to date nothing has been received. 7. 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 Claimant 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 8. As per Civil Procedure 16.5 it is expected that the claimants prove the allegation that the money is owed 9. 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 10. 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.     Please note that I had to write a defence quite quickly as I hit the deadline. At the time of writing the defence, I hadn't been able to find correspondence from Capital One, but had since found default letter etc.
    • Which Court have you received the claim from ? Civil National Business CEntre       If possible please scan redact and upload a full page copy of page 1 of the claim form. (not the response page or AOS)     Name of the Claimant ? Lowell Portfolio i Ltd   How many defendant's  joint or self ? Self   Date of issue – top right hand corner of the claim form – this in order to establish the time line you need to adhere to. 15 Feb 2024     Particulars of Claim   What is the claim for – the reason they have issued the claim? Please type out their particulars of claim in full (verbatim) less any identifiable data and round the amounts up/down. state how many digits the account number has.. The claim is for the sum of £922 due by the Defendant under and agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit ACt 1974 for a CApital One account with an account reference of [number with 16 digits] The Defendant failed to maintain contractual payments required by the agreement and a Default Notice was served under s.87(1) of the Consumer Credit ACt 1974 which has not been complied with. The debt was legally assigned to the claimant on 16-06-23, notice of which has been given to the defendant. The claim includes statutory interest under S.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of the issue of these proceedings in the sum of £49.15 The Claimant claims the sum of £972   What is the total value of the claim? £1112   Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? I dont know the details of the PAPDC to know if it was pursuant to paragaph 3, but I did receive a Letter of Claim with a questionaire/form to fill.   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? N/A Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Credit Card   When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? no   Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? Online   Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes   Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. Assigned/purchaser   Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? I was aware, I'm not certain I received a 'Notice of Assignment' from Capital One but may have been informed the account had been sold without such a title on the letter?   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Yes   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? Not since the debt purchase, and not from Capital One.   Why did you cease payments? I can't remember - it was the tail end of the pandemic and I may not have had enough income to keep up payments - I am self-employed and work in the event industry - at that time. I also had a bank account that didn't allow direct debits and may have just forgotten payments and became annoyed at fines for late payments.   What was the date of your last payment? Appears to be 20/4/2022   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? No
    • Atsushi Katsuki tells the BBC the firm sees the sober generation as both a risk and an opportunity.View the full article
    • Yes you should take this view, but this is nothing to worry about you will be fine. you have a very well edited WX im sure although I haven't actually looked at it because I can't seem to work out which one is the new one anymore, although I do remember something previously. however if i remember it right its just a lost parcel via packlink and no insurance which frankly is pretty straightforward and should be a copy of farooq v evri. Have I understood the case right? Please tell me if not as there is rather a lot on this forum
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Cause of action/statute barred


fletch70
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3809 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 660
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

The fact it was overturned shows to my mind that the law evolves. If bmw hadn't appealed this discussion would be premature.

If as you say they can demand full payment after 1 missed payment that would need to be written into the contract and if,as in my cap 1 contract it says under normal circumstances we will give you 30 days that would be 2 months after last payment.

Of course if you take the stance that it is from the time court action can be brought that would add another 14+service days to the argument.

As i have said before i am not entirely convinced by. dodgeballs argument that termination has to actually

take place

 

Judge ruled barred because he was using the normal rules. That contract was a HP which specifically stated the contract had to be terminated before payment could be demanded and was overturned. This is not the case with loans and credit cards. They can demand payment as soon as you miss a payment, if they choose to give you upto 30 days to correct it, it's irrelevant. Dodge can't see the forest for the trees.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I have found in this

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=w5SjhwvDNmwC&pg=PA89&lpg=PA89&dq=Read+v+Brown+(1888)+22+QBD&source=bl&ots=UyuGhoncHE&sig=6vgTWL-UkiK4SCBzautZmGq6ziM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7_3BUtPoKMiN7QbC94CIBA&ved=0CGMQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Read%20v%20Brown%20(1888)%2022%20QBD&f=false

 

The cause of action on an overdraft is when the overdraft is called in.

 

I will continue my research tomorrow

Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I have found in this

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=w5SjhwvDNmwC&pg=PA89&lpg=PA89&dq=Read+v+Brown+(1888)+22+QBD&source=bl&ots=UyuGhoncHE&sig=6vgTWL-UkiK4SCBzautZmGq6ziM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7_3BUtPoKMiN7QbC94CIBA&ved=0CGMQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Read%20v%20Brown%20(1888)%2022%20QBD&f=false

 

The cause of action on an overdraft is when the overdraft is called in.

 

I will continue my research tomorrow

 

That's possibly correct prior to 2011 for tacit agreements with no disclosure of facility terms and conditions........ depends on the T's & C's [if available to you]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nowt wrong with a bit of Latin..still in use in places . Grade D at O level here which was a bloody miracle. (Also ages me)

 

B for me........ ages me too, preferred French but Miss P..... in latin [and short skirts] won the h***ny 15 year old over :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I have found in this

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=w5SjhwvDNmwC&pg=PA89&lpg=PA89&dq=Read+v+Brown+(1888)+22+QBD&source=bl&ots=UyuGhoncHE&sig=6vgTWL-UkiK4SCBzautZmGq6ziM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7_3BUtPoKMiN7QbC94CIBA&ved=0CGMQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Read%20v%20Brown%20(1888)%2022%20QBD&f=false

 

The cause of action on an overdraft is when the overdraft is called in.

 

I will continue my research tomorrow

 

Interesting point in there that your name has to be signed on any letter of acknowledgement to reset limitations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It also backs up my point when it says COA accrues from date of infringement and the procedural requirements after that are irrelevant. There is no sane person who can believe Dodge's argument. Everything he has quoted had either gone against his point or at best been neutral and given he's gone back to the last ice age, across the other side of the world, into a new dimension...sometimes all at once and still has nothing shows how little merit he has.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I have found in this

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=w5SjhwvDNmwC&pg=PA89&lpg=PA89&dq=Read+v+Brown+(1888)+22+QBD&source=bl&ots=UyuGhoncHE&sig=6vgTWL-UkiK4SCBzautZmGq6ziM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7_3BUtPoKMiN7QbC94CIBA&ved=0CGMQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Read%20v%20Brown%20(1888)%2022%20QBD&f=false

 

The cause of action on an overdraft is when the overdraft is called in.

 

I will continue my research tomorrow

 

Hmm

 

This thread has ben busy :)

 

Good find this Fletch noticed this on page 92

 

“Claims by banks to recover overdrafts usually accrues on a demand I writing (section 6 sol)”

 

Sounds vaguely familiar :)

 

Also the idea that a loan under a contract cannot be recalled until the agreement is terminated is not my contention it is common law, it is mentioned is several authorities already quoted on here, but no great deal is made of it because it is accepted(trite law).

 

Still having problems with Mikes insistence that section 9 and the legislation regarding enactments has anything to do with the subject, I thought this covered orders made,well under an enactment. Prrhaps some relevant case law may assist.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah yes and there is this also which sounds like It could have come form one of my earlier posts

 

Yes section 7.22

 

“In cases where the claimant has accepted anticipatory breach as repudiation time runs from the date of acceptance rather than the contractual date for the obligation of the performance in question”

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

We have seen a few posts unapproved due to personal insults. This is NOT sarcasm as some will say.

 

If you cannot have a reasoned dialogue without resorting to petty insults, you are in the wrong place.

 

Keep it civil. Simple as!

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

BMW couldn't claim the money until the agreement had been terminated. Very unusual case, judge said so.

 

Really can you quote the paragraph where he said this ?

 

Here is some of the judgement.

 

28. Clause 12 is on its face subject to two conditions precedent; namely the termination of

the hiring by the owner under clause 12, or the acceptance by the owner of the customer's

repudiation. In my judgment, since one or other of those conditions precedent must be

fulfilled before the right to payments under clause 12 arises, it must follow that no cause of

action accrued until satisfaction of one or other of those two conditions.

29. I agree, therefore, with my Lords, Lord Justice Rix and Lord Justice Moore-Bick, in their

analysis of the decision of this court in Reeves v Butcher. The conclusions of my Lords, with

which I agree, are consistent not only with principle but with authority, and in particular the

decisions in Lakshmijit v Faiz Sherani and Thakore v Malick. Where the Limitation Act

makes a different provision, it does so expressly; for example in paragraph 7 of schedule 1 to

the Act dealing with forfeiture, which provides:

"(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, a right of action to recover

land by virtue of a forfeiture or breach of condition shall be treated as

having accrued on the date on which the forfeiture was incurred or the

 

10 of 11 06/09/2013 15:54

 

 

http://www.casetrack.com/ct4plc.nsf/items/2-532-2706

 

condition broken."

 

That exception is needed, because as a matter of general principle where a remedy arises

on the election of one party to the contract, the cause of action does not accrue until

the election is made.

 

My emphasis

 

To me this seems to say GENERAL PRINCIPLE not "unusual case"

Edited by Dodgeball

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dodge , with regard to Mikes post

 

I read it as this, please someone correct me if wrong

 

If there is a cause of action for example a contractual breach then the limitations period starts from that point even if the creditor needs to follow a process before starting said action.

 

An example...if a payment is missed and the contract allows for time to make that right such as 30 days then that would be the time the clock starts regardless of a need to issue a DN etc.

Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Link to post
Share on other sites

With all due respect , probably is not a word I would like to use in my defence.

 

I do not think I was making myself clear in that what I posted was my interpretation of S9

Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would hold as a defence because the breach has occurred, it doesn't matter if you are given time to remedy it. Being given thirty days and still not paying would mean a second breach which is irrelevant because you only need one breach.

 

Don't fall into Dodges trap of section 5 sub paragraph 2e amendment 4 nonsense. It's an exercise in futility.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dodge , with regard to Mikes post

 

I read it as this, please someone correct me if wrong

 

If there is a cause of action for example a contractual breach then the limitations period starts from that point even if the creditor needs to follow a process before starting said action.

 

An example...if a payment is missed and the contract allows for time to make that right such as 30 days then that would be the time the clock starts regardless of a need to issue a DN etc.

 

The fact that the agreement must be terminated has been well established, the mentions of repudiatory breach also confirm that this mus be the case because otherwise why bother , the COA would just be when the payment was missed and only the contractual payment was due.

 

Personally I believe that the COA is further delayed by the requirements of the act, I am not alone in this belief as shown by the authority quoted, it also does not necessarily mean that I am right, but it is my belief.

 

A default notice is not just a procedural bar, in the sense mentioned in other case law on this thread, it is a block to any enforcement, or even to a demand for payment. This is why i believe that i delays the date, the creditor cannot demand payment for exactly the same reason he cannot on a contractual breach, if you accept there must be a contractual term or repudiatory breach before a COA I cannot see how you cannot accept that the same must apply for the section 87 notice.

 

As fas as section 9 is concerned, my belief is that actions under this heading refer to those made under a legal action(statute) in other words not a contractual dispute rather a law which states that something is due because some law or other has been breached. I was seeking clarification on how this applies to default notices, which I do know are nothing more than a contractual statutory information notice(in this respect).

Edited by Dodgeball
Read a bit more and I was right, so no need to dither

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Don't fall into Dodges trap of section 5 sub paragraph 2e amendment 4 nonsense. It's an exercise in futility.

 

Could you link, I seem to have mislaid this :)

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3809 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...