Mortimer Clarke Issued Claim (I know nothing about)

[Paul.]

Re: Mortimer Clarke Issued Claim (I know nothing about)

Its tricky mate,

like any case, its about gathering the evidence, applying the law to the facts, and then drawing a conclusion on the way forward.

At this moment the facts arent clear

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Mortimer Clarke Issued Claim (I know nothing about)

Question for Dan - did they obtain judgment whilst you were paying £80pm or did you recently come to that agreement?

When did you start paying £80pm?

Cheers

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Mortimer Clarke Issued Claim (I know nothing about)

Paul, proof being a statement I presume?

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Mortimer Clarke Issued Claim (I know nothing about)

How exactly can you be point anything in arrears? They work on full months

I gather there are faults with the agreement etc as well. I'll message Dan and see what's happening as I believe this is very similar to MrsG so if she's successful maybe that could be used again here; to beat back MCL due to their highly questionable methods!?

I dunno but definitely something wrong here with everything about this fiasco....

[Paul.]

Re: Mortimer Clarke Issued Claim (I know nothing about)

There is a puzzling question surrounding the Default.

The sum stated as "Arrears" is a bizzare amount. It equates to, based on the repayment amount on the notice, as being 12.4 months in arrears.

Now then, is that correct? were you 12.4 months in arrears? or do you have proof to prove that it is incorrect?

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Desperate Dans Diary

Send me a copy please mate.

[Desperate Dan]

Re: Desperate Dans Diary

Read my thread on here. Easier to understand

--> UPDATED - A Full Guide to Unenforceability - allaboutFORUMS

Under the header multiple agreements but read whole thread. You'll learn a lot

Cheers, had a good luck and my cca looks worryingly similar (to my untrained eye) to the co-op enforceable example with the way the ppi is laid out

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Desperate Dans Diary

Read my thread on here. Easier to understand

--> UPDATED - A Full Guide to Unenforceability - allaboutFORUMS

Under the header multiple agreements but read whole thread. You'll learn a lot

[Desperate Dan]

Re: Desperate Dans Diary

Jeez just read that section 18 on the consumer credit act, reckon need to read that a few times to take it in

[Desperate Dan]

Re: Desperate Dans Diary

Oh they have cos there is no separate terms anywhere for the PPI which means it must be unenforceable as s.18 clearly states what must be present.

As I say, Paul's the expert. Not me

Well I certainly do not recall ever receiving a dn or summons etc and I am pretty sure I was living elsewhere to the judgement address at the time of the judgement. Will do some digging and hope can come up with some proof. Will try the council and see when I came off council tax at that address. Just a thought though Niddy, I am not sure at what point I gave the vampires my new address and not sure how to go about proving dates etc.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Desperate Dans Diary

Yes that makes perfect sense Niddy. I wonder why they bothered to send me the cca? Shep mentioned in an earlier post that they dont have to send one post judgement. Lets hope they have made a major fuck up

Oh they have cos there is no separate terms anywhere for the PPI which means it must be unenforceable as s.18 clearly states what must be present. Scroll down to s.18 --> Consumer Credit Act 1974

As I say, Paul's the expert. Not me

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Desperate Dans Diary

In layman. Go back a month before they would have issued the N1 claim.

If it came to your real address you'd have responded right? You'd have asked for the agreement, the DN, the NoA, the TN and then you'd have done a reclaim possibly involving the FOS and applied for a strike out based on wrong claim amount and/or hoped it'd get stayed pending FOS / reclaim. So with all that taken into account you'd be paying less back plus arguing defective default and defective agreement based in s.18 flaws (no separate terms for the ppi element).

In essence you could have won.

So fast forward.

Those reasons are surely enough to apply now for set-aside plus a full defence to get it wrote off.

That is my point of view. It may be bollocks hence I'd rather Paul commented but I'm also laying the seed of thought so he knows the full faults which I do as I've followed this thread

[Desperate Dan]

Re: Desperate Dans Diary

I'm suggesting they "may" have obtained judgment against a naturally disputed account based on the errors. For example, as Paul stated earlier you need to prove if you got the claim and did defend you'd have a chance of success. So I'm saying because they got default by judgment IF you did get the claim and IF you had the OPPORTUNITY to defend at THAT time we'd have known about ppi ergo the DN would be bad thus surely the sum claimed would be wrong coupled with the fact the agreement would be flawed.

I am suggesting it is these same points that MAY create an arguable defence for set-aside. I may be wrong thus I'm mooting the idea to Paul to get his view. But that's what I'd be trying to defend on.

Make sense?

Yes that makes perfect sense Niddy. I wonder why they bothered to send me the cca? Shep mentioned in an earlier post that they dont have to send one post judgement. Lets hope they have made a major fuck up

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Desperate Dans Diary

I'm suggesting they "may" have obtained judgment against a naturally disputed account based on the errors. For example, as Paul stated earlier you need to prove if you got the claim and did defend you'd have a chance of success. So I'm saying because they got default by judgment IF you did get the claim and IF you had the OPPORTUNITY to defend at THAT time we'd have known about ppi ergo the DN would be bad thus surely the sum claimed would be wrong coupled with the fact the agreement would be flawed.

I am suggesting it is these same points that MAY create an arguable defence for set-aside. I may be wrong thus I'm mooting the idea to Paul to get his view. But that's what I'd be trying to defend on.

Make sense?

[Desperate Dan]

Re: Desperate Dans Diary

Paul

What about the mis-sold ppi ergo incorrect default, incorrect claim - the lot. Surely the house of cards collapse...

I don't think a SAR will help at this stage (for court) but possibly for reclaim however see what Paul says about the ppi element. I also think the cca would be flawed post judgment as it won't cover ppi PT's - you can bank on that! Thus surely s.18 along with s.87, s.88, s.78 and s.127(3) is grounds to apply for set-aside...?

Paul....?

Whats that mean Niddy, about the cca being flawed post judgement?