**DISCONTINUED** Court Claim - 1st Credit (Finance) Limited / M&S

[Amethyst]

Re: Court Claim - 1st Credit (Finance) Limited / Marks & Spencers - 25-8-2015

7. It is denied that the Claimant served a Default Notice that complied with s88 of the Consumer Credit Act. The Default Notice did not comply with s88(2) of the Act because it specified a date for remedying the breach that was less than 14 days after the date of service of the Default Notice, in fact it was less than 14 days after the issue date of the Notice. The Default Notice is dated xxxxxxx and gives a remedy date of before xxxxxx 2009.

Is there a copy of the DN on the thread?

As you have mentioned it in your defence ( statement of case) then you have already disclosed it so yes will need to send them a copy at some point anyway.

[tilly2015]

Re: Court Claim - 1st Credit (Finance) Limited / Marks & Spencers - 25-8-2015

Also just noticed on their particulars of claim they state an assignment date of 25/01/2013 to 1st Credit (Finance) limited and in the letter they just sent they state the assignment was on the 25/01/2013 to 1st Credit (Finance ) 4 limited. They then say that it was further assigned to 1st Credit (Finance) Limited effective 1.6.13. Can they keep changing the dates and companies?

[tilly2015]

Re: Court Claim - 1st Credit (Finance) Limited / Marks & Spencers - 25-8-2015

Thanks Amethyst,

But do I need to send this to them before they have sent me the documents they rely on in their particulars of claim. And before the date they need to notify court of their intention to proceed?

Tilly

[Amethyst]

Re: Court Claim - 1st Credit (Finance) Limited / Marks & Spencers - 25-8-2015

I don't see why not to be honest, it backs up your claim in your defence and might get them to bog off before it goes any further. They are already on the backfoot hence sending it back to 1st Credit. See what [MENTION=37786]FlamingParrot[/MENTION]t reckons too though.

[tilly2015]

Re: Court Claim - 1st Credit (Finance) Limited / Marks & Spencers - 25-8-2015

Thanks again Amethyst

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Court Claim - 1st Credit (Finance) Limited / Marks & Spencers - 25-8-2015

We also enclose the notices of assignment dated 23/03/2015 confirming that the debt was assigned from M&S to 1st Credit (Finance) 4 Limited then subsequently to the claimant.

In relation to your defence we are currently undertaking a review of the assertions made by you. In particular you refer to the default notice. Please send evidence in support.

Please note that we are required to notify the court by 31/10/2015 of our instruction to proceed. We look forward to hearing from you.

-----------------------------------------

I have still not received a copy of the credit agreement and a copy of the default notice dated 4.12.09 which are in their particulars of claim which I requested on 2.9.15 to their solicitor under CPR 31.14. Does this mean that I now need to send another letter requesting these documents as they have changed their legal representation back to themselves?

I do not feel comfortable sending them what I have (original default notice) when I haven't seen any documents from them. Do I have to legally send them what they have requested in their letter?

The thing with default notices is that you'd hardly ever get an actual copy disclosed by the other side simply because most banks do not keep copies of them as they are just mail-merged and printed off without being saved as individual files, so all they'd have is an entry on their database of the date when the DN was sent out and, in some cases, the template used by the bank to issue DNs. Neither of these would be much use because they won't show whether the DN you received was compliant with s.88 of the CCA or not. :mmph:

By having retained your own copy you have the upper hand because you can show the DN issued by the bank was defective. :grin: Reading the bit of text Amethyst has quoted above, it's all coming back to me, I think those were my comments with regards to your DN, that the date to remedy the breach was less than 14 days ahead of the date printed on the actual DN, even without allowing for service. It is defective "beyond a reasonable doubt" (even though that's not the standard of proof applicable to civil litigation). That being the case, there is no reason not to want to use it in evidence. :thumb:

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Court Claim - 1st Credit (Finance) Limited / Marks & Spencers - 25-8-2015

I don't see why not to be honest, it backs up your claim in your defence and might get them to bog off before it goes any further. They are already on the backfoot hence sending it back to 1st Credit. See what @FlamingParrott reckons too though.

Our posts crossed. :grin:

I recall seeing the DN in question and it was so obviously defective that there is no question about it, it's not like one of them cases where you are debating whether it would have been served the next day or the day after, so it could only work in Tilly's favour to show she wasn't just bluffing. Sadly few people retain copies of DNs 99% of defendants on here can only say they don't recall receiving one, so getting someone who can actually make a positive assertion about it being defective must have come as a bit of a surprise -or a shock- to them. :grin: :grin: :grin:

[tilly2015]

Re: Court Claim - 1st Credit (Finance) Limited / Marks & Spencers - 25-8-2015

Thanks FP,

If I send a copy to them it will also backup my defence that the debt is statued barred as the DN is dated July 2009 and not Dec 2009 as stated in the POC.

Tilly

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Court Claim - 1st Credit (Finance) Limited / Marks & Spencers - 25-8-2015

Thanks FP,

If I send a copy to them it will also backup my defence that the debt is statued barred as the DN is dated July 2009 and not Dec 2009 as stated in the POC.

Tilly

It will certainly show them wrong :grin: although a DN by itself isn't proof that no further payments or written acknowledgments were made after it was issued, however, the burden of proof is on THEM to show that any were made. :thumb:

[tilly2015]

Re: Court Claim - 1st Credit (Finance) Limited / Marks & Spencers - 25-8-2015

Ok thanks FP

[tilly2015]

Re: Court Claim - 1st Credit (Finance) Limited / Marks & Spencers - 25-8-2015

Hi Guys,

Just to let you know I sent the DN to 1st Credit last week as suggested and phoned the court yesterday and they said it was stayed but as their is a backlog they could have sent something in the post.

But had a letter today from 1st Credit saying thank you for your letter and now that we have received your evidence we have decided to discontinue the claim.

So many thanks to all who helped and to Flaming Parrot

Much appreciated and 2 months of stress ended!

Regards

Tilly

[nemesis45]

Re: Court Claim - 1st Credit (Finance) Limited / Marks & Spencers - 25-8-2015

Hi Guys,

Just to let you know I sent the DN to 1st Credit last week as suggested and phoned the court yesterday and they said it was stayed but as their is a backlog they could have sent something in the post.

But had a letter today from 1st Credit saying thank you for your letter and now that we have received your evidence we have decided to discontinue the claim.

So many thanks to all who helped and to Flaming Parrot

Much appreciated and 2 months of stress ended!

Regards

Tilly

Good result!!

nem

[tilly2015]

Re: Court Claim - 1st Credit (Finance) Limited / Marks & Spencers - 25-8-2015

Many thanks Nem

[judgemental24]

Re: Court Claim - 1st Credit (Finance) Limited / Marks & Spencers - 25-8-2015

Way to go

You stuck at it

If they have discontinued have you considered a wasted costs order against the swines

It is your choice as as you said, two momnths of hell

[PAWS]

Re: Court Claim - 1st Credit (Finance) Limited / Marks & Spencers - 25-8-2015

Congratulations Tilly and well done all the usual clever beagles!:thumb:
I really am getting sick of these leaching debt collectors putting people through hell because they can use the courts to threaten without any proper documents to back up their claim. Bet they miss the old days when they could save money lodging the case at court and simply pretend to be a firm of solicitors!