MMF/Moriarty Claimform - Peachy PDL debt***Claim Dismissed***

[dx100uk]

where the date on the claimform is ONE in the count

[Finargh]

Yes including the 6th September

[AndyOrch]

Friday 6th October Finargh by 4.00pm

[Finargh]

Thank you - I shall have a look at more threads, and post a defence here closer to the time

[Finargh]

Hi - today I have received letters from both MMF and Moriarty in response to my CCA+CPR requests - I will upload later if required

 

Re CCA MMF has just sent something they claim to be an agreement and nothing else

 

Moriarty has written the following in a one-page letter:

 

'Your request for documentation has been relayed to our client and as such this matter placed on hold to prevent any further development whilst said request does remain outstanding.

 

Please be assured that all relevant documentation shall be forwarded to yourself upon our receipt and an additional 14-day hold then provided during which time we would request that you do return the completed county court claim pack or otherwise contact our offices to discuss the available out of court arrangements.'

 

Even though they mention the claim pack surely they are trying to be misleading here? The court process is not put on hold and they have no power to do so - they are trying to trick me. If so I shall write to inform the court and make a complaint to the solicitor's governing body.

[AndyOrch]

Their activity on hold...whatever that means...... not the court claim...stick to the dates...dont be writing to anyone.

 

 

Andy

[Finargh]

I will do as you say Andy but are they not trying to at the very least confuse?

[dx100uk]

as all dca's will do and always do regardless to court.

spoof people into thinking they are akin to bailiffs and have some magic powers

they are not and are totally powerless

 

 

you or I have exactly the same the same rights as them if we think someone owes us money

raise a claim.

[Finargh]

ok here is the only thing MMF has sent me so far, they call it the agreement

 

I'd be grateful if you lovely guys could take a look, thank you

mmf return.pdf

[Finargh]

I'd be very grateful if anyone knowledgeable could take a look at the above attachment and see what they think

[AndyOrch]

Looks water tight to me.

 

 

Andy

[Finargh]

Thanks Andy

 

So is it a case of whether they sent/have a default notice, notice of assignment and if the sums add up?

[dx100uk]

there always something wrong

just gotta find it.

[Finargh]

Is the credit agreement the only thing that must be provided to fully satisfy a CCA request?

[dx100uk]

They provided what they need to

 

but no sign of DN nor NOA mind that are fatal to their claim re Cpr

[Finargh]

ok thanks - I'm just working on the defence now I'll post it here later

[Finargh]

here is what seems to be the relevant defence from having looked at similar threads

 

Further up Andy says the agreement provided is water tight

should I remove mention of the agreement or is it ok to keep it in

because the CPR has been ignored I can say together they haven't been fully complied with?

 

Also in reference to the upload I made in an earlier post of the agreement,

at the end of it there are three pages of a 'loan statement'

the numbers there don't seem to match what they're asking for in the claim

- is that presumably because they haven't provided a breakdown of any charges or interest before it got to claim stage?

i.e. at the moment I have no idea if what they're asking for is correct if it were to be enforceable?

 

Also they are claiming that the assignment date and the date on which I was given notice were the same date?

 

the PoC are just one big mass of a paragraph do I need to say paragraph 1 etc or just address the points in order clearly?

 

Thank you so much for any help you can give

 

1.the defendant owes the claimant £210 under a regulated loan agreement with cash on go limited t/a peachy dated x and which was assigned to the claimant on y and notice of which was given to the defendant on z (debt).

 

2.despite formal demand for payment of the debt the defendant has failed to pay

 

3.and the claimant claims £210

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 8.00% per annum amounting to £xx.xx

 

 

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. The Claimant claims £210 is owed under a regulated loan agreement with Cash On Go Limited T/A Peachy. I did not recall the precise details or agreement and have sought verification from the claimant and the claimants solicitor by way of a Section 77 and CPR 31.14 request who are yet to fully comply.

 

3. The Claimants statement regarding the assignation of the debt is denied. I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served on X from either the Claimant or Cash On Go Limited T/A Peachy.

 

4. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to:

 

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

(b) show and evidence any cause of action and service of a Default Notice

© show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and

(d) 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 Claimant's particulars in order to establish what the claim is for. To date the Claimant solicitors, Moriarty Law, have failed to fully comply with this 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 crediticon 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.

[Finargh]

I'd be very grateful if anyone in the know has the time to take a look at the above post

[AndyOrch]

The CCA request has not been fully complied with therefore they are and remain in default without a statement of account.......I would submit that as it is Finargh

[Finargh]

Thank you Andy

 

I assume I don't include their numbered PoC?

[AndyOrch]

No that for our reference only when checking the defence

[Finargh]

Thanks again!

[Finargh]

Defence successfully submitted online - so now I have done everything I need to do and must wait to see what the claimant does next?

[AndyOrch]

Correct..they have 33 days to respond otherwise claim will become stayed.

[Finargh]

Thank you Andy