Capquest Proposed Direction help please?

[nemesis45]

Re: Capquest Proposed Direction help please?

If a re-constituted agreement is provided, then the balance of probability can be argued (although that won't be good enough for a CPR 31.14 request.)

But not complying with a CCA request isn't up for a "probability" argument; if one hasn't been provided CCA 1974 law says the Claimant can't use enforcement.

As you have said judges don't always "stick to" the letter of the law.
Why do you think so many CC claims for debts are decided on the evidence of " recon" agreements now? Answer the judge accepts that a liability subsists.
I've been dealing with such matters for many years and I advise from experience of many Court Claims at all court levels.
I agree with Flaming Parrot an " Unless Order" i.e. order to produce documents to be relied upon and unless complied with the claim is to be struck out is the best way forward,

[siferetto]

Re: Capquest Proposed Direction help please?

If you have as many years as you claim, then you should understand that having a"recon" agreement supplied is totally different to having nothing provided.

[nemesis45]

Re: Capquest Proposed Direction help please?

Knowing Capquest of old I've seen many " last minute " recons produced and debts enforced.
I believe Flaming Parrot is right an " Unless order" is the right approach.

A judge may well " take a dim view" of tactics in dealing with this.

[siferetto]

Re: Capquest Proposed Direction help please?

Again, producing something as opposed to nothing is a, totally, separate scenario. (I'm not sure why you are persisting with the "recon" argument)

And don't be naive, all Court work is based on one "tactic" or another. Everyone just tries to use the best one to their advantage.

[Amethyst]

Re: Capquest Proposed Direction help please?

My point is backed up by still reading threads where posters haven't had the CCA request complied with and still LOSE in Court as DJ's are still ruling in favour of a Claimaint in dispute?

Could you point me in the direction of those please. ( just catching up on the thread )

all Court work is based on one "tactic" or another. Everyone just tries to use the best one to their advantage.

Indeed, I usually liken it to a game of chess.

Not complying with a CCA request isn't up for a "probability" argument; if one hasn't been provided CCA 1974 law says the Claimant can't use enforcement.

Agreed.

A recon does meet the requirements of the CCA in majority of current claims, if accurate.

I like an Unless Order in fast track claims as it gives the Claimant a time limit. However I also like defending on no CCA.

If you get the agreement under your CCA request and it is non complaint, then defend on that basis.

If there's no CCA defend on that basis.

If the CCA is complaint and received pre defence then I'd go Unless Order for the default notice, agreement etc.

[siferetto]

Re: Capquest Proposed Direction help please?

There are others but this was the last one I was reading HERE

[siferetto]

Re: Capquest Proposed Direction help please?

Could I ask for a bit further advice on this strange case please? I made an N244 Application to Strike Out Capquest's clain last November as no documents of any sort received. Didn't hear anything from the Court (or Capquest) until some documents dropped through the door from Capquest just after Xmas.

In the bundle there was a copy of an agreement, three sets of printed T&C's and a DN that had totally been redacted of all the relevant names and dates? Capquest also requested a "Consent Order" to be signed which they would hold off on seeking Judgement if agreed. Now here's where I need the advice.............................

Firstly, I was subsequently contacted by the Court to say their had been a delay (didn't say why) on my Strike Out application but it was now being heard late Feb at a Hearing for which 15 minutes have been allocated. Secondly, the "agreement" Capquest have sent clearly states it is for a "MASTERCARD" account when the statements provided are for a VISA card account. There are other problems such as the T&C's sent having addresses on at which I didn't live at until two years after the account defaulted?

So my question is, do I notify Capquest of this error (to deter them opposing the Strike Out at Court) or is it better to just turn up at Court and point out the wrong agreement has been sent?

[nemesis45]

Re: Capquest Proposed Direction help please?

If the alleged agreement is intended as a "reconstituted " copy then it fails if the Terms & Conditions are for another card type.
The address MUST be the address you lived at when the agreement was signed.

You don't tell Capquest how the "agreement fails" in detail '

Just a short letter stating that you are aware of a number of defects with the alleged agreement and to save court time and costs you suggest that Capquest withdraws its opposition to the strike out.

nem

[siferetto]

**Capquest Claim Struck Out**

Just to update this thread, for anyone in same position, Capquest claim has been struck out this morning!

Having made an application to strike out I dropped a clanger in asking it to be struck out as documents had not supplied under 31.14 in over five months, when I should have said if documents not supplied within 7 days. Because of this a hearing was arranged for today to hear my application (which was two months after my application.)

Capquest, in the meantime, managed to provide an "agreement", a redacted Default Notice and a set of statements. Unfortunately, for Capquest the statements they had provided showed that the account they were claiming on was a "Mastercard" from 2008 but, on inception in 2005, had been a "Visa Card" account (it had been swapped over a few years after the account was opened)

As they had provided an agreement for an Amazon Mastercard, but dated around the time the account was opened, it couldn't, therefore, be the right agreement as it was for a different product. I notified the Court and Capquest of this in an additional witness statement yesterday. Their representative in Court made a beeline for me today saying they were getting the hearing adjourned to investigate. I won't repeat my response but he didn't say anything else to me after I had made it.

Surprisingly, the length of time didn't seem to worry the DJ that much and I thought I was up the creek when he started quoting CPR 3.4 reasons to strike out (and the other side chipped in it wasn't an "unless order") But he wasn't impressed that Capquest hadn't paid to continue staying the claim and, as it appeared, what they had provided still wasn't the correct documents I managed to win through (and I did have to ask the DJ for a glass of his water as my mouth was that dry at one point I was smiling like one of the PG Tips monkeys!)

Now, here's a thing. I was quite happy to turn up and argue my case on the day. However, the cheeky b*****s at HL Legal had put in a claim for costs for having to attend the hearing! Because of this I stuck one in, too, for the costs of having to defend the claim (£685). Having lost, the other side did all they could to avoid the DJ giving me costs. Much looking through law books ensued until the DJ looked at the clock and said I'm awarding Mr E £400 costs. And that was that.

So I have to advice anyone else involved with Capquest to check every detail!

[nemesis45]

Re: **Capquest Claim Struck Out**

Well Done!!!
Yes a good lesson for all check, check and check again1

Nem.

[siferetto]

Re: Capquest Proposed Direction help please?

Just a footnote to the above strike out, Capquest originally issued two court claims for two different debts in November 2013 but to the wrong address. Both claims were sent back to the Court with the info they had been sent to the wrong address. The above claim still proceeded to a default judgement (as the Court never re-issued them to the correct address) but the second claim became stayed as Capquest must not have proceeded with it?

Having successfully struck out the above claim, I received notification this week they had wrote to the Court to discontinue the other claim, too, and were removing the default info from my credit reference file? I can understand why they have discontinued as they never provided any agreement, but any idea why they are removing CRA info, too?

[nemesis45]

Re: Capquest Proposed Direction help please?

Hi, Capquest have done this before without explaining why. best just to be happy that the have done so.

A good result all round!!!.

nem