More Northampton Nonsense

Good evening my fine friends,

After a long old rest away from these shenanigans I am motivated to go sleuthing and track you all down again that the old ship GOODF has run aground. And my reason for doing so?

Having not heard anything about any such issue for over 3 years I have received a bolt out of the blue claim form via the Northampton Court Business Centre (straight away that entity seems odd to me. Is that a real court?) from a claimant one PRA Group (UK) Ltd. and as you can imagine I spilled my Earl Grey!

Alleged origin of alleged debt: MBNA Credit Card
Original amount indicated: 2820.75
Amount claimed: 4166.80

(It is worth mentioning that they do not prefix these figures with any currency symbol, indicating them as I have above, does that have any significance?   )

So...It goes like this;

I went through the 3 letter process back in 2013 with the Estoppel being issued 18th April 2013 to a predecessor of this PRA Group (UK) Ltd, one Aktiv Kapital (UK) Limited, which from companies house and from their own address on the paperwork is the same company.

They failed to provide the information requested, producing an illegible photocopy of what they claim is an original agreement, photocopies of statements and nothing more. They further claimed that their assignment was 'absolute' but offered no paperwork as evidence of this.

Fast forward to June of 2014 and they began again under the guise of 'Tempus Solutions - a Trading style of Aktiv Kapital (UK) Limited'. Having moved house at this point and having gone through the process already without my request being met, I considered this to be more nonsense bully boy idiocy carried out by brainless bureaucrat Bertha's, and rested on my already derived paperwork.

Fast forward to October of 2014 and I receive a letter from Buchanan Clark and Wells spouting the same babble, and after one further letter from them it went cold. I have kept records of any of my correspondences with regard to this matter and going back find no responses from me to this company.

Now to Tuesday 17th October 2017, I receive the claim form.

Being somewhat surprised, I had a conversation with my partner as to whether any mail had come in the last weeks or months from any more unfamiliar sources than normal, and she said she had returned some letters to sender recently. This may be erroneous because we live in a rented property and receive mail with various names that are not ours with some frequency. In view of the receipt of the claim form this now cannot be helped if indeed those letters were correspondences from anything akin to the same entities now making claim against me.

I further investigated via our autistic son who has a habit of picking up mail with the intention of handing it to you himself and then it disappearing into his bombsite of a bedroom or elsewhere, to discover a letter mislaid from this PRA Group (UK) Limited, dated 11th May. Great!   . The letter states that the account was assigned to them on 6th November 2014.

According to the Pre-action Protocol, specifically part 3.1 a letter of claim should contain certain information. I will not list them here but you can find them out there on 'tinternet'.

The letter dated 11th May is entitled REDUCED SETTLEMENT OFFER. It provides no information of any interest charges above the original alleged figure £2820.75 (this time with a currency symbol), nor even that any will be considered, have been or are going to be applied nor is there any evidence of agreement or assignment beyond the claim of one.

They couldn't produce it back in 2013, they aren't producing it now.

Aktiv Kapital (UK) Limited ceased on 5th November 2014, to become PRA Group (UK) Limited the following day, the same day they claim to have been assigned this alleged account. This being stated by them means they cannot also have been assigned it in December 2012 as they claimed then and that I have on a previous letter from Aktiv, unless the name change makes the second claim separate from the first. Either way this is not assignment from the origin of the alleged account.

SO... I have a few questions and if anyone can advise I would be very grateful.

1. They began this most recent contact in May 2017 before the 1st October when this Pre-action protocol came into force. Would this mean that they do not have to follow it?

2. This company is the same one as before, same company number since 2001, does the name change have any legal implications at all when challenged, as I will in submitting the CPR18 request, that they might produce a notice of assignment from themselves as Aktiv, to themselves now as PRA Group, and a court accept that?

3. Advice on this and the remnant forum of the GOODF site seems to be to approach the letter process before it gets to this stage. Does my 2013 process constitute already having done so hence why they have now leapt to a court claim, and now that I have received the court claim form do I just need to get on with it? (Acknowledgment of Service, CPR18, CCA Request, Written defence)

4. Why do you pay the £1 fee for the copy of the CCA if you are not in an agreement with them under that very Consumer Credit Agreement Act? If they are the claimant why do you need to incentivize them to produce evidence that they ought to be keen, ready and willing to show if they have it? Advice used to be to pay them nothing, lest you are indicating acceptance of the debt by offering a payment. Does a payment constitute acceptance that they are the creditor and not in fact a third party interloper?

5. If you must pay this fee, how do you pay £1 these days? I have no cheque book.

6. Is it possible that my not responding to any 2017 letter(s) may have made them think they have an ignoramus on their hands so they are chancing it going to a court claim so quickly?

I appreciate the length of this post, but I am hoping to be thorough and I find the more info people add to posts the more helpful it is for everyone. I understand however that those long in the tooth with this process and technology have less patience and time than to repeat themselves ad nauseum so anyone who can chip in on any part of this I am already most grateful.

Freeeeeeddddddddduuuuuuummmmmmmm!!! (Mel Gibson voice)      

With humble thank yous

KingKotton

1. They began this most recent contact in May 2017 before the 1st October when this Pre-action protocol came into force. Would this mean that they do not have to follow it?

There has been a general pre action conduct protocol before the new one for debts came into force, if they can demonstrate to the Court that they followed the existing one prior to commencing proceedings that's all they have to do.

2. This company is the same one as before, same company number since 2001, does the name change have any legal implications at all when challenged, as I will in submitting the CPR18 request, that they might produce a notice of assignment from themselves as Aktiv, to themselves now as PRA Group, and a court accept that?

YES.


3. Advice on this and the remnant forum of the GOODF site seems to be to approach the letter process before it gets to this stage. Does my 2013 process constitute already having done so hence why they have now leapt to a court claim, and now that I have received the court claim form do I just need to get on with it? (Acknowledgment of Service, CPR18, CCA Request, Written defence)

YES


4. Why do you pay the £1 fee for the copy of the CCA if you are not in an agreement with them under that very Consumer Credit Agreement Act? If they are the claimant why do you need to incentivize them to produce evidence that they ought to be keen, ready and willing to show if they have it? Advice used to be to pay them nothing, lest you are indicating acceptance of the debt by offering a payment. Does a payment constitute acceptance that they are the creditor and not in fact a third party interloper?

If it's a credit card debt then you pay the £1 fee due to section 78.1 of the Consumer Credit Act, if they can't supply then section 78.6 applies - look them both up.

5. If you must pay this fee, how do you pay £1 these days? I have no cheque book.

Postal order.

6. Is it possible that my not responding to any 2017 letter(s) may have made them think they have an ignoramus on their hands so they are chancing it going to a court claim so quickly?

Are you close to 6 years (or 5 if you are in Scotland) since the default notice was issued, if so that may be the reason they commenced proceedings.

Hi Tiggy,

I am very grateful for your response, and in some quick time too. In fact I attempted to PM you on the old GOODF site forum only 2 days ago to say I couldn't post before I realised the whole thing was frozen months ago

A couple of qualifiers on your answers;

Point 6: I need to go back and look, but any default notice would have been into 2012 I think and I am not in Scotland so not sure that would be why they commenced now.

Point 3: I might have asked two questions in one, so need to clarify which one or both you were answering in the affirmative to. I clearly have to proceed from here so that is a definitive YES, but is it also a YES to the fact that the 2013 letter process applies even though you suggest that there might be implications to their change of company name indicating the possibility of some kind of reset on their claim?

If I challenged Aktiv back in 2013 but them changing to PRA now makes them a renewed claimant, I have not challenged PRA, and they could go on doing that kind of thing every few years ad infinitum if they don't have to present an actual notice of assignment from MBNA, or the origin of any alleged account they acquire?

Once again thanks for any pointers.

Warm regards

,

I am very grateful for your response, and in some quick time too. In fact I attempted to PM you on the old GOODF site forum only 2 days ago to say I couldn't post before I realised the whole thing was frozen months ago

A couple of qualifiers on your answers;

Point 6: I need to go back and look, but any default notice would have been into 2012 I think and I am not in Scotland so not sure that would be why they commenced now.

It's probable that you are just one of a long list of claims they have brought, they will be working through them attempting to secure the debt with a CCJ before next year when it would potentially have become statute barred.


Point 3: I might have asked two questions in one, so need to clarify which one or both you were answering in the affirmative to. I clearly have to proceed from here so that is a definitive YES, but is it also a YES to the fact that the 2013 letter process applies even though you suggest that there might be implications to their change of company name indicating the possibility of some kind of reset on their claim?

Yes, to the you need to acknowledge service, send a CPR 18, CCA request and submit a defence all within the timescales set by the Court.


If I challenged Aktiv back in 2013 but them changing to PRA now makes them a renewed claimant, I have not challenged PRA, and they could go on doing that kind of thing every few years ad infinitum if they don't have to present an actual notice of assignment from MBNA, or the origin of any alleged account they acquire?

They need to produce the notices from mbna to Aktiv and the one from Aktiv to PRA, you also need to request BOTH deeds of assignments again from mbna to Aktiv, then again to PRA.

I also recall there was some question of Aktiv's being legally able to obtain debts in the UK - there have been a number of iterations of the name - you'd have to do some research into this.

Tiggy wrote:,

   They need to produce the notices from mbna to Aktiv and the one from Aktiv to PRA, you also need to request BOTH deeds of assignments again from mbna to Aktiv, then again to PRA.  

    I also recall there was some question of Aktiv's being legally able to obtain debts in the UK - there have been a number of iterations of the name - you'd have to do some research into this.

Makes sense to request it all, to cover the entire span of the possession. I mean of the alleged account by the claimant not of me by these parasites.

Cheers

I will post on the next stage for people to follow this one and if I get anything else come up that puzzles me.

Hi Everyone,
Today was in receipt of a letter from the DCA (as detailed above) returning the postal order, claiming that they don't charge their customers as an act of 'good will' and claiming to have 'requested the information' I require. Also that until they receive it the account is "...on hold and collections activity will 'cease until further notice'".

I take from this;
1: They don't have the agreement. (Duh!)
2: Returning the Postal Order implies that 'requesting it' or not they are not acting according to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 by returning it and so their 'good will' chatter is a deception. They cannot take the money because they cannot provide the agreement in exchange, because there is no agreement to exchange.

They were in receipt of my request on the 24th Oct. I detailed in that request that they have 12 working days to meet my requirement for evidence from date of receipt, so they have until 8th November to do so. (i.e. 1 week from today)

They have not responded to the CPR 18 notice.

So a couple of quick questions;

a) Though they claim further in their letter that 'this may take longer than 12 days because we have to refer to the original creditor' would it not be correct that once we hit the 12 days without presentation that constitutes an agreement that their claim isn't valid?

b) With a defence filed indicating their failure in addition to indication of their failure 4 years ago to provide any proof then either, what do I need to do after the 12 days are up?

Thank you in advance for any tips.

Peace & Strength.

a) If a credit card, then after 12 days, the agreement under section 78.6 of the Consumer Credit Act is unenforceable against you whilst the default remains (ie unless they locate the agreement).

b) you could apply for either an Unless Order or Summary Judgement to have the claim dismissed BUT if you do apply and get it wrong / the Court denies the application OR they locate the agreement, you will end up being liable for their costs in defending against the application.

Hi Tiggy,

Thanks for the tips.

With regard to b);

Isn't there a step after the defense is submitted where I have to wait for a response from the court? Wouldn't I wait for that response before making any further applications? And what happens if the claimant drops the claim, will the court tell me in that response?

Peace.

If the claimant doesn't proceed with the claim 28 days after submission of your defence then the claim becomes Stayed - halted. The trouble is is that there is absolutely no limit on how long a claim can remain stayed and the claimant can apply at any point to have the stay lifted and for the claim to continue.

If they 'drop' the claim they will submit a Notice of Discontinuance and you'll receive a copy.