Discontinued case looms again.

[Pumpytums]

Hi,
I wonder if anyone can give me any advice. In 2009 I had financial difficulties went to CAB etc. In the middle of 2009 one of my accounts was sold to Link, they proceeded to court and discontinued. The problem was prior to selling the account the OC never issued a DN, I actually wrote to the OC and Link questioning why I had never received one. I submitted a defence LInk tried for a summary judgement and failed as they hadn't produced the documents I requested namely the DN.

In the middle of 2010 I found out why when I received my SAR a Default Notice had never been produced.

The OC supposedly repurchased the account and began issuing statements adding Intererst, charges and oddly PPI. Basically they behaved like nothing had ever happened, the account has now been passed to another DCA (not sold) who are threatening court action. I have written multiple letters to the OC demanding an explanation for their prior actions I have received only basic reply's and been fobbed off.

Any comments

Thanks

Pumpytums

[WendyB]

Re: Discontinued case looms again.

Not sure if you may be able to use CPR 38.7, abuse of process?

[Pinky69]

Re: Discontinued case looms again.

The account is in dispute and the OC sold it without issuing a DN. If the OC did take you to court, all they could claim would be arrears up to the point of default (they ruled themselves out of payments after the point of default by selling the account without issuing a DN) and since they do not know when the default was, the arrears would be pretty difficult to prove. If I were you I would simply ignore them and let them pass the parcel until it disappears.

[Pumpytums]

Re: Discontinued case looms again.

Thanks Pinky & Wendy B,

Thanks for your help


“A claimant who discontinues a claim needs the permission of the court to make another claim against the same defendant if –

a)he discontinued the claim after the defendant filed a defence; and

b)the other claim arises out of facts which are the same or substantially the same as those relating to the discontinued claim.”

So basically the claim would be the same. Thanks.

Yes the arrears would be difficult to calculate. Basically they sold a "Live" account to the DCA who then carried on to Northampton in the full knowledge the Claim was vexatious.

The icing on the cake was that the DCA owner decided to add a CRF entry showing a large Defaulted. Oddly they issued it only after I received a Claim form, how convenient. The OC has also been busy trashing my credit file with large red numbers in a separate entry for the same account (no big D yet though). Even more bizarre the OC has assured me the Defaulted was removed, so I could probably claim damage to credit to as it's still there.

It's quite a list. They are incompetent beyond belief.

Pumpytums

[WendyB]

Re: Discontinued case looms again.

I used 38.7 against Bryan Carter. If I remember correctly, I used it twice! I'll have a look on my thread and see if I can find the letter I sent.

[WendyB]

Re: Discontinued case looms again.

Here we go

N1 served AGAIN - Bryan Carter - SORTED AGAIN !!! - Legal Beagles Consumer Forum

post #52 has the original letter I sent ( although my prototype a few posts before that is more amusing lol)

then it starts all over again from about post #174

[Pumpytums]

Re: Discontinued case looms again.

Hi Wendy,
thanks for the Link, I had a read through your thread thanks very much.

Nice job in seeing Mr C off, what a loser.

Pumpytums

[Pumpytums]

Re: Discontinued case looms again.

Well the postman has been and left a nice claim form.

Off we go again.

The claim is basically the same as the one issued originally.



Pumpytums

[Pumpytums]

Re: Discontinued case looms again.

Just an update I submitted a defence basically saying that S38.7 apply's and that they have not sought the permission of the court. I sent them an offer to discontinue if they pay my costs. They have replied saying that the Claimant has never previously issued a claim against me.

The CPR rule 38.7 was to prevent Claimants discontinuing then re-issuing on a whim, basically they believe that by transferring ownership via assignment they somehow avoid this rule. The rule states a Claimant not a party the Claimants position before the court is exactly the same in both claims only the name is different. In my opinion is a complete abuse of process.

Pumpytums

[CleverClogs]

Re: Discontinued case looms again.

Just an update I submitted a defence basically saying that S38.7 apply's and that they have not sought the permission of the court. I sent them an offer to discontinue if they pay my costs. They have replied saying that the Claimant has never previously issued a claim against me.

I hope your defence also stated that the OC had previously failed to produce a default notice and that was the reason their previous claim had been discontinued.

The CPR rule 38.7 was to prevent Claimants discontinuing then re-issuing on a whim, basically they believe that by transferring ownership via assignment they somehow avoid this rule. The rule states a Claimant not a party the Claimants position before the court is exactly the same in both claims only the name is different. In my opinion is a complete abuse of process.

In my opinion, the OC are a waste of oxygen and an unnecessary source of carbon dioxide. Who are they?

[Pumpytums]

Re: Discontinued case looms again.

I hope your defence also stated that the OC had previously failed to produce a default notice and that was the reason their previous claim had been discontinued.


In my opinion, the OC are a waste of oxygen and an unnecessary source of carbon dioxide. Who are they?

The OC is our Spanish fiend (not a typo) you know the one, their CEO nearly got banged up for lying about money owed.

Pumpytums

[CleverClogs]

Re: Discontinued case looms again.

The OC is our Spanish fiend (not a typo) you know the one, their CEO nearly got banged up for lying about money owed.

Oh, them.

You mean the alleged bank that, by comparison, makes the RBS seem almost competent.

Banco Salamander.

[Algee]

Re: Discontinued case looms again.

I know that this is taking it away slightly from the original subject, but, what if the original creditor submits an invalid DN and then sells the account to a DCA. Does this put the account into the same position as no DN served?

Alan

[Pumpytums]

Re: Discontinued case looms again.

I know that this is taking it away slightly from the original subject, but, what if the original creditor submits an invalid DN and then sells the account to a DCA. Does this put the account into the same position as no DN served?

Alan

Hi Alan,
without a valid DN been issued the DCA will have no right of action they will not be able to enforce the agreement in court. That's not saying they won't try but ultimately they need to have served a valid DN. Always remember issuing a claim isn't enforcement only obtaining a CCJ is, this seems perverse to me but it's what a judge said. I'm unsure if the DCA can issue a new DN as they will have taken all your rights under the agreement away such as paying by instalments etc. I would chance my arm that it's upto the OC to issue a valid DN. If the agreement was assigned between creditors say Alliance to MBNA then MBNA could issue a DN but OC to DCA I don't think so.

I would say not serving a DN is worse than serving a dodgy DN, technically they could issue a new one during proceedings if they requested a stay. If they haven't issued one at all then they have no right of action in the first place. That's my take on the sorry mess anyway.

The only slightly dodgy area is as with the Brandon case (under appeal?) that as Amex agreements have a clause that basically says they can terminate at any time and demand the whole balance thus short circuiting the CCA. Have a read of your agreement mine contained no such term.

Pumpytums

[leclerc]

Re: Discontinued case looms again.

Brandon case is under appeal: Case Tracker for Civil Appeals