Tweet
A lot has happened over the past 5 weeks…………
Its been a very busy time, weve seen a number of Court hearings and trials involving many of the top names in the debt world. MKDP LLP, we defended a claim against a client on the basis the credit agreement was unenforceable, the default notice was materially defective for numerous reasons, the creditor had failed […]
Its been a very busy time, weve seen a number of Court hearings and trials involving many of the top names in the debt world.
MKDP LLP, we defended a claim against a client on the basis the credit agreement was unenforceable, the default notice was materially defective for numerous reasons, the creditor had failed to comply with s86C CCA 1974 and the relationship was unfair. The original creditor was Morgan Stanley, and the account was assigned to the Claimant.
The Claimant seemed to think it could evade its costs liability by discontinuing the Claim on the steps of the Court, wrong answer, we successfully applied for costs even though the case was allocated to Small Claims.
1st Credit Limited, this case was interesting, the pleaded case was an utter shambles, so a request was made for supporting documents as per the right set out in CPR 31.14(1)(a). The Claimant disclosed documents which were at odds with its claim form. In addition, the documents were from a different company to the pleaded case, the pleadings stated that the account was an Opus account yet the documents were from Citi Financial, it is not for the Defendant to guess the case against him, its for the Claimant to set out its case correctly.
Accordingly due to the confusion, an application was made to the Court to order the Claimant to put the documents mentioned in the claim form on the table. The matter progressed to a hearing and shortly after the Court made an unless order, the Claimant discontinued.
Honda Finance, this was a very interesting case, it arose out of a Hire Purchase agreement. The Claimant had taken the vehicle from the Defendant at a time when s90 and 91 said that they could not as the goods were protected goods. The Defendant had initially put forward a Defence, however when it was identified that not only was the Defendant not liable for the debt but also entitled to all of the money paid under the agreement and furthermore damages for the lost personal property, it was clear that a counterclaim was necessary.
I drafted the Counterclaim, and applied to the Court for leave to enter it. Leave was granted and the Counterclaim stood.
The Claimants case was simple, they accepted they never had a court order allowing them to repossess the car, they however tried to rely on abandonment. It is not widely known but an abandoned car can be taken even if it is protected goods (see Lombank v Dowdall) but in this case there was no way the Court could conclude that the car had been abandoned, in fact no reasonable person could. The car had been parked on a private road outside the Defendants home, the car had been SORN and therefore the Defendant could not have been said to have given up all rights and interest in the vehicle, effectivley the test needed for abandonment.
The matter came to trial and Thomas Brennan represented the client, it is worth noting both our firm and the barrister were working on a CFA no win no fee. The Court found in our clients favour and awarded full damages and costs.
These are just a couple of the cases which have taken up my time over the past few weeks and theres plenty more in the future coming up………….watch this space
More...
Its been a very busy time, weve seen a number of Court hearings and trials involving many of the top names in the debt world.
MKDP LLP, we defended a claim against a client on the basis the credit agreement was unenforceable, the default notice was materially defective for numerous reasons, the creditor had failed to comply with s86C CCA 1974 and the relationship was unfair. The original creditor was Morgan Stanley, and the account was assigned to the Claimant.
The Claimant seemed to think it could evade its costs liability by discontinuing the Claim on the steps of the Court, wrong answer, we successfully applied for costs even though the case was allocated to Small Claims.
1st Credit Limited, this case was interesting, the pleaded case was an utter shambles, so a request was made for supporting documents as per the right set out in CPR 31.14(1)(a). The Claimant disclosed documents which were at odds with its claim form. In addition, the documents were from a different company to the pleaded case, the pleadings stated that the account was an Opus account yet the documents were from Citi Financial, it is not for the Defendant to guess the case against him, its for the Claimant to set out its case correctly.
Accordingly due to the confusion, an application was made to the Court to order the Claimant to put the documents mentioned in the claim form on the table. The matter progressed to a hearing and shortly after the Court made an unless order, the Claimant discontinued.
Honda Finance, this was a very interesting case, it arose out of a Hire Purchase agreement. The Claimant had taken the vehicle from the Defendant at a time when s90 and 91 said that they could not as the goods were protected goods. The Defendant had initially put forward a Defence, however when it was identified that not only was the Defendant not liable for the debt but also entitled to all of the money paid under the agreement and furthermore damages for the lost personal property, it was clear that a counterclaim was necessary.
I drafted the Counterclaim, and applied to the Court for leave to enter it. Leave was granted and the Counterclaim stood.
The Claimants case was simple, they accepted they never had a court order allowing them to repossess the car, they however tried to rely on abandonment. It is not widely known but an abandoned car can be taken even if it is protected goods (see Lombank v Dowdall) but in this case there was no way the Court could conclude that the car had been abandoned, in fact no reasonable person could. The car had been parked on a private road outside the Defendants home, the car had been SORN and therefore the Defendant could not have been said to have given up all rights and interest in the vehicle, effectivley the test needed for abandonment.
The matter came to trial and Thomas Brennan represented the client, it is worth noting both our firm and the barrister were working on a CFA no win no fee. The Court found in our clients favour and awarded full damages and costs.
These are just a couple of the cases which have taken up my time over the past few weeks and theres plenty more in the future coming up………….watch this space
More...
