1st Credit/Judge & Priestly v Kafka

[Kafka]

Have received court papers for an old CC. It seems that I did reclaim charges in 2007 and made a few later payments to try to stop default then left it. It's been picked up by about 6 DCAs since then. I have paid just within the 6 years so Limitation is out. Also found a Default Notice from some years ago that looks OK.

Credit Agreement
This was not included in the SAR to Lloyds in 2007. I also have a letter from a letter from a DCA in response to a CPR request, stating that the agreement no longer exists but that I have admitted liability apparently.

Notice of Assignment
The supposed NoA came from C1 in the same envelope as their intro letter and with the same date. Both letters carry the same paper markings and side code, so it clearly came from 1C not Lloyds.

I plan to send a CPR request to J&P now for disclosure.

[Amethyst]

Re: 1st Credit/Judge & Priestly v Kafka

Well hello stranger, noticed you popped on yesterday

Can you post up the POC and the issue date on the claim form please.

[Amethyst]

Re: 1st Credit/Judge & Priestly v Kafka

Also notice you haven't mentioned a CCA request. Have you sent one to the claimant ?

[Kafka]

Re: 1st Credit/Judge & Priestly v Kafka

Issue date 30 April

The claimant claims the sum of £1xxx for debt and interest. On xxxx1996 the defendant entered into an agreement with LLOYDS BANK PLC for a credit card under reference xxxxxxxxxxx.
On xxxxxx2010 the defendant defaulted on the agreement with an outstanding balance of £1xxx.
Ob xxxxx2013 the debt of £1xxx was assigned yo 1st Credit (Finance) Ltd.
Notice of assignment was sent to the defendant in accordance with s136 Law of Property Act 1925.
AND THE CLAIMANY CLAIMS
1. The sum of £1xxx
2. Statutory interest pursuant to Section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from xxx2013 to 28/4/14, £xx & thereafter at a daily rate of £0.37 until judgment or sooner payment.

[Kafka]

Re: 1st Credit/Judge & Priestly v Kafka

Also notice you haven't mentioned a CCA request. Have you sent one to the claimant ?

I am about to send a CPR 31 to them but haven't sent CCA.

There was a delay with this because I was away and have only just been able to get the old files. Acknowledgement was sent in good time.

[Amethyst]

Re: 1st Credit/Judge & Priestly v Kafka

Okay linkies for the CCA and CPR that we tend to use


1: ACKNOWLEDGE THE CLAIM - you can do this online usually at www.moneyclaim.gov.uk
You'll need your claim reference and password from the front of the claim form

2: Send A CCA REQUEST to the CLAIMANT ( see here )
This applies to all credit cards / loans / hire purchase / store cards type debt. It doesn't apply to Mobile Phones / Utilities or Overdrafts.

3: Send a CPR request to the CLAIMANT'S SOLICITORS ( see here )
This applies to everything unless they happen to have supplied you with a bunch of paperwork to back up their claim (v. unlikely)

[Amethyst]

Re: 1st Credit/Judge & Priestly v Kafka

So in your CPR you can ask for the

AGREEMENT
NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT
DEFAULT NOTICE
DOCUMENTS SHOWING OUTSTANDING BALANCE

[Kafka]

Re: 1st Credit/Judge & Priestly v Kafka

Thx

I've already prepared a similar CPR31 request in fuller detail, which has a bit more of a kick-ass feel about it. Will also send the CCA request today.

Fair dos to 1C for taking this one on. The others have all faded away, including Wescot, Moorcroft, Allied International, Credit Security, BLS and MHA. It reads like a rogues gallery of the debt collection industry.
:whip:

[Amethyst]

Re: 1st Credit/Judge & Priestly v Kafka

Pm me a copy of your CPR then. It doesn't want to be overly kick ass as don't forget you'll be showing it to a judge to ask them to force compliance with it.

[Amethyst]

Re: 1st Credit/Judge & Priestly v Kafka

Ahhhh it's THAT one. That's fine Thanking you muchly. Just checking you hadn't gone more jack than kick lol. xx

[Kafka]

Re: 1st Credit/Judge & Priestly v Kafka

Received a response from Judge & Priestly today in acknowledgement of the CPR 31.14 request.

They have forwarded to client and state:
"Unfortunately this can take an undisclosed amount of time, however, no further action will be taken until this documentation has been received."

:ranger:

[Amethyst]

Re: 1st Credit/Judge & Priestly v Kafka

'' "Unfortunately this can take an undisclosed amount of time"

lol, they mean they have no idea. Well sadly, for them, they should have had the information to hand BEFORE bringing a court claim. I would respond to them in those terms and say that you expect them to agree to an extension to the defence filing deadline of 28 days under CPR 15.5 and should they fail to respond to you with the required documents by XXXXXX ( say 14 days before extension deadline) you will make an application to the court to order they supply the documents else have the claim struck out.

[Kafka]

Re: 1st Credit/Judge & Priestly v Kafka

I am still contemplating with some trepidation the dangerous weapon that was unexpectedly thrust into my hands...

[Kafka]

Re: 1st Credit/Judge & Priestly v Kafka

Have received reply from C1 regarding the CCA request.

They say that a CPR request would have been more appropriate and have returned the £1 cheque., and they have consented to a 28-day extension for filing the defence.

The other point is that they have served a Notice of change of legal representative and taken responsibility back from J&P. However, it was J&P that were sent the CPR31.14 request for disclosure.

[FlamingParrot]

Re: 1st Credit/Judge & Priestly v Kafka

Have received reply from C1 regarding the CCA request.

They say that a CPR request would have been more appropriate and have returned the £1 cheque.,

Cheeky sods! You also sent a CPR request, didn't you? Their duty to respond to a s.78 CCA request does not end just because they've issued proceedings, it only ends once they've obtained judgment. :juge:

and they have consented to a 28-day extension for filing the defence.

The other point is that they have served a Notice of change of legal representative and taken responsibility back from J&P. However, it was J&P that were sent the CPR31.14 request for disclosure.

That's good news, at least they are being much more reasonable than the infamous Dynamic Duo. :ranger: