Jump to content


Intrum (1st Credt)/DWF SPC OD Court Claim - Old HBOS OD - Calling OC to Court?


Recommended Posts

Order dated 17th Feb....21 days is today...but when did you receive the order ?

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Statement of Position..pdf      

Posted Images

Posted (edited)

Hi Andy

I received the the order on the 19th February . . but I thought the count would start from the date of the order which is the 17th Feb.

If I could send it tomorrow, 11th Mar then I should be within the stipulated dates !!

 

Thanks for your help

Edited by salkirwi
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure....Ill take a look tomorrow....then you can finalise it.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/03/2021 at 22:37, salkirwi said:

Good evening DX100

 

Here is a draft of my response to the court order.  I would be obliged if you could review it and avise me if I am on the right track.

 

Defendant Statement of Position in Response to the Order of the Sheriff

 

  1. The defendant suffered Severe Depression illness almost 12 months prior to the closer of the Bank account.
  2. HBOS was made aware of the defendant illness.  A Medical Certificate dated 15 Sept 2017 was handed over to the bank as a proof. (A copy of the report will be submitted exclusively to the court review)
  3. The defendant, with the support of her ex-partner, sought a resolution from the OC regarding the escalation of her OD account, which it was mostly formed of extortionate bank charges/penalties being applied to the account.
  4. HBOS agreed to reduce the outstand OD sum to £XXX and closed the account.
  5. The defendant is confident that her ex-partner has settled the agreed sum with OC, but not absolutely certain, considering her health state at that time.
  6. She has been actively trying to reach for her ex-partner for documented evidence, but the fact that, we believe, he is a currently deployed by the UK military forces abroad and communication has been, to put it politely, very difficult due to the nature of his deployment.
  7. As the court is aware, the defendant has been trying to retrieve the data of her dealing with/from OC which it should reflect history of the above.  The defendant has already written twice to HBOS, as well as visiting her bank branch, on 01 March 2021, in person demanding the requested data.  HBOS promised to send the data to her as soon as they can.
  8. In addition to the above reasoning and contend, the defendant refute the claimants claim is owed or payable.  Due to punitive and extortionate fees the facility became untenable. Any alleged balance  claimed will consist totally of default penalties, punitive charges levied on the account for alleged late, rejected or over limit payments. The court will be aware that these charge types and the recoverability thereof have been judicially declared to be susceptible to assessments of fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 The Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National PLC and others (2009). I will contend at trial that such charges are unfair in their entirety and any alleged balance was due to punitive and extortionate charges .
  9. It is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. Therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:-

              a.    Provide a copy agreement/facility arrangement along with the Terms and Conditions at inception, which this claim is based on.

              b.    Provide a copy of the Notice served under 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974 Demand /Recall Notice and Notice of Assignment.

              c.    Provide a breakdown of their excessive charging/fees levied to the account and justify how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed.

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

              e.    Evidence how they have complied with sections III & IV of Practice Direction - Pre-action Conduct.  

 

10.   By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.

 

Looking through your topic now......rather confusing......is this a loan or an overdraft facility ?

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

details of poc coming up.....5 mins

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

its an OD.

 

(POC)

 

 

On or around 9 January 2012, the respondent entered In a regulated finance agreement with Bank of Scotland plc ("the original Creditor·), agreement number xxxxxxxxx in respect of an Overdraft account (the Finance Agreement").


The respondent fell into arrears under the Finance Agreement, Default Notice was issued by the Original Creditor to the respondent. The respondent failed to pay the arrears owed to the Original Creditor under the Finance Agreement in accordance with the Default Notice.

 

On or around 25 August 2017 the respondent was deemed by the Original Creditor to be in default of the Finance Agreement. The Finance
Agreement was subsequently terminated by the Original Creditor. At the date of termination a sum of £1 ,332.82 remained due and outstanding by the respondent to the Original Creditor.

 

On or around 5 December 2018 ("the Purchase date"), the claimant acquired all title, Interest, rights, benefits and remedies that the Original Creditor had against the respondent under and in terms of the Finance Agreement ("the Assignation ). At the Purchase Date, a sum of £1,332.82 remained due and outstanding by the respondent in terms of the Finance Agreement ("the Purchased Amount~).

 

On or around 9 October 2019 the claimant wrote to the respondent to Inform them of the Assignation and to demand payment of the Purchased Amount.

 

A total sum of £1 ,332.82 currently remains due and outstanding by the respondent to the claimant ln terms of the Finance Agreement and is undisputed

 

The debt was acknowledged by the respondent within a period of 5 years prior to the commencement of  thls court action.

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will provide you with an amended  Statement of Position  in the morning......please do not submit the  above.

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Like 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks andy.

 

salkirwi file that today by email to the sheriff clerks office, dont change anything.

 

also... don't forget

 

Both parties are ordered to attend a case management discussion by telephone
conference call at Glasgow Sheriff Court on 13 April 2021 at 10:00.
The sheriff orders both parties to provide the court, no later than 5 working days
prior to said hearing, a note setting out:
a. the name of the individual representing the party or in the case of a party
litigant. confirmation that the party is self-represented;
b. the representative's direct telephone number; and
c. the representatives direct e-mail address.
Please send these contact details to [email protected]

 

 

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Andy and DX

 

Thank you very much for your help and support.

 

One  last question, when do I send the copy of the document to the Claimer ?  I mean shall I delay it or send it now?

 

Regards

 

Edited by salkirwi
Link to post
Share on other sites

have you got to send it to the claimant:

check what the sheriff ordered you to do..

 

dx

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Sheriff, at the first CMD told me that whatever I send the court I must send it to the Claimant too.

 

So I assume I need to do that for this one too !?

Link to post
Share on other sites

it can't hurt you to do so no.

but what the sheriff was referring too was probably your original form 4a response , which you probably didn't sent to the claimants solicitors as well as the court.

 

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also send a copy to the claimant....but get the courts away as a priority now.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

The court copy is away  . . . I shall do the Claimant copy next week.

 

Thank you both for your car.

 

I shall keep you posted on my steps and on the outcome 

 

Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Hi everyone  . . .  Just an update

 

The CMD was this morning.  It started with cheap  manoeuvrability  by Intrum’s lawyer, but let me give you quick summery background:

 

The judge issued an order to us to submit evidence supporting our case such as call for witnesses or ask the court to order the original creditor to some action.  We were giving 21 days for the submission.  In my simple calculation without, allowing time to post, the final date was to be 10 March 2021, with post time 2 days later.

 

On the 10th March, and to be on the safe side, I send to the court the response version giving to me by DX100UK.   Then on 12th March, I send to the court the version giving to me by Andy, asking the court to replace the first document with the second  one.

 

On 7th of April I send Intrum lawyer the document 2 as it is our official response.

 

ON the 12th April I send the court the medical certificate for my niece asking to be viewed exclusively by the court.

 

At the start of the CMD the Judge ask Intrum lawyer to start.  So he started by claiming the following:

1.    We failed to meet the 21 days deadline set by the court.

2.    He received a response on the 7th April which is only a week ago.

3.    He admitted that he has the two version of our submission. He claimed that they were collected by colleague of his from the court’s Clark while he was in court.

4.    He said that this case has taken too long and the defendant just messing them about and keeping changing their plea.

 

At that time the judge announced that he does not have the two documents in the case file. He only has the medical certificate.  Then he turned to me to ask me for explanation.

a)    I said that we met the deadline set by the court and submitted the required response.  Also I explained the issue with two documents.

b)    I confirmed that we have received a confirmation form the court on their receipt of  my submission emails.

c)    I stated that Intrum lawyer’s claim is incorrect that we failed to meet the deadline, and pointed out that he has our two documents in his possession which he obtained from the court.

 

Then the judge started asking Intrum lawyer on the content of the two documents, which is bizarre not to ask the author of the documents.

 

Intrum Lawyer stated that the two documents almost identical. He then started pointing out the negative sides in the documents such as our change of the 50% settlement.  He continued claiming that we are changing our defence without following the certain set procedure, which it seemed to confuse the judge. The lawyer  continued to ridicule the document in general without being specific.  At the end the judge turned to me  to response.

 

I said that the court must see the document as it is important to the case.  It is not correct to ask the lawyer to a brief the court on our document as he has been selective in what to read.  The judge came in and said that he asked the lawyer for a general summery of its content.

 

I continued that the full claim case is fundamentally flawed, and I continued to list why:

1.    The nature of the relation between the original creditor and defendant does not constitute the need for Financial Agreement between the two parties.  The claimant stated in their case that the defendant was in breach of a Financial Agreement. Where is this agreement?

2.    There is no Default Notice that the claimant stated in their submission there was a Default  Notice.

3.    Also has the original creditor served a notice of assignment on the defendant?

4.    The other fundamental issue is the question of the nature of the sum claimed!. .  .  .  . . .

 

At that time the judge stopped me asked me if I was asking for the other side to present these documents.

 

I responded:  Intrum are experienced organisation in this type of business.  They know very well the importance of these documents to the case, why they have not been  incorporated them in their case submission , . .  my answer Yes  . . . our missing response document put the claimant to Strict Proof to present these documents to the court.

 

The lawyer then announced that the Default Note was included in their submission and, he continued to quote a reference number, then he retracted his claim, which is I had a sense that he felt he has gone too far in his BS***t.

 

However, the judge spend most of session faltering and does not know what to say.  At the end he decided to go for another CMD. But then the funny part he asked the Claimant lawyer to send him the two missing documents.

 

I feel more positive now on the case but I would appreciate your views and comments.

 

Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

urm i wish you'd either check your grammar before posting or try and explain things a little more clearly...

 

so the end result is the claimant still has to produce??? for the next cmd?

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry  DX100UK . . . English is not my mother tongue   . . . I am doing the best I can manage with what I know 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...