Link/IDR Claimform - old Barclaycard 'debt'

[Duo]

Great!! Thank you so much.

[Duo]

The courts say that they have added the information to the file and I also received the letter from IDR saying that they agreed to an extension to the time for me to file my defence.

[AndyOrch]

You wont be requiring that offer...as the defence has already been submitted:wink:

[Duo]

I have received a letter from Link with a copy of what appears to be the signed agreement for this account.

 

They also sent a reconstituted copy of the credit agreement; however, it was pretty much illegible. In addition they sent a copy of the credit agreement as varied in accordance of section 82 (1) of the Act.

 

They say that this will now be handled by their solicitors, Kearns, who will move forward with the claim.

 

Do you have any advice on how I should proceed?

[dx100uk]

so stupid link have forgotten there is already a stayed claim...

 

kearns never do anything.

 

can you scan the lot up please?

follow the UPLOAD

put all the scans in ONE multipageword doc

then file save as ****.pdf

 

leave the little edge version numbers on the pages too

[Duo]

I will scan and upload the documents. The page for the CCA is a single page but since it is mostly personal information I will have to blank out most of it. Should I still include the CCA page?

 

Unfortunately they didn't forget that they already had a stayed claim, they are going to proceed with the stayed claim (assuming that they can get a judge to lift the stay). Apologies if I was unclear about this.

[dx100uk]

yes scan all of it

layout /wording is important too.

 

 

as for lifting the stay...pigs might fly as well.

 

 

dx

[Duo]

I have scanned in all the documents they sent me. If you need any or all of them in the higher resolution, please ask.

 

The CCA signature form was hard to read and illegible in places and the terms and conditions were illegible.

 

It appears that they received these files back in April but they only sent them to me at the end of last week and I received them yesterday.

 

 

When I was trying to negotiate with them earlier this year to my surprise they told me that they were not going to fulfil the CCA request while we were talking

and it seems that they really did hold off on fulfilling it.

 

I still have a CPR 31.14 request outstanding with them.

 

Please let me know if I have not obscured all the pertinent information.

 

Thanks.

Edited October 4, 2015 by dx100uk
pdf reduced in size was 10Mb now <1mb -dx

[Duo]

Hi, does anyone have any advice on how best to proceed?

[AndyOrch]

Do nothing the CCA is illegible and therefore unenforceable without the courts permission.

 

Andy

[Duo]

Thanks Andy. What worries me is that they may have a perfectly legible version of the CCA that they are waiting to spring on me at the last minute, since these are apparently reconstituted.

 

Also the documents I posted were of much better quality than the files that are linked now but they were resized by the admins to keep the attachment size under 1MB. For instance the second set of terms and conditions (p 7-9) were legible.

 

Should I re-upload them 2 documents at a time so that you can get a better idea of the true quality?

[AndyOrch]

They are not reconstituted versions...they are the originals.

[dx100uk]

sorry about that yes please do.

 

 

dx

[jackreacher]

The illegible ones provided are the originals. You could.. thank them for providing them, say you remember them being illegible at the time of signing and put them to strict proof to prove otherwise .

 

I had a case where the judge said the CCA was legible, so I cheekily asked him to read it, he read a few big title words but then before it got embarrassing conceded they were illegible. ordered the claimant to provide the originals, they couldn't case folded.

 

Have a search its easy to find and understand.

[Duo]

I received the letter below from Kearns Solicitors several days ago (Link_Solicitors_Letter.pdf).

 

In it they state, "As the bar to enforcement created by S78 has been lifted, and the defence having been removed by virtue of the compliant S78 reply issued, we are instructed to progress this claim to trial."

 

It seems like they believe that the documents they sent were compliant even though they are not legible and plan to progress the claim. Also they seem to have ignored the additional information that was sent in for the defence.

 

I am thinking that perhaps I should write to them to challenge the assertion that they have complied with S78.

 

Apologies to everyone. I missed the replies after Andy said that these were the originals. Please see below.

 

sorry about that yes please do.

 

Re-attached as Link_CCA_Return P1 - P4. The first three P1 - P3 represent the best balance of an accurate reproduction of the legibility of the documents and file size that I could manage so it would be much appreciated if they weren't resized.

 

They are not reconstituted versions...they are the originals.

 

The illegible ones provided are the originals. You could.. thank them for providing them, say you remember them being illegible at the time of signing and put them to strict proof to prove otherwise .

 

Thanks guys but reading the letter from Barclaycard (page 2 of Link_CCA_Return_P4_r.pdf) it says, "I enclose a reconstituted copy of your credit agreement together with a copy of the terms of your credit agreement as varied in accordance with section 82(1) of the Act."

 

I think that perhaps the first sheet P1 is an original and that terms and conditions (P2 & P3) are reconstituted. Is it possible that this is what Barclaycard did?

 

I can't be sure because I can't read them but when I look at the terms and conditions I think that they may not even apply to the card on P1.

 

Also, looking at the document in P1, would the lack of a signature from Barclaycard constitute an improperly executed agreement?

[AndyOrch]

" As the bar to enforcement created by S78 has been lifted "

 

Only in their eyes...yet to be decided by a court....dont write dont respond...let them progress the claim.

 

Andy

[jackreacher]

the illegible ones are the originals.

..the readable ones are the modern ones at close of play..

 

 

They have still not supplied your full set of terms and conditions to your original agreement.

 

They have supplied the signature page and the short FRC finacial related conditions

...there should be several more pages setting out all the terms and conditions.

 

Really Scrutinise para numbers .

.check anything you can read ie interest rates against each other and your own statements

. these documents nearly always have mistakes in them.

..don't be lazy on this, it could be your salvation.

 

 

 

I will have another look later.

[Duo]

" As the bar to enforcement created by S78 has been lifted "

 

Only in their eyes...yet to be decided by a court....dont write dont respond...let them progress the claim.

 

Andy

 

Thanks Andy. Does this mean though, that if they can convince a Judge that they have satisfied their S78 obligations with this reply that stay will be lifted and the claim will move on to the allocation stage and probably end up on the Fast Track? Should that happen, will I have a chance to get readable copies of the CCA before the trial?

 

the illegible ones are the originals...the readable ones are the modern ones at close of play.. They have still not supplied your full set of terms and conditions to your original agreement.

They have supplied the signature page and the short FRC finacial related conditions...there should be several more pages setting out all the terms and conditions.

 

Really Scrutinise para numbers ..check anything you can read ie interest rates against each other and your own statements. these documents nearly always have mistakes in them. ..don't be lazy on this, it could be your salvation.

 

I will have another look later.

 

Thanks jack, I will go through it again.

On the interest rates I can't see any interest rates for balance transfers or special conditions for calculating interest rates for balance transfers

and what the interest rates would be should those conditions not be met.

Would this have to be in the Terms & Conditions since the balance transfer section was on the the application form?

 

There are some 15 sections and section 3 is the section on Financial and Related Conditions.

Should there be more?

15 - 17 paragraphs seems to be the norm on current agreements that I have looked at.

[jackreacher]

Thanks Andy. Does this mean though, that if they can convince a Judge that they have satisfied their S78 obligations with this reply that stay will be lifted and the claim will move on to the allocation stage and probably end up on the Fast Track? Should that happen, will I have a chance to get readable copies of the CCA before the trial?

 

 

 

Thanks jack, I will go through it again. On the interest rates I can't see any interest rates for balance transfers or special conditions for calculating interest rates for balance transfers and what the interest rates would be should those conditions not be met. Would this have to be in the Terms & Conditions since the balance transfer section was on the the application form?

 

There are some 15 sections and section 3 is the section on Financial and Related Conditions. Should there be more? 15 - 17 paragraphs seems to be the norm on current agreements that I have looked at.

 

the FRC contains the main important (prescribed terms) points and are always part of the signature agreement or the agreement irredeemably fails. So check if your original statements % match the illegible FRC.

 

Because they have not supplied you with the full set of accompanying terms and conditions from when you signed the agreement they are still in breach of the s78 CCA. So yes there should be more!

 

Its illegible .... Its the most important document in the case and no one can bloody read it. Each and every word should be legible. The judge will know this but you provide the statute law any way. Google it it is simple.

 

Bank fodder is correct..Estoppel is a really good defence and one that Judges fully understand.

 

The full set of T&c's are from 2011 or whenever ignore for now.

 

The Default Notice deny you had one make them provide one?

[Duo]

the FRC contains the main important (prescribed terms) points and are always part of the signature agreement or the agreement irredeemably fails. So check if your original statements % match the illegible FRC.

 

Thanks again, jack. I will have to search for everything from Barclaycard to see if I have anything related to this. If there were a discrepancy, e.g. balance transfers not on Ts & Cs, what would be the way forward then?

 

Also would a credit card company have had to notify a customer in advance of any change in interest rates prior to the the changes agreed during the 2008 government & CC company summit and the 2009 law change?

 

Because they have not supplied you with the full set of accompanying terms and conditions from when you signed the agreement they are still in breach of the s78 CCA. So yes there should be more!

 

Would a Judge usually be aware of this or would they take it on trust that these are the full Ts & Cs?

 

Its illegible .... Its the most important document in the case and no one can bloody read it. Each and every word should be legible. The judge will know this but you provide the statute law any way. Google it it is simple.

 

I assume you mean that I would provide the statute law at trial - I'm trying not to let this get to that stage if possible.

 

In the Ts & Cs, I am trying to find if there is a part that talks about when payments are to be made but I haven't been able to identify it yet.

 

Bank fodder is correct..Estoppel is a really good defence and one that Judges fully understand.

 

Estoppel would only be used at trial, right? I had read elsewhere about people sending Estoppel notices to DCAs.

 

The full set of T&c's are from 2011 or whenever ignore for now.

 

The Default Notice deny you had one make them provide one?

 

I asked them for the Default Notice in the CPR 31.14 request that I sent in March and asked them to show evidence of service of a Default Notice in the additions to my defence.

 

Would the clauses in any default notice apply only to the terms at the time the Default Notice was issued or would it apply to the initial terms? I am guessing that it would apply to the terms in force at the time the Default Notice was issued.

[jackreacher]

Thanks again, jack. I will have to search for everything from Barclaycard to see if I have anything related to this. If there were a discrepancy, e.g. balance transfers not on Ts & Cs, what would be the way forward then?

 

Also would a credit card company have had to notify a customer in advance of any change in interest rates prior to the the changes agreed during the 2008 government & CC company summit and the 2009 law change?

 

You need to do a sar to barclays this will provide you with a lot of evidence.

 

 

 

Would a Judge usually be aware of this or would they take it on trust that these are the full Ts & Cs?

 

No you wold explain to the judge there must be more than just the fRC or they would have had no right to charge you default payments fro example... Check the modern reconstituted ones to see what should have been included or read the consumer credit Act where it is written what must be included.

 

 

 

I assume you mean that I would provide the statute law at trial - I'm trying not to let this get to that stage if possible.

 

In the Ts & Cs, I am trying to find if there is a part that talks about when payments are to be made but I haven't been able to identify it yet.

 

It amy well say something like ...we decide when te payments start... make them prove it does mention the repayment schedule...

 

 

 

Estoppel would only be used at trial, right? I had read elsewhere about people sending Estoppel notices to DCAs.

 

AT trial yes but if you wish to avoid trial you could write to them explaining this..your call.

Plus that lovely statute you found to back up your estoppel makes it a strong argument.

 

 

I asked them for the Default Notice in the CPR 31.14 request that I sent in March and asked them to show evidence of service of a Default Notice in the additions to my defence.

 

Would the clauses in any default notice apply only to the terms at the time the Default Notice was issued or would it apply to the initial terms? I am guessing that it would apply to the terms in force at the time the Default Notice was issued.

 

Well if they can't provide one as evidence the Judge will find it peculiar... argued properly it can save the day. the statutes are mainly there to protect us the consumer.

[Duo]

I spoke to MCOL today and Kearns have applied to have the stay lifted.

 

What is more worrying though is that they say that they can't find anything on their system that says that the additional information for the defence was actually added to the defence file like they previously confirmed it was.

 

I have written to them for confirmation of the situation.

 

If the points weren't added then isn't it most likely that Kearns will go for a lifting of the stay and summary judgement?

 

If the points weren't added what can be done to rectify the situation other then asking them to add them?

 

EDIT: I should add that they lady I spoke to said that they had asked for the stay to be lifted and for a directions questionnaire to be issued (although I don't know if she knew this for sure or if she was assuming).

[AndyOrch]

So you need a copy of the application and any witness statement in support to see what order they have requested...to proceed or to request summary judgment.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[Duo]

I called them again and it appears to be a request to proceed rather than a request for a summary judgement.

 

The file has already been sent to a judge so I'm told that they can't see exactly what it says or the reasons they have given for the delay. I should be able to get a copy when it comes back and the judge has made his order.

[AndyOrch]

They should of served you a copy of the application anyway...you need to know what grounds are they requesting the stay be lifted and the reasons why they have delayed and let it stay.