Jump to content


MMF/moriarity claimform - old PDL Finance Ltd t/a MR Lender PDL Debt


Jobyboy
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1886 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

We number the points in the particulars then it makes it easier to respond with your defence.

 

1. The defendant owes the claimant £171 under a regulated loan agreement with PDL Finance LTD T/A Mr Lender. Dated 15/09/2011

 

2. Which was assigned to the claimant on 27/10/2012 and notice of which was given to the defendant on the 27/10/2012 (Debt).

 

3. Despite formal demand for payment of the debt the defendant has failed to pay the claimant claims £171 and further claims interest thereon pursuant to section 69 of the county court act 1984 limited to one year to the date hereof at the rate of 8% per annum amounting to £13.

 

What is the value of the claim? £260

 

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 OTHER

 

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Ok, using the example defence, I have edited to this:

 

1. The defendant owes the claimant £171 under a regulated loan agreement with PDL Finance LTD T/A Mr Lender. Dated 15/09/2011

 

2. Which was assigned to the claimant on 27/10/2012 and notice of which was given to the defendant on the 27/10/2012 (Debt).

 

3. Despite formal demand for payment of the debt the defendant has failed to pay the claimant claims £171 and further claims interest thereon pursuant to section 69 of the county court act 1984 limited to one year to the date hereof at the rate of 8% per annum amounting to £13.

 

What is the value of the claim? £260

#######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 in the past had financial dealings with Mr Lender. I do not recall the precise details of the agreement that this claim relies upon and have sought verification from the claimant who is unable to comply.

3. Paragraph 2 is denied I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served last year from either the Claimant or Mr Lender.

4.It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant,

the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of assignment/balance/breach requested by CPR 31. 14, and remains in default of my section 77 request, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:

 

(a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and

(b) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and

© show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;

 

5. On receipt of this claim I requested by way of a CPR 31.14 request and a section 77 request, copies of the documents referred to within the Claimants particulars to establish what the claim is for.

To date the Claimant has failed to comply to my section 77 request and their solicitors, Moriarty Law, have failed to comply to my CPR 31.14 request.

6. As per Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.

 

7. On the alternative, as 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 82 A of the consumer credit Act 1974.

8. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have made just a few small tweaks in the above Jobyboy .

 

May be prudent to answer their point 3 ?

 

Regards

 

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 OTHER

 

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

You submit it as above with reference to their numbered points...what was you thinking in response to their point 3 ?

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 OTHER

 

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hello!

 

Sorry for the (very) delayed reply.

Been a crazy few weeks.

 

 

I managed to get my defence in with just 4 minutes to spare, I was so busy at work I lost all track of time.

I added a point denying their point 3 but it was very basic.

 

I received a letter a couple of days later saying they has received my defence.

I’ll keep you guys updated when I next hear something.

Thanks for all of your help this far!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Today I received a letter from Moriarty Law. It simply read:

 

"We write to acknowledge receipt of the Defence filed by you with the Court and in that regard we confirm that our client is proceeding with their claim."

 

I'm assuming I just wait to hear from the court again now?

 

My MCOL login has stopped working so I'm having to correspond with the court just via letter and email.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes..if they do wish to proceed you will receive a Directions questionnaire N180...which you will complete and submit by the date stated.

 

 

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 OTHER

 

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Thanks Andy,

 

That has now arrived. It seems pretty straightforward but is there anything I should be aware of?

I’ve seen from other posts that’s it’s in my best in my best interests to say Yes to meditation so I will do that.

 

It says on the cover letter that I must complete and return the form to the CCBC but it also states “and serve copies on all other parties”

Does this mean I have to send a copy to the claimant?

Link to post
Share on other sites

no their sols

 

 

dx

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

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

solicitors

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

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I wasn't expecting this after reading other threads but I have just received an email from the 'Small Claims Telephone Mediation Service'

 

It reads:

 

Parties: MOTORMILE FINANCE UK LTD (MMF) v *****ME*****

 

The above parties have all filed a Directions Questionnaire (N180) and have all requested mediation.

 

Provisional Appointment Time & Date

 

The small claims mediation team can offer a one hour telephone mediation appointment between 08:00 and 13:15 on 10/11/2017.

Please note that this is not a confirmed appointment and you will receive a further letter/email to advise if mediation is going ahead with the specific start time. Mediation appointments are limited and can only be re-arranged under exceptional circumstances.

 

Any help/advice?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well its on all the other threads...why was you not expecting it?

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 OTHER

 

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I have read other forums and the court have also confirmed a date and time for telephone mediation.

 

I accepted the date they said (Nov 10th).

 

My understanding now is that I participate in the mediation phone call but state that I have not received the documents I requested from MMF.

 

Is that correct?

Link to post
Share on other sites

sure

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

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

correct

they will ask the same questions as the letter

have you all the required documents to continue etc - you say no.

 

dx

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

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Just had the first two calls with the mediator.

 

He didn't ask any questions about my having the information I needed but I stated it.

 

He is saying that they don't have to provide the information I requested (CPR & CCA) until a court date is set.

 

I have stated that until there is proof this debt exists it would be illogical to enter into a mediation agreement.

 

Is this correct?

Link to post
Share on other sites

well you don't know what they are claiming without paperwork and if its legit or enforceable

in a way he is right

but 99% of mediators don't progress it if you haven't.

 

you;'ve just got a cute one!

 

dx

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

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just had the first two calls with the mediator.

 

He didn't ask any questions about my having the information I needed but I stated it.

 

He is saying that they don't have to provide the information I requested (CPR & CCA) until a court date is set.

 

I have stated that until there is proof this debt exists it would be illogical to enter into a mediation agreement.

 

Is this correct?

 

They have to comply with a section 77/78...court or no court and they should comply with a CPR request as its expected by the courts

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 OTHER

 

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha!

 

In the end they came back with a settlement offer of £220 (amount they're claiming is £259.80).

 

I said unfortunately, as it is unclear that they even owned a debt of mine, I could not pay them anything.

 

It is now proceeding to court.

 

They have to comply with a section 77/78...court or no court and they should comply with a CPR request as its expected by the courts

 

The CPR request was completely ignored.

 

I did receive a reply from MMF to the CCA.

 

However, the documents they sent back were for a completely different account.

 

Following earlier advice in this forum I did not disclose this.

 

Unsure if information from the mediation is passed to the court at all, I was exceptionally careful about my wording.

 

I stated "I have not received any of the information I requested regarding this account".

 

I would like to add here for any other users reading this, during the second phone call the mediator said "Morarity believe you are following online advice on this".

 

I believe Morarity had said this to the mediator to try and intimidate a little.

 

I ignored that statement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...