Being taken to court

SandraX

I would not use pay day loans co but we, thankfully budgeted, saved well before buying a house, car, holidays, etc.

If you do use them, pay them on time or tell them why you can't pay. Burying your head in the sane just adds costs and they will come after you.

Possibly, rather than argue, give them a call, apologise, say you do not want to go to court and settle up in full with some discount on the amount you now own them that I guess includes legal and admin fees

Goodluck

fermi

Hi, we move threads if we think they’ll get more help elsewhere (please read the forum rule) so this post/thread has been moved to Debt-Free Wannabe board. If you have any questions about this policy please email [EMAIL="forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com"]forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com[/EMAIL].

Just_Di

Bob_Harding wrote: »

If they are required to send the letter then I will have extra time to pay. I might also be able to negotiate a lower amount.

As it's a court letter they've just flat out demanded double the original loan amount and given a short time to pay.

All I need to know is if they are legally allowed to start a court claim without sending that letter first.

One of the purposes of the new (since Oct 2017) Pre Action Protocol for debt claims is to encourage both sides of the argument to engage in useful dialogue in the hope of sorting out the issues without the need to proceed to court. That's the whole point of a Letter Before Claim.

At that pre-litigation stage (i.e. in response to the LBC) you can ask them to produce documents to back up their argument such as a Default Notice or the original credit agreement/contract etc.

Is the Claimant the original PDL lender or has the debt been assigned (sold) to a debt purchaser? If so you can ask to see the Notice of Assignment (if one exists).

You are not denying you had the PDL, you simply want the right to question whether the amount being demanded is lawful, and that they have the legal right to bring the claim (if it's been assigned). That doesn't seem unreasonable to me

You need to go online and file your Acknowledgement of Service within 19 days of the claim Issue Date . Tick the box which says you "intend to defend all of the claim" as this will give you extra time to file your Defence (33 days from the claim Issue Date).

You can send them a CPR 31.14 Request letter seeking disclosure of any documents mentioned in the Particulars of Claim such as the contract/agreement, Default Notice, Termination Notice, Notice of Assignment etc.

Once you've filed your Defence the court will send a copy to the Claimant advising them that they have 28 days to inform the court if they intend to continue with the proceedings. If they don't do that the claim will automatically become stayed (a pause button on the proceedings). They would then have to pay a fee to make an Application to the court to lift the stay if they decide to progress things.

If they tell the court that they'll be going ahead then you'll be sent a Directions Questionnaire which is a court admin form with a deadline for filing (or your Defence will be struck out and you get a Default Judgment).

On that DQ form you are given the option to tick "YES" for free telephone Mediation where you can attempt to settle this claim without getting a CCJ. The settlement (more time to pay or instalment payments etc) is legally binding but you won't have a CCJ registered on your CRA file for six years (unless you fail to keep to the agreement).

Mediation is an opportunity to renegotiate the sum claimed too. You don't speak with the Claimant, the phone call is managed by the court service Mediator who deals with you individually as a go-between.

The other purpose of the LBC is in the event of costs. If the claim is under £10k then the winner doesn't get their legal costs paid by the loser. However is they lose you can argue that if they had sent a LBC the issue would have been resolved without the need to go to court so you can ask the Judge for 'wasted costs'. As a Litigant in Person (someone without legal representation) you can charge £19 per hour for your time.

So the answer to your question is 'yes' they can issue a claim without haven't sent you a LBC but it may have negative consequences for them further down the line. However it would not be a legal argument for your Defence - but you could include it in your Defence to demonstrate 'conduct issues'.

Di

sourcrates

NinaSwiss wrote: »

OP - bear in mind that just because you did not get a 'letter before claim' does not mean one wasn't issued at the address they have for you.

You can call them to find out if they issued you a letter.
If they say they did, chances are they can prove it so you might want to have a backup strategy.

Exodi wrote: »

Can't wait for the OP to submit his sole defense as "I didn't receive a letter", wish you could record the reactions

Farmer_Johnson wrote: »

Why not just pay them back? Why this wriggling?

As others have pointed out, not receiving does not prove that it wasn’t sent, and there is pretty much no chance that it was not sent.

Concentrate now on paying the money back today, not on fighting. You borrowed it, you agreed to pay it back on time, you need to focus on doing so as soon as possible to avoid extra costs and a court judgement against you.

It is actually quite common for creditors to flout the pre-action stage of proceedings, as there is no "set in stone" penalty for doing so, that is why it is so important for the OP to follow correct guidance when dealing with this matter, if they also fail to provide the evidence on which there claim hangs, then that along with non compliance of the pre-action protocol, starts to stack up in the OP`s favour.

The creditor may not have the legal right to make this claim, they may be claiming an amount the OP may not agree with, or that can be justified in law, you should challenge everything, never, ever accept what a creditor tells you, they are the biggest lier`s and conman out there, the information they are relying on could be wrong, or simply false or made up, (happens all the time).

The comments above are over simplistic, and completely disregard the debtors rights in this matter.

Farmer_Johnson

sourcrates wrote: »

It is actually quite common for creditors to flout the pre-action stage of proceedings, as there is no "set in stone" penalty for doing so, that is why it is so important for the OP to follow correct guidance when dealing with this matter, if they also fail to provide the evidence on which there claim hangs, then that along with non compliance of the pre-action protocol, starts to stack up in the OP`s favour.

The creditor may not have the legal right to make this claim, they may be claiming an amount the OP may not agree with, or that can be justified in law, you should challenge everything, never, ever accept what a creditor tells you, they are the biggest lier`s and conman out there, the information they are relying on could be wrong, or simply false or made up, (happens all the time).

The comments above are over simplistic, and completely disregard the debtors rights in this matter.

You are very quick to criticise the posts of others, but you seem to be posting with an agenda, not offering genuine advice here. Reading back some previous posts of yours you seem to want people not to pay back legitimate debts if they can possibly avoid it.

Why is this?

sourcrates

Farmer_Johnson wrote: »

You are very quick to criticise the posts of others, but you seem to be posting with an agenda, not offering genuine advice here. Reading back some previous posts of yours you seem to want people not to pay back legitimate debts if they can possibly avoid it.

Why is this?

It’s not criticism, it’s my understanding of what you have written.

Just_Di

sourcrates wrote: »

We get the “you borrowed it you should pay it back"

Judges sometimes take that initial view (i.e. debt avoidance) until it's pointed out to them (respectfully ) that it's a legal argument not a moral argument.

The Consumer Credit Act is there for a reason, as intended by Parliament and possibly signed off by the Queen.

If Creditors want to provide Credit to Consumers then they (credit providers) have to abide by the rules. If they don't abide by the rules then they're at risk of not recovering the money.

Di

sourcrates

Farmer_Johnson wrote: »

You should read back some of what you have written, you invariably tell people to default.

You will rarely ask for more I formation first, you immediately jump to advising people to tak what could be a terrible decision.

I wonder what your agenda is here, it definitely is not to help anyone.

Ok, getting personal now, post reported, and referred to forum team.
Thread locked temporarily.