Debt Purchaser - DCA - Double Assignment - Duplicate Litigation

[andi-leigh2]

Re: Debt Purchaser - DCA - Double Assignment - Duplicate Litigation

Oh they know it was litigated on. In the RW letter they added a footnote to the effect that Cohen's I belive may apply to CCBC for substitution of Claimant, however, what I don't think they know is that there are 2 separate claim forms. The details they probably have is the second one issued by MKDP. The valid point is simply that as an assignment (alleged) took place from Tradepro to MKDP, then they (MKDP) would have had the right to apply to lift the stay and continue with the action, and not just recklessly run off and issue new claim. This is where the AoP comes into play. Iv eput all the details (dates) you ask in the original posting. The CF's are heavily redacted simply for anonymity, but you can see how poorly drafted the POC's are, and also note that on the first set of proceedings Tradepro have not executed the SoT correctly.

[andi-leigh2]

Re: Debt Purchaser - DCA - Double Assignment - Duplicate Litigation

With the Court fees as they are now, 255 notes for an N244 is just insanity. It s taking away justice from ordinary folk. I just cant get into the spiral of ridiculous fees.

[andi-leigh2]

Re: Debt Purchaser - DCA - Double Assignment - Duplicate Litigation

So that would be 2 N244 Strike Out applications at 255.00 notes each (510.00 lol !) I'm going to wait for next letter from RW and see what they say, and then play my cards (accordingly). I shall probably make a suggestion to them that they simply issue a Notice of Discontinuance, but they can't do that unless they are granted substitution first. There is also the fact that HPH2 Ltd (Reg'd In Jersey) does not have its own authorisation with FCA, something I shall be taking up with them (FCA) on Monday.

[andi-leigh2]

Re: Debt Purchaser - DCA - Double Assignment - Duplicate Litigation

Notwithstanding the previous actions / effects of claim forms, stays, assignments (alleged) etc etc, there is also the passage of time, and the inability to defend as would have been able had the OC proceeded expediently and diligently at the time or soon after. This brings into play a defence which brushes shoulders with "The Doctrine of Laches", which I understand can be applied where SB alone is in question for various reasons, in this instance the reasons being the issue of the CF's within the DN to SB effective date.

[charitynjw]

Re: Debt Purchaser - DCA - Double Assignment - Duplicate Litigation

Notwithstanding the previous actions / effects of claim forms, stays, assignments (alleged) etc etc, there is also the passage of time, and the inability to defend as would have been able had the OC proceeded expediently and diligently at the time or soon after. This brings into play a defence which brushes shoulders with "The Doctrine of Laches", which I understand can be applied where SB alone is in question for various reasons, in this instance the reasons being the issue of the CF's within the DN to SB effective date.

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-cont...nt-utilise.pdf

[andi-leigh2]

Re: Debt Purchaser - DCA - Double Assignment - Duplicate Litigation

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-cont...nt-utilise.pdf

Well Ive had a good read of this, and I don't mean to sound thick as I'm not, but reading through the document I cannot see whether this is meant to assist me or hinder me. I get the general crux of the matter regarding compliance, time limits et al, but I'm blind I'm afraid as to the relevance of the document. Thanks.

[charitynjw]

Re: Debt Purchaser - DCA - Double Assignment - Duplicate Litigation

Well Ive had a good read of this, and I don't mean to sound thick as I'm not, but reading through the document I cannot see whether this is meant to assist me or hinder me. I get the general crux of the matter regarding compliance, time limits et al, but I'm blind I'm afraid as to the relevance of the document. Thanks.

It was just to give you an idea about how the courts (should) view delay in litigation.
They have had 2 bites at the cherry, & failed.
A 3rd attempt may well be seen as abuse of process. (But that is the court's decision)
Btw, that's the first time I've seen a TradePro claim.......I thought they'd all been issued by MKDP after TradePro went belly-up!

[andi-leigh2]

Re: Debt Purchaser - DCA - Double Assignment - Duplicate Litigation

It was just to give you an idea about how the courts (should) view delay in litigation.
They have had 2 bites at the cherry, & failed.
A 3rd attempt may well be seen as abuse of process. (But that is the court's decision)
Btw, that's the first time I've seen a TradePro claim.......I thought they'd all been issued by MKDP after TradePro went belly-up!

Thanks for reply. It appears that the Michell Guidance has been superceded, and that the new guidance is more streamlined and clear. Looking at the first claim form again, and reading CPR 22 re SoT's, I came across this which spells it out clearly. This is an issue which I raised in the FIRST CLAIM FORM defence, and probably one of the catalysts for it to become stayed by TRADEPRO, as they would have realised their error. This in itself is sufficient for a strike out app.

http://www.pannone.com/sites/default...%20Truth_E.pdf

I think that I'm going to have to wait and see what their next move is, OR, I prepare a detailed summary and put on record with them the catalogue of errors which have occurred along the way. Clearly Buckland v Palmer 1984 is quite a binding case authority and has I believe been held on a number of occasions since, therefore the second claim must be struck out as abusive. This leaves the first claim, which has been assigned from TPro to MKDP, but not assigned by deed to Hoist, only the second claim as RW alledges. Tpro had ample opportunity to amend their SOT, provide documents requested, but chose not to. I'm going to have to give this some serious thought unless someone else on here can shed further light as its quite an unusual set of circumstances.

[andi-leigh2]

Re: Debt Purchaser - DCA - Double Assignment - Duplicate Litigation

It was just to give you an idea about how the courts (should) view delay in litigation.
They have had 2 bites at the cherry, & failed.
A 3rd attempt may well be seen as abuse of process. (But that is the court's decision)
Btw, that's the first time I've seen a TradePro claim.......I thought they'd all been issued by MKDP after TradePro went belly-up!

They cant have a third bite, they can only apply for substitution. I believe they are aware of dispute and previous second action, and have stated this, and said that they are "requesting details from previous owner", but as we all know that is now themselves, by virtue of Compello / MKDP acquisition.

Its abuse already, which any court must hold based on Buckland v Palmer.

[charitynjw]

Re: Debt Purchaser - DCA - Double Assignment - Duplicate Litigation

They cant have a third bite, they can only apply for substitution. I believe they are aware of dispute and previous second action, and have stated this, and said that they are "requesting details from previous owner", but as we all know that is now themselves, by virtue of Compello / MKDP acquisition.

Its abuse already, which any court must hold based on Buckland v Palmer.

They will look pretty silly in court if they try to suggest that there was some kind of hold-up in retrieving the documents requested, lol!

Btw, do you have copies of the original agreement & T&Cs?

[andi-leigh2]

Re: Debt Purchaser - DCA - Double Assignment - Duplicate Litigation

They will look pretty silly in court if they try to suggest that there was some kind of hold-up in retrieving the documents requested, lol!

Btw, do you have copies of the original agreement & T&Cs?

Yep got it all AND things (docs) that they cannot possibly ever have or claim to rely upon !!!! ????????

[andi-leigh2]

Re: Debt Purchaser - DCA - Double Assignment - Duplicate Litigation

Yep got it all AND things (docs) that they cannot possibly ever have or claim to rely upon !!!! ????????

I have docs which shall trip them up big time should they wish to "invent" or otherwise produce anything with the slightest
doubt attached regarding its authenticity. As I've said elsewhere, I'm confident that I've got all the ammo I need, just require a decent CCA brief to fire it for me.

[charitynjw]

Re: Debt Purchaser - DCA - Double Assignment - Duplicate Litigation

Yep got it all AND things (docs) that they cannot possibly ever have or claim to rely upon !!!! ????????

Could you tell me what term/condition #1 is, please?

[andi-leigh2]

Re: Debt Purchaser - DCA - Double Assignment - Duplicate Litigation

Could you tell me what term/condition #1 is, please?

The T&C's is a separate sheet, and the "agreement" (a small section within an application form) is a barely legible in places copy. They do not have the original document. Ill dig out now the separate T&C's doc which I may add was sent to me years after and upon a specific request to TP.

[andi-leigh2]

Re: Debt Purchaser - DCA - Double Assignment - Duplicate Litigation

Could you tell me what term/condition #1 is, please?

Ah ha - I do remember reading this some years ago when I was preparing defence, this is really funny !

Under the "terms" thereon, they are not in fact a party to their own agreement ! lol !