Let sleeping dogs lie?

[Bruandy]

Hi all,

I recently received correspondence from a solicitor, Shoesmiths LLP regarding an alleged account with MBNA from some time ago claiming that the alleged balance had been assigned to its client, Arrow Global. I responded by requesting proof of debt etc and heard nothing for months. When Shoosmiths finally replied it provided some very generic statements with no reference to MBNA at all, a 'contract' made up of several documents, some eligible, some not, and a 'notice of assignment' on Arrow headed paper, assigned from Arrow to Arrow (yes), and signed simply AG.

When it was pointed out to Shoosmiths that it had provided what could only be described (at best) as an unenforceable contract, a computer generated and generic statement, and a completely bogus notice of assignment it responded by demanding that an income and expenditure form be completed with a proposal for payment or a claim would be made via the County Court. Of course, its demands were rejected. However, Shoosmiths then went ahead with a claim via the Bulk Centre.

A defence was submitted which outlined and highlighted all the failures of the claim, with specifics, and Shoosmiths then simply walked away from its claim, leaving it to be stayed indefinitely, which it remains. No further correspondence has been received regarding the matter.

So, my question is as per the title, is it wise to let this lie? I ask as under the circumstances in which the claim came about, these events have left a sour taste with regard to the absolute arrogance and impunity in which Shoosmiths acted and I am considering writing to it inviting it to withdraw / discontinue its claim, with the alternative of me applying to the court for the stay to be lifted and then for summary judgement to be applied including reasonable costs and compensation for time spent etc.

People's thoughts on the matter would be most welcome.

Thanks

[Kati]

Re: Let sleeping dogs lie?

Would a strike-out be in order here [MENTION=6]Amethyst[/MENTION] [MENTION=55034]nemesis45[/MENTION]??

[judgemental24]

Re: Let sleeping dogs lie?

How old is the MBNA account??

When did you take the card out??

[nemesis45]

Re: Let sleeping dogs lie?

Would a strike-out be in order here @Amethyst @nemesis45??

Reading!

[nemesis45]

Re: Let sleeping dogs lie?

Hi all,

I recently received correspondence from a solicitor, Shoesmiths LLP regarding an alleged account with MBNA from some time ago claiming that the alleged balance had been assigned to its client, Arrow Global. I responded by requesting proof of debt etc and heard nothing for months. When Shoosmiths finally replied it provided some very generic statements with no reference to MBNA at all, a 'contract' made up of several documents, some eligible, some not, and a 'notice of assignment' on Arrow headed paper, assigned from Arrow to Arrow (yes), and signed simply AG.

When it was pointed out to Shoosmiths that it had provided what could only be described (at best) as an unenforceable contract, a computer generated and generic statement, and a completely bogus notice of assignment it responded by demanding that an income and expenditure form be completed with a proposal for payment or a claim would be made via the County Court. Of course, its demands were rejected. However, Shoosmiths then went ahead with a claim via the Bulk Centre.

A defence was submitted which outlined and highlighted all the failures of the claim, with specifics, and Shoosmiths then simply walked away from its claim, leaving it to be stayed indefinitely, which it remains. No further correspondence has been received regarding the matter.

So, my question is as per the title, is it wise to let this lie? I ask as under the circumstances in which the claim came about, these events have left a sour taste with regard to the absolute arrogance and impunity in which Shoosmiths acted and I am considering writing to it inviting it to withdraw / discontinue its claim, with the alternative of me applying to the court for the stay to be lifted and then for summary judgement to be applied including reasonable costs and compensation for time spent etc.

People's thoughts on the matter would be most welcome.

Thanks

Good afternoon [MENTION=49370]Kati[/MENTION] has hit the nail on the head an application to strike out is the way to proceed!
Shoosmiths are known for this kind of conduct.

I would suggest a letter to Shoosmiths along the lines of

The Managing Solicitor
Shoosmiths
etc.


date,,,,,

Ref: County Court Claim No. :

Between Claimants name (Claimant)

And

Your name Defendant.

Sir/Madam

I refer to the above mentioned claim which has remained stayed since date...................... :

Giving consideration to the situation i.e. your client does not have any valid documentation
to carry this claim forward I respectfully make the following statement I will in 7 days from the
date hereon apply to the court for this claim to be struck out. I will seek the costs of the application
from your client.

I invite you to consult your client and suggest that it withdraws the claim forthwith of
its own volition in the interest of saving costs and court time.

Yours etc.
amend to suit.

Use signed for post check delivery.

Hopefully this will put an end to this without
you having to bear the cost of an application.

nem

[judgemental24]

Re: Let sleeping dogs lie?

You need to be 100 % sure arrow global will not be able to get hold of this information. Putting in an application will give them new vigour to try and locate the paperwork from the original creditor and continue litigation

They only have to convince the judge on the balance of probabilities this account is associated to you on the evidence presented

While a strike out will end this once and for all, there are very real dangers involved

When was the claim stayed??

How long ago?

[nemesis45]

Re: Let sleeping dogs lie?

You need to be 100 % sure arrow global will not be able to get hold of this information. Putting in an application will give them new vigour to try and locate the paperwork from the original creditor and continue litigation

They only have to convince the judge on the balance of probabilities this account is associated to you on the evidence presented

While a strike out will end this once and for all, there are very real dangers involved

When was the claim stayed??

How long ago?

Too long to be reasonable!

nem

[Bruandy]

Re: Let sleeping dogs lie?

Thanks for the answers guys. The claim was made in early August and stayed in early September.

The original MBNA account was taken out in the 90s, however, as far as I can say for certain, any balance was settled. The initial correspondence from Shoosmiths was somewhat out of the blue. From what I can see regarding the copy of the contract it would be classed as irredeemably unenforceable as it is made up of several parts and carries only a copy of a signature on an illegible part with no terms and conditions included so I am confident that the case is unwinnable from their perspective. Moreover, especially as the Notice of Assignment provided is clearly not close to being legitimate. Even the statements they provided were not copies of any originals but rather were computer generated print outs with various amounts on them along with a total at the bottom.

I was thinking more along the lines of writing to Shoosmiths as Nem has suggested, however, taking things any further would require serious consideration as the last thing I want to do is motivate Arrow into further action. From what I understand, the stayed claim simply remains dead until one party applies to have the stay lifted, and that a good reason for lifting the stay needs to be given to the court?

[nemesis45]

Re: Let sleeping dogs lie?

Thanks for the answers guys. The claim was made in early August and stayed in early September.

The original MBNA account was taken out in the 90s, however, as far as I can say for certain, any balance was settled. The initial correspondence from Shoosmiths was somewhat out of the blue. From what I can see regarding the copy of the contract it would be classed as irredeemably unenforceable as it is made up of several parts and carries only a copy of a signature on an illegible part with no terms and conditions included so I am confident that the case is unwinnable from their perspective. Moreover, especially as the Notice of Assignment provided is clearly not close to being legitimate. Even the statements they provided were not copies of any originals but rather were computer generated print outs with various amounts on them along with a total at the bottom.

I was thinking more along the lines of writing to Shoosmiths as Nem has suggested, however, taking things any further would require serious consideration as the last thing I want to do is motivate Arrow into further action. From what I understand, the stayed claim simply remains dead until one party applies to have the stay lifted, and that a good reason for lifting the stay needs to be given to the court?

I rather suspect your earlier statement " that Shoosmiths walked away) is spot on! Arrow have a poor
reputation when it comes to following up claims as was obvious when it was in " relationship" with
Fredrickson International some time ago,

I stand by my earlier comments go for strike out now.

nem

[judgemental24]

Re: Let sleeping dogs lie?

Then if your account was from the 1990s then i myself would go with the strike out

There is no hope in hell of them finding anything remotely acceptable to prove their case

But again

My own opinion

[Bruandy]

Re: Let sleeping dogs lie?

Thanks for your help guys. Much appreciated.

[Bruandy]

Re: Let sleeping dogs lie?

Hi guys,

Just a quick update. I wrote to Shoosmiths and invited it to discontinue it's claim before I applied to the court to have the stay lifted and the claim struck out and received a response today.

The letter opens by apologising for what it refers to as a 'delay' in responding to the defence submitted and says it is 'awaiting further documentation and information from the original creditor before being able to provide a substantive reply'.

It then says that' at this time we are not aware of any reason why the Agreement provided would be deemed unenforceable' and that the defence submitted 'constitutes a bare denial of the claim' only and that it has provided 'the following documentation to substantiate the claim. Copy of Agreement, Statement of Account, Default Notice, Notice of Assignment'.

It finishes by declining the offer to discontinue its claim and that if an application is made to strike out the claim that 'it is likely we will be instructed to oppose the application rigorously.' Although the exact wording is, 'we can confirm that your offer for us to discontinue the claim with no order to costs is not acceptable to our client', which appears to be implying that an order as to costs is its primary objection?

The thing is, the defence submitted gave detailed reasons as to why the claim was not legitimate including the generic nature of the statements provided, the inadequacy of the Notice of Assignment provided, and the reasons the Agreement provided was unenforceable. The defence details clearly stopped it progressing its claim as it refuted the particulars of the claim and has sent Shoosmiths looking for more documentation to substantiate its claim. The claim consists of the following separate documents.

1x 'Default Notice' addressed to me from MBNA

1x letter from MBNA stating that 'the agreement provided is a copy of the original signed by the customer, in conjunction with a reconstituted copy.

1x document entitled 'signature form' which carries my name and address, a credit limit of £5000, MBNA and address, a copy of my signature and dated July 2004. The remainder of the document is illegible. The document appears to be the bottom of an old credit card application form but as it is illegible it is impossible to say for certain. It is about A6 in size. Also the date is suspicious as I seem to recall that this account dates back to the 1990s (however, that can be checked later).

1x document as above totally eligible but with no signature or date at all.

1x document about the same size as the above, headed 'Credit Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 terms and conditions. The remainder of that document is entirely ineligible.

1x document which appears to be a more legible copy of the one above.

1x document which appears to be a generic computer print out of my name and address, my employment details, Mother's maiden name. However, this document also has 'Card 1 Barclays, visa, limit 3000' and 'Card 2 GM, MCard, limit 5000' which have no relation to the account this matter concerns.

1 x document consisting of ten pages in total of terms and conditions.

1x document headed 'Data Protection Act 1998 - Fair Processing Notice' This document is authored by Arrow and relates to its rights to process my data.

1x document headed 'Notice of Assignment'. This document is authored by Arrow and informs me that a debt has been assigned from Britannica Recoveries to Arrow. The document comes from Arrow and is simply signed AG.

Thoughts anyone before I respond?

Many thanks guys.

[judgemental24]

Re: Let sleeping dogs lie?

That is a standard normal response form the sols trying to scare you

It is up to you as this is going nowhere

As this is a 1990s agreement they will have to produce the original agreement, not a reconstructed one

You will have better odds of winning the lottery than that to happen

It is your choice how you play this

[Bruandy]

Re: Let sleeping dogs lie?

Thanks for your input. Much appreciated. I will go for the strike out.

[nemesis45]

Re: Let sleeping dogs lie?

I think they realise that the documents provided are not good enough to rely on in court
if they did they would have proceeded very quickly.
You could play them at their own game and send A SAR to the original creditor your self
and tell them you require 40 days to retrieve further information to defend the claim.

nem