Hillesden/mortimer claimform - Black horse loan SB'd [re:term date =SB -NOT!]

[Floydian]

Right.

Do not want to give too many details but

 

 

I am being taken to court by the mighty Mortimer mob.

 

 

I have seen no evidence of the amount I claim to own

I apparently stopped paying around 2nd of September 2009.

I have not paid anything else on this alleged debt.

 

It was a bank loan, unsecured.

 

I say it's barred under the limitations act since nothing has been paid or any communication

has been entered into within six years and three months.

 

 

MCS are, of course, going by a 'termination of contract'. which they claim happened around March 2010

saying the debt is not barred (they of course quote bmw v hart).

 

 

That would mean over six months before they thought they had any cause of action apparently.

I did not get any 'termination of contract' at my house!

 

So who is right?

Can the original loaner dictate when the barred starts ticking?

Should it have started on December 3rd 2009 after three missed payments?

 

Need any help including a relevant defence,

would like them to send me proof as well.

 

 

All I have is on the court papers claiming what I owe.

 

 

This alleged debt is not anywhere on my credit report either.

Thought it would have been if they hadn't even terminated the contract until March 2010

when my report would have been updated to reflect that?

 

Letters to get some evidence would help.

 

 

Do I bother with SAR and CCA as although I have filed AOS I only have about 20 days.

[dx100uk]

no need to hide things

 

 

we need to info to help you.

just redact anything that can ID you

 

 

please fill this out...

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?419198-You-have-received-a-Claim-What-you-need-to-do.-**UPDATED-December-2014**(1-Viewing)-nbsp

[Floydian]

Name of the Claimant Hillesden Securities

Date of issue – 14th December

What is the claim for –

 

 

By an agreement between BLACK HORSE LTD & the defendent on or around 18/09/2008. ('the agreement').

BLACK HORSE LOAN LTD agreed to loan the defendant monies.

The Defendent did not pay the instalments as they fell due & the agreement was terminated.

The agreement was assigned to the claimant.

 

 

THE CLAIMENT CLAIMS THEREFORE £2400

Last payment year (date of last payment) was 2nd August 2009

What is the value of the claim? £2400

 

Is the claim for a current account (Overdraft) or credit/loan account or mobile phone account? Loan

When did you enter into the original agreement before or after 2007? After

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. Account assigned

Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? Not that I recall

Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Not that I recall

 

Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Default sums” – at least once a year ? Not sure

Why did you cease payments? It's alleged at this stage

What was the date of your last payment? 2nd September WHEN

Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No

Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor

and make any attempt to enter into a debt managementicon plan? No

[dx100uk]

join the club.

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?457333-Hillesden-dlc-mortimer-clarke-Black-horse-ccj-claim(5-Viewing)-nbsp

[dx100uk]

can we have the full poc please

 

and last payment year..

 

 

dx

[Floydian]

Ok.

 

By an agreement between BLACK HORSE LTD & the defendent on or around 18/09/2008. ('the agreement'). BLACK HORSE LOAN LTD agreed to loan the defendant monies. The Defendent did not pay the instalments as they fell due & the agreement was terminated. The agreement was assigned to the claimant. THE CLAIMENT CLAIMS THEREFORE £2400

 

Last payment year (date of last payment) was 2nd August 2009

 

Thanks guys

[dx100uk]

ok ta

 

 

if you are 100% happy it IS Sb'd

 

 

go ack the claim - defend all, leave juris unticked

and file the SB defence now

 

 

no need to do anything else.

 

 

looks like hillies are issuing hundreds of these claims

in the hope of a few default uncontested default judgements

 

 

The following defence is all you need if it is SB

1 The Claimant's claim was issued on (insert date).

2 The Defendant contends that the Claimant's claim so issued is a claim in contract and is statute barred pursuant to the provisions of section 5 of the limitation act 1980.

.

If, which is denied, the claimant contends that the Defendant is in breach of the alleged contract, in excess of 6 years have elapsed since the date on which any cause of action for breach accrued for the benefit of the Claimant.

.

3 The Claimant's claim to be entitled to payment of £[insert figure from their POC] or any other sum, or relief of any kind is denied.

[Floydian]

They say it's not stat barred. They say BMW v Hart says it's termination date when the bar starts ticking. That was March 2010. The account has dropped off my CR

[dx100uk]

doubt it, they use that to unsettle claimants

so how have they replied with that

have you already sent a defence?

 

 

or did you write to them outside of the court process////

 

 

tell us where you are at in the process..

 

 

dx

[Floydian]

Did not write.

 

 

Spoke to them on the phone and denied ownership of debt until proof can be provided.

 

 

They told me the last payment date of 2nd August 2009.

 

 

I brought up stat barred and they gave me the hart v bmw case law.

 

 

They claim the date of stat barred goes by the contract termination of March 2010 so not stat barred.

The last payment date is irrelevant they claim.

 

That was the only communication.

I recorded the conversation.

Denied their debt and advice will not contact again except CCA requests.

 

I have only filed AOS to extend the case. I have opted to defend all the claim.

 

Thank you

[dx100uk]

never talk to anyone about you debts on the phone

let alone a no powers fleecing DCA.

 

 

you don't need to extend the deadline.

 

 

go file the SB defence

it for a claimant to PROVE the debt is not SB'd

not for the defendant to prove it IS.

 

 

telephone convs are not evidence recorded or otherwise.

 

 

dx

[Floydian]

Thanks so much it's a worry. What is this all about hart v bmw and them going for termination of contract is the cause of action, not the last payment. They dispute the HP argument.

 

Have we some other case law where the SB defence being lost, due to contract termination being much later than the last payment.

 

They just say it's taken from one of these

 

1) admitted the debt

2) Contract termination

3) last payment

 

6 years from the latest event.

 

 

 

 

Also is four missed payments enough? (Monthly)

[WindySock]

Have we some other case law where the SB defence being lost, due to contract termination being much later than the last payment.)

 

Some judges will decide the clock starts from default/termination.

 

An example

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?447033-PRA-Group-claimform-old-MBNA-card-debt&p=4776427&viewfull=1#post4776427

[dx100uk]

no-one can protect against the judge lottery syndrome

[havinastella]

This is what National Debtline says, which makes good sense to me:

 

Unsecured credit debts

 

Unsecured credit debts are things like credit cards, store cards, personal loans and catalogues. When using the Limitation Act, these debts are often called ‘simple contract debts’.

The Limitation Act says that the limitation period for simple contract debts is six years.

The cause of action (when the limitation period starts running) for simple contract debts, is usually when your agreement says the creditor is able to take court action because you have fallen behind with payments. This is normally after one or two missed payments.

 

 

Other debts are more complex:

 

http://www.nationaldebtline.co.uk/en...limitation_act

 

 

You need to remember that Hart v BMW was not regulated under the CCA.

[Floydian]

Sent off CCA request, civil procedure for defence and complained to DLC about Mortimer Clarke changing the law to suit themselves.

 

 

Complained that they have been informed its statute barred and if they continued, once informed, I would take complaint to all relevant bodies.

 

Complaint upheld, discontinued, alleged debt permanently wiped.

 

They will not take anyone to court using this new termination of contract clause so defend this everyone.

(There has been as mentioned probably hundreds of these coming through Northampton Bulk centre.)

 

My invoice is on the way to them. MC are a disgrace, solicitors should know better!

[dx100uk]

so the court have comfirmed the case is disc'd?

 

 

dx

[Guest]

cheers for the update floydian.

[Floydian]

so the court have comfirmed the case is disc'd?

 

 

dx

 

No, this is a response to my complaint about vexatious litigation as the loan is SB and a CCA request for good measure.

DLC have confirmed in writing that they have told Mortimer Clarke to discontinue and my account is closed.

 

 

At this stage it's just an update of proceedings but I doubt they'll proceed after writing that letter confirming the whole matter is closed.

 

Either way I've filed my defence.

 

However I will let you guys know as all my knowledge has come from CAG over the years.

 

Thanks dx1000uk and Ford. So far it looks like one Mortimer Clarke Black Horse Loan case lost.

Others should fight, I can only imagine how many cases they win, unfairly, by default.

 

Guys, complain to original creditor or debt purchaser.

In Black Horse cases the majority of accounts were sold in 2010.

 

 

Send off a CCA request and information under the civil procedure,

also make a formal complaint that they are vexatious litigants if the debt is SB.

 

Next step for me is waiting for the notice of discontinuance and sending off my fee schedule.

[AndyOrch]

Fee schedule

 

No wasted costs on SCT Floydian

[Floydian]

Fee schedule

 

No wasted costs on SCT Floydian

 

I charge vextaious litigants as they tried to charge me £110 solicitor fees.

[AndyOrch]

Good luck with that

[Floydian]

The last time I requested and was given £50 for my wasted time.

 

If you keep your costs reasonable, and fair, of course they'll pay. If they don't I expect it'll go to the ombudsman and that'll cost them £600.

 

I can PM you the letter from a debt collector offering ME monies if you want?

[Floydian]

UPDATE

 

DLC confirm action has been stopped and account to be returned to them and closed.

 

Mortimer Clarke pleading ignorance.

 

No discontinued letter to date or response via court.

[Floydian]

Update

 

Notice of discontinued claim received. £100 offered by DLC as way of distress caused.

 

Currently in talks with mortimer over serious complaint over misleading information.

 

Result.