AA Credit Card debt sold to 1st credit - now claimform***Settled by Tomlin Order***

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

It is your choice mediation is in my opinion an excellent way of dealing with debt, rather than just accepting that a CCJ is going to be handed down.

If a mutually acceptable agreement and a consent order (Tomlin Order) is made no CCJ is made make the agreed payments by SO and forget about it, no further action can be taken unless you break the terms of the order.

[dpac123]

 

Is the credit agreement valid then, gien that the address is incorrect?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

The address on the agreement ( for a recon) Must be the debtors address as at the date of inception.

 

 

How "far" wrong is the address?

[dpac123]

 

My current address - not the address I lived at in 2007 - different road, different town, different postcode

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

The address Must be as at the signing of the agreement, therefore what you have received does not comply with that laid down in HSBC - v Carey.

 

I would suggest dropping a " polite " note by signed for post to whichever muppet wrote that letter pointing quite simply that the document supplied does not meet the criteria laid down in said judgement , but of course say no more about the address.

Therefore it is rejected and you suggest that they withdraw the claim.

 

 

 

 

Get it in quick

[dpac123]

 

Thanks. Should I still return the N180? Also what if they twig and come back with a new version with the correct address? (I haven't given it to them but they may get it from the original creditor?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Sorry dpac yes still send.

The OC will have provided the "recon" so there's doubt about "who knows what" I think!

[dpac123]

Many thanks Brigadier - will do as you have said.

[dpac123]

Is this ok to send:

 

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for prompt your response to my enquiries. I refer to your comments regarding the credit agreement being a true copy based on the information held by the original creditor and your reference to HSBC v Carey (2009) - you

have emphasised the point that in this case, a reconstituted agreement did not need to be signed, but this judgement still upheld that prescribed terms would need to be included to make a credit agreement a "true copy".

 

The reconstituted document you sent me does not include the presribed terms and therefore does not comply with what was laid down in HSBC v Casrey (2009).

 

I would therefore ask that in the circumstances, you cancel your claim as it has no reasonable prospect of succeeding.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Cut all else other than the document supplied does not comply with the criteria for a recon agreement.

End with " withdraw the claim"

 

 

Keep it simple lose all " jargon".

[AndyOrch]

Dont send any further letters/emails dpac...bad enough you sent the last one.......save it for your defence & Witness Statement.There is nothing to be achieved getting into letter ping pong post claim...they wont withdraw the claim.

 

Andy

[dpac123]

 

So justcomplete and return the N180?

[AndyOrch]

So just complete and return the N180?

 

Yes....tick yes to mediation...the rest is self explanatory

[dpac123]

Just got through the post the notice of hearing of application at my local court on 25th November. I opted for mediation but didn't hear any more and then a letter from Northampton stating notice of transfer of proceedings. 1st Credit have attached a witness statement and N244 but I have not been asked to provide a witness statement as I thought it was going down the mediation route.

 

 

The credit agreement quite clearly shows my current address not the address at the time and is not signed. Also, there is a screenshot showing a default notice having been issued on 02/06/2009 but the default template enclosed has already personal data blotted out, including name, address, dates and amounts payable. The reference on the template default corresponds with the screenshot though.

 

 

Any suggestions on how to proceed?

[AndyOrch]

Application for Summary Judgment and strike out your defence?

[dpac123]

Hi Andy, not understanding what you are saying? Should I apply for a strike out or to submit a defence?

[AndyOrch]

No you need to read their N244 application and tell me what order they are requesting from the court.

[dpac123]

N244 says:

 

 

An Order that the Court give Summary Judgement against the Defendant on the whole claim because the Defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim or issue and there is no compelling reason why the case or issue should be disposed of a trial pursuant to CPR 24.2(a)(ii) and (b).

Attention is drawn to CPR 24.5(1)(a)(b) if the Respondent to an application for summary judgement wishes to rely on written evidence he must (a) file the written evidence; and (b) serve copies on every other party to the application at least 7 days before the summary judgement hearing.

[AndyOrch]

So as per my initial post #65

[AndyOrch]

Read post#164 onwards....

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?403662-Claim-form-received-from-Drydens-MBNA-debt-poss-faulty-DN/page9

[dpac123]

just received notification of a trial date in January - no mention made of summary judgement date at the end of November - does the trial date supercede the summary judgment date?

[AndyOrch]

Summary Judgement and the trial process run independently to each other...if summary judgment fails or they withdraw you revert back to the trial process timeline.

 

Andy

[dpac123]

So given that summary judgement date is 25th I need a witness statement by Monday 17th?

[AndyOrch]

You should submit a WS in response to their application for SJ and also a further one in regards to the court directions (trial purposes)

[dpac123]

OK thanks - bit confusing for us non-legal types with having SJ and a separate trial? Notice of Allocation to Small Claims Track states: "District Judge X sitting at Y considered the papers in the case and ordered that:

 

 

1. Claim is allocated to SCT and parties are referred to CPR 27 and Practice Direction ...

 

 

this is what made me think trial had superceded SJ?!