Being taken to court for natwest joint OD debt - advice please

[SHERLOCK]

Sent you a PM,

 

Better to post on here if you require a bit more indepth advice from others,

 

SHERLOCK

[The Phantom]

Quick update - have filed my AQ yesterday at my local court

I asked the clerk if I had to send a copy to the other party and she said that was optional. It can make things easier for the court if the claimant requests to see my AQ later during the procedures, but it was not a legal requirement

so I didn't bother and just handed it in

I still don't understand why I was just given 1 week to get it back when I thought it should be 2 weeks

I still have not seen any original true signed copies of the agreements from Nat West (initially requestd 23.12) and only a messy bundle of bank statements delieverd by Royal Mail in a see through bin liner type bag which was their reply to my SAR. But as there are approx 6 or 7 years worth of statements missing plus what got lost of the other lot in the bin liner I complained to them and told them they still had another 25 days to comply properly with my SAR.

The AQ deadline is 1st of Feb, so I believe I will hear shortly afterwards what track the case was allocated to. It will most likely be Fast Track or Multitrack. According to the court, if the case is indeed put on the Multitrack I should seek the help of a solicitor as it would be unlikely I could handle it then on my own. Which is super, as I won't be able to afford one and don't qualify for legal aid (we are just above the gross income level for LA as my husbands income is taken into consideration as well)

Interesting times ahead for me

Will continue to post updates

[LoobyLou35]

Hi Nicole,

 

Just wishing you luck.

 

I haven't heard anything as yet i.e. a response from the claimant to my defence. They have until the 16th Feb (28 days is up) or the claim is stayed.

[The Phantom]

Many Thanks Looby

Time to file allocation questionnaire is up tomorrow. I don't know if NatWest has already filed theirs. They didn't send me a copy, but I didn't send them one either when I put mine in, so fair game

I could phone the court but haven't plucked up the courage. I guess I don't want to know really. I will just wait and see what arrives in the post next week when the judge has had a look at the file and made up his mind ref track allocation. Oh joy.

I still have not had a complete reply to my SAR or any other relevant documents from Nat West either. Everything has gone silent. They appear to have stopped corresponding. Not that I mind really. Well, maybe no news is good news.

NatWest was not given any time to respond to my defence. They just got a copy and were told the case had been transferred to my local court and were sent the allocation questionnaire just like me.

It is so weird how different cases are all handled differently. Well, with a bit of luck and fingers crossed yours will get stayed anyway.

Keep me posted !!

[SHERLOCK]

Good Luck Nicole, mind how you go

 

They have committed a criminal offence with my SAR and CCA Request, wishing you well,

 

SHERLOCK

[The Phantom]

Thanks Sherlock --

 

Latest update : have today received a letter from Green & Co (nat West's Solicitors who seem to have been instructed now to act on their behalf)

They have sent me a copy of their AQ (D'OH !) in which they have indicated they would like the Court to stay the case and seek further arbitration and negotiation with me first (after being so keen to take me to court initially..)

They have attached a letter to me saying my defence is without any substance and will be unsuccessful in court anyway, therefore they are giving me the chance now to withdraw my defence immediately and make a full admission with a new repayment proposal in which case their client will be prepared to enter into new negotiations with me (???)

They requiring that I supply them also with evidence in support of my defence (why if it is so bad it is without any substance ? and they have not bothered to supply any evidence in support of their claim themselves, i.e. no true signed copies of any agreement, they are already in default and no full compliance with SAR either)

My defence is that they haven't supplied proof of their claim, so how can I proof that in return ?

Any ideas for a good response ?

[payingonlyencouragesthem]

Do not do what they ask. Continue to insist that they provide proof of their claim. The onus is on them to prove that you owe the money. They clearly don't have the wherewithal to bring a successful court claim and they obviously know it.

[SHERLOCK]

I agree, I would call their bluff.

It's amazing they want to talk now and make an agreement, makes your blood boil dunnit!!

[The Phantom]

Yes, I will not make an admission of any kind to them. I took it so far, I won't just back down now , especially as they are cutting it very close with the true signed copies

They are already in default and will shortly be committing a criminal offence

so when they are saying in their letter they have requested these copies and will supply them when they receive them they are already cutting it very thin, I don't want to give them more rope than I have to at this stage

One of the agreements dates back to the early 1990s and is surely archived somewhere, the other one I can't even remember signing or have seen so I have to insist seeing these anyway as I don't want to be held liable for debts that I haven't signed for, surely I can ask to see these without being pressurized into making an admission of any kind before that

Basically their letter says they require me to withdraw my defence and make within 2 weeks a full admission to them and a new repayment proposal. Alternatively they want my fully pleaded defence, my counterclaim and any supporting evidence. But they already had my defence from the court , the counterclaim I can't make until they complied with the SAR and what evidence is there in evidence that they do not have any evidence themselves ?

[SHERLOCK]

Jesus, Send the info, then you can make a defence and counterclaim

They cannot enforce anything without that agreement, and without it you cannot make a defence.

I would refer them to the initial letter and the fact that the CCA and S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) have not been complied with.

 

don't bet on them having that 1990 agreement either, they haven't supplied mine from '95ish.

Your situation might be a little different to mine but is there anything to lose by stretching this as far as it will go, you will still be in the same position as when you started even if they supply the documentation.

 

It's if they don't you will have the advantage, you are only asking what you are lawfully entitled

 

IF it isn't costing you money, then why pull the case?

You didn't put too much in the AQ did you, the least the better it seems (at this point anyway)they will use smoke and mirrors and use your defence against you, asking you to prove your defence, the swines!!

 

Try not to get bogged down trying to defend something that you do not need to defend.

I think bottom line you require ALL documentation from the day you signed the agreement upto today, that is not unreasonable for a supposedly big #anking institution.

[The Phantom]

Absoutley agree.

I have posted a reply today, stating their client did so far not comply with the CCA dated 23.12.06 and is already in default and will shortly be committing a criminal offence and their client also did not comply with my SAR and has got another eleven days to comply with that before any further action is contemplated and therefore no counterclaim can be prepared at this stage

I pointed out that they already received my defence and to ask me to defend it without them having supplied any form of evidence in support of their own claim themselves everything will stand as is for the moment.

By ticking the box in the AQ that they are seeking further negotiation and arbitration with me indicates they are trying to buy themselves more time, because if one party requests arbitration apparently it is very likely the judge will allow this extra time to avoid court action. They were so keen to take me to court initially, so why put the brakes on now ? If possible I would then like to appeal this as asking the defendant to withdraw their defence and make an admission is to me no attempt of arbitration anyway and it might be better for me to move on quickly now. I might say I need this to be resolved quickly as all the stress is affecting my health and is putting stress on the family. If they want / need more time I don't want them to have it.

As an amusing note: their solicitor put their estimated legal costs down as

£3500.- , whilst I am not allowed to put down anything as I am not a solicitor. My time is obviously worth nothing:mad:

[SHERLOCK]

Just enough rope to hang themselves now and I wouldn't remind them of their obligations, you know the deadlines so they should know.

 

Do you not have a 'legal' friend who will require paying ??

[The Phantom]

:grin: Now that you are mentioning it - there is Mr Jack Russell who has been at my side throughout. Unfortunately no law degree, but a pedigree may do.

He charges £120.- / hrs

[SHERLOCK]

+ V A T :grin:

[The Phantom]

That goes without saying. Never mind his expenses

I am sure we can come up to £3500.- as well just to even out the playing field

[payingonlyencouragesthem]

+ V A T :grin:

 

And photocopying:grin:

[The Phantom]

Yes, Mr Russell has been providing all those services

 

But honestely , it is a disgrace that they can put down £3500.- and I can claim nothing although my time is valuable too and could be spent better doing other things !

[joneshousehold]

Just subscribing to the thread and wishing you luck.

 

It is really interesting that the solicitors have suddenly put the brakes on the claim. I made a comment in the 6 years thread that they may not be able to prove the debt and I wonder if this is the driving force behind their latest tactic.

 

It may be difficult to do but perhaps you could sit back and just wait for them to move first. That seems to be the message in some of the earlier posts. I think in terms of a staring contest, NatWest have been caught blinking. Just keep staring at them and you never know they may turn away.

 

Remember Mr Russell is urging you to fight your corner so go for it!

[The Phantom]

Actually they are trying to get a CCJ against me for two separate agreements which they have combined to one claim against me. They were very quick to take me to court but now all of a sudden they are trying to slow things down

I can't believe they can't find both of the agreement copies, (I doubt I would be THAT lucky) but I can believe that they are struggling with the older of the two from the early 1990s. And if there is one agreement missing, I am under the impression their whole claim would need changing or they would have to stop and start again for only the later one and only that amount. To avoid all that paperwork hassle and dropping almost 7 K they maybe wanted to try to get me to admit the whole amount first to see if that would work. But with all the other issues involving a potential counterclaim and their potential non-compliance with the DPA I can probably stretch this whole matter out like an old chewing gum over months and months even if they start a new claim for only one agreement.

I am currently waiting to hear from the court ref track allocation, but as NatWest put in their Allocation Questionnaire that they now want to enter into new arbitration talks that will most likely be granted (it is enough if only one party requests this). So the waiting game really continues on this one

I will post regular updates. In case they do come up with some dusty agrements I need advise if they comply with the CCA in all aspects, as I think the terms and conditions and everything else need to be included as well, not just a cover page

[The Phantom]

A quick query regarding some info regarding the amendment to the Consumer Credit Act from zootscoot I found in a thread in this forum:

(quote) The relevant section of the Act is 127(3). This makes the agreement entirely unenforceable unless a signed document containing all the prescribed terms is provided. At present this makes the agreement automatically unenforceable. The judge simply can not enforce the debt no matter what.

 

This is about to change under the CCA 2006 which repeals s.127(3). This comes into force April 2007. Under the new Act the court has a discretion as to whether to enforce the debt or not.(end quote)

Does anybody know what debt agreements will be affected by this new amendment ? ALL or just those signed / agreed after April this year ?

[rosierose]

Only those agreement made after enactment. Older agreements will not be affected until 2008 when the section will finally be repealed.

 

Cheers

 

Rosie

[The Phantom]

Many thanks

I really needed to know as I am in a legal battle with NatWest

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt/48764-being-taken-court-joint.html

They are taking me to court and I have requested true signed copies of the agreements (in December) which so far they haven't provided

Both parties have filed AQ questionnaires so far but Nat West has indicated in their questionnaire that they now want more time to solve the issue informally with me. I wondered whether they were trying to buy themselves more time waiting for the new amendment to come into force , but that can't be the reason then.

[The Phantom]

Urgent Update:

 

Have today received a letter from the Court. As expected the district jude

has granted the arbitration requested by NatWest and stayed the case until 07.04.07 expecting the parties to mediate to come to some agreement in this time

From my side there will be no agreement as Natwest still has not provided

any signed copy agreements as requested under the CCA

They are in default already and the time allowed under the CCA expires 15.02.07 to provide the documents

Is there a way now that if there is still no sign of the agreements on 15.02.07 to apply for a lift of the stay and make an application to strike out the claim based on the CCA, i.e. the debt is now unenforceable anyway so no more court time should be wasted ?

URGENT HELP PLEASE

[lookinforinfo]

I imagine the stay has been applied for as they realised that they were not going to be able to comply with the CCA request in time.

 

The debt wii not become unenforceable on the 15th of Feb.-just that to get

it reinstated they will need a Court Order. To get that they will have to admit to a criminal offence and pay a fine of up to £2500. On top of that they

have probably found that you do not own the house and there is no equity

in it anyway. They already knew [or should have] that the

best they can expect from you is a nominal amount each month. So all their

efforts have been in vain. I suspect that they now want a way out and avoid

going to Court.

 

I suggest you do write to them after the 15th if they have not written to you in the meantime,asking what they have in mind in terms of

settling the case out of Court-since that is what they have asked for.

Point out that they will already be aware that the best you would have been

able to offer would have been a small amount per month.

But that would be dependent on them getting permission in the form of a

Court Order to restart the debt in the light of their non compliance with your

CCA request. As it would appear that it is in neither partys' interest to go

to Court now, perhaps the way forward lies along the lines of both of you

coming to a mutually satisfactory arrangement bearing in mind the fact that

your position has become stronger.

[The Phantom]

Hi LFI

 

I have recently read in a thread on the site the following

(posted by zootscoot) regarding the CCA and enforcement without the agreement:

 

(quote)The relevant section of the Act is 127(3). This makes the agreement entirely unenforceable unless a signed document containing all the prescribed terms is provided. At present this makes the agreement automatically unenforceable. The judge simply can not enforce the debt no matter what.(unquote)

 

That is what I wanted to rely on. You see Nat West's solicitors want me to make a full admission to them and a new repayment proposal or my fully pleaded defence with evidence in support of my defence. But my defence is that they don't have a case to start with without any agreements and without seeing their evidence I won't admit anything. Stalemate.

I also don't want this matter dangling above my head until doomsday. So I had the bright idea to see if I can get the stay lifted and strike out their claim as they are in breach of the CCA and about to commit a criminal offence. I know it would be bold but I rather go forward and bring the court case to an end and then see what happens. I don't want that breathing down my neck all the time.

They have got until the 15th anyway to send me something which is a long time really (I am hiding under the settee everytime the postman comes to the door)

So based on this I am still on a war path becuse they have not been very nice and couldn't wait to drag me to court and now suddenly they want to talk again. It just annoys me that they can think they can always have things their way:x