Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


Wandsworth2015

Hoist Portfolio 2/? claimform - old Barclaycard 'debt' ***Claim Still Struck Out ***

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1057 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Good luck hope all goes well, following.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry to chip in , this is potentially the most interesting case on CAG for a long while if the SB issue comes to trial,

although I suspect they may fall on the s78 issue as Barclays are notorious for not finding documents.

 

 

I have some old Barclaycard terms and conditions and they clearly state that legal action will only be taken after the statutory process has been completed and I'm afraid that means BMW v Hart may come into play.

 

 

this is a credit card claim..

BMW ruling was over a very narrow band of HP agreements and not relevant here at all.


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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks DX100uk.... I've stuck to the SB the whole way and will continue to do so, preparing my papers this week

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
this is a credit card claim..

BMW ruling was over a very narrow band of HP agreements and not relevant here at all.

 

It is relevant in the sense that it shows a DN has to be issued before legal action can be taken.

 

In the template for cc claims on here why is the question has a default notice ever been issued asked?

Well its because without a DN (or a defective DN) the creditor cant take any action.

Otherwise what is the point of the question its irrelevant.

 

 

Am sure the same people on here would be (correctly) be saying but the creditor cant take any action they haven't complied with s87 cca.

Yet the same people then completely disregard that when it comes to SB that legal requirement suddenly has disappeared.

 

In all this SB stuff not one person has answered my simple question

If the SB clock started on the date of last payment

how would the creditor ever get the full six years unless the creditor commenced legal action that very same day even though they don't even know its the last payment?

 

2 days late with your payment sorry we've cancelled your agreement and commenced legal action for the entire amount.

Well of course they couldn't do that thanks in part to the cca act just ignoring the act when it suits your purpose is to say the least simplistic.

 

The SB clock can never be the last payment date on a monthly recurring payment date

how does the creditor know your going to miss payments?

So even if you forget any specific legislation ( cca etc) the creditor would already 1 month into the SB period before they even know its started - they don't know that last months payment was going to be your last.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
this is a credit card claim..

BMW ruling was over a very narrow band of HP agreements and not relevant here at all.

 

It is relevant because the main issue in all cases is : when exactly did the full balance become payable ? Barclays are saying in their agreements that there has to be a serious breach of the agreement but they will follow legal requirements before asking the full balance ( ie issue default notice ) In BMW v Hart there had to be a termination notice first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly catquest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A summary of everything so far,

•Last time I used the BarclayCard: Sep 2009, (used for business, ltd company went into administration, card in my name)

•Last payment to BarclayCard was the 5th Oct 2009

•Default notice served 24th May 2010

•Default stated on Equifax 29th July 2010

•Claim received from Hoist 29th Feb 2016

•Particulars on claim use the wrong default date and state interest is calculated to the year 2035

•Total of claim is £16765.15 - most of which is charges and interest

• Defence date 1st April 2016

 

######Defence######

1 The Claimant's claim was issued on 29th february 2016.

 

2.The date last payment made was the 5th Oct 2009 used for business, LTD company which is in administration.

 

3.The Default Noticed was issued 24th May 2010 and served several months after the initial breach

thus the cause of action delayed by 7 months and the Limitations period prolonged to 6 years and 7 months

which in effect allows the creditor to stop time running and the creditor having effective control of when a limitation period begins or even starts to run.

4.Therefore 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 acticon 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 true cause of action for breach accrued for the benefit of the Claimant.

 

5.The Claimant's claim to be entitled to payment of £x or any other sum, or relief of any kind is denied.

Defence does not challenge them on documents or disclosure...its purely a statute barredicon defence.

 

can we please not disrupt another thread with this

use a discussion thread that prob already exists.


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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well a default on equifax is clearly going to be after an actual DN as a DN gives you the opportunity to remedy the situation and thus there is no default.

 

"Defence does not challenge them on documents or disclosure...its purely a statute barredicon defence."

 

So the whole point of this thread is SB then unless I'm missing something so is completely relevant unless you want to stick your head in the sands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

post 102 refers and explains it quite clearly.

 

 

please refrain from hi-jacking court threads.


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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
post 102 refers and explains it quite clearly.

 

 

please refrain from hi-jacking court threads.

 

No it doesn't with the greatest respect dx seems you don't want anybody to post anything that doesn't coincide with your view

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no CAG does not mind at all

but Please do it on your own thread

or go create a new discussion thread

 

rather than, as you sadly do and have done recently

disrupting active court claim threads

and confusing the be-jesus out of the OP's

that are typically new posters too.

 

when 9/10 your 'theories' are latterly proved flawed.

 

help don't disrupt....

 

you obv have a very wide court knowledge

but appear to want to use it to poke for brownie points..

making.."look at me aren't I clever posts.."

please HELP US NOT DISRUPT LIVE COURT THREADS

 

nuff said


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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I can see why you might come to that conclusion dx,

that's never been my intention I only post when I feel I can make a contribution it isn't done for brownie points.

 

If I see a flaw in a argument I will highlight it surely that's the point of this forum.

Surely its better that a potential problem should be highlighted before it get to a court room rather than just saying everything is rosy.

 

Take this thread I don't think an sb defence has much chance of success.

What do you want people to say we could all agree with you and say well of course it's sb'd the claimant will be thrown out of court without a problem

- that;s why they have paid for a fast track case.

 

Please don't try and stifle debate makes the forum merely a mouthpiece for certain peoples views

 

Actually I will start a new thread about SB soon not tonight tho too much wine... sorry that is hijacking this thread sorry!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all this guys. For those interested, my reasons for highlighting the default notice and the date are as follows:

 

The default notice was served on the 7th may 2010 by Mercers and the default date 24th May 2010, i've been unable to get Hoist or Barclays to provide proof of it, I have a digital copy I took back in 2010.

 

ps. the default notice never asked for the full balance to be paid, only the minimum amount due.

 

Equifax has two agreements, the Barclays agreement (settled) and the Hoist agreement, both had the default date of 29th July 2010, I've been trying to understand what this date is, its not a valid default date.

 

I pressured Barclays and Hoist to prove this was the default date and provided the digital copy of the default notice via Equifax. Last week Barclays deleted the agreement from Equifax, Hoist stated they would not delete it nor reply where the date came from. Equifax has since added a notice of correction pending the outcome of the claim with Hoist.

 

The court order states that all documents on which both parties intends to rely on at the hearing, must be submitted by the 1st August 2016, on this date the hoist agreement will also be deleted from Equifax (6 years).

 

The DN date is relevant because if they'reunable to prove the date is correct,

they do not have the required paperwork,

this includes the agreement and obviously it's beyond 6 years from the dn date (claim was 3-4 months before), but 7 months before the last payment.

 

How do I present a sufficient argument in order to defend SB by the 1st August?

 

I am of course searching CAG to get an idea how to reply.

 

many thanks for your interest in this case

Edited by Wandsworth2015
additional info

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The date of 29th July is irrelevant, that's when they decided to place the default on the CRAs.

 

The relevent date for SB purposes is 24 May, that's when the full balance became payable in principle.

 

Your own copy is sufficient proof, you can also get another one by SAR from Barclays but I suspect it's too late for that as they take 40 days to produce it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But all other agreements at Equifax, had the exact default dates that were stated on the DN..... these are now all deleted as the date has now passed.

 

Relevant CCA & CPA requests have been sent to Hoist (and solicitors) and Barclays in response to the initial claim.

 

The default notice stated as follows "

 

Under the terms of your Barclaycard agreement, you must pay at least the minimum by the date shown on your monthly statement. As your payments are overdue, you have broken the agreement.

 

To correct this, you must make a payment of £1499.65 to reach Barclaycard before 24 May 2010.

 

The total at the time was £10,812.21 and the last payment was made wsa Sept 2009 when the business was placed into administration. No request for full balance.

 

Anyway, I will treat the 29th July as irrelevant in the defence and focus on the default date I have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's see if they can actually come up with the agreement. Barclays can ( in my experience ) come up with a generic agreement which doesn't correspond to the real thing ( eg look out for Premier Football terms which had a reduced interest for purchasing tickets )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did state in my defence that I had not sighted any consumer credit related documents and SB was the defence as I've not signed for a credit agreement since 2009. I don't even own a mobile phone.

 

The following directions apply to this claim

 

Each party must deliver to the other party and to the court, office copies of all documents on which that party intends to rely at the hearing no later than 4pm on 1st August 2016.

 

Nothing about a disclosure list, states the actual defence and claimant documents, so will produce what I have

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Each party must deliver to the other party and to the court, office copies of all documents on which that party intends to rely at the hearing no later than 4pm on 1st August 2016.

 

That is standard Disclosure (the disclosure list is attached to all documents) your witness statement also becomes part of the disclosure and added to the list.

 

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 OTHERS

 

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

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So looks like you have one of the mercers faulty DN's anyway?


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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, does this support my defence in any way?

 

To be clear,

the submission of n265 doesn't include my statement of defence,

but simply any document I am relying on for my defence?

 

All I have is the DN,

lots of collection agent letters and responses to my correspondence,

with a screen shot of my account (in the name of my old company)

and a copy of the last statement including payment.

I was sent this when asked for the agreement a year ago.

 

I'm actually relying on the claimant providing me with a signed agreement and valid default notice, the above is all I have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To be clear, the submission of n265 doesn't include my statement of defence, but simply any document I am relying on for my defence?

 

 

They have already had your defence in March...you must list your witness statement as a document on the N265...and include it as part of your disclosure.


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 OTHERS

 

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

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As in my own verbal statement of defence against the claim ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do your Directions state you must submit a witness statement Wandsworth ?

 

If so do you know what a witness statement is and how it differs to a defence?

 

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 OTHERS

 

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

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It mentions the submission of witness statements in the order,

but when I submitted my defence,

there were no witness statements,

all we submitted in defence was the SB statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...