** WON ** PRAC / ex Payday Express / Instant Cash Loans

[peterfranks]

Court was today.
Claimant solicitor was present.
CASE DISMISSED!! Success.
Exactly as Amethyst and GBexile spotted there was no link between the two companies. "Trading as" means nothing if they are two separate companies with different address.

Yet again Legal Beagles with their forensic vision were able to point something out that, frankly, on my own I would never have noticed.

Thanks again!

[GBExile]

Court was today.
Claimant solicitor was present.
CASE DISMISSED!! Success.
Exactly as Amethyst and GBexile spotted there was no link between the two companies. "Trading as" means nothing if they are two separate companies with different address.

Yet again Legal Beagles with their forensic vision were able to point something out that, frankly, on my own I would never have noticed.

Thanks again!

Absolutely SUPER COOL.

I am overwhelmed for you. Thanks for the appreciation. Now it is time to get on with your life & have chill out time.

If Amethyst was a lovely lady (which she is) then she might want to copy & paste the result of this court action.

There are a lot of people being taken to court when a legitimate link between Payday Express & Instant Cash Loan does not exist.

Well done for standing up for yourself.

[Amethyst]

Super. Thank you for updating - and well done for standing your ground and arguing the point at the hearing.

Did the claimant's solicitor try to argue assignment from Express Finance Bromley to Instant Cash Loans at all ?

[peterfranks]

She tried to argue that they were one and the same company under the umbrella of Payday express (for nearly half an hour). The judge was having none of it. Two seperate companies with two separate addresses and no assignment of debt from one to the other. The fact that they say they are "trading as" the same company was not sufficient.

On a side note... the judge was not satisfied that Prac or payday express was the legal owner of the debt. Can i now challenge the credit agencies to remove it from my credit file (It is on as Prac)?

[Amethyst]

I reckon so. If PRAC don't own the debt, then how can they report on it. As far as the debt goes only Express Finance (Bromley) could report on it. Theoretically they could pick back up reporting of it as they are still an active company. I doubt they'd (PRAC) just roll over - write to them first following the dismissal at a hearing then make a complaint to the CRA's and go from there, likely expecting to have to go to FOS and ICO over the issue.

I'm not sure if going court route for wrongful default is going to work, as the debt does exist, just not with the company that's reporting it ( so you'd be in the same position credit record wise if it was being reported by the correct entity - so no loss - if you see what I mean ). pt2537 ?

[GBExile]

She tried to argue that they were one and the same company under the umbrella of Payday express (for nearly half an hour). The judge was having none of it.

I am not surprised the Judge was having none of it.

A one minute check on Companies House website would confirm so. The Judge must have been sitting there thinking the solicitor was trying to take them for a mug & once a Judge senses that then its all over.

Each & everyone of these PRAC/Instant Cash Loans/Payday Express court actions have the same fault & each & every one of them should be kicked out of court.

Either by accident or on purpose they are all flawed & if the accounting procedures mirror the assignment notices then tax evasion is taking places which is either deliberate or accidental. Who knows.

[GBExile]

Oh & the same tactics are being used under Payday UK