LC Asset/Link/Kearns Claim Form #1 - Halifax CC

[jk2054]

Sorry just want to make sure your WS has your address somewhere?

 

When I did my familiarisation I saw a judge refuse to allow in a WS from a finance company because it didn't have the address of the person that made the statement in it 

[Badtimes123]

Hi jk, thanks for checking up on this. I didn’t know that rule specifically but yes the first page has.

I just copied the same format as the claimants WS

thanks again 

[AndyOrch]

2 minutes ago, Badtimes123 said:

I didn’t know that rule specifically

On your N157 on preparing a statement 

[jk2054]

Did the Claimant's WS not have an address on it?

If they're doing no witness attendance and their WX doesn't have address pers i'd be asking judge to not allow it under CPR r3.4 2(c) based on the Defendant's failure to adhere with the N157 directional notice which shows clear disregard for CPR.

Evri's been caught out for non cpr compliance so worth a shot in any case imo

[Badtimes123]

Theirs does, it’s the first line of it confirming name, occupation and address 

thanks again though jk for highlighting! 

[Badtimes123]

Good evening,

The court date for this is 3rd June and I've decided I will defend in court

Following some very interesting happenings in my other claim at court the other day (thread will be updated after this one)

I am certain I want to defend this not because I'm confident of it's success, but rather I want to experience the day and press on my belief (I know it's only a belief) that a copy of DN and NOA's themselves, is not proof of serving, which MUST have taken place.

Much better evidence of serving, would just be proof of postage or signature of recipient with the correct date, even without the letter copies themselves. Their evidence in exhibits is not strict proof.

Law of Property Act 196(4) "Any notice required or authorised by this Act to be served shall also be sufficiently served, if it is sent by post in a registered letter........."

Isn't a 'registered letter' proof of postage/receipt (signature)?

It might not have mileage, but its my first claim and I will be levelled up for experiencing it and trying. Meaning I can make more informed decisions on the numerous others pending within months. including claim #2

Thank you for helping me get this far, I've learned so much already and already making better decisions on accounts I don't have a thread for.

I welcome discussion, thanks

 

[puzz1ed1]

Always worth showing up. 

Had an old Abbey/Santander account go to court years ago. I turned up, they didn't, judge struck it out immediately.

There is an argument that it's the DEED of Assignment that needs to be evidenced, not just NOA.

I think I mentioned before, my current situation with Link/Kearns is that they need to send the Deed (as well as DN, NOA, and a more compliant particulars of claim) in the next two weeks or it will be struck out.

They've not even managed to provide initial contract yet either. 

Nothing to lose by showing up and presenting your case.

If they've failed to evidence a right to the claim and the judge is so minded, you may get lucky!

 

[dx100uk]

theres no requirement under the CCA nor any relevant law that dictates a NOA or DN must be sent by signed for nor any actual proof, like a proof of posting certificate.

a note from the original creditors like in their comms or account log should however be provided. 

 

[Badtimes123]

Agree puzzled, traffic jams and car breakdowns are a thing, you never know.

Ok dx, thank you.

OC must, as per CCA requirements serve a DN and NOA, creating the letter on their system, storing the letter, giving the letter to plink isn't serving the letter! surely...

I understand it may be excepted by a judge, but come on, it isn't strict proof of anything being served is it.. sadly..

Why did I get proof of postage for my letters to and for?

I thought it would be so that I could prove to a court that I had sent something,

can I just print a letter and say it was sent and that be excepted in a court?

hmmm

[dx100uk]

on oc does not have to send a noa, the debt buyer can do that upon their behalf using their letterhead.

as for 'serving' documents like a default notice, under law, which you point to with your letters, you only need to prove a letter was sent, not actually received.

as long as evidence from the original creditor is provided that one was sent, that sadly good enough, there is no requirement to hold a copy of said letters, only proof they were sent.

the word served or to be correct .

Section 87 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA) necessitates service of a default notice on a debtor,

service of said letters does not have the same meaning as s

if all you have is this argument then you are on very weak grounds.

dx

 

 

[Badtimes123]

46 minutes ago, dx100uk said:

a note from the original creditors like in their comms or account log should however be provided.

Could you elaborate a little please, I've never seen this come up in other threads before.

they should have to evidence some proof, ie not just copies of the letters.

Should this have formed part of my defence and WS rather than referring to Law of Property Act that isn't relevant?

or is it the case that 'strict proof' infers there should be some evidence, such as you say a log or confirmation from the OC that it did indeed get sent?

thanks

[dx100uk]

if a copy of the dn is presented then there is obv no need for proof one was sent.

however, as we've seen several times here of late, quite often, a debt buyer will provide an obvious copy of the original creditors template with %name% %address% fields clearly showing and insert your details on it.

a DN cannot be reconstructed as far as i know., but in these cases whereby its actual origin is in question, thats where proof from the oc one was sent, be that simply a line in the account log, is required.

dx