Lowell/carter claimform - old lloyd od 'debt'***Claim Discontinued***

[dx100uk]

[dhn2013]

So, finally have a reply from BC.

 

Thoughts on this? Doesn't seem like they want to share anything at all...

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]58706[/ATTACH]

 

(Link here incase that's too small - https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2lhCUuz3NlPaFNOa2ZrQWM3dVk)

[dx100uk]

If you go read a few carter claims here

 

You will see that's his STD response

 

DX

[dhn2013]

Ok. Have seen that - dug a little deeper again.

 

Note a few of them have done a CCA1974 request to Lowells, I haven't. Should I?

 

Assume next step is to prepare an embarrassed defence stating docs haven't been returned?

[AndyOrch]

Ok. Have seen that - dug a little deeper again.

 

Note a few of them have done a CCA1974 request to Lowells, I haven't. Should I?

 

Assume next step is to prepare an embarrassed defence stating docs haven't been returned?

 

Not applicable to overdrafts

[dhn2013]

Ok thanks Andyorch.

[dx100uk]

OD are not covered by the CCA.

 

 

and no such thing as an emb def

 

 

went out the window years ago.

 

 

no paperwork/holding

 

 

if you copy and paste the title of your thread in to the search cag of the red toolbar

 

 

you'll see lots of like threads

[dx100uk]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?441148-Lowell-Carter-claimform-Halifax-Overdraft-debt-***Claim-Discontinued***

[dhn2013]

Thanks again DX.

 

Bit heavy for this time of night but think I understand the main points.

 

Next steps will be no paperwork/holding defence. Will draft that up in the next few days and post here - assume you don't mind checking - and then submit on my 33rd.

 

Thanks.

[dx100uk]

tues 11th by 4pm

[dhn2013]

tues 11th by 4pm

 

Thanks. Already in the calendar.

 

Thanks again for help thus far, really appreciate it.

[dhn2013]

OK, so defence being submitted tomorrow. Have put this together based on other threads. If anyone could have a quick review that would be greatly appreciated as always.

 

The only query I have is Para 2 - I have had contact from Lowells - is this an issue?

 

 

 

Particulars of Claim

 

1.The claimants claim is for the sum of just over £900 being monies due from the defendant to the claimant under an agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974 between the defendant and Lloyds under account reference XXXXXX.

 

2 And assigned to the claimant on 03/07/2013 notice of which has been given to the defendant.

 

3.The defendant failed to maintain contractual payment under the terms of the agreement and a default notice has been served which has not been complied with.

 

And the claimant claims £900

 

4.The claimant also claims statutory interest pursuant to S.69 of the county act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment of the agreement to date but limited to a maximum of one year and a maximum of 1000 amounting to £75

 

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 Lloyds 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 as 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 have even failed to serve a letter before action before issuing proceedings. They dont plea they have...remove all this

 

On receipt of the claim form the Defendant sent a CPR 31.14 request dated 20/07/2015 for a copy of the overdraft 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 claimant on 21/07/2015 and finally acknowledged in writing 28/07/20153. However, 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 Procedure 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 Overdraft facility agreement/Notice served under Sections 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA 1974 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.

[AndyOrch]

Defence suggested amends......

 

Particulars numbers changed

 

See your point 1. I have added the main point you removed in red.

 

 

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.

 

Your point 2 referring to their para1

 

2. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have had financial dealings with Lloyds in the past.It is denied any balance is outstanding. I have not serviced this account since (insert date) due to the punitive charges and interest being applied which made the account untenable and impossible to facilitate.It is therefore denied that I am indebted for any alleged outstanding residue as any alleged balance will have be created and added by Lloyd's Bank.

 

Your point 3 referring to their para 3

 

Paragraph 3 is denied.The assignee would not be in a position to know or evidence this fact and is therefore irrelevant.

 

Your point 4 referring to their para 4

 

The Claimant is denied from claiming further interest pursuant to sec 69 of The County Court Act.....any alleged balance would have continued to accrue interest subject to its terms and conditions of the facility provided.

 

 

Rest of the defence is fine dhn.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[dhn2013]

Thanks Andy.

 

Amendments made.

 

Final question for now...do I list the POC's above the defence when I submit tomorrow on MCOL? Assume as much so it's clear what's being referenced but don't want to do it wrong.

[AndyOrch]

No you dont...its only here for reference as to check what you are replying to.

[dhn2013]

No you dont...its only here for reference as to check what you are replying to.

 

Noted - thanks, Andy!

 

Will get this off tomorrow lunch time on MCOL.

[dhn2013]

All submitted.

 

Will await the inevitable templated response from Carters and keep this thread updated.

 

Thanks again for help and advice thus far.

[dhn2013]

OK - so got the Notice of Proposed Allocation to small claims today - odd, because I expected another template from Carter before this came. Looks like they've just said "Yes we want to proceed" to the Courts.

 

Form looks like I just need to: agree yes it can go small claims track, yes to mediation and put my local court in? Assume this goes to both court and Carter but not Lowell?

[dx100uk]

back to the court only

 

 

doesn't mean carter IS going to pay the fee mind...

 

 

go read a few carter threads here

usual game

Edited August 24, 2015 by Andyorch
Hilight

[dhn2013]

OK - Thanks DX.

 

Yes have read a lot, some of them get what I believe you have referred to as a "standard begging letter before discontinuation" - was half expecting that.

 

Will keep the thread updated with replies and outcomes etc.

[AndyOrch]

Sorry DX ...copy to the Claimant Sols also.

 

Andy

[dx100uk]

silly me

 

 

thanks andy

 

 

dx

[dhn2013]

Finally heard something on this.

 

Since last update I've filed the questionnaire, and have been given notice it's transferred to local court.

 

Today received notice of court date (late January 2016 - seems a long way away!?)

 

Also attached to the notice is an instruction to Lowell/Carter which reads;

 

Upon the court noticing this appears to be a consumer credit act claim but that it does not comply with PD7B paragraph 7.2 IT IS ORDERED THAT the claimant must amend the particulars of claim so that they comply with PD7B (by DATE) and file and serve them accordingly or explain why PD 7B does not apply

Any ideas what that means - only thing Google turns up is something to do with a hire purchase agreement? And is it strange that the hearing is so far away?

 

Thx

[AndyOrch]

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part07/pd_part07b

 

 

Matters which must be included in the particulars of claim

 

7.1 Where the Consumer Credit Act procedure is used, the claimant must state in his particulars of claim that the claim is a Consumer Credit Act claim.

7.2 A claimant making a claim for the delivery of goods to enforce a hire purchase agreement or conditional sale agreement which is:

(1) a regulated agreement for the recovery of goods, and

(2) let to a person other than a company or other corporation, must also state (in this order) in his particulars of claim:

(a) the date of the agreement,

(b) the parties to the agreement,

© the number or other identification of the agreement (with enough information to allow the debtor to identify the agreement),

(d) where the claimant was not one of the original parties to the agreement, the means by which the rights and duties of the creditor passed to him,

(e) the place where the agreement was signed by the defendant (if known),

(f) the goods claimed,

(g) the total price of the goods,

(h) the paid up sum,

(i) the unpaid balance of the total price,

(j) whether a default notice or a notice under section 76(1) or section 88(1) of the Act has been served on the defendant, and, if it has, the date and the method of service,

(k) the date on which the right to demand delivery of the goods accrued,

(l) the amount (if any) claimed as an alternative to the delivery of goods, and

(m) the amount (if any) claimed in addition to –

(i) the delivery of the goods, or

(ii) any claim under sub paragraph (l) above with the grounds of each such claim.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[dhn2013]

After a few quiet months from BC, a few calls to the Court to see if they had any updates from BC, I've today come home to a letter from BC.

 

Nervously opened it, it's a Notice of discontinuance.

 

Does this mean it's actually over and finished with??

 

I think I owe everyone on here, specifically DX and Andyorch, a huge thank you.