Tweet
Hello everyone!
Earlier this year I received a county claim form issued by Restons on behalf of Arrow Global for an overdraft debt.
For a lay person I like to think I am reasonably "savvy" so I was able to deal with the matter myself. I have very good grounds for defending the claim. I would emphasise these are solid grounds, not just wishful thinking on my part through ignorance of the law.
Having received a letter before action, I wrote to Restons and invited them to furnish me with all the particulars. I got a letter back telling me that they were not obliged to send me anything as I should have the relevant records myself. As a matter of fact I do because I'm the kind of person that keeps everything. My aim was to see if they had any documents and if they actually knew what the dispute was about it!
The only inference that I can draw from their correspondence is that neither they nor their client know any more than my purported debt is just a number on a list of accounts they purchased from the bank and therefore it must be correct! It is a rather naive and arrogant assumption!
I duly submitted a defence in which I denied everything and in which I also asked Restons to furnish all the requisite documents. I also stated I reserved my right to amend my defence if I received a properly pleaded claim. The court acknowledged my defence and said that the claimant had one month to decide if it wished to proceed.
Having heard nothing further for several months, I contacted the court last week and they told me that the claim was stayed in view of the claimant's failure to indicate that it wished to continue. Bearing in mind that the total sum involved is only in the region of £700 (circa £500 for the debt plus costs of around £200) , I believe that if they should later decide to continue, they will have to make an on-notice application, which I believe will cost them £255? I am basing these comments on the reply I got from the court, so I hope my interpretation is correct. I hope that they can't restart the matter at zero cost simply by writing to the court?
Of course, now the new pre-action protocols are in place, debt purchasers and the law firms that act for them cannot behave in this way in future. They have to be "up front" with all the necessary documentation prior to issue. This process is going to prove to be extremely burdensome and costly for them and they will also discover on many occasions that the alleged debtor had perfectly valid reasons for not paying the account at the time.
For my part, I am quite happy to go to court to argue my case. My defence to the actual dispute is strong, even though at this stage I haven't revealed it due to the claimant's failure to actually explain their case. The claim form just says that I owe money, without any degree of explanation or documents in support. I also know that as the claim is only for £700 in total, it would cost them more to attend court than they would get back, especially if they have to pay a further £255 to remove the stay and make the claim live again.
This, however, gives rise to a further issue for the purported debt still shows up on my credit file as a default. I believe there needs to be a change in the law to require firms that issue claims and then abandon them to remove default from a person's credit file.
Essentially, given the over-inflated importance of credit scoring these days, debt purchasers and the law firms that act of them are effectively blackmailing people to pay debts that they don't owe simply by threatening to damage their credit rating. The defaults stay in place even if they fail to get a judgment, be it through abandoning the case or actually losing in court. This is an issue that needs seriously looking at. If necessary there should be a change in the law.
I also predict a much less rosy future for debt purchasers going forward, as the banks are far more careful these days as to whom and how much they are prepared to lend. Far fewer people will default in future. That fact coupled with the new pre-action protocols is going to seriously undermine these firms. They may be financially robust at present, but if you want an example of how things can quickly go wrong, look at Wonga!
My experience of debt purchasers so far is that if they think you are going to give them a good fight, they back off. For anything in the small claims track band it is worth pushing them all the way if you have any grounds at all for doing so, however weak. Put them to as much work and expense as possible, because there is a good chance that they will quit.
Earlier this year I received a county claim form issued by Restons on behalf of Arrow Global for an overdraft debt.
For a lay person I like to think I am reasonably "savvy" so I was able to deal with the matter myself. I have very good grounds for defending the claim. I would emphasise these are solid grounds, not just wishful thinking on my part through ignorance of the law.
Having received a letter before action, I wrote to Restons and invited them to furnish me with all the particulars. I got a letter back telling me that they were not obliged to send me anything as I should have the relevant records myself. As a matter of fact I do because I'm the kind of person that keeps everything. My aim was to see if they had any documents and if they actually knew what the dispute was about it!
The only inference that I can draw from their correspondence is that neither they nor their client know any more than my purported debt is just a number on a list of accounts they purchased from the bank and therefore it must be correct! It is a rather naive and arrogant assumption!
I duly submitted a defence in which I denied everything and in which I also asked Restons to furnish all the requisite documents. I also stated I reserved my right to amend my defence if I received a properly pleaded claim. The court acknowledged my defence and said that the claimant had one month to decide if it wished to proceed.
Having heard nothing further for several months, I contacted the court last week and they told me that the claim was stayed in view of the claimant's failure to indicate that it wished to continue. Bearing in mind that the total sum involved is only in the region of £700 (circa £500 for the debt plus costs of around £200) , I believe that if they should later decide to continue, they will have to make an on-notice application, which I believe will cost them £255? I am basing these comments on the reply I got from the court, so I hope my interpretation is correct. I hope that they can't restart the matter at zero cost simply by writing to the court?
Of course, now the new pre-action protocols are in place, debt purchasers and the law firms that act for them cannot behave in this way in future. They have to be "up front" with all the necessary documentation prior to issue. This process is going to prove to be extremely burdensome and costly for them and they will also discover on many occasions that the alleged debtor had perfectly valid reasons for not paying the account at the time.
For my part, I am quite happy to go to court to argue my case. My defence to the actual dispute is strong, even though at this stage I haven't revealed it due to the claimant's failure to actually explain their case. The claim form just says that I owe money, without any degree of explanation or documents in support. I also know that as the claim is only for £700 in total, it would cost them more to attend court than they would get back, especially if they have to pay a further £255 to remove the stay and make the claim live again.
This, however, gives rise to a further issue for the purported debt still shows up on my credit file as a default. I believe there needs to be a change in the law to require firms that issue claims and then abandon them to remove default from a person's credit file.
Essentially, given the over-inflated importance of credit scoring these days, debt purchasers and the law firms that act of them are effectively blackmailing people to pay debts that they don't owe simply by threatening to damage their credit rating. The defaults stay in place even if they fail to get a judgment, be it through abandoning the case or actually losing in court. This is an issue that needs seriously looking at. If necessary there should be a change in the law.
I also predict a much less rosy future for debt purchasers going forward, as the banks are far more careful these days as to whom and how much they are prepared to lend. Far fewer people will default in future. That fact coupled with the new pre-action protocols is going to seriously undermine these firms. They may be financially robust at present, but if you want an example of how things can quickly go wrong, look at Wonga!
My experience of debt purchasers so far is that if they think you are going to give them a good fight, they back off. For anything in the small claims track band it is worth pushing them all the way if you have any grounds at all for doing so, however weak. Put them to as much work and expense as possible, because there is a good chance that they will quit.
Comment