Idem Claimform - HSBC Credit card from 2005 *** Claim Discontinued***

[Welly26]

Try again: thanks for bearing with me

 

I have copied the text in post 21 and added in the line missed:

 

Does this now look ready to submit?

 

 

 

The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim vague and are 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. The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017.It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC

 

2. I have in the past had financial dealings with HSBC . I am unaware of what alleged debt(s) the claimant refers to having failed to adequately particularise its claim, and have therefore sought clarity from the claimant by way of a Section 78 request and a CPR 31.14 request.

 

In response the claimant has disclosed they do not have an agreement between HSBC and Myself

 

And in response to my section 78 request for the HSBC agreement - was not supplied

 

3. Paragraph 2 is noted but it is denied that I was ever served Notice of Assignment at the time of the Assignment.

 

4. Paragraph 4 is denied. I am unaware of any service of a Default Notice (s) pursuant to section 87 of the consumer credit

 

5.Paragraph 5 is noted but I refer you to my point 2 that i am unaware of the alleged debt they are referring to

 

6.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, 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 and evidence the nature of any breach and 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;

 

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

 

8. 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 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974.

 

 

9. 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.

 

 

[AndyOrch]

No the above has parts missing use the one in post #21 which I have already edited...there is no need for you to do anything to it except submit it on MCOL

[dx100uk]

55 minutes ago, Welly26 said:

Hello DX100 uk, 

 

Apologies, I thought I needed to edit the above to suit my case.. My bad. 

 

there is not a 16 digit number in the claim, its exactly has written. 

 

oh well typical PRA claim they don't even know what type of debt it is !!

 

ruddy fleecers.

our post numbers are diff to yours

 

dx

[dx100uk]

3 hours ago, Welly26 said:

Hello, what do think of this? i have taken most of it on the above mentioned posts, i need to submit today really because I don't think I will gain access to a computer tomorrow 

 

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

2) Claimant (C) purchased the debt 13/10/2016

3) it was a term of the agreement that is 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 that D maybe entitled

4) D Failed to pay instalments due. C issued a Default Notice requesting payment D failed to pay sums due, which consequently became immediately due and payable, Formal demand issued dated 10/08/2020

5) D has failed to pay outstanding balance of £4277.61

 

************************* FINAL Defence *********************************************

 

 

 

1.  The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim vague and are 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 has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017.It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.

 

3. I have in the past had financial dealings with HSBC . I am unaware of what alleged debt(s) the claimant refers to having failed to adequately particularise its claim,  or even referring to an account number. I have therefore sought clarity from the claimant by way of a Section 78 request and a CPR 31.14 request.

 

In response the claimant has confirmed they do not have an agreement between HSBC and Myself

 

And in response to my section 78 request for the HSBC agreement - was not supplied and therefore remain in default and prevented from enforcing the alleged agreement.

 

4. Paragraph 2 is noted but it is denied that I was ever served Notice of Assignment at the time of the Assignment.

 

5. Paragraph 4 is denied. I am unaware of any service of a Default Notice (s) pursuant to section 87 of the consumer credit

 

6.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, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:

 

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

(b) show and evidence the nature of any breach and Default Notice;

(c) 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;

 

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

 

8. 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 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974.

 

 

9. 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.

 

 

 

 

this one^^

[Welly26]

Thank you, I never noticed you had edited to such an extent.. I really appreciate your help. 

 

I am assuming I don't wish to make a counter claim? 

[AndyOrch]

What could you possibly counter claim for ?

[Welly26]

I never expected to see an option of a counterclaim so pressed no and that looks correct. 

 

Thank you for all your help so far. 

 

what now, do I just wait for the court to contact me? 

[dx100uk]

use our enhanced google search box

type in claimform lowell card

 

and get reading as many threads as you can

 

the more you read

the stronger we become.

that will also give you advice on what is next

what is to come as the claim progresses

and how to respond.

 

but you are most welcome and advised to check here 1st.

 

 

[Welly26]

Hello i have just logged on to the MCOL online portal to check if any updates and its says DQ sent to you on 28/09/2020 will this be sent by post and will there be anything I need to do? 

 

Will this be sent in the post? i cant see anything online. 

[dx100uk]

you should be reading up like threads

 

DQ is the N180 hundreds of threads here ' best to use the search i pointed you too before

 

dx

 

[AndyOrch]

Or use ours and complete on screen...looks far more professional......print 3 copies.

 

 

Your hard copy from the court will contain the date it must submitted by.

 

Andy

[Welly26]

Evening, 

 

I have today received a letter form the court, 

 

It says,

 

Before deputy district judge xxxxx sitting at the county court at (address)

 

UPON reading a letter dated 13 October 2020 from the claimant IT IS ORDERED THAT

 

1. the claim is stayed until 4pm on the 20 November 2020

 

2. in the event that the claim has not been settled during the period of the stay, the claimant shall by 4pm on the 18 December 2020, send to the defendant and the court its reply to defence

 

3. Refer back as deskwork upon receipt of reply or expiry of 18 December 2020

 

Dated 26 October 2020

 

Only arrived today and stamped 6th November

 

Any help with explaining what this means? should i not have a copy of the letter sent on the 13th October? 

 

 

 

[dx100uk]

35 minutes ago, Welly26 said:

3. Refer back as deskwork upon receipt of reply or expiry of 18 December 2020

 

never seen that before...

 

 

[Welly26]

Not sure that’s a good thing or not.

 

I have also notice Westcot have been doing credit checks on me, not sure if it’s linked or not.

[dx100uk]

powerless muppets

 

dx

 

[Welly26]

I’m not happy about them credit checking me, I didn’t think that would be allowed. 

[dx100uk]

probably nothing to do with this issue and any dca that holds a CCL can check anyone 

wetclothes don't buy debts anyway and are the very bottom of bottom feederes

few can see the search anyway.

 

means nothing

[AndyOrch]

It simply prolongs the process and allows the claimant a little breathing space...a claimant can make application to stay a claim before allocation ..as in this case until  4pm on the 20 November 2020.

 

Its a bit daft really because they could have let it stayed after you submitted the defence...then paid the fee to lift the stay if they wished to proceed.

 

Signifies they are struggling and possibly not able to prepare or produce the necessary to proceed at directions stage.

 

Whichever its looking good so dont concern yourself even if it out of the norm.

 

Andy

[dx100uk]

29 minutes ago, Andyorch said:

Its a bit daft really

 

yes thats what puzzled me ....why apply to stay early...

 

i mean it's not as if idem ever discontinues a claim either... but its a good step that way...

[Welly26]

Now getting visits from Resolve call leaving personally delivered letters

[dx100uk]

well neither wetcloths nor resolvecall will be anything to do with this debt subject to a court claim.

you must have others debts...

[dx100uk]

please create a new topic by hitting create in the top red banner for the cabot debt

 

whilst idem are stating some sort of time limit, i'd not worry about nor replying in time not even at all - see what andyorch thinks

 

dx

 

 

 

 

[Welly26]

I will make new threads for the remaining debts soon. 

 

thanks

 

[dx100uk]

in your attachment 3 posts up you have failed to follow our upload guide and have used a felt pen to obscure things

we can see right thru that...so can idem ...hidden again.

we must sadly abide by the strict data protection rules this site must operate under.

 

 

[dx100uk]

just a few notes...

if you filed the defence andyorch indicated after amendments. Nowhere did you state you entered into an agreement with idem...

 

there is no default notice 

there is no signed agreement

the 2 sets of T&C can be downloaded from anywhere inc this site ..bogroll.

the statements mean nothing 

the previous payments to them are not admittance to the debt as such, just you got had by them
neither is your F&F offer - with no enforceable agreement nortDN they ain't going nowhere fast - you just ran the SB date a few more years..

there is no signed agreement ....for a take out date of 2006 an agreement MUST have been signed by you and must be produced as the agreement predates the amendments to the CCA arp 2007 which introduced the allowance of digital sign ups and reconstructed agreements.
total bogroll

i can see them discontinuing this case...no wonder they applied for an early  stay themselves and dangled a tomlin order ...

 

fat chance idem

 

nothing for you to do until or unless the court writes.

 

dx