Help needed

supertracy

In May this year I was sent a county court claim from 'Howard Cohen & co. Solicitors' acting on behalf of 'Hoist Portfolio' who are acting on behalf of 'Barclaycard'.
I sent the defence part back with the Statute barred letter, because I believe that this letter is over 6 years old.
I also sent them a letter for a SAR request.
I had nothing back on the SAR request even though they cashed the payment, and the only letter I got from Howard Cohen was to say in their words 'we can confirm that on 11 August 2010 a Default Notice was served upon you.As the Default Notice is the cause of this action and the claim was issued on 17 May 2016, we contend that the claim has been brought within the Limitation Period. Civil Procedure Rule 7.2.1.1 states a claimant has six years from the default date to bring their claim'

I have now received 'Claimants Witness Statement' from Howard Cohen and copies of documents with what they intend to use as evidence, some are : a copy of 'Credit Card Agreement' with my name & address on but not sign by me this is suppose to dated on 24th sep 2007/ copies of statements from 4/11/2010 to 7/01/2011 with the account being in arrears/ a copy of default notice sent on 11th august 2010 also copy of letter from 'Barclaycard' saying the account had been transferred to MKDP LLP on 13th May 2011.

Also reading though the statement they have said a 'Default Notice' was sent on 11th August 2011 but their own copy says 11th August 2010.
They are still stating 'The Default Notice' is the cause of this action and that their claim has been brought within the 'Limitation Period' and quote 'CIVIL PROCEDURE RULE 7.2.1.1 , saying the claimant has six years from default date to bring claim.

Please I need some legal advice ref this I have to send a defence and has I can see my bank records show the last payment I made was 1/02/2010.

thank you for your help

fatbelly

Hi

You're going to need to pop over to legalbeagles on this one

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/forumdisplay.php?105-Received-a-Court-Claim

but briefly a default notice does not constitute the cause of action on a credit card claim. The cause of action would have been earlier.

However, you can extend the cause of action by subsequent payments so whenever it was you extended it to 1/10/2010 from what you say.

That means they had until 1/10/2016 to start a claim and it appears that they started the claim on 17/5/16.

On those dates the claim would not be statute barred - if they know about your payments from May to 1 October 2010.

supertracy

thank you for your reply, I had made a mistake in my first post it should have said my last payment on my records was 01/02/10 not 01/10/10

sourcrates

Hi,

They are talking drivel, the date of your last payment or written acknowledgement would be the cause of action date, not the default date, with a credit card account the cause of action date is fairly easy to determine.

However your statute barred defence may be flawed due to the last payment you made, and them starting the claim within the Limitations period.

However, as Fatbelly suggests, they may not know about that payment, if they rely on the argument above, there claim will fail.

sourcrates

supertracy wrote: »

thank you for your reply, I had made a mistake in my first post it should have said my last payment on my records was 01/02/10 not 01/10/10

Then you should be ok !!!!

fatbelly

supertracy wrote: »

thank you for your reply, I had made a mistake in my first post it should have said my last payment on my records was 01/02/10 not 01/10/10

OK, then the cause of action was when the next payment became due but was not paid - probably March 2010.

Unless you had missed payments earlier and the 1/2/10 payment was just extending the period.

But in either case they were out of time by May 2016. So just stick to your guns and reiterate that the account was statute barred by May 2016.

If they persevere there will have to be a hearing and then you are relying on the judge not to be taken in by their arguments. You may find they quote a case BMW v Hart which was a very different case