Marlon/Restons/Lloyds

[Marshy]

Re: Marlon/Restons/Lloyds

Received this today from Marlin, don't know where we go from here?

[Gorang]

Re: Marlon/Restons/Lloyds

So that the reply to your CCA now back from Marlin with good evidence for you as

POC:
The claimant claims payment of the overdue balance due from the defendant(s) under contract between the defendant(s) and Lloyds Tsb Bank Plc dated on or about 24/04/1995 and assigned to the claimant on 24/04/1995 in the sum of £1776.68
Particulars a/c no:- [account number here]
Date Item Value
15/11/2013 Default Balance 1776.68
Post Refrl Cr NIL

Total:- 1776.68

Providing the 1995 date is not a typo by yourself (which I doubt) then the assignment dates do NOT correspond as the POC states 1995 and Marilin letter states " This letter is notification that we" which means they are classing this as the NOA as they have NOT stated when the assignment took place, so therefor it can be argued that NO NOA was issued when the POC states it was

Now that you have a account number for Lloyds then get a SAR request with the £10 fee sent to them asap to see what comes back form that

SAR request in post 2 here
http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...716#post391716

Even though marlin says that statements have been requested from the original creditor, don't take their word for it, as Marlin can (from personal experience) play VERY dirty


When is your defence or application due in to court??
(I make it around the 7th January)

If your unsure of the exact date then just give the court a ring and ask them (always better to be safe than sorry)

We just need the rely to your CPR 31.14 request now from Restons if any

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Marlon/Restons/Lloyds

Regarding your PM about who to make the PO payable to

Mark the PO payable to the claimant which in your case is

BUT I am assuming "Marlon" is a typo and should be "Marlin" but if it is a typo on the summons then just double check the company's details (the claimant not their solicitor) which is printed on the summons via google, and see what comes up, but I am fairly sure it will be Marlin and not Marlon

I have always left the POs blank, in my experience, it saves trouble.

Received this today from Marlin, don't know where we go from here?

The first letter is the alleged notice of assignment to Marlin, although I suspect the assignment would have taken place earlier than the date on this letter. :noidea: The 2nd letter states this was a bank account with an overdraft facility as opposed to a loan or credit card, so they are right in saying there is no credit agreement as per s.77/78 of the CCA. Overdrafts can be hard to defend using unenforceability arguments for this very reason but you may have other arguments such as excessive charges, etc. ray:

[Gorang]

Re: Marlon/Restons/Lloyds

I have always left the POs blank, in my experience, it saves trouble.

The first letter is the alleged notice of assignment to Marlin, although I suspect the assignment would have taken place earlier than the date on this letter. :noidea: The 2nd letter states this was a bank account with an overdraft facility as opposed to a loan or credit card, so they are right in saying there is no credit agreement as per s.77/78 of the CCA. Overdrafts can be hard to defend using unenforceability arguments for this very reason but you may have other arguments such as excessive charges, etc. ray:

What I am hoping for FP, is that the POC assignment date of 1995 is correct as this will mean that the account will have been defaulted before that, giving the cause of action back in 95, and I suspect that Marlin will have realised this and sent that NOA as a kind of bluff as the defendant is a LIP, as NOTHING would surprise me with Marlin and I wouldn't put anything past them at all

Hopefully a SAR to Lloyds will confirm this, and if it doesn't then yes we will need to look at other avenues as you have suggested



Just another thought Marshy,
Now that you have the account number for this account, is there anything showing on your Mums credit history with the Credit reference Agencies for this account???

I am hoping not, as I hope it has dropped of a long time ago, as it should only stay on there for 6 years from the date of the default being registered

[Marshy]

Re: Marlon/Restons/Lloyds

What I am hoping for FP, is that the POC assignment date of 1995 is correct as this will mean that the account will have been defaulted before that, giving the cause of action back in 95, and I suspect that Marlin will have realised this and sent that NOA as a kind of bluff as the defendant is a LIP, as NOTHING would surprise me with Marlin and I wouldn't put anything past them at all

Hopefully a SAR to Lloyds will confirm this, and if it doesn't then yes we will need to look at other avenues as you have suggested



Just another thought Marshy,
Now that you have the account number for this account, is there anything showing on your Mums credit history with the Credit reference Agencies for this account???

I am hoping not, as I hope it has dropped of a long time ago, as it should only stay on there for 6 years from the date of the default being registered

received this today from Restons, are they for real? I've attached what I sent them which they sent back as well.
Not had a chance to send a SAR to Lloyd's yet, saying that should I send it it Lloyd's or TSB? Now that they are separate banks, I know they can be a bit funny with who goes where.

Again, thank you for all the help so far! X

[Marshy]

Re: Marlon/Restons/Lloyds

Any ideas on the above, anyone?

[CleverClogs]

Re: Marlon/Restons/Lloyds

Any ideas on the above, anyone?

Apart from the obvious observation that Mr Flint seems to be a case of nominative determinism? :grin:

Send another copy of the letter by Special Delivery (it costs more, but it's faster and more certain to arrive) with a signature this time.

I would suggest that you sign your mother's name, as Worstons won't know the difference.

If there has been a clear period of six years between the cause of action - the account being defaulted or the demand for payment - and any payment or acknowledgement in writing, then the debt is statute barred by section 5 (link) of the Limitation Act 1980.

[Marshy]

Re: Marlon/Restons/Lloyds

Right, received this letter yesterday, have until Tuesday to file a defence or should I ask for an extension? Don't know what to do now, still waiting to hear back from Lloyds!

[CleverClogs]

Re: Marlon/Restons/Lloyds

I do hope the letters from Mssrs Flint and Roberts will be produced in court so that the judge may see how helpful Worstuns weren't.

Despite what Roberts stated in his letter, the Particulars of Claim did allude to a contract with Lloyds TSB and, furthermore, the POC was so vague that the defendant could not discern which account might have been involved.

The POC stated that the debt had been assigned to the claimant on 24 April 1995; as neither acknowledgement of, nor payment towards that alleged debt has been made in the intervening eighteen years, the defendant asserts that the alleged debt is time barred by Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1980.

[Marshy]

Re: Marlon/Restons/Lloyds

So you think I have a case for them not helping us find out when the last payments were made etc.
Should I push for an extension?

[CleverClogs]

Re: Marlon/Restons/Lloyds

I'd like to verify the Particulars of Claim.

Can you put up a redacted image of the claim form?

[Marshy]

Re: Marlon/Restons/Lloyds

Attached.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Marlon/Restons/Lloyds

Thank you.

That seems to prove that they are idiots, though it may also explain why Restons seem to be so obstructive; if they had an atom of sense, they'd withdraw the claim.

[Marshy]

Re: Marlon/Restons/Lloyds

So where do I go from here?

[pt2537]

Re: Marlon/Restons/Lloyds

Well It seems from the pleaded case you entered into a contract, it was defaulted, terminated, and assigned on the very same day. A fantastic trick if you can do it of course.


The Claim itself is miscertifed , the statement of truth is invalid.

If the debt is clearly statute barred, then this would provide a complete defence. If you can prove no payments have been made in the limitation period then they are stuffed.