Idem Capital Securities vs MadMac (Court Claim)

**Amethyst** · 12th April 2014, 17:19:PM

Re: Idem Capital Securities vs MadMac (Court Claim)

Hi MadMac

Welcome to LB. You've done everything right in responding to their letters etc and can use copies of those further along the line if they insist on continuing with the claim. Plus the installments you hadn't missed or anything until IDEM took over the debt and started the heavy treatment.

First couple admin bits - enter your acknowledgement of service on moneyclaimonline which will extend your deadline for a defence to around 1st May.

The next step is to send a CCA request to the claimant ( IDEM) http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...y-of-Agreement - they bought the debt so they are deemed the creditor.

The a CPR request for information to the solicitors bringing the claim for the claimant - http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...ic-information - this will be for any documents they have disclosed in their statement of case, so the agreement, the terms and conditions, the default notice, formal demand and how the balance is made up.

We know the answers already to their responses, but it's a good idea to rerequest the infomation whilst in active court proceedings.

So,

I then endured a barrage of letters and calls from Idem/Arden demanding I set up a new plan. Despite me stating I was willing to stick to the arrangement I had with Lloyds, they were not interested. I made a formal CCA request which they ignored and subsequently defaulted on. At the same time I made a Subject Access request to Lloyds.
Lloyds responded with a small amount of paperwork which shows transactions for the loans but their covering letter states no agreements are available.

I stopped making payments to Idem/Arden who continued to send me demand letters. I wrote a follow up letter stating that they had not complied with my CCA request and if the demands continued I would complain about their conduct. They responded with a letter stating that my CCA request was invalid as the debt was in relation to a current account with an overdraft facility. I have written back asking them to prove their statement as I don't recognise ever having such an account with a debt connected to it.

They have buggered their claim that this is an overdraft with their claim

3) It was a term of the agreement that if any instalment was not paid on due date, C would be entitled to repayment of outstanding balance of total amount payable, less (on payment) any rebate to which D might be entitled
4) D failed to pay instalments due.

because, there just aren't 'installments due ' on a current account overdraft.

Have you ever had an overdraft with Lloyds or just the loan ?

**MadMac** · 12th April 2014, 18:20:PM

Re: Idem Capital Securities vs MadMac (Court Claim)

Thank you for the reply Amethyst!

I did have a current account with Lloyds which possibly had an overdraft facility which was closed when I defaulted on the loan repayments.

This was a long time ago and I struggle to recall the exact details to be honest. The SAR information from Lloyds was quite sparse but clearly shows dates, amounts and account numbers for the 3 loans. The only thing that puts a slight doubt in my mind is the way the 3 seperate loans were "bundled" together into one large lump sum for the purposes of debt recovery. I don't have much of an understanding of how the banks deal with this kind of thing.

I have a vague idea that each loan was paid into my current account, so when I defaulted could they say I'm now overdrawn by the amount of my loans??

Statements from Lloyds/BLS under the debt recovery plan have always shown one large amount slowly being paid off from one account.

**MadMac** · 16th April 2014, 10:06:AM

Re: Idem Capital Securities vs MadMac (Court Claim)

A quick update...

I acknowledged the claim on MCOL and I sent off a CCA request and CPR disclosure via special delivery yesterday.

I would really appreciate some assistance with my defence if possible please?

The obvious first line of defence is a lack of agreement. (Previously formally requested and no response given.)

They have since tried to tell me that the debt is linked to a current account with an overdraft. My hunch is that this is a bluff as my SAR info shows 3 loans where the combined amounts match the amount on statements from Lloyds/BLS when I was in a repayment plan. The only doubt is whether they could have "packaged" this in such a way, using my overdraft to lump the outstanding loans onto to default me? - Can they do this? I have no evidence to suggest this happened?

Any replies are greatly appreciated!

Thank you.

**MadMac** · 21st April 2014, 15:36:PM

Re: Idem Capital Securities vs MadMac (Court Claim)

Can anyone confirm the timescales/deadline for my defence submission for me please?..

The issue date was 31st March and I understand that you allow 5 days for service, 14 days to acknowledge and a further 14 days to submit a defence. What I'm uncertain of is whether this is calender days or working days and whether the bank holiday weekend is taken into consideration or not?

Thanks

**mystery1** · 21st April 2014, 15:49:PM

Re: Idem Capital Securities vs MadMac (Court Claim)

Calendar days and no holidays. 33 days total.

M1

**MadMac** · 24th April 2014, 09:34:AM

Re: Idem Capital Securities vs MadMac (Court Claim)

Thank you Mystery1.

Further to my last post, it's been 7 calender days since making my first CPR request to their solicitors. (Obviously we've had Easter during that time.)

I was slow off the mark with getting this under way due to work/family commitments and my deadline for submitting a defence is on/around 1st May. With this in mind, should I send a second letter reminding them of their responsibilities to disclose (which if allowing them 7 days would hit my defence deadline.) OR look at defence actions?

Would an embarrased defence be the correct course of action under the circumstances?

Thank you

**mystery1** · 24th April 2014, 10:48:AM

Re: Idem Capital Securities vs MadMac (Court Claim)

I'd phone them and ask about compliance and also an extension. Email an overview of the conversation to them for later use as evidence.

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...ic-information

It is possible to enter a defence but you may need to apply to amend it and pay the subsequent costs in doing so. Personally i don't like it. I do like the unless order. http://consumercreditlitigationandde...een-very-busy/

http://consumercreditlitigationandde...all-claim-yet/

M1

**MadMac** · 25th April 2014, 08:13:AM

Re: Idem Capital Securities vs MadMac (Court Claim)

Thanks again Mystery1,

This may seem a bit of a silly question but I'm completely new to legal proceedings...

If I put in a directions order, do I still need to submit some kind of defence before the deadline OR does the fact the order has been applied for "reset" the clock so to speak?

Sorry if this seems daft but I don't want to overlook anything at this stage.

Thank you.

**MadMac** · 25th April 2014, 16:43:PM

Re: Idem Capital Securities vs MadMac (Court Claim)

I don't know if it's of any relevance or not but on the particulars of claim they have stated the date of assignment as 27/06/13.

All the paperwork I have including the notice of assignment states 21/03/13.

Could this assist my defence in any way?

**mystery1** · 25th April 2014, 22:22:PM

Re: Idem Capital Securities vs MadMac (Court Claim)

If the actual deed of assignment and notice of assignment are different the assignment is ineffectual, so very much so. You'll need to see the deed of assignment though.

M1

**MadMac** · 26th April 2014, 13:57:PM

Re: Idem Capital Securities vs MadMac (Court Claim)

Please excuse my simplistic logic here but I've been thinking about this...

The original creditor (Lloyds) provided a covering letter with my Subject Access Request information which clearly states that 3 loans are recorded BUT no agreements or terms are available in relation to these.

The claimant has failed to produce any kind of agreement despite me making 2 formal CCA requests prior to court action and have still not produced after 2 CPR 31.14 requests to disclose because the letter from Lloyds is the truth.

In my opinion the claimants letters stating it's a current account debt are just bluff.

Isn't the letter from Lloyds proof enough that no agreement exists?

Your thoughts would be appreciated please?

Thanks

**mystery1** · 26th April 2014, 15:54:PM

Re: Idem Capital Securities vs MadMac (Court Claim)

There is a difference as to whether an actual piece of paper exists and whether they can prove you borrowed money and their procedure was at the time.

M1

**MadMac** · 26th April 2014, 19:32:PM

Re: Idem Capital Securities vs MadMac (Court Claim)

Sorry M1, I'm not sure I follow?

Are you saying I should neither confirm nor deny recognising any alleged debt exists and put it to strict proof rather than acknowledge that there is a debt but dispute the claimants legal right to persue it?

I'm feeling pretty out of my depth with this and could seriously do with some assistance if anyone is willing to help?

I've reg'd my claim on this site and another well known forum but I'm kind of getting conflicting information on what course of action to take. This forum sticky says to request disclosure under 31.14 which I've done and was looking to take the next step which is to submit a directions order. - I personally like the idea of this as it puts the emphasis on the claimant to respond possibly stop them in their tracks.
When I mentioned a directions order on the other site, I got slated, told this wasn't the correct procedure and was advised to file a defence.

Please don't get me wrong here, Im not trying to say one site is better than the other and I'm very grateful for any advice but I'm finding this totally confusing and very frustrating.

Please help.

**mystery1** · 26th April 2014, 23:02:PM

Re: Idem Capital Securities vs MadMac (Court Claim)

Are you saying I should neither confirm nor deny recognising any alleged debt exists and put it to strict proof rather than acknowledge that there is a debt but dispute the claimants legal right to persue it?

No i'm saying that it'll be easy to prove you borrowed money and that the absence of a particular piece of paper won't change that. Having said that if you have enough to persuade a judge that what they've submitted is actually a crock of sh1t then they have issues with the missing piece of paper.

I posted some info and links on what i'm saying. http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...337#post428337

I could also post a link to another forum where i was told the 31.14 & unless order in sub Ł10k claims is not a good idea. One of the detractors was a 20 years experienced solicitor. Unbeknown to me the poster took my advice, and that of Paul Tilley, and was successful. There is more than one way to skin a cat. I happen to like the way i suggest. Others don't.

Litigation always carries risk and nothing is 100%.

M1

Idem Capital Securities vs MadMac (Court Claim)