Carter/Lowells - Claimform Vanquis 'debt[s]?' *** Claims Dismissed***

[fedupwithbankpwm]

Hello All

 

 

I am due to go to court on the 23rd September on behalf of my wife.

 

 

Here is the history.

 

 

There are two claims which have been merged, the lead claim is for around £400 and the second around £1200.

 

 

I have sent a prove it letter 10th March 14:

 

 

 

 

I sent a s77 request 14th MArch 14:

 

 

 

And finally I sent a CPR31.14 letter:

 

 

 

 

 

[/size]All of the above remain unanswered for the small debt (which is not on any credit file) except the standard CPR31.14 response saying we should have the contract.

 

 

The larger debt they have sent a reconstituted agreement with no actual signature and a set of statements which are in a general format (IE not in a credit card style or headed paper)

 

 

 

I put our defence onto MCOL in the proper time frame and it is as below:

 

 

 

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. The claim is denied with regards to an amount due under an agreement. The Claimant/Solicitor has refused to disclose any agreement or statements on which its claim relies upon. (paragraph 1 of Particulars of claim)

 

3. I am unaware of any legal assignment the claimant refers to within its particulars and deny the notice was served pursuant to the Law of Property Act 1925. (paragraph 2 of Particulars of claim)

 

On receipt of this claim I requested information pertaining to this claim from Bryan Carter Solicitors by way of a CPR 31.14. To date I have yet to receive a compliant response. This was posted on the 12th March and signed as received on the 14th March. Bryan Carter Solicitors responded by saying that they will not comply and that it is based on a simple contract which I should have in possession.

 

On receipt of this claim I requested information pertaining to this claim from Lowell's by way of a Section 77/78 request. To date I have yet to receive a response complying with the request. This was posted on the 15th March and signed for as received on the 19th March

 

Therefore with the courts permission the Claimant is put to strict proof to:

 

(a)Show and disclose how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and

 

(b) Show and disclose how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed for;

 

© Show how the agreement was legally terminated to allow the claimant relief.

 

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

 

4. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5, it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.

 

5. 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.

6. 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 including interest pursuant to S69 of the County Court Act. (paragraphs 3,4 and 5 of the Particulars of Claim)

 

 

 

I have the proofs of posting etc for all and went online to see when they were signed for.

 

 

I have had the AQ filled it in and sent it back.

 

 

I put down for mediation but have as yet not contacted for an appointment (TBH I forgot about it)

 

 

Okay so a lot to read I know but I am now putting stuff together for the hearing and would appreciate any advice at all please!!

Edited September 1, 2014 by Andyorch
formatting/Templates removed

[fedupwithbankpwm]

That looks much better and easier to follow!!!

[fedupwithbankpwm]

One thing I forgot is it is Bryan Carter on behalf of Lowells

[citizenB]

fedup, can you please post up the text of the particulars of claim.

 

Did you receive a copy of the opposition's Allocation/Directions Questionnaire ? I am surprised that this hasn't gone to mediation.. but I guess if they said they weren't interested then the court might not have suggested it.

 

Have you been asked to provide a witness statement prior to the hearing ?

 

I will ask andyorch to look in for you.

[fedupwithbankpwm]

CitizenB I will post up when I get home tonight.

 

 

I received and sent back the AQ I think but I will double check.

 

 

Witness statement is the next step.

 

 

Thank you.

[citizenB]

[Ganymede]

I am due to go to court on the 23rd September on behalf of my wife.

 

Hi,

 

Can you clarify what you mean by this? Is your wife going with you?

 

This may sound obvious as weel, but remember this is your wife's claim so her Witness Statement must read as it is from her and be signed by her.

[fedupwithbankpwm]

Sorry should of made it clearer, she will be there but I will be speaking as her representative, she has too nervous a disposition to cope with a court setting!!

[Ganymede]

Sorry should of made it clearer, she will be there but I will be speaking as her representative, she has too nervous a disposition to cope with a court setting!!

 

Just checking.

[fedupwithbankpwm]

Please do keep checking, there is a high propensity of me doing something daft!!

[AndyOrch]

Hi fedupwithbankpwm

 

Responding to CB,s SOS...you will notice that I have had to edit your first post...we request that our template Letters are not posted to thread as they are for members only and only viewable to members.

 

Once you return home if you could post up verbatim a copy of the particulars of claim (less any identifiable data) on the copy of the claimants DQ have they requested mediation (ADR) ?

 

Also a copy of the Notice of Allocation ...in particular the time table of directions.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[fedupwithbankpwm]

Particulars of Claim

 

 

This claim is for xxx.xx the amount due under an agreement between the original creditor and the defendant to provide finance and/or services and/ or goods

 

 

This debt was assigned to/purchased by Lowell Portfolio I Ltd on 15/02/2013 and notice served pursuant to the law of property act 1925

 

 

Particulars Re Vanquis A/C No xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

 

And the claimant claims xxx.xx

 

 

The claimant also claims interest pursuant to s69 county court act 1984 from 15/02/2013 to date at 8% per annum amounting to xx.xx

[fedupwithbankpwm]

DQ and NOA for you Andy

[AndyOrch]

If you could covert your uploads to PDF fedup..Ive misplaced my microscope:

[dx100uk]

you say this is two merged debts

why is their only one A/C no. in the PoC if so?

 

 

dx

[fedupwithbankpwm]

Lets try again!! Hopefully a legible PDF showing the DQ and NOA.

 

 

Dx100uk the POC for the other claim is identical wording but for a different amount.

 

 

This was merged into one, unfortunately the evidence that would clear and exonerate the lead claim would incriminate the second, the lead claim is a complete unknown and does not appear on any credit file yet is supposedly quite recent, the second claim though does appear on the credit file!

[AndyOrch]

Many thanks fedupwithbankpwm

 

So what do require help with?......you need to concentrate on points 5 onwards within in the directions and follow the timetable.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[fedupwithbankpwm]

Andy

 

 

Its more the witness statement and the fact that it is now two claims in one. The lead claim I am confident in as there has been no response to the S77 letter and just the usual BC responses to the "prove it letter" and the CPR31.14 request, and the credit file has no record either as a default or as an account. Couple this with the fact we genuinely have no recollection of the account nor any paperwork then our confidence are high.

 

 

However the second claim they have responded to the s77 with an agreement with a typed signature and a list of transactions and this does appear on the credit file, I am nervous of the "strict proof" they were put to in the defence and whether what they have sent constitutes a satisfaction of strict proof.

 

 

Paul

[AndyOrch]

Okay so are we defending 2 claims here ? You really should create a separate thread for each claim otherwise your thread will become impossible to navigate and understand....believe me,

[fedupwithbankpwm]

Andy

To my mind they have satisfied parts a and b but not c and d yet. If they send a copy of the default and a notice of assignment through in their pack then the second part of their claim is founded even though the lead claim will be not proven.

(a)Show and disclose how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and

 

(b) Show and disclose how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed for;

 

© Show how the agreement was legally terminated to allow the claimant relief.

 

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

I would then be reliant upon the non-disclosure of these documents under the cpr31.14 letter, but I'm not sure how much weight this will carry as a contravention of civil procedure with the Judge and whether it is enough to find for us.

I am also nervous that I have made no contact with the mediation team which until I started to look at the documents again I didn't realise it was both parties who had to contact.

Paul

[fedupwithbankpwm]

They have made it into one hearing though.

[AndyOrch]

One hearing for 2 claims (2 separate claim numbers both to the same defendant...your wife)?

[fedupwithbankpwm]

That's correct

[AndyOrch]

Particulars of claim both identical both for credit card debts? You submitted the same defence for both...completed two sets of DQs and the courts case managements have opted to deal with both claims in one hearing...are there 2 Notice of Allocation notices? ... have they amalgamated both claims into one....directions to cover both claims?

[fedupwithbankpwm]

POC's both identical except for amounts and OC, same defence for both, completed two sets of DQ's and yes the court amalgamated them, not sure if that was the courts decision or a request from BC.

 

 

Directions were sent for each but the second set said to comply with the lead letter.