Restons Solicitors/Capquest Investments vs ecalid

[Amethyst]

Told you I was overthinking it lol

[ecalid]

Thank you so much Amethyst amethy and pt2537. It is very insightful advice from both of you.

[NotPaying]

Capquest's letters state that the account is administered by Arrow Global Limited, in a similar situation myself, waiting for my post to show up at the next update. Arrow Global Limited have already had a county court application against me rejected by a judge as they were not the claimant. Hope this helps.

[ecalid]

Hi guys just a quick update.

Further correspondence from Capquest today indicating my lack of response to their letter dates 11.10.2018.

Usual settlement stuff, I'm a bit confused as to what they mean by "we may consider proceeding with litigation against you".

Does this mean that they may apply for a summary judgement to strike out my defence? as Reston's normally put.

I must say my vernacular is a little adolescent compared to your own and I am struggling to put together a letter to send back.

How do I ask them to clarify the relationship between themselves and the alleged account holder, etc?

Sorry!.

[MIKE770]

usual may / ifs nothing definite, capquest (crapquest) well they bludder.threat/ wait next move



Restons just representing owners. one wonders if they know what stage the case is at, they cannot get it struck out without you knowing, stop panicking

[Amethyst]

Hmmm okay I'll try not to overcomplicate like I did before....lol

Dear Capquest

Ref: Claim XXXXXX - Capquest Investments Limited vs Ecalid

Thank you for your letters dated 11th October 2018.

I am currently considering my position with regards your claim, however I am a little confused by the content of your letters and the accompanying documents as to the current ownership of the account on which the claim is based. The Claimant is Capquest Investments Limited, and the solicitors and address for documents/communications is Restons Solicitors.

I have received no notice of a change of either however your letters refer to Arrow Global and an 'in-house specialist litigation team' with a given address of Arrow Global.

One of your letters states that "Arrow Global Guernsey Limited acquired the account on 21/11/2014 and notice of the assignment was sent to you on 12/11/2014". I have not received this notice of assignment at all.

One assumes that the 'Arrow Global' referred to as the correspondance address on each letter refers to 'Arrow Global Guernsey Limited', however I have never heard of this company and do not intend communicating with them regarding this claim.

Please note that no copy of the default notice was sent. According to the screen dump you provided this was sent on 29/09/14 and if you could provide a copy it would be appreciated.

Additionally the Credit Agreement copy sent appears to be solely for Shop Direct, as opposed to Littlewoods ( there is no mention of Littlewoods at all in the document ) and seems to be a reconstruction of a current agreement and not the original agreement alleged to have been entered into.

If you could clarify the position I would be grateful.

I have sent this letter to yourselves, and copied to Restons Solicitors, as the solicitors on record.

Kind regards

xxxxxxxxxx

Think I've failed.... what do you reckon ?

[ecalid]

Thank you so much, I really wish I had the knowledge that I could just type out something like that.

Do you think that MIKE770 is right and I should just wait to see their next move? Or do you think I should challenge this head on with your letter.

[MIKE770]

the letter brings out good points , send that as suggested/

[Amethyst]

I'd probably rather respond to their letter now rather than waiting to see if they do apply to lift the stay - might put them off bothering... might not, but at least your concerns over the ownership of the debt and validity of the documents is recorded.

[sytra]

in post 164 on page 11, it mentions Shop Direct Financial Services Limited on the assignments, is this a typographical error or does it actually say Shop Direct Financial Services Limited the reason being Littlewoods is owned by Shop Direct Finance Company, so how can SDFS assign the account they dont even own? The agreement posted earlier in the thread is as far as I can see is correct in that it looks to be a Shop Direct Finance Company agreement. Also if you have the original default notice check the creditor is correct

[ecalid]

Just a quick update.


It appears that CapQuest have completely ignored my letters asking for clarification on the owners of the debt.

I recieved a letter titled without prejudice indicating their reduced settlement.

I had a similar letter from Restons before I started getting the letters from CapQuests "in house" recovery team in the past few months.

None of the usual threats of further enforcement either, quite subdued for a debt collector.

I will look into it sytra. Unfortunately I don't have the default notice and SD never supplied one in my DSAR either.

[ecalid]

Hi guys just a quick update.

Crapquest have been back in touch today.

In their letter they say that they consider that they have answered my defence and have supplied me with another copy of the CCA, statements and notice of assignment.

However still no sign of a default notice.

They have written that if I do not contact them by the 18th of this month that they will apply for a summary judgement, followed by a breakdown of the costs incurred.

Please find a scanned copy of the letter here:

eclaidjanletter.png

Please help!!

[ecalid]

I am baffled that in the absence of a physical copy of the DN a screenshot of the claimants data in acceptable. But also in the same screenshot indicates that shop direct sent a copy of the 'current' agreement.

I'm a bit uncertain as to the validity of the agreement as Amethyst mentioned before that it presents no link to Littlewoods. Also I have found a PDF on the Littlewoods website that indicates an increase of the APR as of 17th July 2014, from 36% to 39%. Almost 2 years after the agreement was signed and executed.

The agreement that I have been provided is at 36%.

I might be barking up the wrong tree but am I right in thinking that s78 imposes the onus on the claimant to provide all subsequent prescribed terms from the date of the account opening?. Without this information surely would put the outstanding balance into contention, constituting a potential breach, as the statement of account would then be false and giving traction to my defence.

The link can be found here: http://common.littlewoods.com/assets...reccd_rate.pdf

[ecalid]

Has anybody got any input on this?? I'm getting increasingly worried about the situation.

[ecalid]

Amethyst sorry