Marlin/Mortimer claimform old Northern Rock 'debt'

[thered]

No they are not obliged to disclose until after you have submitted a defence...therefore you cant ask for an extension (from the court) you can ask the claimant and then inform the court (CPR 15.5)

 

How can i form a defence if they havent sent me things i have asked for??

 

ty

[dx100uk]

there are lots of threads here with the 'no paperwork supplied' defence

 

dx

[AndyOrch]

How can i form a defence if they havent sent me things i have asked for??

 

ty

 

Small claims court does not work like that..you either owe the money or you dont.If its disputed...yes you are entitled to seek clarification....but disclosure will only happen later in the process...so your defence will put them to strict proof to clarify/disclose...a holding defence.

[thered]

Small claims court does not work like that..you either owe the money or you dont.If its disputed...yes you are entitled to seek clarification....but disclosure will only happen later in the process...so your defence will put them to strict proof to clarify/disclose...a holding defence.

 

Looks like i will have to get busy then this week NR have replied to my SAR saying it needs a sig.

 

How should i focus my defence, im not disputing having loans with Northern Rock i had 3 or 4. They all paid out PPI to me or misselling too

 

My dispute is i thought everything was now clear. In 2009 i lost my job and went to citizens advice i had loans, credit cards, car finanace and mortgage. Aside from Mortgage everything went to £1 a month. I even lost car and still gt left with a £1700 bill. Citizens advice sorted everything

 

i thought everything was in clear now though till Marlin showed up. I was paying £1 a month to Nram but its not something you really notice on statements so i never took any notice till Marlin.

 

I thought who are these i dont owe them any money and then after reading sites like this and seeing them on dispatches i realised they get a lot of bad press and lie and cheat their way to money owed. So after getting a lot of both good and bad advice i wrote to them and found a few things amiss with help.

 

So far I have

 

CA is 14 digit number, the agreement they want is 16 digits

No terms with agreement and the ones they gave as a reconstruction are from the future

Statement of account doesnt add up to what they claim

Statement starts before agreement was even started

PPI misseling and 8% interest was paid on EVERY loan ever with OC

No default Notice received

No Cancellation notice received

I dont think the loan agreement is quite right it never adds up to the correct amount on all loan calculators

No response as yet to CPR31.14

Marlin Financial Services are chasing me, Marlin Europe are taking it to court (If they are different companies and they are surely they need another notice of assignment for them to chase me, or in the very least an introduction on who they are and why they are chasing me for MArlin Europes debt)

 

 

Obvoiusly some parts may not be relevant but i am very interested on help wording what is of use

 

 

 

Thanks to all

[AndyOrch]

I personally wouldn't go into any specific point at this stage but rather just submit an holding defence that questions everything about their claim and puts them to proof to claify...create work for them...get the court to pressure them.....then see if they are keen to proceed:wink:

[thered]

I personally wouldn't go into any specific point at this stage but rather just submit an holding defence that questions everything about their claim and puts them to proof to claify...create work for them...get the court to pressure them.....then see if they are keen to proceed:wink:

 

Thanks for the reply i have been reading and reading since this arrived but in struggling for it all to sink in tbh, i get one thing and then forget another lol, i was looking at the POC again today word for word is

 

By an agreement between Northern Rock (Asset Management) PLC ("NOR") & the defendant on and around 20/09/2005 ("the agreement") NOR agreed to loan the defendant monies, under the terms and conditions set out therein

 

In breach of the agreement the defendant did not pay the installments as they fell due & the agreement was terminated. The agreement was assigned to the claimant on the 28/10/2013.

 

The Claimant therefore claims:

 

1, ******

2, Interest pursuant to section 69 of the county court act 1984, namely ****** & continuing until judgement or sooner at the rate of 0.52

 

Am i correct in thinking this statement of truth is supposed to be signed by a person (Not the solicitors), and how can it be a statement of truth if he has not seen the documents. I say this because its vague (on and around the 20th), if they had the document they referred to it would have the day on it. So how can this be a statement of truth. The terms are incorrect date anyway and i have never seen a termination notice or default. Yet it refers to it being terminated. Am i barking up the wrong tree here or can this be questioned??

 

Also Andy many thanks btw, what do you mean by holding defence??

 

Do i show my hand or just merely deny what they say? how would i word it?

 

TY

[AndyOrch]

I will show you a simple system in responding to particulars of claim...split it into paragraphs and number it and respond accordingly...so ....

 

1.By an agreement between Northern Rock (Asset Management) PLC ("NOR") & the defendant on and around 20/09/2005 ("the agreement") NOR agreed to loan the defendant monies, under the terms and conditions set out therein.

 

2.In breach of the agreement the defendant did not pay the instalments as they fell due & the agreement was terminated.

 

3.The agreement was assigned to the claimant on the 28/10/2013.

 

Now you have 3 points to respond to and only 3...don't divulge anything else simply agree refute or accept.

 

"Am I correct in thinking this statement of truth is supposed to be signed by a person (Not the solicitors), and how can it be a statement of truth if he has not seen the documents. I say this because its vague (on and around the 20th), if they had the document they referred to it would have the day on it. So how can this be a statement of truth. The terms are incorrect date anyway and i have never seen a termination notice or default. Yet it refers to it being terminated. Am i barking up the wrong tree here or can this be questioned??"

 

When any litigation firm (solicitors) wish to submit a claim through CCBC their company is authorised to issue electronically and their company name has been pre authorised to to appear in the SoT.Yes the CPR does state that as a solicitor it should be their name and not a company name but that was drafted way before the introduction of Northampton and as yet to be updated.You could be pedantic and request they re submit but for what purpose...the claim will be the same.

 

The statement of truth is signed with regards the particulars in general not the mechanics of the dispute.

[AndyOrch]

An holding defence is an intermittent response in order to respond by the stated date but questions the claimant to provide further detail by way of disclosure.

[thered]

I will show you a simple system in responding to particulars of claim...split it into paragraphs and number it and respond accordingly...so ....

 

1.By an agreement between Northern Rock (Asset Management) PLC ("NOR") & the defendant on and around 20/09/2005 ("the agreement") NOR agreed to loan the defendant monies, under the terms and conditions set out therein.

 

2.In breach of the agreement the defendant did not pay the instalments as they fell due & the agreement was terminated.

 

3.The agreement was assigned to the claimant on the 28/10/2013.

 

Now you have 3 points to respond to and only 3...don't divulge anything else simply agree refute or accept.

 

"Am I correct in thinking this statement of truth is supposed to be signed by a person (Not the solicitors), and how can it be a statement of truth if he has not seen the documents. I say this because its vague (on and around the 20th), if they had the document they referred to it would have the day on it. So how can this be a statement of truth. The terms are incorrect date anyway and i have never seen a termination notice or default. Yet it refers to it being terminated. Am i barking up the wrong tree here or can this be questioned??"

 

When any litigation firm (solicitors) wish to submit a claim through CCBC their company is authorised to issue electronically and their company name has been pre authorised to to appear in the SoT.Yes the CPR does state that as a solicitor it should be their name and not a company name but that was drafted way before the introduction of Northampton and as yet to be updated.You could be pedantic and request they re submit but for what purpose...the claim will be the same.

 

The statement of truth is signed with regards the particulars in general not the mechanics of the dispute.

 

So basically i just need to put

 

1 The defendant denys

2 The defendant denys

3 the defendant denys

 

Do i not need a reason??

 

An holding defence is an intermittent response in order to respond by the stated date but questions the claimant to provide further detail by way of disclosure.

 

I have written to them again regarding my CPR31.14 being late and basically said provide it within the next 2 days, extend or withdraw

 

Is that ok?

 

EDIT Today

 

I have written again giving 24 hours to reply to CPR 31.14. If no response is it worth using N244 unless order??

Edited July 14, 2014 by thered

[thered]

Afterthought to my post above the original agreement was with Northern Rock PLC, the name on POC is Northern Rock (asset management) PLC

 

I have never ever had any agreements with the asset management side

 

Is that a valid point?

[AndyOrch]

Responding to your PM thered

 

Judging from your last response it appears that you have not read any other threads that have submitted holding defences or read the reasoning as to why the defence is drafted in a way to put the claimant to strict proof to disclose...

 

Never ever chase a CPR request...they are not compelled to respond its a civil request so any application to disclose would be at the discretion of the court.

Just an insight for you... your application would cost £155 because it would require an hearing...the claimant would object and could fight it with the use of a Barrister (costs just increased by £500 to £1k) the court would simply ask them to disclose by date (which they will do anyway as part of the process after allocation) so in effect you have just increased your debt by a possible £1200 and got no further.

 

Here is a typical Particular of claim followed by a holding defence which are scattered around the Financial Legal Issues forum:-

 

Particulars of Claim

 

1.The claimant claims the sum of £10,500 being monies due from the Defendant to the Claimant

under a regulated agreement originally between the Defendant and Barclaycard.

 

2.The Defendant's account number was xxxx and was assigned to the Claimant on 11/04/2011,

notice of this has been provided to the Defendant.

 

3.The Defendant has failed to make payments in accordance with the terms of the agreement

and a default notice has been served pursuant to the consumer crediticon Act 1974.

 

The Claimant claims the sum of 10,500 and costs.

 

The Claimant has complied, as far as is necessary, with the pre-action conduct practice direction.

 

 

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 had financial dealings with Barclaycard in the past. It is denied I have any knowledge of the above Claimant or if any alleged debt was assigned to them.The Claimant has never made any contact apart from the issuing of this claim.

 

3.Paragraph 2 is denied.I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment.

 

 

4.Paragraph 3 is denied the claimant has not complied with Section III & IV and annex B of the PD Pre Action Conduct as stated above they have never made any contact or request prior to the issuing of this claim. They even failed to serve a letter before actionicon before issuing proceedings.

 

 

On receipt of the claim formicon the Defendant sent a CPR 31.14 request dated 3/7/14 for a copy of the credit card agreement,Notice served under Sections 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974, notice of assignment and a

statement of account showing how the amount claimed has been reached, which form the basis of this claim.

This was signed for by the claimants solicitors on 4/7/14. The claimant has yet to comply.

 

Therefore the claimant in their none compliance to my requests have frustrated my attempts to clarify

their claim and against pre action protocol should be considered when the question of costs arise.

 

Therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:

 

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

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

© show Notice served under Sections 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974

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

 

As per Civil Procedureicon Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is

owed.

 

On the alternative, if 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.

 

Until such time the Claimant can comply with my request for a copy of the Credit Card agreement/Notice served

under Sections 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974 it relies upon they are prevented from enforcing or requesting any relief

as pursuant to the CCA 1974

 

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

[thered]

Responding to your PM thered

 

Judging from your last response it appears that you have not read any other threads that have submitted holding defences or read the reasoning as to why the defence is drafted in a way to put the claimant to strict proof to disclose...

 

Never ever chase a CPR request...they are not compelled to respond its a civil request so any application to disclose would be at the discretion of the court.

Just an insight for you... your application would cost £155 because it would require an hearing...the claimant would object and could fight it with the use of a Barrister (costs just increased by £500 to £1k) the court would simply ask them to disclose by date (which they will do anyway as part of the process after allocation) so in effect you have just increased your debt by a possible £1200 and got no further.

 

Here is a typical Particular of claim followed by a holding defence which are scattered around the Financial Legal Issues forum:-

 

Particulars of Claim

 

1.The claimant claims the sum of £10,500 being monies due from the Defendant to the Claimant

under a regulated agreement originally between the Defendant and Barclaycard.

 

2.The Defendant's account number was xxxx and was assigned to the Claimant on 11/04/2011,

notice of this has been provided to the Defendant.

 

3.The Defendant has failed to make payments in accordance with the terms of the agreement

and a default notice has been served pursuant to the consumer crediticon Act 1974.

 

The Claimant claims the sum of 10,500 and costs.

 

The Claimant has complied, as far as is necessary, with the pre-action conduct practice direction.

 

 

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 had financial dealings with Barclaycard in the past. It is denied I have any knowledge of the above Claimant or if any alleged debt was assigned to them.The Claimant has never made any contact apart from the issuing of this claim.

 

3.Paragraph 2 is denied.I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment.

 

 

4.Paragraph 3 is denied the claimant has not complied with Section III & IV and annex B of the PD Pre Action Conduct as stated above they have never made any contact or request prior to the issuing of this claim. They even failed to serve a letter before actionicon before issuing proceedings.

 

 

On receipt of the claim formicon the Defendant sent a CPR 31.14 request dated 3/7/14 for a copy of the credit card agreement,Notice served under Sections 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974, notice of assignment and a

statement of account showing how the amount claimed has been reached, which form the basis of this claim.

This was signed for by the claimants solicitors on 4/7/14. The claimant has yet to comply.

 

Therefore the claimant in their none compliance to my requests have frustrated my attempts to clarify

their claim and against pre action protocol should be considered when the question of costs arise.

 

Therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:

 

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

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

© show Notice served under Sections 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974

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

 

As per Civil Procedureicon Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is

owed.

 

On the alternative, if 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.

 

Until such time the Claimant can comply with my request for a copy of the Credit Card agreement/Notice served

under Sections 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974 it relies upon they are prevented from enforcing or requesting any relief

as pursuant to the CCA 1974

 

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

 

Brilliant thanks Andy, tbh i have probably read to many threads tbh and lots of people contradict whats been said before and i want to be 100% sure, I will adjust this to suit my own case, not sure if you seen last post, is it relevant that they are chasing Northern Rock asset management PLC as oppose to the actual agreements Northern Rock PLC

 

There has never been any agreement ever with the asset management side, also is pre 2007 agreement a valid part

 

Cheers

[AndyOrch]

Brilliant thanks Andy, tbh i have probably read to many threads tbh and lots of people contradict whats been said before and i want to be 100% sure, I will adjust this to suit my own case, not sure if you seen last post, is it relevant that they are chasing Northern Rock asset management PLC as oppose to the actual agreements Northern Rock PLC.Yes you can include that within your opening response in para1 if they are referred to within the claim and as claimant.

 

There has never been any agreement ever with the asset management side, also is pre 2007 agreement a valid part Yes subject to how they respond

 

Cheers

 

 

Regards

 

Andy

[thered]

Regards

 

Andy

 

OK Here it is

 

Particulars of Claim

 

1, By an agreement between Northern Rock (Asset Management) PLC ("NOR") & the defendant on and around **/**/**** ("the agreement") NOR agreed to loan the defendant monies, under the terms and conditions set out therein

 

2, In breach of the agreement the defendant did not pay the installments as they fell due & the agreement was terminated

 

3,The agreement was assigned to the claimant on the **/**/****

 

4, The Claimant therefore claims:

 

1, ******

2, interest pursuant to section 69 of the county court act 1984, namely ****** & continuing until judgement or sooner at the rate of 0.52

 

 

 

Proposed Defence

 

1. The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are very vague and generic in nature, proceedings have been issued by the claimant without even a date of the alleged agreement, they surely must have seen this date on the alleged document to bring forward a case. 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 denied, the defendant has had no agreement with Northern Rock (Asset Management) PLC or the claimant,the Claimant is put to strict proof of this

 

3.Paragraph 2 is denied as there is no valid agreement to breach, the Claimant is put to strict proof of this

 

4.Paragraph 3 is denied, as i am unaware of any lawful assignment, giving the claimant the lawful right, title and interest to pursue or enforce any alleged debt, the Claimant is put to strict proof of this

 

 

 

 

 

On receipt of the claim form the Defendant sent a CPR 31.14 request dated 4/7/14 for a copy of the following documents,

 

a,The original agreement

b,Default Notice served under Sections 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974,

c,Any notice of assignment

d,a statement of account showing how the amount claimed has been reached, which form the basis of this claim.

e,The Termination notice

f,deed of assignement

 

This was signed for by the claimants solicitors on 7/7/14. The claimant has yet to comply.

 

Therefore the claimant in their none compliance to my requests have frustrated my attempts to clarify

their claim and against pre action protocol should be considered when the question of costs arise.

 

Therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:

 

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

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

© show Notice served under Sections 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974

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

 

As per Civil Procedureicon Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is

owed.

 

On the alternative, if 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.

 

Until such time the Claimant can comply with my request for an original copy of the agreement/Notice served

under Sections 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974 it relies upon they are prevented from enforcing or requesting any relief as pursuant to the CCA 1974, and by conclusion, take any legal proceedings out against the defendant, whatsoever

 

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

 

A full defence will be filed upon receipt of the documents requested on the CPR31.14 which has not been complied with in the given time. This is despite my further attempts to give the claimant two further chances to provide the said documents. They have failed to acknowledge or respond to my request for documents and were also given an option to extend the allotted time or withdraw the claim. The claimant has ignored all correspondence from the defendant after issuing claim

 

The particulars of claim are extremely vague and show no documents in which they rely to form a full defence. Upon receipt of the required documents on the CPR31.14 the defendant will have a chance to file a full defence.

 

Is it too waffly? Too much info??

 

Thanks again

Edited July 15, 2014 by thered

[AndyOrch]

So the Claimant is Marlin who bought the debt off NR Assets.......your agreement was with Northern Rock...are they not one and the same?

[thered]

So the Claimant is Marlin who bought the debt off NR Assets.......your agreement was with Northern Rock...are they not one and the same?

 

Dont think so original agreement was not with Nram which they claim in POC. Sure Nram came along later when they went bust

 

Is Marlin the same as Marlin Europe V or Marlin financial services? It is true no agreement with them

 

EDIT Just checked NR and NRAM split in 2010

[thered]

If its Ok is there any point in waiting? or shall i bang it straight off to MCOL?

[AndyOrch]

No dont submit yet it requires further work (remove all the waffle )

[AndyOrch]

Dont think so original agreement was not with Nram which they claim in POC. Sure Nram came along later when they went bust

 

Is Marlin the same as Marlin Europe V or Marlin financial services? It is true no agreement with them

 

EDIT Just checked NR and NRAM split in 2010

 

Didnt NRAM aquire all the Northern Rock accounts?

[thered]

No dont submit yet it requires further work (remove all the waffle )

 

I could argue that its all waffle

 

The issue to a layman like me though is keeping the point without dragging it on, legalese to me all seems like waffle maybe inspired by some ink manufacturer who wanted to increase sales

[thered]

Didnt NRAM aquire all the Northern Rock accounts?

 

No they got some, Virgin now have a lot of them

 

tbh though the POC states an agreement with a company that started 5 years after agreement. Its not true is it?

Edited July 15, 2014 by thered

[AndyOrch]

http://www.n-ram.co.uk/

 

Covers the assignment to Marlin

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Rock_(Asset_Management)

 

Covers what happened to NR.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2012/dec/14/nothern-rock-payout-after-interest-error-taxpayers

 

Covers certain types of loans that may not be enforcible.

 

worth doing a bit of research in the above which may simplify a defence.?

[thered]

http://www.n-ram.co.uk/

 

Covers the assignment to Marlin

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Rock_(Asset_Management)

 

Covers what happened to NR.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2012/dec/14/nothern-rock-payout-after-interest-error-taxpayers

 

Covers certain types of loans that may not be enforcible.

 

worth doing a bit of research in the above which may simplify a defence.?

 

 

Im not sure mine is enforceable, its pre 2007 must be with prescribed terms as of yet not provided. The Guardian link doesnt apply to this time but IMO this did

 

In line with FCA regulations,

NRAM recently reviewed the sales process for all PPI policies sold with unsecured loans

through the telephone, branch and internet channels within Northern Rock between 14 January 2005 and 18 March 2008..

 

During this period there is evidence that some mis-selling of PPI policies may have taken place,

so any customer who purchased PPI during this time period could be due compensation if their policy is found to have been mis-sold.

 

Depending on individual circumstances, affected customers may be entitled to a refund of the premium they paid

plus an interest payment of 8% to reflect the return they could have generated if this money had been invested in another way.

 

We have proactively contacted all customers who were sold PPI with their unsecured loan from January 2005 onwards

with the aim of reviewing their case and paying redress where necessary.

 

 

it was paid out too on all loans from NR i ever had and i had 3 or 4 around this time.

 

With regards to defence im not sure what t omit but my statements are true

[AndyOrch]

Well what needs to be established is if your agreement with NR was legally assigned to NRAM and can they legally state that within their particulars.You are then challenging the assignment to Marlin...was it legally NRAMS to sell to Marlin?

 

All the above has great impact on the opening of your defence and if you can find error then the rest of the defence would be superfluous even if valid.

 

Do you recall what happened at the time NR went under.....what did you receive and from who...statements...who was you making payment to?

[thered]

Well what needs to be established is if your agreement with NR was legally assigned to NRAM and can they legally state that within their particulars.You are then challenging the assignment to Marlin...was it legally NRAMS to sell to Marlin?

 

All the above has great impact on the opening of your defence and if you can find error then the rest of the defence would be superfluous even if valid.

 

Do you recall what happened at the time NR went under.....what did you receive and from who...statements...who was you making payment to?

 

 

Sorry Andy cant remember a thing about it, i think it carried as normal. lost job and CAB sorted everything. PPI was paid about a year later on all loans ever> I have sar'd NR and will see i anything arrives although i do have a box of crap old paperwork stashed you just jogged the memory i will have to have a look

 

RE the defence i thought the idea was i get them to show their hand and pick through it, its not a final defence is it?