Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,598 
Likes: 6,768
|
Post by Mousey on Nov 3, 2020 19:08:06 GMT
I understand the borrower in a personal capacity is the claimant in a hearing tomorrow afternoon against Lendy.
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,598
Likes: 6,768
|
Post by Mousey on Nov 4, 2020 17:18:58 GMT
In The County Court and The Family Court at Taunton
Wednesday 4 November 2020
Before District Judge Prigg
14.00 by BTMeetMe
“Application by Lendy Ltd struck out as an abuse of process”
This was an application by the borrowing companies’ director to set aside a Statutory Demand served upon him by Lendy Ltd (In Administration). The court was told loans advanced by Lendy Ltd had defaulted and they sought to rely upon the Personal Guarantee offered by the director to repay them.
The court heard that this Statutory Demand was served on 29th September 2020 and was preceded by a letter before action sent on 17th Aug 2020 which had not been replied to. It is understood the demand was for some £4m.
Mr *P, the lawyer representing the applicant, told the court that the “fundamental problem” with Lendy’s Statuary Demand was that the issues raised had already been determined in court. Claiming that the demand constituted an abuse of process he submitted that Lendy were “seeking to go behind the decision of the court” and were “trying their luck for a second time”.
We heard that the first demand had been made in July 2017 and was ultimately set aside by the court for several reasons. This included there being “a significant counter claim or set off against the debt” available. It is understood this related to the ability of the secured property to be sold thus reducing the debt.
Additionally, the court had found that there was “a triable issue” on the defence of “undue influence” when the director had entered into the guarantees. The court was told that if Lendy wished to proceed with the demand then Lendy should have issued a so-called Part 7 application and have the issue determined in court.
Mr *P explained that it was “baffling” the joint administrations of Lendy Ltd had expended money on a second statutory demand so similar to the first and asked the question whether they would have spent their own money on this.
In response Ms *SS, the lawyer representing Lendy Ltd explained that this was a fresh demand as the underlying debt had changed. She explained that it was significant that the applicant did not reply to the letter before action which potentially could have avoided todays hearing as the respondent could have considered its position.
In passing judgement on the issue of whether the Statutory Demand constituted an abuse of process District Judge Prigg said that “there is no doubt” it was an abuse.
He explained it had been demonstrated by reference to the two demands that it was the same debt and the same Personal Guarantee.
The court was told the only difference was the amount of money demanded, which had been reduced on the basis that the property had been sold. The issue of the “undue influence” was the same. The notion that Lendy wanted “to rehash the same arguments” in court was “nothing short of an abuse of process” the judge concluded.
Turning the courts attention to costs it was submitted that the respondent hadn’t replied to the letter before action. The judge ruled that there was no obligation for a response as Lendy should have been aware of the response, having already had the application determined in court before.
It was at this point the conference call, being held over the BTMeetMe system, disconnected me and I was unable to hear just how much costs Lendy Ltd would be paying.
|
|
r1200gs
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,336
Likes: 1,883
|
Post by r1200gs on Nov 4, 2020 19:27:43 GMT
I despair, I genuinely despair. Those who know the history of DP know why. He and his legal team play the law like a harp and make a mockery of justice.
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,598
Likes: 6,768
|
Post by Mousey on Nov 4, 2020 19:34:23 GMT
I despair, I genuinely despair. Those who know the history of DP know why. He and his legal team play the law like a harp and make a mockery of justice. The applicant wasn't a DP but a VP...
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,598
Likes: 6,768
|
Post by Mousey on Jan 29, 2021 15:39:57 GMT
In The County Court and The Family Court at Taunton Wednesday 4 November 2020 Before District Judge Prigg 14.00 by BTMeetMe “Application by Lendy Ltd struck out as an abuse of process”This was an application by the borrowing companies’ director to set aside a Statutory Demand served upon him by Lendy Ltd (In Administration). The court was told loans advanced by Lendy Ltd had defaulted and they sought to rely upon the Personal Guarantee offered by the director to repay them. The court heard that this Statutory Demand was served on 29th September 2020 and was preceded by a letter before action sent on 17th Aug 2020 which had not been replied to. It is understood the demand was for some £4m. Mr *P, the lawyer representing the applicant, told the court that the “fundamental problem” with Lendy’s Statuary Demand was that the issues raised had already been determined in court. Claiming that the demand constituted an abuse of process he submitted that Lendy were “seeking to go behind the decision of the court” and were “trying their luck for a second time”. We heard that the first demand had been made in July 2017 and was ultimately set aside by the court for several reasons. This included there being “a significant counter claim or set off against the debt” available. It is understood this related to the ability of the secured property to be sold thus reducing the debt. Additionally, the court had found that there was “a triable issue” on the defence of “undue influence” when the director had entered into the guarantees. The court was told that if Lendy wished to proceed with the demand then Lendy should have issued a so-called Part 7 application and have the issue determined in court. Mr *P explained that it was “baffling” the joint administrations of Lendy Ltd had expended money on a second statutory demand so similar to the first and asked the question whether they would have spent their own money on this. In response Ms *SS, the lawyer representing Lendy Ltd explained that this was a fresh demand as the underlying debt had changed. She explained that it was significant that the applicant did not reply to the letter before action which potentially could have avoided todays hearing as the respondent could have considered its position. In passing judgement on the issue of whether the Statutory Demand constituted an abuse of process District Judge Prigg said that “there is no doubt” it was an abuse. He explained it had been demonstrated by reference to the two demands that it was the same debt and the same Personal Guarantee. The court was told the only difference was the amount of money demanded, which had been reduced on the basis that the property had been sold. The issue of the “undue influence” was the same. The notion that Lendy wanted “to rehash the same arguments” in court was “nothing short of an abuse of process” the judge concluded. Turning the courts attention to costs it was submitted that the respondent hadn’t replied to the letter before action. The judge ruled that there was no obligation for a response as Lendy should have been aware of the response, having already had the application determined in court before. It was at this point the conference call, being held over the BTMeetMe system, disconnected me and I was unable to hear just how much costs Lendy Ltd would be paying. Annnnd that's just what they have done.
Papers filed: 28/01/2021
Part 7 Breach of Contract claim:
Lendy Limited (In Administration) and Saving Stream Security Holding Limited (In Administration) v BORROWER. Queens Bench Division.
|
|
MarkT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 190
Likes: 159
|
Post by MarkT on Jan 29, 2021 20:23:33 GMT
I believe plenty of people have tried but none have yet succeeded in extracting a PG from DP.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jan 31, 2021 10:58:57 GMT
There is a new breach of contract claim filed by the Administrators against DP's son: QB-2021-000***.
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,598
Likes: 6,768
|
Post by Mousey on Jan 31, 2021 12:03:18 GMT
There is a new breach of contract claim filed by the Administrators against DP's son: QB-2021-***322. Yep, look 3 posts up for the reasons why 
|
|
rocky1
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,139
Likes: 1,963
|
Post by rocky1 on Nov 5, 2022 12:17:29 GMT
LB/lendy also tricked lenders into funding this and many other loans.
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,598
Likes: 6,768
|
Post by Mousey on Nov 5, 2022 14:49:47 GMT
So funnily enough I was the one that noticed that the defence for this matter hadn't been published online so I hassled the court for it to be obtained from the defendant. Law360 must have an alert on any new filings. It's quite an interesting claim which is on my v.long list to write up. No hearing dates currently scheduled so not sure as to status.  |
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,330
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Nov 6, 2022 11:26:30 GMT
Havent paid much attention to this as not in it but I think the case relates to PBL064. SSSH is listed as claimant on ce-file which means it has to be a model 2 loan, which this isnt. Size of claim would probably support that. However, VP was a director of both borrowers when the loans were taken out so I might be wrong ... or are there two different cases?
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,598
Likes: 6,768
|
Post by Mousey on Nov 6, 2022 13:43:09 GMT
Havent paid much attention to this as not in it but I think the case relates to PBL064. SSSH is listed as claimant on ce-file which means it has to be a model 2 loan, which this isnt. Size of claim would probably support that. However, VP was a director of both borrowers when the loans were taken out so I might be wrong ... or are there two different cases? Same address as this in the claim 
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,330
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Nov 6, 2022 16:40:16 GMT
Havent paid much attention to this as not in it but I think the case relates to PBL064. SSSH is listed as claimant on ce-file which means it has to be a model 2 loan, which this isnt. Size of claim would probably support that. However, VP was a director of both borrowers when the loans were taken out so I might be wrong ... or are there two different cases? Same address as this in the claim Thanks, that actually confirms it was the tin shed PBL064. This loan was under £500k.
|
|
|
|
Post by harryvederci on Nov 8, 2022 11:07:06 GMT
Interesting timing perhaps, the PG party's farm incl. main residence went up for sale 2 months ago, its sitting on RM asking £1.3m
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,598
Likes: 6,768
|
Post by Mousey on Nov 8, 2022 12:56:09 GMT
The court documents were filed in the first quarter of 2021.
The only reason why they have been reported on now is because I noticed the defence hadn't been made public and hassled the court to obtain a copy for publication.
It may well be they wait until losses are crystallised before pursuing a PG
|
|
