**DISMISSED!!** Court Claim - Prac financial / Instant cash loans (payday uk)

[Minionherder]

Re: Court Claim - Prac financial / Instant cash loans (payday uk) - 25-8-2017

the FOS will normally refuse to consider complaints about a CCJ.

Its not a CCJ yet....

Also how then would I complain about a DCA/solicitor blatantly breaking and ignoring rules there must be someone to report them to.

[Amethyst]

Re: Court Claim - Prac financial / Instant cash loans (payday uk) - 25-8-2017

The FOS complaint about the affordability/irresponsible lending is separate from the court claim, and is against the original lender, Instant Cash Loans, not PRAC, so you can sort out this court case and let the FOS deal with the complaint, and if you succeed with that - use any refund/compensation to pay PRAC off ( if the debt was still with Instant Cash Loans then the balance would be written off so you're in the same position either way )

Was your original defence based on the standard No response to the CCA / CPR requests / lack of information ? Was anything mentioned about unfair relationships / irresponsible lending in there? Could you paste a copy please. And a copy of the recon agreement please. As it isn't very old it is likely to be compliant and contain the prescribed terms.

You can't add new legal arguments into a Witness Statement - you can expand on ones you have already pleaded in your defence and give the background to the case. As Debt Camel has said if you want to argue the unfair relationship points through court you would need to apply to amend your defence - you might be able to obtain the costs of the application (£255) off of the claimant if you are amending due to their delay in sending through the documentation.

As this is 'only' £180 it likely isn't worth being clobbered with a CCJ over so I think I'd probably exchange witness statements and, if they go ahead with that ( sometimes they just don't bother and the case could get struck out, or they could discontinue) look at trying to negotiate an out of court settlement with them so your credit file isn't knackered for the next 6 years.

[Minionherder]

Re: Court Claim - Prac financial / Instant cash loans (payday uk) - 25-8-2017

I did mention in my defence the account was in dispute.

1. The claimant is claiming for an account that originated with
PDUK a payday loan company. It is admitted that I the defendant
have held accounts with PDUK in the past but will contend that the
accounts are currently the subject of a complaint and any
outstanding arrears are in dispute.

2. I am currently negotiating with PDUK regarding ALL accounts I
have had with them in the past, this will include the account the
claimant is claiming for if it is a legitimate account. (PDUK
Case reference: XXXXX) When my complaint has resolved it is
extremely likely that any outstanding balance will be covered by
refunds issued from PDUK or written off entirely.

3. The defendant, on the 1st Sep 2017, requested information from
the claimant pertaining to this claim by way of a CPR 31.14
request. The claimant has declined to respond or even acknowledge
the request within the deadline set, in fact the claimant has
declined to respond to this tracked and delivered recorded
delivery request in any manner even outside the deadline.
(Tracking number XXXXXX)

4. Without clarification of the claimants claim, the defendant is
extremely disadvantaged and the claimants claim appears to be
without merit. The defendant asks to be allowed to submit a
complete defence at the claimants cost should the claimant provide
copies of the original documents he will rely on.

5. The particulars of claim are vague and unsubstantiated with
regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and the
Claimant is put to strict proof to:

(a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement or
contract with the Claimant
(b) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for
(c) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under
statute or equity to issue a claim

6. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the
Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.

7. Furthermore, if the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is
denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to
contraventions of Section 136 and196 of the Law of Property Act
1925 and Section 82 (a) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

8. 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.

9. For avoidance of doubt, the defendant is unable to plead
effectively or at all to the particulars of claim. Without further
clarification/disclosure I am unable to even confirm that the
account or sum being claimed for is correct.

Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in this Defence of claim to be
true.

[Amethyst]

Good job, only part you didn't include was the CCA request for the agreement copy ( which I don't believe they have sent to you as yet have they ?)

They have supplied a reconstituted agreement, any idea what I should be looking at on it to see if it is enforcable?

Okay they have replied so that's fine it's not in the defence ( Sorry working through the thread )

[Minionherder]

Update....

Hearing yesterday.

Their documents supplied late had no proof they were ever posted out.

Also the default was in the name of the money shop not PDUK.

I had to argue a bit and their advocate tried to belittle my arguements but to no avail.

The judge dismissed the claim based on those two points alone.

[MIKE770]

well done

[Kati]

Congrats Minionherder xx