PDC - Property Debt Collection Claimform

[nervousneris]

Hello,

 

Need some help with the above named company.

 

We own our home on a "Freehold" - there is no mortgage on the property. It is in our name and we have no finance against the property. It is a house and stands on its own land detached.

 

We live in an area that has a property management company who is named on the deeds and within the covenants.

 

We moved into the property seven years ago from new build and there has never been a previous owner except of course the developer.

 

Each year a company (various named companies) but the most recent called HML Guthrie has been invoicing for the service charges (or the part of, each property is due to pay - in our case £150.00 per year) but has always been in the wrong name - despite Land Registry having the correct property owners names since moving in.

 

I personally have written to the actual maintenance company and advised them that it is in the incorrect name and it has never been changed. This has been done 3 times over the years and I still have the letters sent, each one referencing the previous dated ones, however, they have not been sent recorded delivery but it would be very odd for three to not reach their destinations and even more so, they had return address labels on them, 2 I am sure about.

 

I advised the property maintenance company that until such time as they put the change in place they would not be paid as we would not pay on an account in the wrong name. It then got left and we haven't heard from them for around 3 years.

 

Recently (two to three weeks back) we have received yet another letter in the wrong name but from HML Guthrie and then within a few days we received a demand for payment from PDC with a document to fill out asking for our bank details and mortgage numbers. Obviously we won't be doing that and we have no mortgage but seems they want to levy the charges against a mortgage, may be standard practice?

 

I got in touch with PDC and advised them that it was in the wrong name and that HML Guthrie will also be advised.

 

We then receive a letter from HML Guthrie with a request for payment on it for the back monies and extortionate charges (details below) in our name which they have acquired from Land Registry.

 

31/03/15 - £600.00 - Arrears

01/04/15 - £150.00 - Charge 01/04 - 31/03/16

10/02/16 - £96.00 - Arrears Collection Fee

14/07/16 - £150.00 - Charge 01/04 - 31/03/17

18/11/16 - £36.00 - Arrears Management Fee

21/03/17 - £150.00 - Charge - 01/04 - 31/03/18

30/03/17 - £180.00 - Instruction Fee

30/03/17 - £168.00 - Debt Collection Fee

 

£1530.00 - Total

 

All the charges were previously sent out in the wrong name.

 

I have written to the Debt Collection people and advised them they will get no monies based on knowledge I have got from reading some posts here with DCA'.

 

I have also asked HML Guthrie to provide proof of their right to collect the monies on behalf of the management company, such as an agreement showing they have such rights. They (HML) are not mentioned in the deeds but the management company is and we have no issue with paying the charge although we strongly deny owing them for previous charges when not in our names and certainly not the ridiculous charges they have levied onto the invoice for silly things such as arrears management fees and instruction fees etc...

 

HML have failed and downright refused to provide proof of right to collect and at this point we refuse to pay monies to a company we have no real proof of who they are. It has been suggested to ask our neighbours but this is beyond us doing the work for them now.

 

Obviously you will see the amount of frustration these people (for want of using a different word) have caused us.

 

We are now being chased constantly by email, they don't have telephone details but they have been told to put everything in writing via Royal Mail.

 

Can someone please offer some help and advice here. Surely they can't get away with this and there must be some way of stopping them?

[nervousneris]

Thank you. We have no issue with the fee being payable. I am sure the neighbours do pay it to these people (HML) and will check.

 

What about the issue with the incorrect account details and also the amounts from previous years. We have tried to get them to resolve the name on the account and they have ignored us. Not wanting to pay previous charges to a company who by their own words only took over the responsibility for collecting a couple of years ago. I have only just remembered this from an email trail so I apologise for misleading anyone here.

 

Would it be a good idea to write again to these people (sent recorded)? I would rather not pay them for periods when they were not responsible. I will also check what work they do as well as mentioned.

 

It has been suggested that this could delay any future house sale we may wish to make, anyone know how we would stand legally for back monies they say we owe? Also, we are happy to pay from now on, just not on previous. Is court action likely or is that a DCA trying their best to intimidate again?

[nervousneris]

Thanks, that does go on about "leasehold" though and we are Freehold and have no landlord or company providing maintenance to our home. Having not entered into an agreement with HML Guthrie I am wondering if they have a right to collect at all. Our management company is a different one they claim they collect on behalf of.

[nervousneris]

Those links look very helpful. Thanks.

 

I will go through them in more detail later today. They claim the fee is for children's parks then they said it was for ground maintenance and that's after they claimed they provided maintenance to our property for the freeholder (which would be us)....

 

I don't think they have a clue what the charge is for and I cannot find anywhere in the Covenant about a specific charge or anything to do with late fees. It does state at their discretion but that is the maintenance companies discretion, not HML Guthrie. Just quickly picking up on a post, they can only charge for work they have done, then they must be able to show that they have done it. I wonder if this can be something that can be requested under a SAR / FOI?

 

On the actual "Application for Payment" HML have sent out after changing the account into the right names it goes on about a lease but we don't have one. I have tried to explain this to them and get nowhere. They are aware the property is freehold, after they checked.

[nervousneris]

I'll pop a letter together (again) and i'll post it up here and if you guys would have a read over it and identify any errors or mistakes I may make / any ideas you have I would be grateful if you would read it.

 

It'll be in a day or so as I'm bogged down with work but I will come back.

 

It does state in our Covenants that there is a maintenance charge and it is payable to "C..... G Maintenance Company Limited".

 

Just been digging and it seems that the address for C..... G..... Maintenance Company is actually the same as HML Andertons which seems to be an arm of the same company.

 

I recall somewhere a few years back that they made contact (in the wrong name) and they were advised accordingly.

 

I'm questioning myself now but it seems like they are using different arms of the same company to make collections.

 

I Both companies reside at the same address of 94 Park Lane.

 

After looking at this more closely, they have made contact in the past under PR Gibbs & Company Limited.

 

I can't figure out what they are trying to do here.

 

I will get this letter drafted and send it to all the addresses and see what they come back with.

 

This looks like one big con to me now.

 

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06235096/officers

 

http://www.thehmlgroup.co.uk/find-your-local-hml/andertons/

[nervousneris]

Thanks for responding on this. I've just come back to it as it they (Property Debt Collection) have just tried to make contact again via email.

 

Not worried about the email.

That's easily dealt with I think but your comment has sparked interest which made me check the company details for Cuerden Grange Management Company Limited.

 

 

You mentioned it is "dormant" but I have found that it is listed as "non trading"

- I'm not sure but is that the same as dormant?

If so, I wonder after all the research I have been doing if PDC have any rights at all to even make a claim based on the fact that they do not own the so called debt and it would fall under the Law of Property Act - I'm not 100% sure on that hence asking here for varied advice.

 

So, at the moment, in my mind, PDC have acquired a debt which we state we do not owe to HML Guthrie as they are not the Management Company we have on our deeds, so it is possible that they have purchased the debt, seems to be the norm with debt collectors from the posts on here.

 

 

In which case, as HML have failed to provide us with a written contract that states they have the legal right to collect on behalf of Cuerden Grange MC HML also have no legal ownership of the debts they claim which we have also tracked back to several different companies who have tried it on in the past but have since had their directors resign and the companies close.

 

The one specifically I am referring to is PR Gibbs & Company Limited

- they have sent letters in the past with the same response from us and have then closed that company.

It looks like the companies are all inter-related so to speak by checking on companies house.

 

If you check the actual Companies House web site they are listed as "Active". All very confusing.

 

I want to add links but I'm not allowed.

Apologies for not being able to do that.

[nervousneris]

Thank you for your very fast response.

 

The deeds state that there is a property management company called Cuerden Grange Management Company Limited and that they shall be the ones responsible for the collection of a maintenance charge, sadly, it also states that they can set it as they see fit!

 

No, we have never received any letter of transfer of ownership of the responsibility to collect. That is my big point, it's almost like asking someone to pay for something that never receive, own, have never viewed etc etc etc..... Just silly.

 

The first we heard from PDC was a letter asking us to fill out a mortgage form that allowed them to charge the amount onto the mortgage, we don't have one anyway as we own the property outright.

 

The solicitor who did our conveyancing at the time is no longer practising (I think they may have gone out of business) but the deeds were transferred into our name in 2010 (originally they were in the name of our parents) and the solicitor who dealt with that is my wifes brother.

 

I don't want to involve him unless I really really have to but we have a copy of the deeds here on my desk and I've gone through them 3 / 4 times now and there is no mention of HML Guthrie, PR Gibbs or anyone else for that matter.

 

We would be required and are required to pay our maintenance charge to Cuerden Grange Management Company Limited as per the details in the deeds so why without any written authorisation would we be paying a "random" company who just sends us a "request for payment" without actually knowing who they are.

 

Yes, our neighbours may pay them, but my point is and I am being a tad stubborn after 7 years of this, why would we pay a company who have no authority to collect or we have even heard of.

 

Like paying for a credit card we have never owned.

 

SAR to PDC / HML? Good thought.

[nervousneris]

So, received a letter today "letter before county court claim".

 

For the full amount of £1590.00 which is including the charges they added.

 

It says;

 

"Acting for: Cuerden Grange Management Co Ltd

 

We write further to our recent letters in connection with the outstanding Service Charge for the above property.

 

We note from our records the mount of £1590.00 remains outstanding. Should payment not be received within the next fourteen days it is our clients instruction to refer this matter to solicitors. The solicitors will issue proceedings in the County Court for failure to pay the outstanding sums together with any additional fees such as Court and solicitor costs.

 

We would draw to your attention the Civil Procedure Rules on Pre-Action Conduct Pro 1.1 (1) and in particular paragraph 4 of the Practice Direction concerning the Courts powers to impose sanctions for failure to comply with the Practice Direction.

 

Free independent advice and assistance can be obtained from a number of sources including national debtline on............

 

We look forward to receiving payment within the next fourteen days from the date of this letter.

 

Yours,

 

Scribble at PDC"

 

Anyone have any thoughts? Just another scare tactic letter?

[nervousneris]

Hi,

 

Coming back to this now. Today a Court Summons has been issued in the name of the deed holder.

 

The Claimant is Cuerden Grange Management Company (Management Agent)

 

The property is FREEHOLD

 

Amounts Claimed are as follows;

 

Amount Claimed - £1590.00

Addtional Charge (they have added on to the charges prior to the court charges) £360.00 "Additional Charge"

 

Court Fee - £115.00

Legal Reps Fees - £80.00

 

Total: £2145.00

 

Charges levied by the Management Agent (HML Group)

 

Arrears - £600.00

Charge for Yr 15/16 - £150.00

Arrears Collection Fee - £96.00

Charge for Yr 16/17 - £150.00

Arrears Management Fee - £36.00

Charge for Yy 17/18 - £150.00

Instruction Fee - £180.00

Debt Collection Fee - £168.00

Claim Fee - 60.00

 

Particulars of Claim are 4 pages long.

 

The original Deed was signed and accepted by the actual property owner (a parent) who then passed away and the transfer was made to the present owner (daughter) - this was done in 2012.

 

There was another company who was appointed the managing agent called PR Gibbs (they were written to advising them of the change of ownership of the house at the time).

 

Nothing was heard back from PR Gibbs and the next letter that was received was from HML Guthrie who claimed to be the management agents but no notification of this was ever received by us.

 

Another letter was despatched to HML advising them of the change of ownership, change of name. HML continued to send out requests for payment up until the start of this thread but in the name of the previous owner. When challenged they then checked the Land Registry and changed the details on the account and issued bill for the last 7 years.

 

HML were then advised again in writing by email that the details were incorrect and that they had failed to change the name on the account and we would not be paying on an account in the name of another person.

 

HML then passed it to PDC who then started to send the letters for payment, of which we said no because (1) - we didn't know who they were and (2) - why would we pay someone who just writes to us for money.

 

A SAR was sent to HML and they responded with a pack of papers which was really only the communications between us and some internal communications in relation to the account.

 

A SAR was sent to PDC who have failed to respond (they signed for it and have cashed the postal order) - this is now with the ICO but they have only just got around to dealing with the case and we received an email from ICO only yesterday asking for the SAR and proof of postage so they can deal with PDC.

 

Today the Court Summons arrives.

 

Having read some of the threads I am going to acknowledge the claim and defend in full to give us some time.

 

Help from someone here in regards to submitting a defence and how to word it correctly would be helpful.

 

Could someone read over the above and also advise how I would get the Particulars of Claim to you rather than typing four pages.

[nervousneris]

I have uploaded the PoC and the two exhibits they refer to.

 

There is also a copy of the Covenants attached as well which is about 25 pages so it will take some time to scan them and I haven't had a chance to see if they vary in any way from the copy we have here.

 

The court they wish to progress this through is around 150 miles from us as well so I wonder if we can request that changed if it gets that far, I would have thought, though I'm not an expert that we would be given the choice of court to appear and it would not place us under undue expense etc....?

 

Also, I'm considering a counter claim for the stress of this for the past 5 years, thoughts on this would be appreciated?

Particulars of Claim - County Court Claim - 211117.pdf

[nervousneris]

Just been reading one of the threads which mentions "rent charge" and I can not find this in the paperwork (covenant) they have attached.

 

I can not find any reference to a right to charge admin charges or arrears charges either.

 

I'll scan them up into a document, and hopefully someone might be able to confirm I'm right.

 

PDC have levied their charges on the account and are making a claim to them but am I right in saying that PDC can't do that unless they can prove ownership of the debt?

 

Also, two years of the service charges and their admin charges are whilst it was in a different name. I'm sorry to make another comment, I'm kind of thinking out loud but also wondering if I'm on the right track. I'm sure someone will put me right anyway.

[nervousneris]

OK - Forget the CC.

 

When you say the wording in relation to "costs being recoverable" does that have to specifically say something along the lines of; "late payment fees can be charged / administration fees can be charged" - or words to that effect but in legal jargon.

If so, I can't find anything that remotely mentions charges or late payment fees.

 

Also, because the account wasn't in the right name until I told them for the 4th time back in April/May this year and they billed under the wrong name (still have some of them)

- surely they are going to struggle with that as after being notified they have 18 months to bill for the right period and name or as I have read it, the bill is void?

 

This whole nonsense has caused considerable emotional upset and distress and both PDC and HML have been served with s10 DPA Cease letters

- just to make it a little more annoying and difficult for them considering the level of physical and mental upset and stress this has caused.

 

I'm going to scan the deeds where it mentions expenses and anything I can find to do with their charging.

 

Service Charge Section of Covenants

 

A request for access to their accounts and receipts has also been made

docs1.pdf

[nervousneris]

EricsBrother - Thank you.

 

I have read, re-read and read again this section and I can not find anywhere that it says they can charge late payment fees or charges. It may be hidden in some legal jargon somewhere within it but I can not find anything that looks like it means such a thing.

 

Would you please be kind enough to read it and see if I am missing the point somewhere?

 

Note: where it has blank boxes is only to remove the identifying area.

 

Based on what you have said then, the correctly worded demand / request for payment would also need to be addressed to the right person and property holder?

 

I have all the requests from HML (in the other persons name as well) - nothing for 2015 & 2016 - only a request in 2017 in the right name (after I again told them) but for all the periods back to 2010.

 

So, just reading back through your comment and going through the PoC - they ref s20.45 which states "To indemnify the Management Company and the Landlord in respect of the (word removed) Management Charge proportion due payable by the property".

 

Does this mean that it is not the individual responsible on the account but the property? Also, surely this only means that the "management charge" is payable, not "charges or late payment fees".....?

 

I've copied this from : https://www.lease-advice.org/advice-guide/service-charges-other-issues/

 

"Notice for payment of ground rent

 

The leaseholder is not liable to pay the ground rent unless the landlord has demanded it.

 

The demand must be in the prescribed form and must specify:

 

the amount of the rent due;

the date on which the leaseholder is liable to pay it, or if the demand is sent after the due date, the date on which it would have been payable under the terms of the lease.

The date specified for payment must not be less than 30 days or more than 60 days after date of service of the Notice, or before it is meant to be paid in accordance with the lease. It may be sent by post to the address of the house or flat to which it relates, unless the leaseholder has previously notified the landlord of an alternative address.

 

The Notice of Demand must also include:

 

the name of the leaseholder to whom the notice is given;

the period for which the rent demanded relates;

the name and address of the person or company to whom the payment is to be made;

the name and address of the landlord (or agent if applicable) by whom the notice is given;

certain supporting information, provided as notes to the Notice.

The landlord cannot begin any legal steps for recovery of the rent, including action for forfeiture and possession, unless he has previously served the demand in the correct format, given the correct period of notice, and the leaseholder has failed to respond."

 

By virtue of the above, prior to my notification to them again in early 2017 the Notice of Demand for payment has not met the "prescribed form" in that it was not sent to the name of the leaseholder. They were told, 4 times and still continued to send it to the wrong person.

 

So, my question is; If they fail to use the correct "prescribed format" and also fail to acknowledge and change the name on the account then any demands that are sent outwith the prescribed format are not valid?

 

In fact, just checked the paperwork and the last demand that HML sent to the wrongly named person was 18th November 2016

s20 Covenants in Full.pdf

[nervousneris]

Did you actually find anything in the Covenants that allows them to charge additional charges such as arrears fees etc? Or does it simply come down to the fact that it "doesn't matter how it's arrived at"?

 

We'll be certainly fighting it, nothing to lose with that and it will continue to cost them money all the way with time and effort etc.....

 

I wonder if it may be possible to put them to strict proof to provide evidence of their charges and the way they are calculated?

 

I see the PAP breach as a way forward,

we actually don't contest paying the "Service Charge"

- even back to 2012 when the change happened

- but because they wouldn't move on the additional charges and the fact they were too stupid to change the name of the account we refused to pay on that basis.

 

Why would you pay for something that is not in your name

(I read somewhere that can be a defence?).

 

The Summons came to us on Tuesday 21st November 17,

I did the acknowledgement by email (it's been confirmed as received).

 

Am I right in saying it is 28 days from the date of Service which is stamped as the 22nd on the form?

 

Would you look over a defence before it being submitted for us?

 

Just had a thought from my days as a Police Officer.

If they have stated that they have charged £168 and invoiced for it and "if" I can prove they haven't then it is false accounting and it's a criminal offence.

 

I'll definitely be requesting strict proof of that payment being made by them.

 

Thoughts?

By issuing Court papers based on that it is also attempting to pervert the course of justice too.

[nervousneris]

It is from Salford Court. It was paper only so had to be sent via email.

 

Also, just found out that Cuerden Grange Management Company are in a lot of arrears with the main agent for the area RMG.

 

They have a large shortfall apparently. - Came from the Chair of the residents association.

[nervousneris]

Hi, I'm getting a little confused with the dates for the submission of the defence.

 

The Claim Form is stamped 22nd November. The form says 28 days but I think DX mentioned 33.

 

I'm just trying to make sure I don't miss the dead line but also to try and leave it as close to Christmas as possible to delay them getting it. Just my little dig at the so and so's.

 

By my reckoning, if it is 33 days then Dec 24th would be the cut off? Would someone please just confirm for me?

 

Many thanks,

 

NN

[nervousneris]

Defence was filed on time and acknowledged by court via email.

 

A little confused again;

 

Today we receive a letter from the Court in relation to saying that it is now a defended case and there is a requirement that a directions questionnaire be completed and returned by 22/01/18.

 

It mentions in the letter that they have included a copy of the defence and also the DQ but nothing has come with it.

 

I’m wondering if this is a notice that has either been sent to their pathetic solicitors to remind them and we’ve been copied for information.

 

The way it reads suggests so as it states if nothing is heard the case may be struck out or judgement given.

 

This is completely different from the way it worked previously and how other cases appear to be handled from posts on here.

 

Should their solicitors not acknowledge the defence, take their clients instructions and act accordingly? Such as continue or not?

 

If they continue then a DQ would normally be issued in the forum of a booklet for us to serve on all parties?

 

I think a call to the Court to confirm first thing Monday but if you have any experience of such it would be helpful.

 

Thanks,

[nervousneris]

Seems strange the court has sent the letter and it does tend to read like it is a reminder to them but I’m going to phone Mon am to find out what they’re playing at.

 

I can’t remember the exact date I filed the defence but it was a few days before it had to be in, despite wanting to hold off till last minute.

 

Actually just checked and it was filed and acknowledged on the 18th.

[nervousneris]

Sadly we can’t. It was a paper issued Summons and there is no MCOL password.

 

Everything has been filed by email. Bit of a pain to be fair.

[nervousneris]

Just a quick update.

 

Spoken to the Court this morning and the letter is a copy of the letter sent to the Claimant.

 

However, we must also comply with the DQ by the date specified on the letter so just downloading it now.

 

Seems a strange way of doing it but so be it.

[nervousneris]

Just to keep the thread up to date.

 

We sent off the DQ as requested and above.

 

Nothing heard from either the claimant or their legal team (PDC Law).

 

No paperwork received by us from any of them.

 

Yesterday (22nd Jan) was the cutoff.

[nervousneris]

The court letter stated that if the DQ was not received by the 22nd it would make a decision to either Strike Out the Case or make Judgement.

 

The letter specifically said that the case was a "defended" case and they must comply by the 22nd. They haven't done.

 

It does seem strange as it doesn't seem to be as per previous issues discussed on here. Normally the Claimant sends the DQ and the Defendant responds and serves the copy on all parties. It's not worked that way. They haven't sent a thing at all.

[nervousneris]

This is exactly what the letter states and it was dated 4th January 2018;

 

"Important Notice

 

If you do not comply with this notice the court will make such order as appears to be appropriate. This could include striking out the claim or entering judgement.

 

TAKE NOTICE THAT

 

1. This is now a defended claim.

The defendant has filed a defence, a copy of which is enclosed.

 

2. It appears that this case is suitable for allocation to the small claims track.

If you believe that this track is not the appropriate track for the claim, you must complete box C1 on the Small Claims Directions Questionnaire (Form N180) and explain why.

 

3. You must by 22 January 2018 complete the Small Claims Directions Questionnaire (Form N180) and file it with the court office (then gives the address for Salford) and serve copies on all other parties."

 

We complied and did that but the letter was addressed to the claimant and we were copied as part of the process (according to the lady from the court).

 

Silly question I guess

but given that we have entered a defence,

would the court be able to enter judgement without a hearing considering we have documentation and paperwork to show their failings?

 

They haven't served anything on us.

That's my point.

[nervousneris]

Yeah, just spoken to the court and they said it is not unusual

- they (the court) are about a week behind so we don't know if they have complied or not.

 

However, we have been advised to write into the court and advise them of the failure/s to comply with the DQ being sent to us and also to include the failings with regards to complying with the SAR and also the s10 Cease notification (both are with the ICO at the moment).

 

They are complete incompetent idiots.

[nervousneris]

First of all, fair comment re the "patience" lol.

 

The Court asked for us to write in, actually, just sent an email to the address they gave us.

The chap I spoke to said that it was a common problem and the court documentation is very clear in that they "must" follow the procedure too.

 

We were told to write in to complain as everyone who has this issue is being advised to now.

I guess the more complaints they get the court will pay attention to it.

 

It seems very underhand and somewhat unprofessional of these people to not follow procedure but be allowed to get away with it.

I guess that's why they are telling people to write in and complain.

Anyway, thanks.