smith v llyods black horse and arrow global limited belveder

[Celestine]

Re: smith v llyods black horse and arrow global limited belveder

Has a request pursuant to 31.14 been made?

What date is the defence due in by?

Have you acknowledged the claim and ticked the box that you intend to defend in full?

[gravytrain]

Re: smith v llyods black horse and arrow global limited belveder

Smith received an agreement in response to section 77 request.

It is undated and seems to be for the purchase of a car ?

[smith]

Re: smith v llyods black horse and arrow global limited belveder

Has a request pursuant to 31.14 been made? NO

What date is the defence due in by? by 22 arpril befor 4.00 on that day

Have you acknowledged the claim and ticked the box that you intend to defend in full?

i have acknowledged the claim

[smith]

Re: smith v llyods black horse and arrow global limited belveder

bummping for help

[smith]

Re: smith v llyods black horse and arrow global limited belveder

Has a request pursuant to 31.14 been made? NO

What date is the defence due in by? by 22 arpril befor 4.00 on that day

Have you acknowledged the claim and ticked the box that you intend to defend in full? yes

[smith]

Re: smith v llyods black horse and arrow global limited belveder

bumping for help

[smith]

Re: smith v llyods black horse and arrow global limited belveder

bumping for help

[smith]

Re: smith v llyods black horse and arrow global limited belveder

gravytrain
Senior Member

Join DateJan 2013Posts741Thanks (Given)440Thanks (Received)999

Re: smith v llyods black horse and arrow global limited belveder

OK mk 2 deffence again comments please.

The claim is poorly particularised and contains no documentation regarding the alleged debt.
The defendnt denies that he entered into a regulated agreement to repay £1000 with the claimant.
The facts are these
The defendant had an overdraft of around £1000with Halifax Bank.
The defendant arranged a loan for £16,000 from Lloyds bank in order to consolidate several debts.
Part of the loan was restricted use and earmarked for repaying the aforementioned overdraft of £1000.
The loan was issued and the Halifax overdraft was settled by direct payment from Lloyds bank
The defendant on further consideration decided he could not afford the loan, so he cancelled within the required period as prescribed under section 68 of the consumer credit act. Lloyds duly rescinded the agreement.
However Lloyds were unable to reclaim the £1000 already credited to the defendants overdraft account (Halifax).
The defendant made a verbal arrangement to repay this sum at £50 per month but no formal agreement was made and there was no mention of any interest or charges.
The defendant puts the claimant to strict proof that an enforceable regulated agreement was ever made for the sum claimed.
The defendant puts the claimant to strict proof of the entitlement to claim sums under any alleged agreement and to produce any notices of assignment as required under the Law of property act

Last edited by gravytrain; Yesterday at 13:20:PM.

[smith]

Re: smith v llyods black horse and arrow global limited belveder

gravytrain
Senior Member

Join DateJan 2013Posts741Thanks (Given)440Thanks (Received)999

Re: smith v llyods black horse and arrow global limited belveder

OK mk 2 deffence again comments please.

The claim is poorly particularised and contains no documentation regarding the alleged debt.
The defendnt denies that he entered into a regulated agreement to repay £1000 with the claimant.
The facts are these
The defendant had an overdraft of around £1000with Halifax Bank.
The defendant arranged a loan for £16,000 from Lloyds bank in order to consolidate several debts.
Part of the loan was restricted use and earmarked for repaying the aforementioned overdraft of £1000.
The loan was issued and the Halifax overdraft was settled by direct payment from Lloyds bank
The defendant on further consideration decided he could not afford the loan, so he cancelled within the required period as prescribed under section 68 of the consumer credit act. Lloyds duly rescinded the agreement.
However Lloyds were unable to reclaim the £1000 already credited to the defendants overdraft account (Halifax).
The defendant made a verbal arrangement to repay this sum at £50 per month but no formal agreement was made and there was no mention of any interest or charges.
The defendant puts the claimant to strict proof that an enforceable regulated agreement was ever made for the sum claimed.
The defendant puts the claimant to strict proof of the entitlement to claim sums under any alleged agreement and to produce any notices of assignment as required under the Law of property act

Last edited by gravytrain; Yesterday at 13:20:PM.

smith
Member

Join DateJul 2007Posts190Thanks (Given)5Thanks (Received)42

Re: smith v llyods black horse and arrow global limited belveder

Has a request pursuant to 31.14 been made? NO

What date is the defence due in by? by 22 arpril befor 4.00 on that day

Have you acknowledged the claim and ticked the box that you intend to defend in full? yes

Last edited by smith; Today at 01:27:AM. Reason: update

[gravytrain]

Re: smith v llyods black horse and arrow global limited belveder

Smith.

In response to your PM.

You must decide what you want to do.

I am not going to tell you to copy what I have written, these are suggestions only it may be completely wrong, I have only gone off what you have said on here.

You must chose yourself what to write on your defense.

Good luck

[smith]

Re: smith v llyods black horse and arrow global limited belveder

to be honest about it i havnt got a clue about this as it complicated and i have never had to do a defence
and dont want to screw it it up

[smith]

Re: smith v llyods black horse and arrow global limited belveder

bumping for help

[smith]

Re: smith v llyods black horse and arrow global limited belveder

ok help need with defence as to bee in by 22 april befor 4..oclock

we (c) That I do not admit the debt because the existence/enforceability of the alleged debt is in dispute:
The respondent alleges that I am indebted to it in the sum of £1442.26 being the amount outstanding under an agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ("the 1974 Act"). It is further alleged that the debt was assigned to the respondent from the llyods black horse. I ask that the claim be struck out as it lacks sufficient detail or explanation to proceed.

1) The respondent has failed to serve a valid default notice in relation to the alleged agreement pursuant to s88(1) of the 1974 Act. Further or alternatively, the alleged debt contains sums levied by way of penalty charges which the applicant will say are contrary to common law and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations. Accordingly, any default notice which may have been served could not have contained accurate particulars of the outstanding debt and would therefore have been defective and invalid.

2) Even if an enforceable agreement were to be produced any amount owing would be disputed due to the presence of unlawful penalty charges and the inclusion of payment protection insurance that was missold on the account. The claimant arrow global limited has failed even to provide a fully particularised statement of account from the alleged assignment of this account. The defendant has had no prior contact with the claimant arrow global limited in relation to this alleged account and regards this petition. The defendant regards this petition to be vexatious and without merit.

3) No notice of assignment under the hand of the original creditor or alleged assignee has been sufficiently served on me as is required by the Law of Property Act 1925. Section 136(1) requires that for the assignment of a debt to be effective, express notice in writing must have been given to the debtor:-
136. Legal assignments of things in action.

— (1) Any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor (not purporting to be by way of charge only) of any debt or other legal thing inaction, of which express notice in writing has been given to the debtor, trustee or other person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim such debt or thing in action, is effectual in law (subject to equities having priority over the right of the assignee) to pass and transfer from the date of such notice—

Section 196(4) prescribes the requirements for giving sufficient notice by post:-

[smith]

Re: smith v llyods black horse and arrow global limited belveder

bumping for help

[FlamingParrot]

Re: smith v llyods black horse and arrow global limited belveder

i have acknowledged the claim

to be honest about it i havnt got a clue about this as it complicated and i have never had to do a defence
and dont want to screw it it up

I would suggest PMing PT2537 with a link to this thread. He works for this firm: http://www.watsonssolicitors.co.uk/contact.html Have you considered getting legal help at all? Given the amount claimed (£16k!) and all the complications of this case, it may be wise to do so, especially if, as you say above, you haven't got a good understanding of the process involved.