ME111 mortimer solicitor letter

[Kati]

Re: ME111 mortimer solicitor letter

:bump: Hi [MENTION=48938]drovers[/MENTION] ... sorry this has been missed
I'll bump up your post for you, so the other Beagles will see it xx

[Amethyst]

Re: ME111 mortimer solicitor letter

Judgment is http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1959.html

What kind of debt is your case ?

[drovers]

Re: ME111 mortimer solicitor letter

It is a credit card debt Amethyst.

[drovers]

Re: ME111 mortimer solicitor letter

Can I still go with the statue barred guys or is there any thing else I can do? Maybe they have taken the debt and I have signed no contract with them, so its not legal? I don't know. :tinysmile_cry_t:

[drovers]

Re: ME111 mortimer solicitor letter

Can I still go with the statue barred guys or is there any thing else I can do? Maybe they have taken the debt and I have signed no contract with them, so its not legal? I don't know. :tinysmile_cry_t:

[Kati]

Re: ME111 mortimer solicitor letter

I'm sure someone will be along soon drovers xx

[Kafka]

Re: ME111 mortimer solicitor letter

Did you send the CCA and CPR requests as instructed in post #3?
As the agreement was from 1999 its likely that they don't have the paperwork to proceed anyway.

[Kafka]

Re: ME111 mortimer solicitor letter

The case law cited is interesting, but there are two differences in my view.

Firstly, a lot of the debate was around the specific number of days around filing and service and whether these affected the Limitation period. Clearly that is not relevant here, because there are 3 years between the cause of action and termination (if their claims are correct of course).

Secondly, the contract was a complex one with special caveats, but yours was a simple credit card agreement, where the cause of action should be invoked - or at least pursued - after two missed contractual payments. From what I gather that should have happened in 2007, but for whatever reason, perhaps it did not.

Their claim seems to rest on the fact that they regard the cause of action as being the date of assignment to them in 2010 but in the POC thet state "...the agreement was terminated" but fail to give a date.

In breach of the agreement the defendant failed to make minimum payment due and the agreement was terminated. The agreement was assigned to the claimant on 20/08/2010.

The critical point here is the date of default, because that was the cause of action and they have effectively skipped over that to pretend that the termination came years later. Did you receive a Default Notice for this? What is the recorded date of default on your credit file?

I see this as a bluff by them to fool you into submission. With a SD defence the onus is on them to prove it is not SB, not on you to prove that it is.

[drovers]

Re: ME111 mortimer solicitor letter

Just to update, I have heard nothing back from them, so not sure what exactly is happening.

[FlamingParrot]

Re: ME111 mortimer solicitor letter

Just to update, I have heard nothing back from them, so not sure what exactly is happening.

As this thread is nearly a year old, can you refresh our memories?

Was this a claim where you submitted a defence last year and they didn't respond to your defence, so the claim was stayed and has been ever since?