smith v llyods black horse and arrow global limited belveder

[smith]

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

ok the credit agreement were it say financial information in both boxes there is no start date or end date on the agreement

and at the bottom of that agreement were i t say signature on the behalf there is no date there on agreement i would like to know would this still make the agreement enforceable or not if not were do i go from there

[FlamingParrot]

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

What has PT said about the agreement? He is the expert! :yo:

[smith]

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

What has PT said about the agreement? He is the expert! :yo:

will be aware, we discussed this Blackhorse matter at length earlier.

I do not think that the argument that you did not sign the loan agreement is likely to fail without a fulll experts report on the handwriting and signatures, without such a report it will be your word against the Claimants. A District Judge is more than likely to accept that you signed the agreement.

The agreement appears to contain all the necessary “prescribed terms” to be enforceable.

The Creditor will not need a default notice, as the loan term was 36 months, so has expired now and therefore the full amount would be due and payable.

I am concerned about the argument that it is statute barred, as the Claimant has produced evidence of payments, and Faye's account was not entirely clear, this was in part due to the fact that a third party seems to have your papers in this matter. Once you have obtained your papers from this party please do let me know.

As i discussed with , the best route to move forward would be firstly to seek an extension of time for filing your defence.

Civil Procedure Rule 15.5 allows the parties to agree an extension of time for filing the defence. It allows the deadline to be extended up to 28 days by agreement.

You will need to get the Claimant to agree to this extension, and then once you have agreed an extension you will need to write to the Court and tell them, very important and must be done.

I would suggest negotiating with the creditor unless you can show clearly the debt is statute barred. The following OFT guidance may assist you, as both appear relevant to your situations, so i would suggest discussing the matter with the Claimant, they may well be agreeable to a consent order to allow you to pay the debt at a manageable amount per month.

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/con...ns/oft1373.pdf Mental Health Guidance

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/bus...al/oft1107.pdf Irresponsible lending guidance

told me to ring there solictor to ask for an xstention of 28 days
to get more evedence if they agree phone court xplain to them

then phone solictor state what bin paid on it pluss ppi to be removed
full offer of about 800 by instalments in the way of a tomlin order

[gravytrain]

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

Some obsevations, although not disagreeing with the advice given.

will be aware, we discussed this Blackhorse matter at length earlier.

I do not think that the argument that you did not sign the loan agreement is likely to fail without a fulll experts report on the handwriting and signatures, without such a report it will be your word against the Claimants. A District Judge is more than likely to accept that you signed the agreement.

There is the issue that the agreement seems to be for the purchase of a car ?

The agreement appears to contain all the necessary “prescribed terms” to be enforceable.

The repayments although stated in frequency and sum do not have a commencement date. You could argue that this is a section 127 breach or at least section 61.

The Creditor will not need a default notice, as the loan term was 36 months, so has expired now and therefore the full amount would be due and payable.

I think Smith is saying the the original contract period didn't run it's course in that it was terminated after a few months and sold. If this is the case there would have had to been a DN notice issued prior to termination.

I am concerned about the argument that it is statute barred, as the Claimant has produced evidence of payments, and Faye's account was not entirely clear, this was in part due to the fact that a third party seems to have your papers in this matter. Once you have obtained your papers from this party please do let me know.

Yes I agree there seems to be evidence that the SB was reset

As i discussed with , the best route to move forward would be firstly to seek an extension of time for filing your defence.

Civil Procedure Rule 15.5 allows the parties to agree an extension of time for filing the defence. It allows the deadline to be extended up to 28 days by agreement.

You will need to get the Claimant to agree to this extension, and then once you have agreed an extension you will need to write to the Court and tell them, very important and must be done.

I would suggest negotiating with the creditor unless you can show clearly the debt is statute barred. The following OFT guidance may assist you, as both appear relevant to your situations, so i would suggest discussing the matter with the Claimant, they may well be agreeable to a consent order to allow you to pay the debt at a manageable amount per month.

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/con...ns/oft1373.pdf Mental Health Guidance

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/bus...al/oft1107.pdf Irresponsible lending guidance

told me to ring there solictor to ask for an xstention of 28 days
to get more evedence if they agree phone court xplain to them

then phone solictor state what bin paid on it pluss ppi to be removed
full offer of about 800 by instalments in the way of a tomlin order

See above

[smith]

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

Some obsevations, although not disagreeing with the advice given.




See above

got 28 xstention to sort it out

[FlamingParrot]

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

got 28 xstention to sort it out

Good news! Have you informed the court about it?

[pt2537]

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

Some obsevations, although not disagreeing with the advice given.




See above

I agree, but the problem is, the agreement has run its course, it was 36 months, so has clearly expired if the agreement was from 2006 so i wouldnt expect the Default to be needed. I know its a big if, but nonetheless, i dont think a District Judge would have any real trouble finding that the DN wasnt needed.

I think the issues what are live, are worth using to get the Claimant to accept a lower and manageable payment.

[gravytrain]

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

I agree, but the problem is, the agreement has run its course, it was 36 months, so has clearly expired if the agreement was from 2006 so i wouldnt expect the Default to be needed. I know its a big if, but nonetheless, i dont think a District Judge would have any real trouble finding that the DN wasnt needed.

I think the issues what are live, are worth using to get the Claimant to accept a lower and manageable payment.

Lets hope so, there is also the mystery of why it says its for a car loan on the bottom.

[pt2537]

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

Lets hope so, there is also the mystery of why it says its for a car loan on the bottom.

yes, indeed there is that too, im not sure the Court would take that as a reason not to enforce though, thats the real difficulty, even if it were improperly executed, the Court would undoubtedly allow enforcement as that term doesnt really place the Defendant at any prejudice.

[gravytrain]

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

I wonder if section 67 cancellation is appropriate, there was anticedant negotiation.
I am not sure where they say agreement was signed, may be a factor if it was signed away from the company premises.
Also the missing dates, but again probably only a section 65 issue.

[smith]

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

Good news! Have you informed the court about it?

yes email was sent to court and i found them and they placed it on file

pt sad speak to there solictor ask for tomlin order

try n get payment i made to lower debt ppi took off
and what evera left off 800 by instalments

was reading about tomplin orders some peoples debt was sold on and new crediter went 4 cj

could do with some help when time comes to speak to there solictor
like a lay out what to say i told solictor i suffer mental health she asked me if she could place that on file i said yes

[smith]

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

was going to ask 4 a tomlim order then found this
Hughmans Solicitors v Central Stream Services Ltd (in liquidation) and others [2012] EWCA Civ 1720, [2012] All ER (D) 260 (Dec); NLJ 11 January

The appellant was a firm of solicitors. It acted for D, who was the registered proprietor of a property. Proceedings were brought against D by the first respondent company. Those proceedings were compromised and a Tomlin Order was made. Under the Tomlin Order, the property was to be sold by D, and £100,000 of the proceeds were to be paid to the company. Following a dispute about unpaid fees, the solicitors brought their own proceedings against D. They obtained a charging order over the property to cover those fees. Notice of the solicitors’ charging order, but not the company’s Tomlin Order, had been entered against the registered title to the property under the Land Registration Act 2002 (LRA 2002). The question arose as to whether the Tomlin Order made in favour of the company should take priority over the charging order made in favour of the solicitors. At first instance, it was held that the Tomlin Order created a proprietary interest in the property and that it took priority over the solicitors’ charging order. The solicitors appealed. Two issues arose. First, whether a Tomlin Order was capable of creating a proprietary interest in property owned by the defendant in the proceedings. Second, if so, whether it took priority over the solicitors’ charge.

[FlamingParrot]

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

was going to ask 4 a tomlim order then found this
Hughmans Solicitors v Central Stream Services Ltd (in liquidation) and others [2012] EWCA Civ 1720, [2012] All ER (D) 260 (Dec); NLJ 11 January

Can you explain your thoughts with regards to this case, i.e. what your concerns are?

[smith]

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

Can you explain your thoughts with regards to this case, i.e. what your concerns are?

my concerns are £1000 advanced to clear overdraft as turned into £1500
cca ,sar lloyds black horse nothing was ever sent to me
and wouldnt acknolge the dispute nor would rockwell
its just got complicated letter from black horse was for adding charges we know about 500 was in charges
the letter was sent to byrom & keeley and they have sold all there clients are no longer tradeing
and the claims company that asked us to send credit agreement, and bank statments i emailed the bloke and they carnt find them ( lost) this was a reply to my email

I have asked for these in the past, so I'll chase them up again and let you know if I receive them

Otherwise, as said, I'll just have to get you a letter (which you can show to the Court) confirming that you did give Claim Yours your statements, including Byrom & Keeley statements showing payments, but they cannot be located.

Have you actually got a Court date yet?

Regards

my feeling are mixed
basically thought of asking for all ppi and interest to be removed to put the balance back to £1000 then all payments i made to be took into account to fetch the balance down more to about 700 ish
Tomlin order i think they use it in there favor to obtain a chargeing order
or even sell the debt on

[FlamingParrot]

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

There seem to be two posts mixed in below so I'm afraid it's not very clear what's going on.

my concerns are £1000 advanced to clear overdraft as turned into £1500
cca ,sar lloyds black horse nothing was ever sent to me
and wouldnt acknolge the dispute nor would rockwell
its just got complicated letter from black horse was for adding charges we know about 500 was in charges
the letter was sent to byrom & keeley and they have sold all there clients are no longer tradeing
and the claims company that asked us to send credit agreement, and bank statments i emailed the bloke and they carnt find them ( lost) this was a reply to my email

PT said you should discuss these issues with the solicitor as well as offering £800 in Full & Final settlement in installments via a Tomlin Order. This figure would take into account what you are saying below about charges

told me to ring there solictor to ask for an xstention of 28 days
to get more evedence if they agree phone court xplain to them

then phone solictor state what bin paid on it pluss ppi to be removed
full offer of about 800 by instalments in the way of a tomlin order

I have asked for these in the past, so I'll chase them up again and let you know if I receive them

Otherwise, as said, I'll just have to get you a letter (which you can show to the Court) confirming that you did give Claim Yours your statements, including Byrom & Keeley statements showing payments, but they cannot be located.

Have you actually got a Court date yet?

Regards

Who was offering to get you a letter to show to the court?

my feeling are mixed
basically thought of asking for all ppi and interest to be removed to put the balance back to £1000 then all payments i made to be took into account to fetch the balance down more to about 700 ish
Tomlin order i think they use it in there favor to obtain a chargeing orderor even sell the debt on

PT suggested a F&F of £800. The idea of a Tomlin order is precisely to avoid getting a CCJ. They will need a CCJ before they can apply for a charging order.

I think the issues what are live, are worth using to get the Claimant to accept a lower and manageable payment.