Court Claim - SLL Capital Limited / Full Pocket Ltd (dissolved in 2014) - 20-3-2015

**PAWS** · 5th May 2015, 08:58:AM

Re: Court Claim - SLL Capital Limited / Full Pocket Ltd (dissolved in 2014) - 20-3-2

:bump2: I am sure someone with the 'smarts' will be along soon!

**nemesis45** · 5th May 2015, 10:33:AM

Re: Court Claim - SLL Capital Limited / Full Pocket Ltd (dissolved in 2014) - 20-3-2

Hi,

The CPR 31.14 Request allows only for requesting documents mentioned within the POC, nothing else can be requested.
You are being sued for the " book debt" sold by the administrator's to SLL, the assignment of which you have been notified, ( the NOA can be sent by the creditor and or the debt purchaser. Simply being sued for a company asset that SLL has purchased being the money owed to the liquidated company as the time it went into administration.

It matters not that there was no" breach" as said above this is a claim for money clearly owed, said money was an asset of the creditor
the administrators Must make all attempts possible to recover the money owed by all the liquidated companies debtors/clients.

In my opinion the POC is sufficient in detail. Certainly not vexatious either just normal legal process.
Your CPR 31.14 request " defence" fails on the major point that this rule allows only for the actual documents mentioned in the POC.

The Deed of Assignment is a Commercially Sensitive Document and you are unlikely to get anything supplied without an order of the court, even then this would be heavily redacted. If you have been given an NOA by the claimant and or the creditor that is adequate.
As for the DN these are generic in nature and creditors do not have to keep hard copies, a note on the debtors file that a DN was issued on a specific date can be relied upon, you may receive a reconstituted DN i.e what you would have received.

A matter such as this is so much regulated that there is not any real possibility of errors in the documentation.

Not having seen the claimants WS I cannot comment on its merits.
TBH. I can see why your defence has been rebutted.

Yes please let's see your proposed defence.

nem

- - - Updated - - -

Hi,

The CPR 31.14 Request allows only for requesting documents mentioned within the POC, nothing else can be requested.
You are being sued for the " book debt" sold by the administrator's to SLL, the assignment of which you have been notified, ( the NOA can be sent by the creditor and or the debt purchaser. Simply being sued for a company asset that SLL has purchased being the money owed to the liquidated company as the time it went into administration.
You could try a CCA Request.

It matters not that there was no" breach" as said above this is a claim for money clearly owed, said money was an asset of the creditor
the administrators Must make all attempts possible to recover the money owed by all the liquidated companies debtors/clients.

In my opinion the POC is sufficient in detail. Certainly not vexatious either just normal legal process.
Your CPR 31.14 request " defence" fails on the major point that this rule allows only for the actual documents mentioned in the POC.

The Deed of Assignment is a Commercially Sensitive Document and you are unlikely to get anything supplied without an order of the court, even then this would be heavily redacted. If you have been given an NOA by the claimant and or the creditor that is adequate.
As for the DN these are generic in nature and creditors do not have to keep hard copies, a note on the debtors file that a DN was issued on a specific date can be relied upon, you may receive a reconstituted DN i.e what you would have received.

A matter such as this is so much regulated that there is not any real possibility of errors in the documentation.

Not having seen the claimants WS I cannot comment on its merits.
TBH. I can see why your defence has been rebutted.

Yes please let's see your proposed defence.

nem

**highwire** · 5th May 2015, 11:45:AM

Re: Court Claim - SLL Capital Limited / Full Pocket Ltd (dissolved in 2014) - 20-3-2

Ok thanks nem. I was under the impression that Lord Denning's ruling in the Supreme Court is applicable in that I have a right to inspect the Deed of Assignment. In addition, having spoken with the liquidators, they have confirmed that a Deed of Assignment does not exist between any parties for this loan book sale. As such, IMO there has not been a lawful assignment.

Anyway, here is the defence I have already submitted. Even if I lose to these cowboys, I am on benefits so presumably cannot be ordered to pay more than £1/week?!

CASE SUMMARY

1. I am the Defendant in this case.

2. On 21/01/2015 the Claimant wrote to the Defendant requesting repayment of an alleged debt they had been assigned by FULL POCKET LTD.

3. On 23/01/2015 the Defendant wrote to the Claimant via email requesting verification of the alleged debt by means of an original consumer credit agreement, original default notice and statement of account. The Defendant also requested verification of their alleged assignment by means of the Deed of Assignment.

4. On 23/01/2015 the Claimant responded by stating that a notice of assignment is the only document required by law.

5. On 23/01/2015 the Defendant replied to the Claimant restating the case to see the requested documents for verification of the alleged debt and alleged assignment.

6. On 26/01/2015 the Claimant emailed the Defendant with instructions for their complaints procedure.

7. Between 30/01/2015 and 06/03/2015, no less than 23 emails were exchanged between the Claimant and Defendant in attempt to fairly settle the matter, but to no avail due to the Claimant’s refusal to provide all of the documents requested to verify their claim.

8. On 09/02/2015 the Claimant served the Defendant with a Default Notice despite having never been a provider of consumer credit or having any form of contract or agreement with the Defendant. This default notice is considered to be unlawful and an abuse of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

9. On 20/03/2015, the Claimant submitted a claim to Northampton County Court Business Centre stating their particulars of claim.

10. The Defendant submitted the Acknowledgement of Service on 23/03/2015.

11. The Defendant sent the Claimant a CPR 31.14 request letter on 23/03/2015, asking for a copy of the documents stated in their particulars of claim, in addition to any other documents the Claimant wishes to rely on in court:
- A verified and legible hard copy of the consumer credit agreement.
- The Deed of Assignment (required under the Law of Property Act 1925 and Lord Denning’s ruling in the Supreme Court).
- The original default notice (in order to prove termination of the fixed-sum loan agreement under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 sections 87-89).
- A true copy of a comprehensive statement of account from the original creditor detailing all interest, charges and payments by date.

12. On 26/03/2015 the Defendant received an acknowledgement of the CPR 31.14 request letter. However, the Claimant has chosen not to comply with their legal obligations regarding this request. The Claimant states they have sent all of the documentation to support their claim, although it does not appear any of the requested documents have been forthcoming.

13. The Claimant contends that:-
- The sum of £300.00 is owed by the Defendant to the Claimant pursuant to a fixed-sum loan agreement dated 4^th October 2013, taken out by the Defendant from Full Pocket Ltd.
- The Claimant has tried to mediate with the Defendant to resolve the matter with no avail.
- The sum of £300.00 to date remains due and outstanding.
- The Claimant will apply for a Default Judgement against the Defendant if settlement is not agreed upon within 7 days of 23/03/2015.*
*(Stated via email on 23/03/2015. This is not possible in the circumstances and is regarded purely as an intimidation tactic).

14. The Defendant rebuts all the above in that:-
- The Claimant has failed, upon multiple requests, to provide verification of their claim by means of the Deed of Assignment, original Default Notice, true copy of the original consumer credit agreement and a comprehensive statement of account from the original creditor.
- It is impossible for the Defendant to ascertain whether a Deed of Assignment actually exists between the original creditor and the Claimant to prove the basis of their claim. In addition, without the original Default Notice, it is not proven that any credit agreement between the Defendant and the original creditor was ever formally terminated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 in order to allow for any assignment to be executed lawfully.
- The Claimant has failed to comply with their legal obligations under CPR31.14.
- The Defendant believes the Claimant has made multiple attempts to intimidate the Defendant into paying monies that have not been proven to be owed by making false legal determinations and by serving their own default notice contrary to the rules of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

Due to the facts mentioned above, it is firmly believed that this claim should not have been brought to the court and the Defendant respectfully requests the Claimant’s claim be Struck Out due to their lack of evidence and their vexatious approach to this claim.

Statement of Truth: I believe the facts stated within this Case Summary to be true.

Dated: 27/03/2015.

**highwire** · 5th May 2015, 11:52:AM

Re: Court Claim - SLL Capital Limited / Full Pocket Ltd (dissolved in 2014) - 20-3-2

I cannot post up their witness statement atm as I don't have a working scanner. But, in a nutshell, all they have done is copy and paste the 'About Us' section of their website as their introduction, claim that the notice of assignment was sent and is sufficient by law, claim they are allowed to issue a default despite not being a provider of credit and claim I have made an active choice to ignore the matter(!). Not at all true.

**nemesis45** · 5th May 2015, 17:14:PM

Re: Court Claim - SLL Capital Limited / Full Pocket Ltd (dissolved in 2014) - 20-3-2

Originally posted by highwire View Post

I cannot post up their witness statement atm as I don't have a working scanner. But, in a nutshell, all they have done is copy and paste the 'About Us' section of their website as their introduction, claim that the notice of assignment was sent and is sufficient by law, claim they are allowed to issue a default despite not being a provider of credit and claim I have made an active choice to ignore the matter(!). Not at all true.

Has the claimant been in contact more than once requesting payment?

This is outside the normal run of " debt collection" being via a company failure which of course
does not affect the underlying debt or its validity.

If my memory serves me correctly the company once traded as SafeLoans Ltd in Croydon been around 24 -25 years my guess is that they have bought the complete debt portfolio of the original creditor.

What was the " status" of your loan when the creditor went into administration?

nem

nem

**highwire** · 5th May 2015, 22:40:PM

Re: Court Claim - SLL Capital Limited / Full Pocket Ltd (dissolved in 2014) - 20-3-2

Originally posted by nemesis45 View Post

Has the claimant been in contact more than once requesting payment?

This is outside the normal run of " debt collection" being via a company failure which of course
does not affect the underlying debt or its validity.

If my memory serves me correctly the company once traded as SafeLoans Ltd in Croydon been around 24 -25 years my guess is that they have bought the complete debt portfolio of the original creditor.

What was the " status" of your loan when the creditor went into administration?

nem

nem

Hi nem,

SLL first got in contact with me in Feb this year. Never had contact with them prior to this. When they wrote to me claiming I owed them £300.00 I asked them for proof which they failed to provide. They've sent a few letters including a fabricated default notice from themselves (I have no agreement or contract with them), a Notice of Assignment which looks like a parking ticket and a fake statement of account which has no resemblance to the actual account. About a week after I submitted my defence they sent the credit agreement from Full Pocket.

Yes, SLL also trade as Safeloans which offers payday loans. This seems like a major conflict of interest imo. How can they claim to try and resolve peoples debt problems from one trading name, whilst creating debt problems with their other trading name?! They operate from a portacabin on a trading estate and their employees have very poor english. I recorded two telephone calls with them where I had to repeat and spell my name and address no less than 6 times before being hung up on. (They really do operate like cowboys).

The status of the account with Full Pocket was 'late payment' but it was never in formal arrears nor in default. The 'late payment' marker on my credit file disappeared altogether when they ceased trading and SLL have not recorded anything.

I'm hoping this, together with the lack of a legally executed assignment will be a strong enough defence at hearing.... if not, will I have to pay more than £1/week as I am on benefits?

Thanks!

- - - Updated - - -

Originally posted by nemesis45 View Post

Has the claimant been in contact more than once requesting payment?

This is outside the normal run of " debt collection" being via a company failure which of course
does not affect the underlying debt or its validity.

If my memory serves me correctly the company once traded as SafeLoans Ltd in Croydon been around 24 -25 years my guess is that they have bought the complete debt portfolio of the original creditor.

What was the " status" of your loan when the creditor went into administration?

nem

nem

Hi nem,

SLL first got in contact with me in Feb this year. Never had contact with them prior to this. When they wrote to me claiming I owed them £300.00 I asked them for proof which they failed to provide. They've sent a few letters including a fabricated default notice from themselves (I have no agreement or contract with them), a Notice of Assignment which looks like a parking ticket and a fake statement of account which has no resemblance to the actual account. About a week after I submitted my defence they sent the credit agreement from Full Pocket.

Yes, SLL also trade as Safeloans which offers payday loans. This seems like a major conflict of interest imo. How can they claim to try and resolve peoples debt problems from one trading name, whilst creating debt problems with their other trading name?! They operate from a portacabin on a trading estate and their employees have very poor english. I recorded two telephone calls with them where I had to repeat and spell my name and address no less than 6 times before being hung up on. (They really do operate like cowboys).

The status of the account with Full Pocket was 'late payment' but it was never in formal arrears nor in default. The 'late payment' marker on my credit file disappeared altogether when they ceased trading and SLL have not recorded anything.

I'm hoping this, together with the lack of a legally executed assignment will be a strong enough defence at hearing.... if not, will I have to pay more than £1/week as I am on benefits?

Thanks!

**stevemLS** · 6th May 2015, 08:04:AM

Re: Court Claim - SLL Capital Limited / Full Pocket Ltd (dissolved in 2014) - 20-3-2

I agree with nem and think your defence may well be struck out as not disclosing any reasonable defence.

Out of interest, point 7, how were you suggesting the matter be settled?

Section 14 of the Insolvency Act 1986 empowers the administrator "to do all such things as are necessary for the management of the affairs....." of the insolvent entity and a receive will have similar powers. In my view, that statutory provision removes the need for a Deed of Assignment.

**Amethyst** · 6th May 2015, 08:08:AM

Re: Court Claim - SLL Capital Limited / Full Pocket Ltd (dissolved in 2014) - 20-3-2

Is there a copy of the credit agreement ? Might be worth a mooch at that?

**nemesis45** · 6th May 2015, 08:40:AM

Re: Court Claim - SLL Capital Limited / Full Pocket Ltd (dissolved in 2014) - 20-3-2

Originally posted by stevemLS View Post

I agree with nem and think your defence may well be struck out as not disclosing any reasonable defence.

Out of interest, point 7, how were you suggesting the matter be settled?

Section 14 of the Insolvency Act 1986 empowers the administrator "to do all such things as are necessary for the management of the affairs....." of the insolvent entity and a receive will have similar powers. In my view, that statutory provision removes the need for a Deed of Assignment.

This is it seems a straight forward sale of book debt by the administrator of the original creditor meaning that SLL is in the same position as any other debt purchaser, but I would like to know the relationship (if any) between SLL and the original creditor.

The issue by SLL of a DN makes me suspicious and Highwire if you can post a copy of this default notice it may help in advising further.

nem

**highwire** · 6th May 2015, 10:39:AM

Re: Court Claim - SLL Capital Limited / Full Pocket Ltd (dissolved in 2014) - 20-3-2

Originally posted by Amethyst View Post

Is there a copy of the credit agreement ? Might be worth a mooch at that?

I do now have a copy, but it's about 10 pages and my scanner is not working atm. Was there something particular you would look for within it?

**Amethyst** · 6th May 2015, 10:44:AM

Re: Court Claim - SLL Capital Limited / Full Pocket Ltd (dissolved in 2014) - 20-3-2

Just the first sheet with the numbers on should do - just to check it is compliant.

**highwire** · 6th May 2015, 10:46:AM

Re: Court Claim - SLL Capital Limited / Full Pocket Ltd (dissolved in 2014) - 20-3-2

Originally posted by nemesis45 View Post

This is it seems a straight forward sale of book debt by the administrator of the original creditor meaning that SLL is in the same position as any other debt purchaser, but I would like to know the relationship (if any) between SLL and the original creditor.

The issue by SLL of a DN makes me suspicious and Highwire if you can post a copy of this default notice it may help in advising further.

nem

SLL have made frequent reference to the LEGAL ASSIGNMENT of the account from Full Pocket to themselves. Thus, by law a Deed of Assignment is required.

They sent me 3 default notices. 2 by email and 1 by post. They are all pretty much the same except the one by post also looks like a parking ticket and makes reference to obtaining a default judgement against me should I not pay up within 7 day (not legally possible and this a threatening demand for money).

Here is the default notice I received by email...

Attached Files

sll.jpg (120.7 KB, 1 view)

**highwire** · 6th May 2015, 10:51:AM

Re: Court Claim - SLL Capital Limited / Full Pocket Ltd (dissolved in 2014) - 20-3-2

Originally posted by Amethyst View Post

Just the first sheet with the numbers on should do - just to check it is compliant.

The first page is just their logo, their address, my address and the financial info.... not sure which numbers I am looking out for?

**Amethyst** · 6th May 2015, 10:56:AM

Re: Court Claim - SLL Capital Limited / Full Pocket Ltd (dissolved in 2014) - 20-3-2

something like this one - http://s224.photobucket.com/user/vjo...anked.jpg.html

Photo is fine (blank out your address and personal info)

It probably is fine but always worth checking.

Court Claim - SLL Capital Limited / Full Pocket Ltd (dissolved in 2014) - 20-3-2015