Complicated Scenario of a finance provider

[Lawangeen]

Hello Everyone and thanks in advance for your help.
I am about to write my defence. I received Lowell Solicitors Pre-Action Protocal for Debt Claims in march. the alleged debt was relating to New Day and was then passed to Capital Sec and then to Lowel portfolio and then to LS(As all of these companies were mentioned on CCBC Claim form). When i received it i sent CCA and CPR request straight away to LS and in the meantime i also received CCBC Claim form as well. The LS responded back that they acknowledge receipt of the my request made under CPR 31 and they are currently liaising with their client for the relevant documentation and agree to further 28 days extension to file my defence. But yesterday i received another letter of LS on which there was nothing but just the outstanding amount of £2500 in one fig. I mean they failed to provide me the full disclosure of the account. Also, they did not properly disclose that this amount relates to either credit card or loan.Now i have just 2 days left to write my defence.

[Lawangeen]

hello, can any one help pls.....

[Lawangeen]

#amethyst

[Amethyst]

Morning, Apologies to have missed your post before. It does sound like you have done everything right - and Lowell have just failed to provide any information or evidence of their claim - therefore if you are at the end of the extension period of 28 days and still nothing, then I'd just put in the standard defence for now ( amend to your claim of course ) Example Defence

[Lawangeen]

Good Morning Amethyst
thanks for your reply...
I have prepared the Defence and I am gonna upload it in a while if you could please check it. As I have to submit it today before 4:00 PM

[Lawangeen]

Hi Amethyst...
The Particulars of the Claim are
1. The claim is for the sum of 2500 in respect of monies owing by the defendant on a credit agreement held by the defendant with New day under account number xxxxx upon which the defendant failed to maintain payments.
2. A default notice was served upon the defendant and has not been complied with.
3. The balance owed was assigned from capital sec to the claimant and the defendant has been notified of the assignment by letter.

Lowel Solicitors

[Lawangeen]

In the Northampton County Court Business Centre
Claim No.
Lowell Portfolio CLAIMANT
AND
xxxxxxx DEFENDANT

DEFENCE
1. The Defendant received the claim number xxxx from the Northampton County Court Business Centre, NN1 2LH issued on date xxxx.
2. Each and Every allegation in the claimants’ statement of case is denied unless specifically admitted in this defence.
3. This claim is for a Credit agreement regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
4. It is denied that the Defendant entered into an agreement with Capital Sec
4. The Defendant does not recognise the debt as the Claimants statement of case is vague and fails to give adequate information to enable the Defendant to properly assess their position.
5. The Claimant’s solicitor wrote to the Defendant on date 04/02/2019 stated the alleged debt without any proper supporting documents.
6. On 05/03/2019 the Defendant replied and submitted request via recorded delivery along with a postal order in sum of the statutory fee of £1 pursuant to S. 77-79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 for copies of the agreements, copies of all statements since inception of the account, in order to assess the breakdown of the alleged debt and to enable me to properly assess my position with regards the claim.
7. The Claimant’s Solicitor did not reply back and the Defendant assumed that the letter might have lost in the post.
8. On 18/03/2019 the Defendant again submitted the same request as stated above in Para # 6.
9.On 18/03/2019 also I made a request for inspection of documents mentioned in the claimants statement of case under Civil Procedure Rule 31.14 to SL.


10.In addition, 0n 18/03/2019 the Defendant requested the Claimant’s Solicitor to provide any proof of original contract under the contracts Act 1999 Section 1, Sub-Sections 1-3 which stipulates a third party must have been expressly identified in the original contract you signed.
11. The Claimant’s Solicitor failed to provide it.

12. On 22/03/2019 the Claimant’s Solicitor responded to the Defendant and agreed to an extension to the time period allowed for filing of the defence under CPR 15.5 to allow the Claimants additional time to produce the relevant documentation to evidence their claim, however they have failed to do so.
13. On 02/04/2019 the Claimant’s Solicitor responded further to the Defendant but again failed to state the alleged debt with proper supporting documents.

14. Accordingly the Claimant has failed to comply with s78 (1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and by virtue of s78 (6) Consumer Credit Act 1974 cannot enforce the agreement.
15. The Claimants statement of case states that the account was assigned from Capital Sec to Lowel Portfolio and notice given to the Defendant. The Defendant does not recall receiving notice of this assignment.
16. Had the Defendant have received notice from the Claimant he would have raised a complaint at the time. Therefore, the Claimant is required to strict prove that Notice of assignment was served upon the Defendant.
17 If the alleged agreement has been assigned by New Day to Capital Sec I have received no notice of such assignment and The Claimant should evidence that the agreement was legally assigned firstly to Capital Sec , and subsequently to themselves. It is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82 A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
18. The Defendant is not aware of any amount owed to New Day .

19. It is denied that Capital Sec served any Default notice on the Defendant pursuant to s87 Consumer Credit Act 1974.The Defendant does not recall receiving any notice of default from New Day .The Claimant is required to strict prove that a compliant Default Notice was served upon the Defendant. . The Claimant is required to prove that the any Default notice relied upon complied with the requirements of s88(4A) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and that the notice was in the prescribed form as required by The Consumer Credit Enforcement Default and Termination Notice Regulations 1983.

20. Under Civil Procedure Rule 16.5 (4) where the claim includes a money claim, a defendant shall be taken to require that any allegation relating to the amount of money claimed be proved unless he expressly admits the allegation. Therefore, it is expected that the Claimant be required to prove the allegation that the money is owed as claimed.

21. The Defendant respectfully requests the court to order the Claimants to provide all the necessary documentation, a full statement of account from inception, showing how the amount being claimed in this case has been calculated, a copy of the original agreement and terms or documents mentioned in that Agreement , a copy of any and all deeds and notices of assignment, termination and default notices , in order for the Defendant to fully plead his case else the Claim should stand struck out.



21. In the event that the relevant documents are received from the Claimant, the Defendant will then be in a position to amend his defence, and would ask that the Claimants bear the costs of the amendment.
22. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief as claimed or at all.



Statement of Truth
The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence are true.
Signed
Dated

[Amethyst]

Hi Amethyst...
The Particulars of the Claim are
1. The claim is for the sum of 2500 in respect of monies owing by the defendant on a credit agreement held by the defendant with New day under account number xxxxx upon which the defendant failed to maintain payments.
2. A default notice was served upon the defendant and has not been complied with.
3. The balance owed was assigned from capital sec to the claimant and the defendant has been notified of the assignment by letter.

Lowel Solicitors

They are really getting less informative with these claims.... New day have loads of different products so could be anything ffs. No details of default date or who the heckerslike capital sec are and how it got from new day to capital sec.... lots of things to pick at anyway. I'll have a look over the defence - just fancied a rant at the particulars first lol.

[Amethyst]

Para 7 - don't say you assumed letter lost - just that they didn't reply after x days then go to para 8 reiterating the request

Check through and stick to either first ( I, me etc) or third person ( the Defendant, he etc ) all the way through.

para 18 - add that new day is a bit vague and they appear to have many different cards and catalogues under the company name and the claimant has not given you enough detail to know what the alleged original debt could be.

para 19 - split it - deny default from capital sec - then deny default from new day


Then I think we're getting there

[Lawangeen]

Hi Amethyst thanks a lot for your quick response and suggestion.
So para 19. Should i use the word " the defendant deny receiving any default notice from the New day Or The defendant does not recall receiving any notice of default from New day.

a bit silly question but sorry for it because of the Law wording to use it properly.

[Lawangeen]

Also i received 02 April a letter from the Claimant solicitor stated that the acknowledge receipt of your request made under CPR 31 and confirm we are currently liaising with our client for the relevant documentation.
We confirm that upon receipt of the documents we agree to a further 28 days extension in accordance with cpr 15.1 in order to file your defence.
AND THEN
I received another letter on 08/04 from the SL on it there is only one fig of 2500 and claim number.

[Lawangeen]

Also if i amend para # 14
like
The Claimant has failed to comply with [s77 (1) / s 78 (1)] Consumer Credit Act 1974 and by virtue of [s77 (4) / s 78 (6)] Consumer Credit Act 1974 cannot enforce the agreement.

for the reason related to:

18. NewDay Limited is a bit vague and they appear to have many different cards and catalogues under the company name and the claimant has not given me enough detail to know what the alleged original debt could be.

But the particular of claim is "a credit agreement"
Or
it is okay like

14. Accordingly the Claimant has failed to comply with s78 (1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and by virtue of s78 (6) Consumer Credit Act 1974 cannot enforce the agreement.

[Amethyst]

Ok hang fire I'll reword it for you a bit later on xx

[Lawangeen]

Thanks Amethyst and I will be waiting..

[Amethyst]

In the Northampton County Court Business Centre
Claim No.
Lowell Portfolio CLAIMANT
AND
xxxxxxx DEFENDANT

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant received the claim number xxxx from the Northampton County Court Business Centre, NN1 2LH issued on date xxxx.

2. Each and Every allegation in the claimants’ statement of case is denied unless specifically admitted in this defence.

3. This claim is for a Credit agreement regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

4. The Claimant's Particulars of claim state "The claim is for the sum of £2500 in respect of monies owing by the defendant on a credit agreement held by the defendant with New day under account number xxxxx upon which the defendant failed to maintain payments." This is denied.

5. The Defendant does not recognise the company or account number given. The claim is vague in that New Day appear to operate multiple financial products including catalogues and credit cards and the Defendant is unaware of the exact nature of the debt being claimed.

6. On 05/03/2019 the Defendant replied to a letter from the Claimant and submitted a formal request for a copy of the agreement pursuant to S. 77-79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 . The Defendant enclosed a postal order of £1 for payment of the statutory fee. No response was received.

7 . On 18/03/2019 the Defendant further submitted the request detailed in paragraph 6.

8. On 18/03/2019 the Defendant further made a request for inspection of documents mentioned in the claimants statement of case under Civil Procedure Rule 31.14 to the Claimant's Solicitors. The Defendant requested xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx .

10.In addition, 0n 18/03/2019 the Defendant requested the Claimant’s Solicitor to provide any proof of original contract under the contracts Act 1999 Section 1, Sub-Sections 1-3 which stipulates a third party must have been expressly identified in the original contract you signed.
11. The Claimant’s Solicitor failed to provide it.

12. On 22/03/2019 the Claimant’s Solicitor responded to the Defendant and agreed to an extension to the time period allowed for filing of the defence under CPR 15.5 to allow the Claimants additional time to produce the relevant documentation to evidence their claim, however they have failed to do so and the Defendant remains in the dark as to the origin of the alleged debt.

13. Accordingly the Claimant has failed to comply with s77(1) or s78 (1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and by virtue of s77(4) or s78 (6) Consumer Credit Act 1974 cannot enforce the agreement.

14. The Claimant has also failed to comply with a formal request made pursuant to CPR 31.14 and has provided none of the requested documents despite mentioning them in their particulars of claim.

15. The Claimants statement of case states that the account was assigned from Capital Sec to Lowel Portfolio and notice given to the Defendant. The Defendant does not recall receiving notice of this assignment.

16. Had the Defendant have received notice from the Claimant he would have raised a complaint at the time. Therefore, the Claimant is required to strict prove that Notice of assignment was served upon the Defendant.

17. The Claimant has not pleaded whether any agreement was assigned from New Day to Capital Sec. The Defendant has received no notice of such assignment and the Claimant is put to proof of the chain of assignment. It is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82 A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

18. It is denied that Capital Sec served any Default notice on the Defendant pursuant to s87 Consumer Credit Act 1974.

19. It is denied that New Day served any Default notice on the Defendant pursuant to s87 Consumer Credit Act 1974.

20.The Claimant is required to strict prove that a compliant Default Notice was served upon the Defendant. The Claimant is required to prove that the any Default notice relied upon complied with the requirements of s88(4A) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and that the notice was in the prescribed form as required by The Consumer Credit Enforcement Default and Termination Notice Regulations 1983.

21. Under Civil Procedure Rule 16.5 (4) where the claim includes a money claim, a defendant shall be taken to require that any allegation relating to the amount of money claimed be proved unless he expressly admits the allegation. Therefore, it is expected that the Claimant be required to prove the allegation that the money is owed as claimed. To date the Claimant has failed to show how the claim has arisen.

22. The Defendant respectfully requests the court to order the Claimants to provide all the necessary documentation, a full statement of account from inception, showing how the amount being claimed in this case has been calculated, a copy of the original agreement and terms or documents mentioned in that Agreement , a copy of any and all deeds and notices of assignment, termination and default notices , in order for the Defendant to fully plead his case else the Claim should stand struck out.

23. In the event that the relevant documents are received from the Claimant, the Defendant will then be in a position to amend his defence, and would ask that the Claimants bear the costs of the amendment.

22. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief as claimed or at all.



Statement of Truth
The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence are true.
Signed
Dated