SXGuy's UE Diary

[fluffystuff]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

A claimant should be in possession of the documents he intends to rely before issuing the claim. If its out of Northampton, where claims are filed on-line, then the documents should be sent under separate cover.

However, what should happen and what actually happens, are invariably two quite different things!

[ken100464]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

When including my main crux of the argument, i will mention failure to address my previous letter explaining the missing PT's but should i also be explaining exactly why? i.e the terms and conditions are clearly not those from account inception, because they ommit paragraphs mentioned within the agreement?

Also, should i be requesting copies of the documents they intend to rely on, or does that come once a claim form is received?

I think you can ask for them because how can you know what course of defence you may or may not use if you dont know what they have.

Think P1 is a bit of a whizz at this but maybe thats when trying to dig stuff up.

I read a while ago on here that you dont tell them what is missing otherwise you are giving them the ability to rectify whatever is wrong.

But perhaps a more legal minded person could advise on that one. Wouldnt want to screw up anything for you.

[fluffystuff]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

Also, should i be requesting copies of the documents they intend to rely on, or does that come once a claim form is received?

They most probably don't have any documents!

We asked them to prove their allegations and you already know the result!


NIDDY OVER TO YOU!

[SXGuy]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

...........and what about the default notice? Was it assigned to dlc before the period to rectify had expired?

My mother doesnt have the DN anymore. before all this, she was in an arrangement with all her creditors to pay £1 per month, they told her she would receive DN's but to ignore them, so she did, but didnt understand she should keep them.

This was pre AAD, had i known id of made sure it was kept.

What she does have, is a letter from MBNA saying the account is terminated, and another letter from DLC saying they bought the debt, dates are weeks apart.

Whether the termination happend during the DN is not known.

[SXGuy]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

Thanks. yes it is sick.

The letter before action does need a reply, looking at the civil procedure rules, the only issue they have failed to address is within Annex A, they have not listed the documents for which they intend to rely on.

So my reply should include a referal to the Civil Procedure Rules pre action protocol practice direction mentioned by paul here http://forums.all-about-debt.co.uk/s...&postcount=289

When including my main crux of the argument, i will mention failure to address my previous letter explaining the missing PT's but should i also be explaining exactly why? i.e the terms and conditions are clearly not those from account inception, because they ommit paragraphs mentioned within the agreement?

Also, should i be requesting copies of the documents they intend to rely on, or does that come once a claim form is received?

[fluffystuff]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

Is it just non compliance of the s78 or is the agreement duff?
y.

...........and what about the default notice? Was it assigned to dlc before the period to rectify had expired?

[ken100464]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

We have one of those and sadly with hindsight we understand tha barstewards true motives.

Sadly the courts just see the debt avoider and dont see some clever minds at work and the court is just part of the game they are playing.

Same as you OH tried to offer a repayment that was affordable to her at the time after they had shovelled interest galore over the previous 2 years.

She was even on their severe hardship scheme. By taking her to court they just added costs and shoved her further into debt. Talk about a kicking when you are down.

Looking back they put her into hardship. She didnt use the card for 3 years just trying to keep up with it. Increased the interest rate to a penal 34.9% when she is telling em she cant afford it.

When they have basically bled her dry and she gives up they then secure this unsecured debt. This debt then is of a higher value within the marketplace when the time comes to sell it on. Plus they use your money to secure it for them.

Sickening really.

I really hope you can avoid all that. Good luck.

[SXGuy]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

True, dont want her to appear as a debt avoider, however, the moment DLC bought the debt, initially my mother offered a payment she could afford.

They refused and sent her a letter saying they would be seeking to obtain judgement to secure a repayment.

It was then she requested her agreement. So she could argue, that an offer was made, they refused, no counter offer made since, and non compliance of section 78 during that time.

[ken100464]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

Is it just non compliance of the s78 or is the agreement duff?

I have too have just read Pauls blog and from that would be very concerned if a non compliant s78 is not deemed sufficient a dispute not to pay.

That would be a perfect way to confuse the little guy.

[SXGuy]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

Thanks fluffy, i guess thats a forewarning then.

Ive explained to my mother the situation and asked what she feels is best to do given the situation.

Shes not keen on attending court, even with the non compliance of sec 78.

DLC have implied numerous times they will apply for a CO reglardless of whether a payment is proposed, so im debating what i should do.

Section 78 can be remedied after litigation proceedings have started.

If she was to think about an offer of repayment, say £30 - £40 per month, could a tomlin order be an idea?

[fluffystuff]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

Seems that dlc & Aplins are on a bit of a mission at the moment!

Your letter appears identical to the one hubby received, we did respond but their ignorance was swiftly followed by the N1 from Northampton.

[SXGuy]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

Have you read ?------> Pauls Blog

I was in the middle of it when the post came lol ironic.

[Deepie]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

Have you read ?------> Pauls Blog

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

I'd treat this as a letter before action (LBA) and respond to each point, using the guidelines in Paul's LBA guide...

[SXGuy]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

update, today received a letter from Aplin Stockton and Fairfax solicitors dated 8th December 2012.

This is for DLC (hilliesden) who bought the debt from MBNA.

They say that "they have been instructed to issue legal proceedings against you for the above overdue payment.

The claim for the amount outstanding is at today under the banking facilities provided to you by your client (? no, DLC bought the debt FROM mbna)

If payment isnt received within 14 days a claim will be issued against you in northhampton.

Unless payment is made within 14 days of the claim an application will be made for a CCJ"

No offer of repayment is mentioned.

Quick background, they havent satisfied s78 because what they sent are not the T's and C's for the account. Paragraphs mentioned within the prescribed terms are missing. I have sent the Missing PT's letter but they ignored it.

They have said they will be passing the debt over to their litigation team, so i was expecting this letter.

The question is now thise, i do NOT believe they are messing around, DLC have said it was forthcoming, so i need to take this one seriously.

Suggestions on reply please? perhaps i should treat this as a letter of claim, send one of Paul's suggested letters and should i add anything to do with why its in dispute or should i not?