MCOL claim from Lowell/Overdales

[foobar]

Received a claim? Yes
Issue Date: 06/08/2024 @ CNBC Northampton
Have you Acknowledged the Claim?: Yes (21/08/2024)
Total Amount Claimed : £1900-2000
Claimant’s Name: Lowell Portfolio I Ltd
Solicitors Firm: Overdales Solicitors
Original Creditor: Capital One
Original Debt (eg. Credit card/Loan/Overdraft) : Credit Card
Particulars of Claim:

The claim is for the sum of £18xx.xx due by the Defendant under an agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 for a Capital One account with an account reference of [REDACTED]
The Defendant failed to maintain contractual payments required by the agreement and a Default Notice was served under s.87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 which has not been complied with.
The debt was legally assigned to the claimant on [REDACTED], notice of which has been given to the defendant.
The claim includes statutory interest under S.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of these proceedings in the sum of £xx.xx
The Claimant claims the sum of £19xx.xx

Is the debt Statute Barred (have you had any contact with the creditor or claimant over the last 6 years?): No
List any letters you have sent (eg: CCA/ CPR ):
Any Other Information or Background Details:

I have prepared CCA and CPR31 requests to send later this week. What is my deadline for the defence? 10/09/24, I think?

[foobar]

Over the weekend, I put through an application for CPR31.14, and submitted the following defence:

1. The Defendant received the Claim Form, reference [REDACTED], from the Civil National Business Centre at Northampton County Court on 12 August 2024.
2. Each and every allegation in the Claimant’s Statement of Case is not admitted unless specifically admitted in this Defence.
3. This claim appears to be for a Credit Card Agreement regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (c.39) – hereafter CCA.
4. It is not admitted that the Defendant has previously entered into an agreement with Capital One for provision of credit.
5. The Claimant’s Statement of Case fails to give adequate information to enable the Defendant to properly assess his position with regards the claim.
6. The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim state an Agreement was entered into, but otherwise provide no further information about said Agreement.
7. The Claimant’s Statement of Case states that the account was assigned from Capital One to the Claimant, but do not state when this happened. The Defendant does not recall receiving notice of this assignment.
8. It is not admitted that Capital One served any Default Notice on the Defendant pursuant to s.87 CCA. The Claimant is required to prove that a compliant Default Notice was served upon the Defendant. The Claimant is required to prove that the any Default notice relied upon complied with the requirements of s.88(4A) CCA, and that the notice was in the prescribed form as required by The Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (No. 1561).
9. On 23 August 2024 the Defendant sent a formal request for a copy of the original Agreement to Claimant pursuant to s.78 CCA, along with the statutory £1 fee.
10. The Claimant has so far failed to comply with s.78(1) CCA, and, should that failure persist, by virtue of s.78(6) will be unable to enforce the Agreement.
11. On 23 August 2024, Defendant sent a request for inspection of documents mentioned in the Claimant’s Statement of Case under CPR 31.14 to the Claimant’s solicitor. The Defendant requested the Claimant provide copies of the Agreement, Default Notice, and Deed and Notice of Assignment.
12. These documents have not been received by the Defendant, neither from Claimant nor their solicitor.
13. In the same request, the Defendant has asked the Claimant if the parties may agree to extend the time period allowed for filing of the Defence pending receipt of documents (as allowed under CPR 15.5), but they have not responded to this request.
14. CPR 16.5(4) provides that
Where the claim includes a money claim, the claimant must prove any allegation relating to the amount of money claimed, unless the defendant expressly admits the allegation.
Therefore, it is expected that the Claimant be required to prove the allegation that the money is owed as claimed.
15. The Defendant respectfully requests the Court order the Claimants to provide the necessary documentation in order for the Defendant to fully plead his case else the Claim should stand struck out. An Application to this effect with a draft order was submitted on 7 September 2024.
16. In the event that the relevant documents are received from the Claimant, the Defendant will then be in a position to amend his Defence, and would ask that the Claimants bear the costs of the amendment.
17. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief as claimed or at all.

I realised slightly too late that paragrah 7 contains a few words it shouldn't. Do I need to worry about that?

[foobar]

Also, while that was sent over the weekend (I imagine the court will treat it as received on Monday), I came home on Monday evening to the attached (read in numerical order). It seems (01) they don't want to tell me exactly how much they paid for the account. Which is a shame, because while I'd like to win, realistically I'd need a backup plan, and that had been to hopefully start the bidding at cost plus the claim fees, because I'm barely managing as things are.

Still, it's nice that they thought to send me two assignment letters. The one from Capital One (03) looks a bit ugly, but I assume that's because it's missing all the original formatting. I'm guessing that the latter is Deadline for receiving the CCA response would be either yesterday or today.

[echat11]

No 7. should be fine, do you mean the following? 'but do not state when this happened'

No.13 shouldn't of been included, but don't worry about it, no doubt they'll come back with some nonsense.

Update when you get a response.

Any offers you make to settle the debt, make sure you write 'Without Prejudice' on the Offer letter.

[foobar]

No 7. should be fine, do you mean the following? 'but do not state when this happened'

Yup. To give them their credit, this one did actually state the date of assignment in the PoC. [facepalm]

[echat11]

Yup. To give them their credit, this one did actually state the date of assignment in the PoC. [facepalm]

Don't worry about it, a minor error.

A big issue would be failing to lodge a defence in time, to your credit, you've got it in.
You start having some control over the process. They'll point out the anomalies in your defence (claimants and defendants make all sorts of error, so don't dwell on that).

[echat11]

They paid pennies for the debt, so start with low amounts 5 - 10%.

Some info - https://nationaldebtline.org/get-inf...ent-offers-ew/

Personalize the following, remove the first line - https://nationaldebtline.org/get-inf...tlement-offer/

Make sure you get Proof of Postage.

[foobar]

I have received some documents, at the same time as my other case, but as this one is still with CNBC and hasn't been transferred, I'm dealing with the other one first.

The one thing that sticks out is that the copy of the agreement is not what I'd call "legible".

Full details to follow.

[echat11]

I have received some documents, at the same time as my other case, but as this one is still with CNBC and hasn't been transferred, I'm dealing with the other one first.

The one thing that sticks out is that the copy of the agreement is not what I'd call "legible".

Full details to follow.

The agreement has to be 'legible', otherwise there's no point in them sending it out to you. You can't check it.

[foobar]

Documents:

1. Disclosure response statement
2. Initial agreement, scanned at 600dpi. I had to zoom in to check for redactions, and I can't read the physical copy without having it right in front of my face. Measuring the baseline suggests a type size of 4.5pt.
3. Supplementary agreement, scanned at 600dpi. This one has text even smaller and lighter, and for the leaflet I can't read the text clearly on the paper.
4. Default notice.

Additionally, I've received a DQ from Overdales. I have not yet (AFAIK) been asked by the court to complete one (will call CNBC to ask), but on the assumption that I'm going to need to complete one I've grabbed the blank and started. The form appears to have changed since the guide and it has some additional questions.

D1 now asks whether it should be determined without a hearing, and wants a reason why not. What would be a suitable reason beyond just "I want a hearing"?
F3 asks "How many witnesses, including yourself, will give evidence on your behalf at the hearing?" Overdales' DQ leaves this blank. Do I need to put "1" here?

[echat11]

You should only have to take reasonable steps to see if the document is 'legible', it sounds like you've tried 'reasonable' steps.

You want to do Mediation, but can't because the document received are 'illegible'.

https://legalbeagles.info/library/gu...questionnaire/

[foobar]

The questions in the DQ I'm asking about aren't in the guide. That's why I asked about them, I've already followed the guide to fill in the stuff about mediation and court selection etc.

The form has a new section about disposal without a hearing, and my local court is one of the courts listed in PD 51ZC as part of the pilot. It asks whether you want disposal on the papers. Overdales have said Yes. Obviously, I want to say No but the form says that if you say No you need to give a reason. What valid reasons do I need to put there?

[echat11]

The questions in the DQ I'm asking about aren't in the guide. That's why I asked about them, I've already followed the guide to fill in the stuff about mediation and court selection etc.

The form has a new section about disposal without a hearing, and my local court is one of the courts listed in PD 51ZC as part of the pilot. It asks whether you want disposal on the papers. Overdales have said Yes. Obviously, I want to say No but the form says that if you say No you need to give a reason. What valid reasons do I need to put there?

You want to attend in person so the Court fully 'understands' your Defence and that can only be done in a face to face Hearing.