Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • You can edit the answers to be in red or would you like me to do it? HB
    • Apologies dx100uk  I did not put the answers in red  Thank you all for your patience. H
    • Which Court have you received the claim from ? Northampton  Name of the Claimant ? Overdales solicitors  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.  13 may 2024 What is the claim for – the reason they have issued the claim? the claim is for the sum of £6163.61due by the defendant under an agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974 for hsbc uk bank plc. Account 4546384809766042. The defendant faild 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 as not been compiled with. The dbt was legally assigned to the Claimant on 23/08/23, notice on which as 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 issue of these proceedings in the sum of £117.53 the Claimant claims the sum of £6281.14. Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ?   Not to my knowledge. Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred?  No Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ?  Online but it was for a smaller amount they kept on increasing this with me asking 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.  It was assigned to a debt collection agency  Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? yes  Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor?  Yes I also made offers to pay original creditor a smaller amount but was not replied to Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ?  No Why did you cease payments? I was made redundant and got a less paid job I also spent some time on furlough during covid and spent some 3 months on ssp off work. What was the date of your last payment?  May 2021 Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? Yes at the time I communicated with all my creditor's that I was running out of funds to pay the original agreements once my redundancy money ran out that was when my accounts defaulted. I then wrote to all my creditor's with pro rata offers of payments but debt collectors took over the accounts.
    • Just an update for all. I received about a letter every other week, increasing in threat levels. Then I hadn't had one for a about two weeks, then Saturday received a carbon copy of the very first letter they sent me in February. Made me laugh, rinse and repeat. 
    • So, your response was not received by the SCP as you did not send it with a valid stamp. Therefore, from my two option in post #14, the first option is the only one available to you, but you do not have the option of asking to be sentenced at the fixed penalty level as the reason the SCP did not receive your response was down to you. Here's a reminder of what to do: Respond to the SJPN by pleading “Not Guilty” to both charges. In the “Reasons for pleading Not Guilty” box state that you are willing to plead guilty to the speeding charge providing, and only providing, the “Fail to Provide Driver's Details" (FtP) charge is dropped. This is a tried and tested method to deal with your problem and is almost always successful. Before the pandemic it was necessary to attend court to do this "deal" because it needs the agreement of the police prosecutor.. During the pandemic courts made every effort to have as few  people as possible attend and they began doing this deal under the "Single Justice" procedure without the defendant's attendance. Some courts have carried this procedure on whilst others have reverted to a personal attendance being necessary. If you are required to attend, your case will be taken out of the SJ procedure and you will be given a date for a hearing in the normal Magistrates' Court. If that is the way they do it in the area involved you will have to attend, see the prosecutor and offer your "deal" in person. 
  • 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

Marlin/mortimer claimform - Yorkshire Bank OD +6yrs old


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3362 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

Thanks dx.

 

I am currently looking at the posts on the thread that you supplied and

I will put something together today and will post on here for you to see it and tell me whether it's suitable for my husbands defence.

 

 

Also I have familiarized myself with the MCOL website so that I can go on next fri and file the defence without any problems.

 

So I am just using the ignored CPR 31.14 request to start with,

 

If they can locate the required paperwork and can show it I am 99.9% sure it will be statute barred anyway...

 

Is that what we are aiming for?

 

Kind Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi dx

 

 

could you please advise in simple terms exactly what I need to be doing.

This is from here, it's from the link you posted. I found something and amended it.

 

Thanks

 

 

Sorry for not knowing exactly what to do but I am no expert in things of this nature

I haven't filed this defence yet, I am doing it on Friday as you advised.

I just need reassurance I am doing the correct thing with this as I am really in the dark and need help and guidance

Edited by MissTinks1975
Link to post
Share on other sites

no don't worry theres no rush on this you have till Friday.

 

 

your particulars of claim 1-4 above

are not the same as what you posted in post 4

so which is the correct version exactly as it appears on the claimform please

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

hehe no matter

 

the poc doesn't go back into them anyway in your defence.

 

ok so:

 

1.Monies due under current account overdraft.

The claimant's claim is for the balance outstanding under a Bank account

facility Clydesdale Bank Plc trading as Yorkshire Banklink3.gif (CYRB)

agreed to maintain for the defendant.

2.It was a term of the bank account that any debit balance would be repayable by the Defendant in full on demand.

Despite a demand being made, the defendant has failed to repay the amount due.

 

3.The debt was assigned to the claimant on 20/8/2010.

nicked this from an andyorch thread i'll try and adapt it later

or you can....

Paragraph 1 is accepted - I have had financial dealings with Yorkshire Banklink3.gif (CYRB) in the past

Paragraph 2 is denied with regard to to ever receiving a demand for full payment from either Yorkshire bank or the Claimant.

Paragraph 3 I am not aware or ever been informed of any legal assignment of this account number to the claimant.

On receipt of the claim formlink3.gif the Defendant sent a CPR 31.14 request dated XX/XX/2014 for a copy of the overdraftlink3.gif

facility 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 XX/XX/2014. 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 Procedurelink3.gif 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 creditlink3.gif Act 1974.

 

Until such time the Claimant can comply with my request for a copy of the Overdraft facility 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 or any relief[/i]

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've removed the last few posts to avoid confusion later to readers

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok well lets see if anything arrives

and I'm sure andyorch will fine tune nearer the date.

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi dx,

 

 

We have today received a letter from Mortimer Clarke Solicitors, it reads as follows

 

 

Dear Sir

Re:MEIII Limited v *******

Ref:*******

Claim No*******

 

 

Further to your letter dated 24/11/2014, we are taking our client's instructions in relation to your request and will come back to you as soon as we can.

 

 

We confirm our client is willing to agree to the extension of 28 days, for you to file your defence. Pursuant to CPR 15.5(2) please notify the court in

writing of the agreement.

 

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

Mortimer Clarke

 

 

Mortimer Clarke Solicitors

Link to post
Share on other sites

you file Friday regardless. cant see any benefit to you to delay things

getting to sound like a speculative claim from them

hoping for an uncontested default judgement

you called their bluff by defending & requesting paperwork.

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

no we don't nurse maid

 

 

this is a self help forum too.

 

 

remember its 'you' doing it and poss going to court

 

 

if things go bad

 

 

you need to be confident and up to date on the reason why you filed this defence.

 

 

have a go

 

 

well sort it by Friday 4pm

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

good idea

 

 

it will help others too!

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi dx & Andy

Here goes...here is my draft defence

 

###Particulars of Claim###

 

1.Monies due under current account overdraft.

The claimant's claim is for the balance outstanding under a Bank account facility Clydesdale Bank Plc trading as Yorkshire Bank (CYRB) agreed to maintain for the defendant.

 

2.It was a term of the bank account that any debit balance would be repayable by the Defendant in full on demand.

Despite a demand being made, the defendant has failed to repay the amount due.

 

3.The debt was assigned to the claimant on 20/8/2010.

 

 

4.The claimant therefore claims: 1. £3,251.14 ,interestlink3.gif pursuant to section 69 of the county courts act 1984,

namely 2. £1,676.04 & and continuing until judgment or sooner payment at the rate of 1.54.

 

 

Paragraph 1 is noted, I have in the past held a current account with Yorkshire Bank .It is denied that I have ever held or had any financial connections with Clydesdale and that any monies are due, I have no knowledge of any balance outstanding.

Paragraph 2 is denied with regard to ever receiving a demand for full payment from either Yorkshire Bank or the claimant.

Paragraph 3 is denied I am not aware of any legal assignment of this debt/overdraft to the claimant.

 

On receipt of the claim form I sent a CPR 31.14 request dated **/**/2014 requesting a copy of the agreement/overdraft facility confirmation & terms and conditions from that date pursuant to section 61B of The Consumer Credit Act.

Also the demand / termination notice served under sections 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974, and any Notices of sums in arrears under running account credit CCA 2006 Sec 86C and Notice of Assignment.

 

The CPR 31.14 request was signed for by the claimant’s solicitors on **/**/****. The claimant has yet to comply with this request.

 

 

Until such time the claimant discloses the basis of its claim, I am unable to clarify the situation with regards to the claim brought against me, therefore against pre action protocol this should be considered when the question of costs arise.

 

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

Therefore I would request that the claimant is put to strict proof to:

 

  1. Show how the defendant has entered into an agreement pursuant to section 61B CCA1974
  2. Show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for
  3. Show the Notice served under sections 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA 1974
  4. Show how the claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.

 

On an alternative, as the claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the claimant has the right to lay claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and section 82A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

Until such a time that the claimant can comply with my request for the copies of paperwork requested above it is denied that the claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or indeed any relief.

 

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

Hopefully I am somewhere near with this...please advise.

Many Thanks

Edited by Andyorch
Particulars brought forward for cross reference.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there no more after their point 3...seems a strange line to end on?

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

this bit

 

 

4.The claimant therefore claims: 1. £3,251.14 ,interestlink3.gif pursuant to section 69 of the county courts act 1984,

namely 2. £1,676.04 & and continuing until judgment or sooner payment at the rate of 1.54.

 

 

my mistook

i'll go add it.

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just going to check it now Tinks...bear with me.....

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Defence now complete....edit add or remove anything you disagree with or are unsure...then copy and paste in MCOL.

 

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks andy

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...