LINK/IDR Claimform - old Barclaycard debt

[AndyOrch]

You dont need to do anything by next Thursday

 

" Issue date 27/2 plus 5 for service = 4/3. Add 14 days to acknowledge so you must acknowledge by the 18th March. You then have a further 14 days to file a defence which takes you to 1st April.."

 

You do need to calm down and follow the guidance.

[fish-face]

Yes but in order to make sure it was there by the 18th I would need to send by next Friday at the latest,

as i'm not sure if i'm going to defend..

 

 

. it all depends what paperwork they come back with,

 

 

if they don't and I take it to the extra 14 days i'm then forced in defending am I?

 

 

or could I then admit if i wanted to and submit the admission form

[AndyOrch]

You do everything on line using the MCOL service....you dont send anything by post.

[fish-face]

I have used the MCOL so far..

. but what if i want to admit last minute?

then I have to send the form to the Claimant by the 18th correct?

and this can't be done online I don't think

[AndyOrch]

It can be done on line you acknowledge service you state your plea you submit your defence (all on line)

[fish-face]

please see my PM

[AndyOrch]

You are not reliant on whether they respond to your requests on time or not...the purpose of the requests is to put then to strict proof that they can legally enforce the agreement and that you are making a challenge....

 

Follow the guidance we do this 1000s of times a month...I will tell you if and when you need to make a u turn.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[fish-face]

Fantastic, thank you

[AndyOrch]

One of the reasons for not admitting liability for any debt, partial or otherwise is because If the credit agreement has not been provided by IDR as the result of a CCA Request, then you have no way of ascertaining if the contract is legally valid under the CCA 1974.

 

In the absence of this information, you are unwisely, in my opinion, admitting liability for a debt,

that hasn't been proven to exist or one that conforms to the requirements of the CCA 1974.

 

You might be thinking that of course a debt exists!

 

However, for the purposes of the law, the existence of the debt is determined by a credit agreement being furnished by your creditors

and one that is deemed to be properly executed,

hich means its layout and content conforms to what the CCA 1974 prescribes.

 

So be patient

[fish-face]

they have sent an answer back to my CPR request

 

buying time and harrassing me with big words into folding saying that the template used is rubbish

and that they did not put any of the details I requested on the claim form

 

so therfore my request for them is not needed and

 

if i want to defend it good luck they still have not returned the CCA

 

... Can I PM someone?

[dx100uk]

no theres not a need.

 

that's what we would expect from Plink

 

try and bluff you out

 

when in all probability, as always, they have NO LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE agreement

and never did and never will have,

 

type in LINK

in our search of the grey toolbar top right

and have a read of what they get up too.

 

dx

[fish-face]

Link not IDR have replied to my CCA request stating that they will have to contact BC to get it and this may take 30 days,

 

obviously this is past the date I need to make my mind up so should I still defend it??

 

I need to make my mind by the weekend really,

 

I would like to as they have disregarded my CPR request and now not supplying my CCA so would this be grounds to defend?

 

In the letter regarding the CPR they were whittling on about increased costs if I defend.

 

.. just in case I lost what roughly would this cost be?

 

also If I do defend can I re assign to a more loacl CC than Northampton?

 

Please advise ASAP

[dx100uk]

wrong way around

 

you must always defend regardless

 

them having or not a CCA is THEIR problem not yours

 

they should not be issuing speculative court claims WITHOUT THE CORRECT PAPERWORK

in the first place.

 

 

so you HAVE registered MCOL and selected defendall?

 

dx

[fish-face]

Yes but still worried about the costs if and only of I lose on a technicality,

 

i'm quite happy to defend forever and go to court every week if needed

 

but if i'm flooging a dead hrose is all the extra stress worth it?

 

I read on here some others that have been through the machine with these guys.

[dx100uk]

only because they did not defend all.

 

link rarely have any enforceable paperwork

 

no claimant should be issuing a claim WITHOUT having the paperwork FIRST!

 

its an abuse of process in a way.

 

hoping to get a non contested default judgement.

 

it wont cost you anything more in court costs even if they do [unlikely] 'win'

 

you can only pay what you can PCM £5?

 

you file your defence on time end of

 

dx

[fish-face]

Lets go for it then IDR

 

Dr Ian Creswell, at Birmingham County Court in January 2010,

defeated an attempt by the debt collection company Phoenix Recoveries to recover money on a credit card from HFC bank.

Judge Worster decided the reconstituted agreement provided to the borrower was inaccurate and invalid

because it had mis-stated the rate of interest actually paid by Dr Creswell.

 

Mr John McCullagh, at Bromley county court in February 2010,

defeated an attempt by MBNA bank to recover £15,753 on his credit card.

The judge said the copy of the agreement supplied by MBNA did not include Mr McCullagh's name and address

and the illegible terms and conditions were "plainly not a copy of those on the original agreement".

 

Mr Nathan Bachellier, at Hastings county court in October 2010,

defeated an attempt by debt recovery company Cabot Financial, to recover £5,908 run up on an MBNA credit card.

Judge Winslett ruled Cabot had failed to produce all the necessary documentation when trying to supply a copy of the agreement,

and that it was illegible, another breach of consumer credit regulations.

 

Ms Margaret Hayes, at Blackpool county court in July 2010, overturned a charging order on her home obtained by HFC bank earlier in the year

in pursuit of a debt of just over £5,000.

Judge Bell agreed that the bank had sent her someone else's agreement, not her own, and that the reconstituted agreement was not accurate.

 

At the Appeal Court in London, in January 2011, Mr Davendra Kotecha overturned an attempt by Phoenix recoveries

to obtain money owed on his HFC bank credit card.

The appeal judges agreed the bank had not been able to supply an accurate copy of his original agreement,

mis-stating both the interest rates and the bank's name, which had originally been Beneficial bank.

 

Mr Sean Murphy, at Oldham county court in February this year,

also defeated a claim from Cabot Financial, for the repayment of £11,953 on his Egg credit card.

The recorder, Nigel Clayton, found the copy of the agreement was illegible in places,

he could not see Mr Murphy's address on it,

nor were there any details of the payment protection insurance premiums Mr Murphy had paid.

 

Mr Scott Paterson, at Doncaster county court in February this year,

defeated Cabot Financial, which was trying to recoup £5,054 he had run up on a Morgan Stanley Dean Witter credit card.

Judge Russell decided the copy of the agreement was illegible,

the terms and conditions were not the ones originally supplied to Mr Paterson

and that Cabot had failed to produce a properly reconstituted document.

[mjt2013]

only because they did not defend all.

 

link rarely have any enforceable paperwork

 

no claimant should be issuing a claim WITHOUT having the paperwork FIRST!

 

its an abuse of process in a way.

 

hoping to get a non contested default judgement.

 

it wont cost you anything more in court costs even if they do [unlikely] 'win'

 

you can only pay what you can PCM £5?

 

According to the earlier posts the amount claimed is over the small claims track limit, this is likely to go on the fast track. If it does and the Defendant loses it could cost him thousands in costs. Also, there is no guarantee that the court would order payment at an affordable rate.

 

I'm not trying to suggest that the OP should fold but the above 'advice' is just wrong. The OP deserves to know the risks before proceeding.

[fish-face]

According to the earlier posts the amount claimed is over the small claims track limit, this is likely to go on the fast track. If it does and the Defendant loses it could cost him thousands in costs. Also, there is no guarantee that the court would order payment at an affordable rate.

 

I'm not trying to suggest that the OP should fold but the above 'advice' is just wrong. The OP deserves to know the risks before proceeding.

 

I would appreciate it if another "legal" person could confirm the above.. i'm happy to put them to test but if i did lose I could not afford hundreds in costs.... let alone thousands

...

[AndyOrch]

Just be patient and wait FF we are along way off trials and costs...we are fully aware that this would be tracked to Fast Track as discussed earlier in the thread.

 

Andy

[fish-face]

FF?

 

Also I take it my defence is that they have not sent the documants requested on time, and that is also my reason for the additional 14 days?

[mjt2013]

Just be patient and wait FF we are along way off trials and costs...we are fully aware that this would be tracked to Fast Track as discussed earlier in the thread.

 

Andy

 

Do you not think it would be nice to mention the risk of costs and confirm what I have said so the OP can make an informed choice? I'm not sure that just ignoring the issue will do the OP any favours in the long run, particularly as he has already been given bad advice on the costs implications which if not corrected could cause a real problem later down the line.

[AndyOrch]

FF = fish- face

[fish-face]

Oh

Andy can you answer regarding courts costs (should and if) I lose, it has been brought up by MJT2013 but has not been answered for some reason...

 

 

. also regarding my defence if that route is followed what do I give my reasons for???

 

 

I only have until this Tuesday to sumbit, or can I still use the 14 days and await the CCA result and then admit if needed without additional penalty?

[AndyOrch]

Its already been answered in posts by CitizensB and the consequences of Fast Track (claim over 10K).

 

Regards

 

Andy

[fish-face]

Well it hasn't really Andy..

I need to know roughly how much.

. if i did lose... £500? £1000? £5000?

 

 

would you recommend continuing and defending as they have not sent the CCA request,

 

 

i'm totally happy to defend but if it's really 50/50 and the costs are going to be massive...

. I need to send the admit form off by Monday if I am going that route..

or can I still have 14 days and then bin the defence if needed?