Arrow/Drydens Fairfax/MBNA

[Bombardier]

A quick update:

Neither Arrow or Dryden's Fairfax bothered to properly respond to my requests under CPR 31.14 and CCA. Accordingly, I submitted my defence denying liability on November 2, 2019.

The court acknowledged receipt of my defence by letter, dated November 4. I received this letter on November 6. The letter stated that the Claimant must inform the Court within 28 days of receipt of my defence whether he wishes to proceed with the claim. After this period the claim is stayed, and the Claimant will have to apply to a judge to lift the order. It is reasonable to assume that the Claimant would also have received my defence on the same day that I received the letter from Court - November 6.

Dryden's Fairfax acknowledged receipt of my defence in a letter dated November 11, stating that they were 'seeking their clients instructions.'

Dryden's Fairfax therefore have until December 4, during which they must respond to my defence.

Points to note:

1. Both Arrow and Drydens failed to comply with their statutory duties under CPR 31.14 and the CCA;
2. The default expired on July 30, 2017 meaning the Claimant is out of time;

In view of the above and Dryden's and Arrow's failure to respond under CPR 31.14 and the CCA request, bearing in mind the 28 day time frame for them to respond to my defence,should I request Summary Judgement?

Your advice would be greatly appreciated

[Bombardier]

Anyone?

[pt2537]

Anyone?

~Whats up

[Bombardier]

~Whats up

Sorry Paul, I missed your response.

Referring to my post dated November 18, 2019 I reported that I had not received a proper response to my requests for CCA and for further evidence under CPR 31.14. Arrow, more precisely 'Capquest', sent me a slip with my returned postal order stating that ...' Your request has been passed to our admin department. Dryden's Fairfax totally ignored the CPR 31.14 request, and instead suggested that I 'return the Claim Form'.

My defence was submitted on November 4. I then received acknowledgement from the court dated November 6, informing me that the had Claimant 28 days to respond, during which they may attempt to resolve the dispute. As the 28 day period has now expired, the matter is stayed and the Claimant will have to get an order from the Court to lift the stay.

What do I do now? Bearing in mind the particular facts of my case:

1) Wrong surname, similar but not the same.
2) The original default was issued in 2011, of which I have a copy
3) There are no adverse entries on my credit files
4) The matter is time-barred

Accordingly, what should be my next step?

Should I apply for Summary Judgement?

Your advice is most appreciated.

[Bombardier]

https://twitter.com/Pt2537/status/1181883082930098177

Have a read of this thread on twitter. I think you may have a good position to knock them over here quickly also see here https://consumercreditlitigationandd.../recent-cases/

Hi Paul,

I should be most grateful if you could please review my latest post and advise how I may ‘knock them over here quickly’.

I never received copies of documents under CPR 31.14 or my CCA. My defence was submitted and the Claimant has not responded. Accordingly, I assume the claim is now stayed. The Sword of Damocles!

Many thanks

[pt2537]

Sorry Paul, I missed your response.

Referring to my post dated November 18, 2019 I reported that I had not received a proper response to my requests for CCA and for further evidence under CPR 31.14. Arrow, more precisely 'Capquest', sent me a slip with my returned postal order stating that ...' Your request has been passed to our admin department. Dryden's Fairfax totally ignored the CPR 31.14 request, and instead suggested that I 'return the Claim Form'.

My defence was submitted on November 4. I then received acknowledgement from the court dated November 6, informing me that the had Claimant 28 days to respond, during which they may attempt to resolve the dispute. As the 28 day period has now expired, the matter is stayed and the Claimant will have to get an order from the Court to lift the stay.

What do I do now? Bearing in mind the particular facts of my case:

1) Wrong surname, similar but not the same.
2) The original default was issued in 2011, of which I have a copy
3) There are no adverse entries on my credit files
4) The matter is time-barred

Accordingly, what should be my next step?

Should I apply for Summary Judgement?

Your advice is most appreciated.

Tricky to give you advice fully when i have only half the story, however i would say that if the claim is as per the links i referred to, and if the Claimant hasnt mentioned a default notice in their claim form then yes i would say summary judgment may be worth a look but remember you only have one shot

[Bombardier]

Tricky to give you advice fully when i have only half the story, however i would say that if the claim is as per the links i referred to, and if the Claimant hasnt mentioned a default notice in their claim form then yes i would say summary judgment may be worth a look but remember you only have one shot

Hi Paul,

As I stated in my first post, the Claimant only stated in their POC:

‘A Default*Notice was served on the defendant and has not been complied with‘.

The Claimant omitted to state in the POC that the DN was issued in 2011, and had long expired.

I have also just received a letter from Arrow solicitor, Drydens Fairfax, stating that a ‘...default sum of £285’ was added to the alleged debt of £5K. This amount is for their recent costs in bringing the claim. Crazy, seeing as they haven’t bothered to respond to requests for CCA and docs under CPR 31.14, and have not responded to my defence.

I rang the court just prior to Xmas, who stated that they had not received a Claimant response to my defence, as at Dec 04, which was the latest processing date. Although the matter is now stayed, as at Dec 09, the court advised to wait until Jan 06, then call again to see if any paperwork had been received in the last few days before the stay.*

What has the mentioning of a DN in the Claimant’s POC got to do with my requesting either a strike out or summary judgement? It is patently clear that by omitting the DN issue date, they avoid close scrutiny in order to get the claim issued.*

Many thanks