Mortimer clarke saying agreement of termination date is acknowledgement

[thewalkinglark]

hi all
im new to all this so please be kind

I received court papers in September they was from caboot/Mortimer Clarke solicitors. this is a statute barred debt and put a defence in stating this.
on the 8th 0ctober I received a letter from the court stating that my defence had been sent to caboot/Mortimer Clarke and that I should try to sort matters out with them and that if the court didn't hear anything from them within 28 days the case will become stayed, on 24th I received 2 letters from Mortimer Clarke 1st one saying my debt was not statute barred due to agreement of termination date (which I know is not acknowledgement of the debt) the 2nd letter from them was a offer of 40% off the debt which I thought was very strange as if they say its not statute barred surely they would want all the money?

on 28th I sent a letter back saying that an agreement of termination is not acknowledgement of the debt and reminded them of the limitation act and they would need to provide documentation, they received this letter the next day as I sent it recoreded delivery. I still haven't received a reply from them.

I phoned the court a few days ago and asked if caboot/Mortimer had been in contact and they said no and the case would be stayed after 33 days of the 8th October as that's when they sent my defence to them but it has been 33 days but the case does not show being stayed online
is this because its 33 working days? or are they courts slow changing these things?

also if a case becomes stayed is it easy for them to appeal this?

thanks for reading and welcome all help

[Amethyst]

Re: general help about when a claim becomes stayed (caboot/mortimer)

Yes, it is easy for them to pick up the case again.

Give the court a call tomorrow and ask them if they have heard from the claimant and check what the status of the claim is.

If it is stayed due to non response then you could write to the court and ask them to strike out the claim.

[thewalkinglark]

Re: general help about when a claim becomes stayed (caboot/mortimer)

ok thanks for quick reply will give them a call tomorrow
think its wrong if they try to appeal a stay as they have had enough time to send me the correct documents but if it is stayed will write a letter to the court
thanks again:tinysmile_grin_t:

[FlamingParrot]

Re: general help about when a claim becomes stayed (caboot/mortimer)

ok thanks for quick reply will give them a call tomorrow
think its wrong if they try to appeal a stay as they have had enough time to send me the correct documents but if it is stayed will write a letter to the court
thanks again:tinysmile_grin_t:

There is no need for an appeal, they can just apply to the court to lift the stay, a stay is merely a suspension of proceedings.

I received court papers in September they was from caboot/Mortimer Clarke solicitors. this is a statute barred debt and put a defence in stating this.
on the 8th 0ctober I received a letter from the court stating that my defence had been sent to caboot/Mortimer Clarke and that I should try to sort matters out with them and that if the court didn't hear anything from them within 28 days the case will become stayed, on 24th I received 2 letters from Mortimer Clarke 1st one saying my debt was not statute barred due to agreement of termination date (which I know is not acknowledgement of the debt) the 2nd letter from them was a offer of 40% off the debt which I thought was very strange as if they say its not statute barred surely they would want all the money?

It looks like a new strategy MC are adopting, I got a sense of deja vu when I read the above, I even thought I'd replied to another thread started by you as the solicitors and their letters were much the same. As it happens, I replied to this other thread the other day, where they seem to have done exactly the same as with you, basically they argue the points used in the defence and then offer a 40% discount: http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...quis-15-9-2014

[thewalkinglark]

Need help with statute barred debt please mortimer clarke ASAP

Hi
i posted before about mortimer clarke trying to say a debt wasn't statute barred due to the agreement being terminated in 2009 I sent a letter back in October 2014 stating that this wasn't correct as it wasn't acknowledgement off the debt and asked for proof otherwise
today I received a letter and statement saying it isn't statute barred due to repossession fees in early 2009 but these repossession fees were not made by me they was made by the original credit company
are they trying to pull a fast one on me or are they right cos I thought it had to be the last time I acknowledged the debt which would make it over 6 years

please can anyone help as I need to know what to reply and can they take 4 months since I sent the letter to them and the court case is frozen due to them not responding in time

[thewalkinglark]

Re: Need help with statute barred debt please mortimer clarke ASAP

here is full story
they sent me court papers in september i replied to court with a defence then i got a letter from court saying they have told mortimer clarke and to sort it out out of court
mc sent me letter saying it wasnt statute barred due to an agreement of termination but was told by citizens advice that this is rubbish and not acknowledgement of the debt so i sent a letter back to them on 27th october stating this and for them to prove otherwise via documentation
during this time the court has stayed the case due to mc not responding to the court at all
then today 4 months after my letter i receive a letter and a old satement from saying this is not statute barred due to this agreement of termination and because of repossessions fees but again the repossession fees are what the original company put on the statement form as a credit
so i need to know are they right or am i right that this is not acknowledgement
the dates are

i took out the finance of the car on 16/8/07
the statement says i last made a credit on 1/8/2008
then the repo fees they speak about

[thewalkinglark]

is repossession fees an acknowledgement of the debt??? (mortimer clarke)

Hi
i posted before about mortimer clarke trying to say a debt wasn't statute barred due to the agreement being terminated in 2009 I sent a letter back in October 2014 stating that this wasn't correct as it wasn't acknowledgement off the debt and asked for proof otherwise
today I received a letter and statement saying it isn't statute barred due to repossession fees in early 2009 but these repossession fees were not made by me they was made by the original credit company
are they trying to pull a fast one on me or are they right cos I thought it had to be the last time I acknowledged the debt which would make it over 6 years

please can anyone help as I need to know what to reply and can they take 4 months since I sent the letter to them and the court case is stayed due to them not responding in time

[thewalkinglark]

Re: general help about when a claim becomes stayed (caboot/mortimer)

Hi have just had a reply from mc 4 months after sending my letter saying that the statement shows repossession fees early 2009 showing that the agreement was terminated in early 2009 therefore not statute barred
but surely this is not me acknowledging the debt?
what do you think ?
Thanka

[thewalkinglark]

Can they reply 4 months later?

Mortimer clarke issued court papers and after submitting my defence the court said we should sort this out. Mc sent me a letter saying the debt isn't statute barred and told me an agreement of termination date which didn't mean a thing they also sent me a letter saying they would accept a reduced part of 40% of the debt so I sent them a letter back on 27/10/14 saying this isn't proof of acknowledgement of the debt and they would have to prove otherwise
since then the case has been stayed and 4 months have passed then today I got a letter from them saying as there was repossession fees in early 2009 that is why there is a agreement of termination but this again isn't me acknowledging the debt so again should be statute barred they also sent me the letter again of 40% discount
is it right they can wait 4 months to reply to me?
will the court drop the stay on the case and re open?
Please help as I thought they had to reply sooner
many thanks in advance

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Can they reply 4 months later?

Mortimer clarke issued court papers and after submitting my defence the court said we should sort this out. Mc sent me a letter saying the debt isn't statute barred and told me an agreement of termination date which didn't mean a thing they also sent me a letter saying they would accept a reduced part of 40% of the debt so I sent them a letter back on 27/10/14 saying this isn't proof of acknowledgement of the debt and they would have to prove otherwise
since then the case has been stayed and 4 months have passed then today I got a letter from them saying as there was repossession fees in early 2009 that is why there is a agreement of termination but this again isn't me acknowledging the debt

I've dug up your old thread: http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...986#post522986 but I don't see anything about the history of this claim.

What type of account was this, was it an overdraft?

so again should be statute barred they also sent me the letter again of 40% discount
is it right they can wait 4 months to reply to me?

They had 28 days to reply, they obviously didn't, which is why the case was stayed.

will the court drop the stay on the case and re open?
Please help as I thought they had to reply sooner
many thanks in advance

A stay just puts proceedings on hold, it doesn't cancel them completely. They can apply to the court to lift the stay and go ahead with the case. It makes me wonder though, if they are so sure they could get judgment for the full amount, why offer a 40% discount? :confused2:

[thewalkinglark]

Re: Can they reply 4 months later?

Hi
this is for a car on finance on the statement they sent me it's got the last time I paid anything was on 1/8/2008 and then repossession fees on 20/4/2009 which they added
mc started court proceedings on 18/9/2014

[thewalkinglark]

Mortimer clarke saying agreement of termination date is acknowledgement

Hi all
i received a letter from mortimer clarke saying that the agreement of term action date counts as acknowledgemt of the debt is this true

[Streetwise]

Re: Mortimer clarke saying agreement of termination date is acknowledgement

Hi all
i received a letter from mortimer clarke saying that the agreement of term action date counts as acknowledgemt of the debt is this true

More details required.

[thewalkinglark]

Re: Mortimer clarke saying agreement of termination date is acknowledgement

More details required.

Hi if you can look at my previous threads should explain all basically the last time I paid was 1 August 2008 and they are saying there was an agreement of termination on 16/2/2009 as repossession Fees was early 2009 but I thought that was not me acknowledging the debt
I did go citizens advice who said ignore it

[Kati]

Re: Mortimer clarke saying agreement of termination date is acknowledgement

Hi if you can look at my previous threads should explain all basically the last time I paid was 1 August 2008 and they are saying there was an agreement of termination on 16/2/2009 as repossession Fees was early 2009 but I thought that was not me acknowledging the debt
I did go citizens advice who said ignore it

I've merged your threads - that way everyone (including yourself) can see the whole situation and your replies so far without having to search through your other threads
k x