I have had so much help on here in the past with Halifax and Paragon. After my win in court last october with Paragon they sold the debt to Mars Capital. I haven't had much to do with them yet but i know they are a vulture fund, they buy these loans at a cost. I want rid of it. The original loan was £35 k and paid in multiple payments to people i owed money to and some to me. Ive had high levels of arrears for at least 10 years i think . Are they adding interest to my arrears? does it go on balance - it says i now owe £54 k when i have been paying since 2007. I have high levels of chargers on there which i need to add up and ask to be deducted. If i worked out how much i had paid and offered them £12k or less are they no likely at all to take it or will they still expect £54k. I want to offer a lump sum to get rid of it this year but there are so many issues with this loan - i SAR them back when paragon had it but i don't want to rock the boat - but if they don't have the credit agreement do courts still view this as unenforceable ??? should mars keep to the same rate that the original lender took loan out for?? I have threads on here going back years - the loan was with Advantage then to ADV2 then paragon now Mars Capital , a company called loan makers sorted out the secured loan - they were not paid by myself the fee was put on the mortgage / loan i think
well the claim is stayed so don't panic for now.
is this the ONLY payment made
and how did capquest get this out of you?
explain what caused you to make the payment and how you did it please
1.The claim is for the sum of £882.53 due by the Defendant under the CCA 1974 for a Shop Direct account with the account ref of ********************
2.The Defendant failed to maintain contractual payments required by the agreement and a Default notice was served under s.87(1) of the CCA 1974 which has not been complied with.
3.The debt was legally assigned to the claimant on 08/01/18, notice of which has been given to the defendant.
4.The claim includes statutory interest under S.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of issue of these proceedings in the sum of £70.60
- The claimant claims the sum of £953.13
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.
1. Paragraph 1 is denied. Whilst it is admitted I have held various catalogue agreements in the past, I have no recollection of ever entering into an agreement with Shop Direct and do not recognise the specific account number or recollect any outstanding debt and have therefore requested clarification by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request pursuant to The Consumer Credit Act 1974.
2. Paragraph 2 is denied I have not been served with a Default Notice pursuant to sec87(1) the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
3. Paragraph 3 is denied. I am unaware of a legal assignment or Notice of Assignment pursuant to the Law and Property Act 1925 Section 136(1)
4. On receipt of this claim form I, the Defendant, sent a request by way of a section 78 pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974, for a copy of the agreement, the Claimant has yet to comply and remains in default of the said request.
5. A further request made via CPR 31.14 to the claimant’s solicitor, requesting disclosure of documents on which the Claimant is basing their claim. The claimant has not complied.
6. It is therefore not accepted with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict
a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement and;
b) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for and;
c) show the nature of the breach and evidence by way of a Default
Notice pursuant to sec 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974
d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim
7. As per Civil Procedure 16.5 it is expected that the claimants prove the allegation that the money is owed
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.
I will get this put into the defence section. Thank you again.