Capquest, drydens, lloyds, and me 2 (help)

[MrsJ]

Re: Capquest, drydens, lloyds, and me 2 (help)

Hi Diana,

The loan was in joint names.This is the covering letter we received with the above dated 25th January 2017.

[charitynjw]

Re: Capquest, drydens, lloyds, and me 2 (help)

Re the 'signed for & on behalf' name on the agreement.

This guy?
https://www.linkedin.com/in/simon-robinson-8078b654
CV implies he has worked for Lloyds since 1986.
Lloyds took over HBOS in Jan 2009.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_(bank)

Could be a different person, I suppose?

[Diana M]

Re: Capquest, drydens, lloyds, and me 2 (help)

Hi Diana,

The loan was in joint names.

Okay so did the claim form name you and your partner as 1st Defendant and 2nd Defendant ?

The Claimant doesn't have to do that.

They can pick and choose which one of you to chase since you'll both be severally and jointly liable for the debt.

However (there always is a 'however' ) the creditor must serve all statutory notices on you both (individually) during the life of the account.

More questions to follow.

Di

[Diana M]

Re: Capquest, drydens, lloyds, and me 2 (help)

Hi Diana,

The loan was in joint names.This is the covering letter we received with the above dated 25th January 2017.

Is that covering letter to one of you only?

Regardless of your response to my question, it may make sense not to enlighten them of the fact that it was a joint loan if they haven't figured that out yet.

Di

[Diana M]

Re: Capquest, drydens, lloyds, and me 2 (help)

We have received these letters, 1 from Drydens and 1 from Capquest last week.

Your uploaded jpg 179 on 11th March 2015 in post # 2 on this thread refers to a letter addressed to "Dear Sir" from Drydens dated 3rd March.

We now know (thank you for the update tonight) that this was a joint loan.

Has all correspondence been to only one of you since the debt was assigned to Capquest (and the claim subsequently issued) and do you have any reason for them to think this was not a joint loan?

(Don't tip them off to the fact whatever you do).

Di

[Diana M]

Re: Capquest, drydens, lloyds, and me 2 (help)

We have received these letters, 1 from Drydens and 1 from Capquest last week

. . . . What should our defence be.

A good question (posted March 2015).

What was your Defence?

I can't see it on your thread? Do you have another thread on this claim elsewhere on the forum?

Di

[MrsJ]

Re: Capquest, drydens, lloyds, and me 2 (help)

Thank you for your responses,

The recent covering letter was addressed to Mr, as has all the letters from Capquest and Drydens, there has not been any letters sent to Mr's.

I have enclosed a copy of the Defense

[MrsJ]

Re: Capquest, drydens, lloyds, and me 2 (help)

Hi Diana,

Is there a time limit for a claim to be "stayed" Its nearly 2 years, its hard to believe that its timeless.

[MrsJ]

Re: Capquest, drydens, lloyds, and me 2 (help)

All letters before the claim from Capquest have been addressed to Mr only.

[nemesis45]

Re: Capquest, drydens, lloyds, and me 2 (help)

Hi Diana,

Is there a time limit for a claim to be "stayed" Its nearly 2 years, its hard to believe that its timeless.

#
Good morning,

A stay is open ended.

In the Drydens letter it states that they have provided a default notice but all they have is a screen shot from their internal system.
The agreement does not appear to be complete and is not easily legible in all parts.

nem

- - - Updated - - -

Hi Diana,

Is there a time limit for a claim to be "stayed" Its nearly 2 years, its hard to believe that its timeless.

#
Good morning,

A stay is open ended.

In the Drydens letter it states that they have provided a default notice but all they have is a screen shot from their internal system.
The agreement does not appear to be complete and is not easily legible in all parts.

nem

[MrsJ]

Re: Capquest, drydens, lloyds, and me 2 (help)

I need to send a letter of response, should it be aimed at Capquest or Drydens?

Should the letter just aim at the lack of a true default notice, and the agreement not being legible, if so are there any legal points I can raise.

Could I raise any other issues, they did not respond to my PART 18 request for further information, I asked if any payments had been made to a loan, when was the last payment made, what was the amount, and by what method was the payment made.

[nemesis45]

Re: Capquest, drydens, lloyds, and me 2 (help)

I need to send a letter of response, should it be aimed at Capquest or Drydens?

Should the letter just aim at the lack of a true default notice, and the agreement not being legible, if so are there any legal points I can raise.

Could I raise any other issues, they did not respond to my PART 18 request for further information, I asked if any payments had been made to a loan, when was the last payment made, what was the amount, and by what method was the payment made.

Response to Drydens.

Don't give anything away!!

Dear sir/madam

Ref: use theirs:

I am in receipt of the documents purporting to satisfy my requests for inspection of documents.

As you are no doubt aware the documents provided do not satisfy my CCA request and I consider that the alleged debt is unenforceable.

Yours etc.
nem

[Diana M]

Re: Capquest, drydens, lloyds, and me 2 (help)

I need to send a letter of response, should it be aimed at Capquest or Drydens?

Should the letter just aim at the lack of a true default notice, and the agreement not being legible, if so are there any legal points I can raise.

Could I raise any other issues, they did not respond to my PART 18 request for further information, I asked if any payments had been made to a loan, when was the last payment made, what was the amount, and by what method was the payment made.

Who says you need to reply to Drydens right away? They didn't reply to your Part 18 Request did they? So why the hurry for you to respond to them.

In view of your above post and all the other questions I raised yesterday (with more to come) I urge you not to write to Drydens yet.

This is a £23k claim so you need to get things right.

Don't ruin your chances with correspondence which may not help your case or could even harm your case however innocent the content may seem to the untrained eye.

Next point. Were those the only questions you asked in your Part 18 Request? When did you send that Part 18 Request? Depending on your answer to my question you may need to consider whether an application to force them to answer (or the claim be struck out etc) is the way to bring this matter to an end.

The situation is not clear yet. When it is clear you can consider your options and the consequences of any one you choose to pursue.

More haste less speed

Di

[Diana M]

Re: Capquest, drydens, lloyds, and me 2 (help)

Response to Drydens.

I am in receipt of the documents purporting to satisfy my requests for inspection of documents.

As you are no doubt aware the documents provided do not satisfy my CCA request and I consider that the alleged debt is unenforceable.

If I received that letter my response would likely be that only a DJ can decide whether the documents disclosed comply with s.78. (i.e. see you in court).

And, depending on my mood at the time, I might also say "we do not litigate through correspondence".

It would be different if the Claimant had disclosed nothing whatsoever, but they have disclosed something. No matter how rubbishy it appears in redacted format on the internet, the Claimant may take the view that the only conclusive test is at Trial. This is early days so there's plenty of time and opportunity for the Claimant to reconstitute documents (FT is a minimum of 30 weeks from allocation to Trial) if needed.

This is a £23k claim which may even be allocated to Multi Track (for claims of £25k upwards) if things are complicated. Every letter received and replied to by the Claimant's solicitors is being added to their bill of costs which they hope to recover from the OP.

Di

[Diana M]

Re: Capquest, drydens, lloyds, and me 2 (help)

Hi Diana,

This is the covering letter we received with the above dated 25th January 2017.

That letter says it encloses documents including at No 3 the "Default Notice details". It does not say it is disclosing the actual DN.

Perhaps they're implying (rightly or wrongly) that they have enough information from the OC's data systems to provide an 'honest and accurate' reconstituted DN if push comes to shove.

Di