Jump to content
welshandproud

Idem claimform - lloyds mastercard

Recommended Posts

defence was due Friday by 4pm.

 

default notice sentence cant be right

it was defaulted in 2015 before sale to IDEM,

 

and have they refused IDEM refused your 31:14?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 and 4 i ment to take out, i went to edit it but was past to 10mins before i noticed it.. does that now mean i got a CCJ by default?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no you are a litigant in person LiP

certain leeway is given.

put the true version up

get in checked an file today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi i've edited the bit i got wrong.. from what i remember i've never had a default notice for this.. plus any thing to do with Lloyds and Idem is not on my credit file.

 

does this draft look ok?

 

1) An agreement between Lloyds TSB and Defendant/s (D) subject to standard terms and conditions.

2) Claiment © purchased the debt on 17.06.2015.

3) It was a term of the agreement that if any instalment was not paid on due date, C would be entitled to repayment of outstanding balance of total amount payable, less (on payment) any rebate to which D might be entitled.

4) D failed to pay instalments due. C issued a Default Notice requesting payment D failed to pay the sums due, which consequently become immediately due and payable. Formal Demand issued 10/01/19.

5)D has failed to pay the outstanding balance of £ 2299.18

 

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 and accepted I have in the past had financial dealings with Lloyds TSB. I do not recall the precise details or agreement and have sought verification from the claimant who is unable to comply. I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served last year from either the Claimant or Lloyds TSB.

 

3. Paragraph 4 is denied I am unaware of any Default Notice allegedly served last year from either the Claimant or Lloyds TSB

 

 

 

4. On receipt of this claim I requested by way of a CPR 31.14 request and a section 77/78 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 77/78 request and their solicitors.

 

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

 

6. 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.

 

7. 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.

Edited by welshandproud

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

does this draft look ok? trying really hard but finding it confusing

 

1) An agreement between Lloyds TSB and Defendant/s (D) subject to standard terms and conditions.

2) Claiment © purchased the debt on 17.06.2015.

3) It was a term of the agreement that if any instalment was not paid on due date, C would be entitled to repayment of outstanding balance of total amount payable, less (on payment) any rebate to which D might be entitled.

4) D failed to pay instalments due. C issued a Default Notice requesting payment D failed to pay the sums due, which consequently become immediately due and payable. Formal Demand issued 10/01/19.

5)D has failed to pay the outstanding balance of £ 2299.18

 

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. Paragraphs 1 is noted I have in the past had financial dealings with Lloyds TSB.I do not recall the precise details of any agreement but do recall it was on or about 2005.

 

3. Paragraph 2 is noted & 3 is denied as I have never entered into any agreement with the claimant therefore I can not be in any breach of any terms as no agreement exists with the claimant.

 

4.Paragraph 4 is denied as above because the claimant could not of issued a Default Notice as they only bought the debt 17.06.2015 and as far as I can recall any breach with the original creditor would have been on or around 2005.The claimant as an assignee would not be able to legally issue a Default Notice as the debt would have been already terminated before assignment.

 

5. Paragraph 5 is denied.Notwithstanding the above, requests for information pursuant to the consumer crediticon Act (section 78) and CPR 31.14 were made. A Section 78 request was sent on 25/01/2019, and shows as received 28/01/2019 . A CPR 31.14 request was sent signed for 25/01/2019 and shows as received signed for 28/01/2019. IDEM acknowledged they were unable to supply a copy of the agreement and acknowledged until they could do so the agreement cannot be enforced. The claimant has yet to comply with my CPR 31.14

 

Therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:

 

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

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

© evidence any nature of breach and show service of a Default Notice and Notice of sums in Arrears pursuant to the CCA1974

(d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.

 

 

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

 

6.On the alternative, if the Claimant is an assignee of a debt as alleged 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 82A of the consumer crediticon Act 1974

 

7.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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IDEM acknowledged they were unable to supply a copy of the agreement and acknowledged until they could do so the agreement cannot be enforced.

 

have they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but they did so you cant say that.

 

put something ike

IDEM complied with my CCA request of [date] with some documents that failed to comply with the act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

edit to add the bit that you said DX... is this ok to Defend on MCOL?

 

1) An agreement between Lloyds TSB and Defendant/s (D) subject to standard terms and conditions.

2) Claiment © purchased the debt on 17.06.2015.

3) It was a term of the agreement that if any instalment was not paid on due date, C would be entitled to repayment of outstanding balance of total amount payable, less (on payment) any rebate to which D might be entitled.

4) D failed to pay instalments due. C issued a Default Notice requesting payment D failed to pay the sums due, which consequently become immediately due and payable. Formal Demand issued 10/01/19.

5)D has failed to pay the outstanding balance of £ 2299.18

 

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. Paragraphs 1 is noted I have in the past had financial dealings with Lloyds TSB.I do not recall the precise details of any agreement but do recall it was on or about 2005.

 

3. Paragraph 2 is noted & 3 is denied as I have never entered into any agreement with the claimant therefore I can not be in any breach of any terms as no agreement exists with the claimant.

 

4.Paragraph 4 is denied as above because the claimant could not of issued a Default Notice as they only bought the debt 17.06.2015 and as far as I can recall any breach with the original creditor would have been on or around 2005.The claimant as an assignee would not be able to legally issue a Default Notice as the debt would have been already terminated before assignment.

 

5. Paragraph 5 is denied.Notwithstanding the above, requests for information pursuant to the consumer crediticon Act (section 78) and CPR 31.14 were made. A Section 78 request was sent on 25/01/2019, and shows as received 28/01/2019 . A CPR 31.14 request was sent signed for 25/01/2019 and shows as received signed for 28/01/2019. IDEM complied with my CCA Request of 08/02/2018 with some documents that failed to comply with the act. The claimant has yet to comply with my CPR 31.14

 

Therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:

 

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

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

© evidence any nature of breach and show service of a Default Notice and Notice of sums in Arrears pursuant to the CCA1974

(d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.

 

 

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

 

6.On the alternative, if the Claimant is an assignee of a debt as alleged 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 82A of the consumer crediticon Act 1974

 

7.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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5. Paragraph 5 is denied.

Notwithstanding the above, requests for information pursuant to the consumer crediticon Act (section 78) and CPR 31.14 were made. A Section 78 request was sent on 25/01/2019, and shows as received 28/01/2019 . A CPR 31.14 request was sent signed for 25/01/2019 and shows as received signed for 28/01/2019. IDEM had previously complied with a CCA Request of 08/02/2018 with some documents that failed to comply with the act. The claimant has yet to comply with my CPR 31.14

 

cpr is not under the cca.

 

amend to blue bit above too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Morning guys.. had my N180 in the post last week, just got to fill it out and send back, must be done by the 15th of March so its in the post tomorrow..

will keep updating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guys a small update.. form went off to court, got a letter in post today from Idem, asking court to put things on hold for a month for further enquiries.. and i noticed on their small claims track questionnaire that they have ticked NO to small claims mediation service?

how does it stand that they asked for an extra month and no to mediation? just wondering. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please fill in your quit date here

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.



  • Tweets

  • Our picks

    • A shocking story of domestic and economic abuse compounded by @BarclaysUKHelp ‏ bank complicity – coming soon @A_Gentle_Woman. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/415737-a-shocking-story-of-domestic-and-economic-abuse-compounded-by-barclaysukhelp-%E2%80%8F-bank-complicity-%E2%80%93-coming-soon-a_gentle_woman/
      • 0 replies
    • The FSA has announced large fines against DB UK Bank Limited (trading as DB Mortgages) - DeutscheBank and also against Redstone for their unfair treatment of their customers.
      Please see the links below for summaries and full details from the FSA website.
      It is now completely clear that any arrears charges which exceed actual administrative costs are unfair and therefore unlawful.
      Furthemore, irresponsible lending practices are also unfair and unlawful.
      Additionally there are other unfair practices including unarranged counsellor visits - even if they have been attempted.
      You are entitled to refuse counsellor visits and not incur any charges.
      Any charges for counsellor visits must not seek to make profits. The cost of the visits must be passed on to you at cost price.
      We are hearing stories of people being charged for counsellor visits for which there is no evidence that they were even attempted.
      It is clear that some mortgage lenders are trying to cheat you out of your money.
      You should ascertain how much has been taken from you and claim it back. The chances of winning are better than 90%. It is highly likely that the lender will attempt to avoid court action and offer you back your money.
      However, you should ensure that you receive a proper rate of interest and this means that you should be seeking at least restitutionary damages - which would be much higher than the statutory 8%.
      Furthermore, you should assess whether the paying of demands for unlawful excessive charges has also out you further into arrears and if this has caused you further penalties in terms of extra interest or any other prejudice. This should be claimed as well.
      If excessive unlawful charges have resulted in your credit file being affected, then you should take this into account also when working out exactly what you want by way of remedy from the lender.
      You should consult others on these forums when considering any offer.
      You must not make any complaint through the Ombudsman. your time will be wasted, you will wait up to 2 yrs and there will be a minimal 8% award of interest and no account will be taken of any other damage you have suffered.
      You must make your complaint through the County Court for a rapid and effective remedy.

      http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Library/Communication/PR/2010/120.shtml
      http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/redstone.pdf
      http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/db_uk.pdf
       
      http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/consumerinformation/firmnews/2011/db_mortgages.shtml
      Do you have a mortage arears claim to make? Then post your story on the forum here
      • 0 replies
    • 30 Day Right To Reject - Vehicle Casualty Report. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/415585-30-day-right-to-reject-vehicle-casualty-report/
      • 9 replies
    • I am new here but very glad to find my way here and would welcome any input.
       
      i purchased a brand new campervan conversion from Hillside Leisure (175 miles from our home) on July 26th for £31,000 and, within 48 hours, during a storm, the alarm began to sound incessantly. We could not get it to stop, even after trying everything listed in the manual. We phoned Hillside on Saturday July 28th around 2.00pm. The young man who answered the phone said he would seek the advice of their technician and call us back, which he did. The technician told us that they, Hillside, couldn’t help, but that we should take the van to Nissan (the van is a Nissan) as the fault would lie with one of their components.
       
      • 42 replies
×
×
  • Create New...