BLS No CCA but still demanding payment

[pt2537]

Even though the case seems clear, they do not have a fully executed agreement so the court can not make judgement. Why the need for a massive full day of legal arguments against a team of barristers and witnesses in front of a very high judge?

 

Ok well its for you to point out the flaws in the agreement hence the need for a day in court

 

the judge wont find the faults for you , you need to draw his attention to this and back it up with Case Law hence the Witness statements and Skeleton Arguements

 

so unfortunatley that is how the court works, been in there many times and im afraid it never changes

[The Lantana]

How will this affect your claim ?

 

I think the main impact of fast track is that full costs are up for grabs, but I could be wrong.

 

 

poker_mad, are they still admitting they don't have an agreement? Why are they flogging a dead horse?

 

 

Regards

 

 

Lantana

[poker_mad]

So when I win its a case of the bigger the court the bigger the party afterwards? Just one other thing before bed. The Solicitor asked at least twice before we went if I was interested in settling out of court and went out of his way after the hearing to try and cut a deal with me. The deal was I admit the debt in writing and they let me pay it off without a ccj with regular payment reviews. This apparently is to save on my legal bill if I loose which could be the same size of my claim.

 

There is also charges and PPI which if you work out the interest come to nearly two thirds of this claim. Can I not claim these back before i start or would that be admitting the debt?

 

Thanks for all your advice Paul

[bifidus digestivum]

poker_mad, are we talking a lot of money here? I don't wish to pry but I'm wondering why they are pursuing it so vigorously.

[gh2008]

Could this be an extreme version of the "who's going to blink first" routine?

 

IMHO as they have admitted there is no copy of the agreement, ignoring the enforceability of what they have got, surely as they are still in default of the original s.78 request, they should not be seeking enforcement anyway!!

 

But then the banks do think they can make up the law to suit them, and some DJ's seem to agree with them

 

Due to the direction it is now going, might it be worth investigating whether you can get a pro-bono representation. After all, it worked for Penelope Wilson !!

[poker_mad]

Its just short of 5K, ive seen dca's give up at the first hurdle on this site so its worth looking into why they are pushing for fast track. Maybe its to put me off as they think they will win and double their money with the costs. Or maybe it's just Lloyds that wont give up till the end, they are tough. I also have a bank charges claim against them which is stayed, they are the only one of 8 claims that isnt over and done with.

[bifidus digestivum]

Why isn't it being heard in the small claims, the limit is £5000? I didn't think costs were awarded in the small claims court.

[poker_mad]

The judge wanted it transfered due to complex legal arguments.

[bifidus digestivum]

Does that mean you could have costs awarded against you? Seems a bit tight.

[Docman]

Hi PM,

 

Any reason why it went to fast track if the debt was below 5k? The legal arguments are straightforward, so it shouldn't be a complicated matter.

 

IMHO the only reason the other side go for tast track is to get their costs. In small claims both sides are usually expected to meet their own costs.

 

I've one claim running at the moment where the CC claim was just under £4k but at the last minute, the solicitors for the bank added the cheque account overdraft of £1200 to just go over the 5k limit, even though the cheque account was NOT in default and was only OD because of £1800 in charges I was claiming back! The solicitors then claimed in the AQ that their costs would be around 8k (yes, £8,000) to bring a claim of less than £4k.

[Docman]

Just read your update. What 'complex arguments? Did you have a dumpty of a DJ?

[poker_mad]

Thats right, It could double the amount of the claim but it make no difference as I couldn't afford to pay off a £100 debt never mind a £10,000 debt. Trouble is they will have a legal team and I'll be stood there on my own trying to fight them without experts stood next to me.

[poker_mad]

At the hearing I thought the Judge was going to get up and join the sollicitor opposite me at the table. I explained all about the CCA and also the fact that they have been unable to find the original default so have re created ( forged to you and me) and intend to call bank staff to give witness statements about the default. I also pointed out about the terms of the CCA had to be within the four corners of the agreement, the solicitor told the judge that the application form only excists on mircofilm. The fact that it is now nolonger a complete document isnt that complex to me.

[gh2008]

From what's been said IMO it would seem that the solicitor's sole intention was to confuse matters so that it would seem a complex argument and therefore get the case onto fast track.

 

sneaky

[poker_mad]

And by getting it onto fast track then it helps them to try and force me into accepting their offer. Considering Lloyds own SC&M which will keep their costs low I would have thought the chance of taking someone with no chance of legal help to a fast track court in order to try and double their money would be to much to resist. Unless they know they have little chance of winning if it goes all the way?

[gh2008]

I would have thought the chance of taking someone with no chance of legal help to a fast track court in order to try and double their money would be to much to resist.

 

Have a search for pro-bono

ProBonoUK.net Home and i think there's also a link on PT's profile

[Docman]

Thats right, It could double the amount of the claim but it make no difference as I couldn't afford to pay off a £100 debt never mind a £10,000 debt. Trouble is they will have a legal team and I'll be stood there on my own trying to fight them without experts stood next to me.

 

 

But you will have a much larger and more experienced legal team on your side - CAG!

 

When you get to court, start with the assumption that the DJ is dumb and can be easily led by the sneaky lawyers from the claimants. Prepare all your arguments properly with all the paper work in order. Then draft out what you want to actually say. Print this out in large font on separarte paper. If the other side go first, don't interupt the other solicitor when he is speaking and don't allow him to get you all riled up. Keep calm and then READ out your defence 'speech', as though you were in front of the teleprompter.

 

The claimant has to prove the case, not the other way around, so as long as you don't admit you owe the debt before the DJ, you should be OK. The DJ may ask some questions but remember the DJ has to follow the statute and decided cases. If he doesn't, the DJ can be overturned on appeal.

[Dav3yBoy]

This is interesting...

 

I have BLS chasing me for a llods tsb credit card. But nearly half of the debt was payments for PPI which i never signed up for.

 

I wrote to them asking for the credit agreement form and also for the PPI form signed by me... Nothing!!

 

They sent another letter chasing payment, so i wrote back... Nothing.

 

Got the final letter today stating if i do not make payment or respond within 14 days they will begin legal proceedings against me.

 

So i phoned... I spoke to a young lad who confirmed they had received my requests, i explained that by law they are obliged to provide the info but he was very arrogant.

 

When i explained that over £600 was PPI that i never took out and nearly £500 was charges, he offered to take £600 off the debt if i paid today.

 

But this isn't the point, i pointed out i hade made a request that they are legally obliged to provide to me, if they can't the debt is unenforcable.

 

It seemed like a cop out so i declined and said the time limit has run its course and i look forward to seeing them in court.

 

I may be stubborn but it annoyed me, he was basically admitting the PPI cover was crap

[poker_mad]

Ive had a few days off picking on DCA's as I began to get stressed out and also been busy making complaints to FOS.

 

Ive recieved the order from court and I have until the end of April to compile my amended defence.

 

I'll have a few questions to I'll be back over the next few days with them all.

[poker_mad]

My defence has to be in by the 28th April so I would be very greatfull for help in putting it together.

 

As this claim involves bank charges of around £2000, if I started to claim them back would that be admitting the debt?

 

If I didnt claim them back and lost the case would I then be able to say I dont agree with the amount?

 

Thanks

[gh2008]

Hi PM,

 

Did you contact the people via the links I posted? can they help you?

[poker_mad]

It's something I'm looking into. It's worth a try.

[The Lantana]

Admitting or not admitting the debt is irrelevant. The loan is caught by the consumer credit act, so they have to come up with a valid agreement. You are not denying you had the money, they can easily prove that you had.

 

Because the 2006 act doesn't apply in your case, they have to provide a compliant agreement otherwise the judge is not allowed, by law, to enforce.

 

If they have a piece of paper with your signature and the prescribed terms they may well win. Otherwise they don't win.

 

Personally I wouldn't cloud the issue with a charges counterclaim, I'd wait until their claim is disposed of.

 

Now I must get my AQ off tonight!

 

Regards

 

 

Lantana

Edited May 10, 2008 by The Lantana
Bluntness!

[poker_mad]

Well my amended defence has to be in by next monday, I would be very greatful for some help. Should I just add to my oridinal defence and if so what is best to add or leave out. Could really do with your help Paul.

[poker_mad]

Made a mistake, my amended defence has to be in on thursday. Any advice would be a great help.