smith v llyods black horse and arrow global limited belveder

[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

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 Lloyds duly rescinded the agreement.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

[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

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

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

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?

i have acknowledged the claim

[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 ?

[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

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

[smith]

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

It seems to me that the gist of this case is.

That LLoyds advanced the money(16k) now when you cancelled they made a mistake because they had already advanced the money to settle your wife's Halifax overdraft and could not reclaim it.

You then made a verbal agreement with them to repay the money at 50 a week. When you stopped paying this they found they had no agreement , so they had to botch one up.

This is why it is inconsistent and mentions a car and is not dated etc.

I am working on this premise. If this is the case everything else is irrelevant, because the agreement cannot be enforced anyway.

yes if only i had put it that way but due to mental helth probs i find it hard to get to the point thanks

[smith]

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

It seems to me that the gist of this case is.

That LLoyds advanced the money(16k) now when you cancelled they made a mistake because they had already advanced the money to settle your wife's Halifax overdraft and could not reclaim it.

You then made a verbal agreement with them to repay the money at 50 a week. When you stopped paying this they found they had no agreement , so they had to botch one up.

This is why it is inconsistent and mentions a car and is not dated etc.

I am working on this premise. If this is the case everything else is irrelevant, because the agreement cannot be enforced anyway.

would we go for a strike out at this stage ?

[gravytrain]

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

It seems to me that the gist of this case is.

That LLoyds advanced the money(16k) now when you cancelled they made a mistake because they had already advanced the money to settle your wife's Halifax overdraft and could not reclaim it.

You then made a verbal agreement with them to repay the money at 50 a week. When you stopped paying this they found they had no agreement , so they had to botch one up.

This is why it is inconsistent and mentions a car and is not dated etc.

I am working on this premise. If this is the case everything else is irrelevant, because the agreement cannot be enforced anyway.

[smith]

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

no default letter from black horse or good bye letters

and that the ballance would be disputed