Horsemad v Debenhams Storecard court papers - help!

[Curlyben]

Re: Horsemad v Debenhams Storecard court papers - help!

e-mail the pics please.
just the deed as it smells

[Curlyben]

Re: Horsemad v Debenhams Storecard court papers - help!

You mentioned faxing, does it scan to file as well ??

[Horsemad]

Re: Horsemad v Debenhams Storecard court papers - help!

Hi sorry just back online, had to go feed the gee gee's. Whats your email address? Don't know about scanning to file as well, possibly but will have to go into work to do it and that won't be till tomorrow.

[Horsemad]

Re: Horsemad v Debenhams Storecard court papers - help!

CB, emailed docs to you yesterday did you get them? Edited the pictures on photobucket for the deed of assignment and look better. Here are the links:

http://i392.photobucket.com/albums/p...2/PA180331.jpg
http://i392.photobucket.com/albums/p...PA180332-1.jpg
http://i392.photobucket.com/albums/p...PA180333-1.jpg
http://i392.photobucket.com/albums/p...PA180334-1.jpg
http://i392.photobucket.com/albums/p...PA180335-1.jpg

[Curlyben]

Re: Horsemad v Debenhams Storecard court papers - help!

Are BOTH signatures really the same ?!?!?!

[maruvian]

Re: Horsemad v Debenhams Storecard court papers - help!

Should this not state how much Cohens have paid for this debt..?? Yes they are the same, lol.

[Curlyben]

Re: Horsemad v Debenhams Storecard court papers - help!

Glad I'm not seeing things.
Well that fails to comply with Law of property s136

(1)Any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor (not purporting to be by way of charge only) of any debt or other legal thing in action, of which express notice in writing has been given to the debtor, trustee or other person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim such debt or thing in action, is effectual in law (subject to equities having priority over the right of the assignee) to pass and transfer from the date of such notice—
(a)the legal right to such debt or thing in action;
(b)all legal and other remedies for the same; and
(c)the power to give a good discharge for the same without the concurrence of the assignor:
Provided that, if the debtor, trustee or other person liable in respect of such debt or thing in action has notice—
(a)that the assignment is disputed by the assignor or any person claiming under him; or
(b)of any other opposing or conflicting claims to such debt or thing in action;he may, if he thinks fit, either call upon the persons making claim thereto to interplead concerning the same, or pay the debt or other thing in action into court under the provisions of the Trustee Act, 1925.

Also notification should of been sent to the debtor informing them of the assignment as per s196

(1)Any notice required or authorised to be served or given by this Act shall be in writing.
(2)Any notice required or authorised by this Act to be served on a lessee or mortgagor shall be sufficient, although only addressed to the lessee or mortgagor by that designation, without his name, or generally to the persons interested, without any name, and notwithstanding that any person to be affected by the notice is absent, under disability, unborn, or unascertained.
(3)Any notice required or authorised by this Act to be served shall be sufficiently served if it is left at the last-known place of abode or business in the United Kingdom of the lessee, lessor, mortgagee, mortgagor, or other person to be served, or, in case of a notice required or authorised to be served on a lessee or mortgagor, is affixed or left for him on the land or any house or building comprised in the lease or mortgage, or, in case of a mining lease, is left for the lessee at the office or counting-house of the mine.
(4)Any notice required or authorised by this Act to be served shall also be sufficiently served, if it is sent by post in a registered letter addressed to the lessee, lessor, mortgagee, mortgagor, or other person to be served, by name, at the aforesaid place of abode or business, office, or counting-house, and if that letter is not returned [by the postal operator (within the meaning of the Postal Services Act 2000) concerned] undelivered; and that service shall be deemed to be made at the time at which the registered letter would in the ordinary course be delivered.
(5)The provisions of this section shall extend to notices required to be served by any instrument affecting property executed or coming into operation after the commencement of this Act unless a contrary intention appears.
(6)This section does not apply to notices served in proceedings in the court.

So it looks like they are trying to pull a fast one here just to get the debt jugdemented..

[Horsemad]

Re: Horsemad v Debenhams Storecard court papers - help!

Hi, thank you both for your reply. Yes both the signatures are the same and dates and evrything else hand written. What should be my response. Have to have my defence in by tomorrow, so any advice on how I should proceed here would be gratefully appreciated.

[Amethyst]

Re: Horsemad v Debenhams Storecard court papers - help!

This one - http://i392.photobucket.com/albums/p...PA180335-1.jpg

whats it say at beginning of each sentence - a partner in ........... ? (that bit)

[Horsemad]

Re: Horsemad v Debenhams Storecard court papers - help!

Hiya, it says:

Executed as a Deed by
a partner in Ozannes, as a duly authorised
attorney for SANTANDER CARDS UK LTD

and then the same underneath but replaced by CL Finance Ltd.

Both signed by it looks like J Beoc

Thanks for your help.

[Amethyst]

Re: Horsemad v Debenhams Storecard court papers - help!

Thank you Bit odd isnt it they have same attorney but maybe thats just me being picky. I would guess both companies are allowed to have the same attorney.

Curls is a bit tied up today unfortunately.

however have a read of orforsters defence Legal Beagles - View Single Post - CL Finance/Howard Cohens, HELP! which I think covers a lot of points you need.

I'm having a read back through all your thread now.

29. I require the Claimant produce the Notice of Assignment and the Deed of Assignment to show that it is indeed valid and compliant with the Law of Property Act 1925 and further more I require the Claimant disclose proof of posting per s196 LoP Act 1925.

30. I refer to W F Harrison & Co Ltd v Burke and another - [1956] 2 All ER 169 where it was held that the Notice of Assignment was bad because the date of the assignment was wrongly stated therein and, therefore, the legal right to the debt under the hire-purchase agreement had not been assigned effectually at law within s 136(1) a of the Law of Property Act, 1925 and put the Claimant to strict proof that the assignment has been carried out correctly.

[Horsemad]

Re: Horsemad v Debenhams Storecard court papers - help!

Hi thanks for looking at this with me Amethyst, but the post you attached doesn't really apply to me as it has already been transferred to my local court and they have now complied with my CPR request even though Curlyben said that the deed of assignment is dodgy, he sent me a pm saying to go for abuse of pre court protocol and dodgy deed, I can put something together but not really sure how to word it
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
This is what he put, but what does he mean by LOP "namely failure under LoP (carp deed) and their abuse of pre-action etc..

[Amethyst]

Re: Horsemad v Debenhams Storecard court papers - help!

yep I can see that now, those two parts of LoP and the preaction abuse (Law of Property Act ) are what need to go in - I really am not very good on deed of assignments and pretty much only know as much as you do - If you draft something up based on what you have discussed with Curls so far, then Curly should be back about in the morning and we'll make sure its all worded correctly etc to get into court tmw. Does that sound like a bit more of a plan ?

[Horsemad]

Re: Horsemad v Debenhams Storecard court papers - help!

I'll have a go at putting something together and post it up and perhaps you can let me know your thoughts.

[Horsemad]

Re: Horsemad v Debenhams Storecard court papers - help!

Hello, am trying to cobble a Defence together but just re-read what the judge ordered previously

1. Claimant to send to Defendant by 20th October 2009 copies of :
a) Credit Agreement
b) Assignment Notice
c) Default Notice

2. In Default Claim struck out

3. Defence struck out & Defendant do file and serve a fully pleaded defence within 21 days of reciving above documents

4. In Default Claimant may enter judgement

5. This order has been made by the Court on its own initiative. The Parties attention is drawn to the right pursuant to CPR 3.3(4&5) to apply to have it set aside, varied or stayed within 7 days of this order.

Does this mean that I have 21 days from 20th October to file a fully pleaded defence??? Or should I still try and file my defence today??? Bit stuck without CB's guidance....