**DISCONTINUED** Motormile Finance / Moriarty Law vs ecalid

[ecalid]

Re: Motormile Finance / Moriarty Law vs ecalid

Anybody??

[GBExile]

Re: Motormile Finance / Moriarty Law vs ecalid

Not that I can help you but is the claim still stayed?

[ecalid]

Re: Motormile Finance / Moriarty Law vs ecalid

Yes it is stayed at the moment.

[ecalid]

Re: Motormile Finance / Moriarty Law vs ecalid

Anyone??

[ecalid]

Re: Motormile Finance / Moriarty Law vs ecalid

Please forgive me if I sound abrupt but its been almost 3 days now and nobody has provided any input on this matter?? I appreciate that there is modt likely more pressing threads to be dealt with and I dont request priority.

I am increasing concerned about this case, the potential next steps are very crucial and I am severly inept by way of inexperience.

Thanks in advance.

[GBExile]

Re: Motormile Finance / Moriarty Law vs ecalid

Please forgive me if I sound abrupt but its been almost 3 days now and nobody has provided any input on this matter?? I appreciate that there is modt likely more pressing threads to be dealt with and I dont request priority.

I am increasing concerned about this case, the potential next steps are very crucial and I am severly inept by way of inexperience.

Thanks in advance.

If the claim is stayed then under the circumstances you just have to wait.

The claimant needs to lift the stay with the court.

I am not an expert but you must try to stop presuming what will happen next. Its the claimants move next.

[Kati]

Re: Motormile Finance / Moriarty Law vs ecalid

tagging [MENTION=6]Amethyst[/MENTION] [MENTION=87380]Diana M[/MENTION] xx

[Amethyst]

Re: Motormile Finance / Moriarty Law vs ecalid

The letter from Moriarty, does it say they will be applying to the court to lift the stay, and possibly ask for summary judgment, or is it just a 'here are some docs, we're waiting on the rest' letter ?

The date of assignment will be different to the date notice was given of the assignment, that's okay.

Although your POC says

AND WHICH WAS ASSIGNED TO THE CLAIMANT ON 31/11/2016 AND NOTICE OF WHICH WAS GIVEN TO THE DEFENDANT ON THE 20/11/16 (DEBT).

So do you have the goodbye and the hello letters and are any of them dated 20/11/16 as their assignment notice they have sent is dated 6/12/16 ?

[ecalid]

Re: Motormile Finance / Moriarty Law vs ecalid

The letter from Moriarty, does it say they will be applying to the court to lift the stay, and possibly ask for summary judgment, or is it just a 'here are some docs, we're waiting on the rest' letter ?

The date of assignment will be different to the date notice was given of the assignment, that's okay.

Although your POC says


So do you have the goodbye and the hello letters and are any of them dated 20/11/16 as their assignment notice they have sent is dated 6/12/16 ?

Hello, so I must confess that I typed out the POC wrong in the very first post, I don't know where the date 20/11/16 came from but the actually reads "WHICH WAS ASSIGNED TO THE CLAIMANT ON 30/11/16 AND NOTICE OF WHICH WAS GIVEN TO THE DEFENDANT ON THE 30/11/2016 (DEBT)"

It confuses me how they alledged to have given me the notice on the very same day it was assigned??

But ML has sent me the (hello) assignment notice from MMF dated 06/12/16.

In their cover letter dated the 20/11/17 they mention Contact must be made within 14 days otherwise further action will be take place on your account.

TODAY I have recieved further corrospondance from ML with the claim number, ref number, outstanding balance and original lender name with the contents:

"We write to acknowledge receipt of the defence filed by you with the court and in that regard we confirm that our client is proceeding with their claim"

no mention of any applications ect

However I must point out that the letter from the court dated 12/09/17 indicated receipt of said defence. I rang the court a month later to confirm the claim was stayed.

Scare tactics maybe??

Surely the fact that they have exhibited a distinct lack of legal instrumentation while MMF had already supplied me with the CCA agreement well within the timeframe of the claim being stayed, must count for something? Or am i reading too much into the Practice Direction part 16.

Also just a quick mention that i have found the letter from MMF dated 25/05/17 which references an Affordability Complaint email that I sent to Quick Quid. They ask me to contact ML with regards to the complaint.

[ecalid]

Re: Motormile Finance / Moriarty Law vs ecalid

Please accept my thanks guys, I acknowledge there is alot of people who need your advice and my case may be a rudimentary endeavour to you guys.

I'd like you to know I am soaking up every bit of information you provide and I feel privaliged.

[ecalid]

Re: Motormile Finance / Moriarty Law vs ecalid

Just so you guys know, I touched up earlier on the thread in regards to the Agreement Header having no house address thus potentially not being conformative to s78 of the CCA 1974.

Please read below a letter I intend to send to MoriartyLaw in regards to this.

Please let me know what you think.....


To whom it may concern.

I write in regards to the above claim number and in response to your recent correspondence dated xxxxx.

You have not complied with my CPR 32.14 request dated xxxxxxx.

I must inform you that the burden of proof to identify the debtor lies with the claimant and you are unable to enforce this debt as you and your client have not complied with the legal obligations of s78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

The person the creditor alleges to be the debtor cannot be indebted to them for the amount you claim as the agreement provided fails to provide a definitive and clear address of residence to successfully identify the debtor.

It is common practice in contract law that all parties must be outlined clearly and definitively in order for the agreement to be water tight and for the avoidance of doubt.

With the documentation you have provided it is construed that the address at where your client alleges the debtor to reside was only established upon signing the agreement AFTER the bespoke agreement was presented to the borrower, which I am confident you will agree is non confirmative to the standard practice of contract formulation.
For this agreement to have been formulated, an offer must have been made upon meeting the satisfactory criteria that the creditor required pursuant to the initial application from the borrower. This would require a Full name, Date of Birth and Full Address (including house number), enabling the debtor to accept the agreement and sign the document that you rely on in your statement of case

The liabilities of the borrower and necessary due diligence of the creditor could not have been assessed and applied by Quick Quid in proper sequence as suggested in your documentation, therefore compromising the integrity of the agreement and your case by virtue of HHJ Waksman in Carey vs HSBC:

· (1) A creditor can satisfy its duty under s78 by providing a reconstituted version of the executed agreement which may be from sources other than the actual signed agreement itself;


· (2) The s78 copy must contain the name and address of the debtor as it was at the time of the execution of the agreement. But the creditor can provide the name and address from whatever source it has of those details. It does not have to take them from the executed agreement itself;






The law stipulates that the agreement relied on in your statement of case must contain the exacting details as it did at time the agreement was executed. With the agreement that you have provided, this would suggest that before the agreement was even signed by the debtor it was already void. The borrower could not be successfully identified upon conception of the document thus the agreement is not legally binding and bespoke to the signee.

Baring in mind that the claim is addressed different to the signee in the agreement, opens up further speculation into the authenticity of the document.

You have provided this documentation after your client has allowed the claim to become stayed, exhibiting an abuse of process as well as the inability to proceed with the claim unencumbered.

I can only surmise that the legal instrumentation you rely on in your statement of case was not available at conception of the claim and your client has attempted to facilitate their compliance with s78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 with inaccurate documentation.

I request that the representative of your client verify his/her acknowledgement of the authenticity of documentation provided in your correspondence dated xxxxxxx and explain their conclusion on this matter, I also remind them of rule 3.5 of the Practice Direction 16 under Statement of Case:

“Attention is drawn to rule 32.14 which sets out the consequences of verifying a statement of case containing a false statement without an honest belief in its truth.”


I will be bringing all of these matters to the attention of the court and any further action prior to the compliance of s78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 will be seen as vexatious warranting an immediate application to strike out the claim by exhibiting the abuse of process endorsed by your yourselves on your clients behalf and will maintain to defend this case as demonstrated.

[warwick65]

Re: Motormile Finance / Moriarty Law vs ecalid

Hi

Why oh why would you tell them what is wrong with the agreement - you give them an opportunity to put it right!

If it gets to the WS stage you then say in broad terms it does not comply with their CCA responsibilities

It would be in court that you would tell them what was wrong

As has been said time and time again

Less is often more

Remember S78 is for information purposes only and can be reconstituted - if they get it wrong they are allowed to have another go. There have been cases( I don't know but I imagine lots) where a non compliant CCA response has been corrected, even during the day of the trail. Putting it right is not rocket science.

I do, I really do, get your need to 'sock it to em' but it will not help you - it may damage your case

[Amethyst]

Re: Motormile Finance / Moriarty Law vs ecalid

Bit narky this morning Warwick ? Maybe get some coffee xx

[MENTION=103559]ecalid[/MENTION] - however narkily Wrwick has put it, he is right, that you shouldn't spell out the issues with the agreement at this stage, simply tell them the agreement is not compliant if you feel you must write to them, however I would wait for further contact at this point. If they do apply to court to lift the stay and for summary judgment you should receive copies and will have opportunity to defend the application then.

(on the letter there is typo near the beginning you have quoted CPR 32.14 - which I think you mean CPR 31.14 )

[nemesis45]

Re: Motormile Finance / Moriarty Law vs ecalid

here ya go (sorry) xx

Was your name and address in the signature box? I presume it was as you have redacted it.

nem

[warwick65]

Re: Motormile Finance / Moriarty Law vs ecalid

Bit narky this morning Warwick ? )

Sorry , got my threads mixed up- I seemed to think the point had been raised before on this thread but it looks as if I was mistaken