Money Shop/BW legal vs me

[Amethyst]

The credit agreement says £300, 30 days, due date 28/10/13, APR 2337% Total repayable £389.97

Your alleged loan ( according to them) was £400, 22 days, due date 9/8/13, APR 5917%, Total Repayable £511.96

The claimants claim is for the sum of 381.76 being monies due from the defendant to the claimant under a loan agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974

so if you hadn't made any payments to it ( which I think is what was claimed, not sure as we don't have default date do we - nothing on credit file?) how did they get to £381.76 at all ?

so it doesn't cut it.

( Carey v HSBC

(12) Obviously, in theory, there is more possibility of error if a creditor reconstructs from sources other than the executed agreement itself but for it to be able to reconstruct at all it will need the details of the debtor, the type of card and the date when made. If it has such details, it appears that there is no real difficulty in ascertaining the applicable terms including the relevant Prescribed Terms. And if so, there is unlikely to be a real risk of inaccuracy; I do not accept that a reconstituted copy is simply based on "mere assertion" by the creditor. It must - of necessity - be based upon records held as to the debtor and the agreement he made. That a creditor needs to take care when providing the copy is highlighted by the fact that it is implicit in its duty (as stated by Mr Gun Cuninghame) that it is an "honest and accurate" copy;

)

HOWEVER it would be pretty easy to amend it ( Goodness knows why they don't do that before sending it )


They also state the photo ID was from when you took the loan out - which it isn't - it's from a previous loan I believe?

[Amethyst]

When you did have loans with Moneyshop, how did you pay them ? ( sorry I've never been ) - did you go in and pay cash or do a card/bank transfer payment etc ? and did they just give you cash ? ( just wondering if it is worth checking bank records at all - as according to their claim you made some kind of a payment since taking out the loan )

[salazz69]

When you did have loans with Moneyshop, how did you pay them ? ( sorry I've never been ) - did you go in and pay cash or do a card/bank transfer payment etc ? and did they just give you cash ? ( just wondering if it is worth checking bank records at all - as according to their claim you made some kind of a payment since taking out the loan )

I had them during that period of 2012/2013 and they would cash the cheques that you pre-signed for the amounts due weekly or monthly. Or you could walk into the shop with cash before the cheques were due and you could retrieve the cheques that you would have given them.
They would just give you cash and unfortunately I since changed bank accounts and to retrieve the records may be challenging as most of my bank statements and documents from that time were destroyed in a flood in 2015.

[salazz69]

The credit agreement says £300, 30 days, due date 28/10/13, APR 2337% Total repayable £389.97

Your alleged loan ( according to them) was £400, 22 days, due date 9/8/13, APR 5917%, Total Repayable £511.96

so if you hadn't made any payments to it ( which I think is what was claimed, not sure as we don't have default date do we - nothing on credit file?) how did they get to £381.76 at all ?

so it doesn't cut it.

( Carey v HSBC )

HOWEVER it would be pretty easy to amend it ( Goodness knows why they don't do that before sending it )


They also state the photo ID was from when you took the loan out - which it isn't - it's from a previous loan I believe?

Yes thats from when one registered

[salazz69]

[QUOTE=salazz69;n1424524]

Yes thats from when one registered initially before you could do anything with them when getting a loan ....the photo that is.

As to the rest I am baffled and dont know how they arrived at their figures.

[salazz69]

Was hoping to enter the defence today/tonight and get it submitted as midnight tonight is the deadline it appears (28days). I used the money claim website.....and wanted to ask if when they give you days within which to reply do they count weekend days as well or do they use working week days only?

[Amethyst]

It should give you the actual date on the MCOL system.

The deadline is 33 days from the date of issue, so yes you're best to get it in today/tmw really.

Have you drafted it ?

[salazz69]

Was hoping to enter the defence today/tonight and get it submitted as midnight tonight is the deadline it appears (28days). I used the money claim website.....and wanted to ask if when they give you days within which to reply do they count weekend days as well or do they use working week days only?

I had not drafted one as of yet, was hoping to be pointed in the correct direction. I have never done one before I may go about it the wrong way.I have seen the example defence in the templates on the tabs I have seen on the site
I will give it a go and will post it on the forum before submitting it.

Thank you all for your assistance so far, its been so refreshing and a great help. I would have been residing in panic land if it had not been for this site.

[Amethyst]

ok I'll keep an eye out and give you a hand amending


Example Defence

[Amethyst]

How you getting on? We need to get it done and submitted by 4. Don't worry if you've not got very far if you paste up where you've got to will give you a hand xx

[salazz69]

What a roller coaster ride its been.....I have been able to attempt to put together some defence.
Please help to restructure/chop and change as you see fit.

Thank you in advance!

Draft Defence

Particulars of Claim:
The Claimant's Claim is for the sum of £381.76 being monies due from the Defendant to the Claimant under a loan agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 between the Defendant and Instant Cash Loans Ltd t/a The Money Shop under account reference %%%%% and assigned to the Claimant on 09/12/2016, notice of which has been given to the Defendant.
The Defendant failed to maintain the contractual payment under the terms of the agreement and a default notice has been served and not complied with.
The claim also includes statutory interest pursuant to sec 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8.00% per annum ( a daily rate of £0.08) from the date of the assignment to 13/08/2018 being an amount of £49.04.

Defence:
1. The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defence accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.
2. Paragraph 1 is noted and accepted. I have in the past had financial dealings with The Money Shop which have always been paid up. I do not recall the precise details of the agreement number quoted and have sought verification from the claimant by way of sending a formal request for copies of documents mentioned in the statement of case pursuant to CPR 31.14 and as formal request for a copy of the original agreement pursuant to section 77 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 along with the statutory £1 fee. I do not recall a notice of Assignment issued on 09/12/2016.

3. Paragraph 2 is denied. A default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued to and received by the Defendant pursuant to s.87 (1) CCA.

4. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant; I am awaiting a response to my section 77 request, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:
(a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and
(b) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and
(c) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.

5. As mentioned above, I have requested by way of a CPR 31.14 request and a section 77 request, copies of the documents referred to within the Claimant’s particulars to establish what the claim is for. I am still awaiting a response.

6. As per Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.
7. On the alternative, as 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 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82 A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

8. On the 16^th of August 2018 I sent a formal request for a copy of the original agreement to BW Legal pursuant to section [77 or 78] of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 along with the statutory £1 fee. In turn I received a letter stating that the claimant could not obtain the original credit agreement and has instead supplied a reconstituted agreement showing a breakdown of the said account This I believe is because there was no agreement to find from the onset.
The claimant enclosed documentation including an image that was taken at registering with the money shop as was their custom before one could begin to use their services. I had several financial dealings with the money shop and can state that images were not taken when one took a loan but when one registered only therefore their claim that the image was proof that I took out the loan then is false.

9. The Claimant has failed to comply with s77 (1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and by virtue of s77 (4) Consumer Credit Act 1974 cannot enforce the agreement.
11. I request the court orders the Claimants to provide the necessary documentation in order for me to fully plead my case else the Claim should stand struck out.

10. In the event that the relevant documents are received from the Claimants I will then be in a position to amend my defence, and would ask that the Claimants bear the costs of the amendment.

11. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.


Statement of Truth
The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

Signed %%%%%%%

Dated - 18 September 2018

[Amethyst]

Having a look through now Well done so far !

[Amethyst]

1. Each and every allegation in the Claimants statement of case is denied unless specifically admitted in this Defence.
2. This claim is in relation to an agreement regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. It is uncertain whether this relates to a running credit account or a fixed sum loan. The Claimant has not provided details.
3. The Defendant has, in the past, had financial dealings with The Money Shop however does not recognise the agreement number or amount claimed as referred to by the Claimant in their Statement of Case.
4. The Defendant is not aware of any sums owed to The Money Shop. The Defendant, in his previous dealings with The Money Shop left pre-signed, pre-dated cheques with The Money Shop by way of repayment. Presumably had the loan in this case been taken out copies of those cheques would be available. The Defendant received no notice of any returned cheques.
5. Unfortunately due to a flood at the Defendant's property in 2015 he is finding it very difficult to check his own records from 2013.
6. Therefore the Defendant has sought verification from the Claimant by the way of sending a formal request for copies of documents mentioned in the Statement of Case pursuant to CPR 31.14.
7. Further he has formally requested a copy of the original agreement, terms and statement of account pursuant to s.77-79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and has paid the statutory £1 fee.
8. The Defendant did not receive any notice of assignment from either The Money Shop or the Claimant in 2016. The Claimant has not produced a copy.
9. The Defendant has not received a Default or any Termination Notice from The Money Shop.The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued to and received by the Defendant pursuant to s.87 (1) CCA. To date, the Claimant has failed to provide a copy.
10. In response to the Defendant’s section 77-79 request under the Consumer Credit Act the Claimant has confirmed they could not obtain a copy of the original agreement and has provided a copy of an unknown persons, partially redacted, credit agreement. This appears to be mere assertion on the part of the claimant and does not appear to be based on fact.
11. The agreement appears to be for a running credit account with a credit limit of £300, dated 20/5/2013, repayable in 30 days, with a due date 28/10/13, APR 2337% Total repayable £389.97. It is denied that the Defendant held any such agreement with The Money Shop.
12. The agreement does not state a Total Charge for Credit, and in any case, as the agreement does not relate to the Claimant’s claim, it would be inaccurate. Therefore the agreement appears not to comply with s.61 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
13. The Claimant has also provided a summary of figures alleged to relate to the relevant Credit Agreement. These are provided without context or accompanying terms.
14. These figures state a loan of £400 was taken out on 18^th July 2013, repayable in 22 days, with a due date 9^th August 2013, APR 5917%, Total Repayable £511.96.
15. Neither of these sets of figures appear to relate to the sum claimed, being £381.76.
16. It is denied that the Defendant took a loan of £400 on the 18^th July 2013, or at all and the claimant is put to strict proof.
17. The Claimant has failed to comply with s77 (1) or s 78(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 in that he has not provided a true and accurate copy of the alleged credit agreement and by virtue of s77 (4) or 78(6) Consumer Credit Act 1974 cannot enforce the agreement.
18. The Claimant also enclosed a photograph of the Defendant. When I first visited The Money Shop in 2012 The Money Shop took this photograph for identification purposes, as they did with all new customers.There is no correlation between the photograph and the alleged debt.
19. The Claimant has failed to provide any breakdown of the sum claimed or shown any calculations as to how the sum claimed has arisen at all.
20. The Defendant request the court orders the Claimants to provide the necessary documentation and evidence of their claim in order for me to further plead my case else the Claim should stand struck out.
21. In the event that the relevant documents are received from the Claimants I will then be in a position to amend my defence, and would ask that the Claimants bear the costs of the amendment.
22. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the sums as claimed or at all.

[Amethyst]

Have a read through that, I've kept it in normal language, but have switched it to The Defendant ( third person ) rather than ' I' - you save the 'I' stuff for Witness Statements really ( doesn't matter hugely in small claims and the example switches about a bit... but it's kind of habitual now ) - I think it covers more of the actual case argument.

[salazz69]

Have a read through that, I've kept it in normal language, but have switched it to The Defendant ( third person ) rather than ' I' - you save the 'I' stuff for Witness Statements really ( doesn't matter hugely in small claims and the example switches about a bit... but it's kind of habitual now ) - I think it covers more of the actual case argument.

Awesome , thank you