me v aktiv kapital removing defaults

[Curlyben]

Re: me v aktiv kapital removing defaults

yep that's it.

Fill in both the AQ and N244 and take them to court and ask their advice.
After all they are there to help.
They wont comment, but can guide you.

[rubmilljess]

Re: me v aktiv kapital removing defaults

thanks curlyben you have been amazing

could you help me with the wording with the AQ and N244 as I am not very good at putting things in writing.

I am amending the claim to the agreements not being illegible and statue barred - how do I answer aktiv kapital when they state the defaults registered by the OC.

sorry for all the questions

xx

[WendyB]

Re: me v aktiv kapital removing defaults

You need to add in those points to the POC. Try revising it then post it up and someone will advise

[Curlyben]

Re: me v aktiv kapital removing defaults

No worries.
So your amended claim needs to include:

illegible agreements (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents)Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1557)
Statute Barred under s5 limitations
ZERO assignment documentation
ZERO default notices under s87
Breach of s78 CCA as they are bound by it as defined in s189.

Best to quantify the damage.
Don't forget your costs as well.

You also need to rethink/reword points 4 & 5

I'd also include orders under CPR31.6 for disclosure of documents.

As for the AQ, should be quite straightforward..

This might help:

Allocation Questionnaires - An introduction

From the moment your claim starts in the court, the emphasis will be on moving to a hearing as soon as possible.

If you have followed our guide to claiming then you will have already attempted to reach a settlement without the court's involvement but the Allocation Questionnaire is the final chance to reach settlement via discussion.

WHAT DOES ALLOCATION MEAN?

The courts recognise that all cases vary and will require different timescales for hearings. To cater for this diversity, the rules create 3 different categories of case management - TRACKS. The AQs, along with the original claim form and any defence, will help a Judge to determine the track for your case. This process is known as the allocation.

WHAT IS A TRACK?

The 3 case management categories are termed tracks;

SMALL CLAIMS TRACK

• For claim values up to £5,000 (excluding injury or housing matters)

FAST TRACK

• For claim values between £5,000 and £15,000
• Where the case can be heard in one day or less

MULTI-TRACK

• Cases which fall outside of the above scenarios

WHAT ELSE DO I NEED TO KNOW?

An allocation questionnaire will be sent to both sides, but only if the defendant submits a defence.

• You have 14 days from receipt of the AQ to return it to the court shown
• Failure to meet the deadline could see your case being struck out
• There is a fee* if your claim exceeds £1,500 in value
• You must return payment with the form
• Failure to pay the fee may result in your case being struck out

* The fee is £35 if small claims track or £200 if fast or multi track, but you may not have to pay if you are in receipt of certain state benefits.


DO I HAVE THE CORRECT FORM?

There are 2 types of Allocation Questionnaires, form N149 and N150.

N149 should be issued for claims that are considered likely to be handled by the Small Claims Track, and N150 for more complex or higher value claims. Both are shown below.

The N149 is very straight forward - in fact the AQ itself, being a 'multi-purpose' document, is not really tailored to the needs of a small claims case.

Since the N150 is usually distributed for claims which are likely to fall outside of the scope of Small Claims Track, it is slightly more in-depth and has a few more sections. However, do not be worried if you receive one and your claim is under £5,000 - it could just be a mistake. There is no harm in completing one of these for smaller claims...

[rubmilljess]

Re: me v aktiv kapital removing defaults

thankyou sooooo much curlyben will get on with the forms now.

(((hugs))))

xx

[Curlyben]

Re: me v aktiv kapital removing defaults

Post them up once you've done as we'll go over them

[rubmilljess]

Re: me v aktiv kapital removing defaults

Amended POC

The Claimant was alleged to have held accounts with the Defendant, numbered XXXX (account 1), XXXX (account 2) and XXXX (account 3).

Following extensive correspondence between the Claimant and the Defendant, the Defendant has failed to supply the default notices under s87. Breach of s78 CCA as they are bound by it as defined in s189.

The Defendant has failed to supply assignment documentation.

The Defendant has supplied illegible agreements (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1557)

The account are Statue Barred under s5 limitations.

The Claimant has suffered damage, namely unable to obtain any credit for business purposes and an increase in Interest rates and monthly payments made to other Creditors, due to the adverse credit information since being recorded by the Defendant.

The Claimant respectfully seeks;
a) A declaration that the debt is unenforceable under the Consumer Credit Act 1974;

b) Rectification, blocking, erasure or destruction of the inaccurate data, which the Court can order under s.14 Data Protection Act 1998 – including details passed to the Credit Reference Agencies.

c) Costs and damages at the discretion of the Court.

[Curlyben]

Re: me v aktiv kapital removing defaults

Good, but needs fleshing out.
You need to reference your s78 request and their failure to comply until action was filed and hence you reasons for amending POC.

They may well be SB'd, but you haven't mentioned when the last acknowledgement was.

Quantify the damage suffered.

declaration under what section of CCA ??

You want complete removal of the information mentioned, NOTHING else will do.

Remember detail is king.

[rubmilljess]

Re: me v aktiv kapital removing defaults

Hi Curlyben amended POC I still havent worked out costs and damages.

I would like to seek the Court’s permission to amend my original claim due to the Defendants now supplying the applications/agreements with their defence.

Originally, I requested the alleged agreements, default notices, notice of assignments and statements of the accounts from the Defendants the first time was on 23rd August 2007. The Defendant failed to comply with my Request and the only documents furnished by the Defendant was in their defence which I received on 6th December 2008.
The Claimant was alleged to have held accounts with the Defendant, numbered XXXX (account 1), XXXX (account 2) and XXXX (account 3).
Following extensive correspondence between the Claimant and the Defendant, the Defendant has failed to supply the default notices under s87. Breach of s78 CCA as they are bound by it as defined in s189.
The Defendant has failed to supply assignment documentation.
The Defendant has supplied illegible agreements (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1557)
The agreements are unenforceable due to being out of time as defined under Limitations Act s5. Last acknowledgement was early 2002.
The Claimant has suffered damage, namely unable to obtain any credit for business purposes and an increase in Interest rates and monthly payments made to other Creditors, due to the adverse credit information since being recorded by the Defendant.

The Claimant respectfully seeks;
a) Complete removal of the defaults mentioned, which the Court can order under s.14 Data Protection Act 1998 – including details passed to the Credit Reference Agencies.

b) Costs and damages at the discretion of the Court.

[Curlyben]

Re: me v aktiv kapital removing defaults

Alot better there.
You need to refer to when you made your CCA request with dates.

Could really do with a bit more flesh, as it's a little lacking in details.

[rubmilljess]

Re: me v aktiv kapital removing defaults

Hi

I was in court this morning with Aktiv.
Their defence and witness statement contained lots of mistakes which initially I was relying upon to tear their defence to shreds but the Judge dismissed these as simple admin errors!!!!!!

However I spoke in laymans terms and played upon the judges natural good nature. It was hanging in the balance whether or not the judge believed me or the defence but in the end it simply came down to the fact no Default Notice could be produced and the judge ruled that all three defaults be removed from the files of all credit reference agencies.

:faint2: RESULT!!!!!

Unfortunately I did not list any claim for damages on the court forms so need some advice regarding claiming for damages.

RMJ
xx
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
A BIG thank you to Curlyben for all your help with the claim forms.

Many Thanks

[Curlyben]

Re: me v aktiv kapital removing defaults


Nice one.
Way to go..

[Sapphire]

Re: me v aktiv kapital removing defaults

Congratulations and well done.

[ajpatty]

Re: me v aktiv kapital removing defaults

I just got call from Aktiv Kapital! I have done the whole burry head sand. I have debt with LTSB. It was passed to Thames Ltd. They agreed 100 month. I put it into a bank account, called them each month to say it had gone in. Then suddenly, they said they had past the debt to someone else???? Didnt know who, or who to get in touch with. Then I have jsut left it for 2 1/2 years. Not a peep out of anyone.

Wanna sort it, but scared of calling AKTIV. Whats the advice?? Please help :o(

AJPATTY

[WendyB]

Re: me v aktiv kapital removing defaults

Hi AJP

Best thing would be to start your own thread. Give as much info and detail as you can, including dates, amounts owing, amounts paid etc, and background ifo, then we'll be in a better position to help.

And welcome to Beagles.