Ok, lets clear up some confusion over the two provisons of the CPR which people seem to use in equal measure to obtain documents when they recieve a claim

CPR PART 18.

What is part 18 for?

Part 18 is for information purposes, so for example if the lender sends you three sets of terms and conditions during the course of proceedings and you are not sure which set relates to what? then you make a part 18 request.

The same applies if you need to clarify what happened with some of the money they are claiming , for example if the agreement has an amount of credit of say 10k but you only received 5k, then you would make a part 18 request for further information to clarify the points.

In any event BEFORE making a request you MUST read part 18 and Practice Direction 18

you will note that a Part 18 request can be in a letter format but it must set out that it is made pursuant to PART 18 and is intended to have Part 18 effect.

you MUST also avoid putting anything other than part 18 requests in the letter, so dont start telling them about what Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead said in Wilson.................... cos that will damage the request.

The alternative request under part 18 is as follows

 

 

 

IN THE XXXXXXXXX

COUNTY COURT CLAIM NO:

 

 

BETWEEN:

 

XXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

 

 

and

 

 

XXXXXXXXXXX

 

Defendant

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________

PART 18 REQUEST FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

_____________________________________________________________________

 

 

To: XXXXXXXXXX (claimant)

 

Please answer the following questions:

 

1. What date is shown as the date the Claimant/Defendants account was transferred from XXXXXX to the Claimant/Defendant on the Deed of assignment?

 

2. What is the XXXXXXX account number shown on the Deed as being the Claimants/Defendants account?

 

 

 

TAKE NOTICE THAT YOU ARE REQUIRED TO ANSWER THE ABOVE REQUEST WITHIN 14 DAYS OF SERVICE OF THE SAME UPON YOU

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NOW THEN

CPR 31.14 and 31.15

What does this apply to?

If a party discloses a document by mention of it in amongst others his statement of case, then he has disclosed it and therefore pursuant to rule 31.14 you are entitled to inspect it.

Therefore you must follow the guidelines, write to the claimant or defendant, make clear the request is made under CPR 31.14 and request to be allowed to inspect or be provided copies of the document mentioned.

This type of request deals with things like credit agreement, default notice, deed of assignment etc which are mentioned in a claim form.

CPR 31.15 requires that upon receipt of a request in writing, the claimant must allow inspection of the documents and this must be done in 7 days from receipt of the request, if the claimant refuses then an application Must be made to the court for an order compelling disclosure

Also, within such a request, you should also seek an extension of time pursuant to CPR 15.5 to allow you time to receive the documents and review them and then formulate your defence.

you cant defend a claim under an agreement if you don't have the agreement as it is simply absurd to suggest you can,so, dont be panicked into putting in what people say is a "Embarrassed defence" as the rules are there to provide you with the tools and info you need to defend a case, you will not face criticism for using the rules by the court, but you will face a huge costs order if you muck around and file spurious and merit-less embarrased defences which have no legal basis.

Use the rules properly and you may face a discontinuance notice, use the rules WRONGLY and you will face summary judgement or a charging order or worst a order for sale.

For actual letters for requesting info under CPR 31.14 see this thread as it will assist you greatly

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/159445-getting-them-reveal-their.html

I hope this helps clarify things

Nice info there pt... I'm sure we will all benefit from this knowledge.

Would you agree CPR 32.19 is also useful for pinning the creditor down?

I sent Morgans a CPR31.14 request which they have totally ignored, so have issued a N244 requesting strike out, waiting to be considered by Northampton at the moment.

I also sent them seperately a CPR18 request which they have finally responded to and sent redacted DOA etc with copy application form and advised they are waiting for original terms & conditions and copy default notices dut they advised DN not required as they are only claiming arrears, actually they have claimed the full balance outstanding amounting to £8.5K and they also offered an extension for filing defence till end of May due to their late response.

Is the N244 strike out request the correct route following PT's suggestion of CPR31.14 application and does the fact they responded without T&C to CPR18 change anything?

VOLVO

Volvo

Exactly the same thing happened to me, so I sent them a CPR 31.15 asking to inspect the originals. They replied by saying that they do not have the originals, so I issued an N244 requesting that they supply the originals for inspection.

Their defence to this is CPR 31.3 (they actually say 31.13), which states that "a party to whom a document has been disclosed has a right to inspect except where - (a) the document is no longer in control of the party who disclosed it", and CPR 31.8. This says, "(1) A party’s duty to disclose documents is limited to documents which are or have been in his control. (2) For this purpose a party has or has had a document in his control if –(a) it is or was in his physical possession;

(b) he has or has had a right to possession of it; or

© he has or has had a right to inspect or take copies of it."

They also say that if I want a copy I should go to the original creditor,and finally that if they were forced to submit the originals Cabot " would not be on an equal footing with regards to the evidence".

They seem to ignore the fact that either they (Morgans) or Cabot have modified the documentation to suit their claim, and I shall have great enjoyment in showing that to the court.

Alan

Thanks AG

Surely, If my N244 strike out request fails, and it goes to a hearing then Morgans HAVE to produce the original terms and conditions, copy or otherwise.?

VOLVO

 

 

 

They also say that if I want a copy I should go to the original creditor,and finally that if they were forced to submit the originals Cabot " would not be on an equal footing with regards to the evidence".

Can anyone please explain or expand on this??? or is it usual cabot/morhgans nonsence????

Hadituptohere

Hi Hadit

I assume that they mean that as they do not have the originals, then they would be at a disadvantage in presenting their case. The mere fact that either Morgans or Cabot have photoshopped the evidence that they have presented to the court for this CPR31.15 hearing would put them at more of a disadvantage.

I am interested to find out what happens to claimants who modify documentation to help prove their claim.

Alan

Hi Alan

But if morgans have already issued this claim in court and dont have the original, CPR requires the original and morgans are claiming to be at a disadvantage, whos fault is that?

Hadituptohere

I had a similar situation in which I asked for docs by CPR18. The DCA ignored the request and the DJ also ignored my request to adjorn. Instead the DJ finalised the CO, set aside the ealier judgement of instalment order and reinstated the default judgement from Northampton Court. I want to use N244 and set aside the original CCJ by claiming defective default notice and letter of NoA was not sent registered.

Any advice welcome.

I had a similar situation in which I asked for docs by CPR18. The DCA ignored the request and the DJ also ignored my request to adjorn. Instead the DJ finalised the CO, set aside the ealier judgement of instalment order and reinstated the default judgement from Northampton Court. I want to use N244 and set aside the original CCJ by claiming defective default notice and letter of NoA was not sent registered.

 

Any advice welcome.

If you have acknowledged receipt of the Notice of Assignment, it makes little difference IMHO, if it was sent by Registered post or carrier pigeon . (of course I could be wrong and will no doubt be corrected if so)

Was the Notice of Assignment correct, in dates of assignment, value assigned, etc. Have you started your own thread on this.

as Cit B says

the whole point is to satisfy that service has been effected- therefore if someone admits receipt(service) of a document or notice- then any argument as to whether it was or was not served as prescribed is totally irrelevant- the purpose has been served (and so have you!)

Can anyone please explain or expand on this??? or is it usual cabot/morhgans nonsence????

 

Hadituptohere

Can someone please chip in on Hadituptohere's earlier question? It's a very important and fundamental point for all of us.

If the originals have been requested (repeatedly) and can no longer be produced for whatever reason, does the Court or Judge have any leeway? Or do they have to Order the disclosure or a Strike Out if disclosure cannot be made?

Also, is there any significant difference between a true copy that has 'your signature' on it and a copy that does not? What I'm trying to ascertain is how far can the 'produce the original with my signature argument' be taken?

IMHO, I would say its the usual cabot

s/ morons nonsense.

Of course they would be at a disadvantage. But then effectively so are you without sight of the original document.

So if they are saying ask the original lender, that would be your next port of call.

You'll request it, they most likely wont have it, so what youre left with is a fabrication.

Now its up to you to put your argument across so the judge cannot be in any doubt of his/her power to proceed or dismiss the claim.

You MUST stick to your guns and if need be apply to the court for an order. This will have costs involved, but apart from upholding the law:rolleyes:,, The court is there to make money after all.

Those wigs cost an awful lot you know.

Hi All

We have asked the OC for a copy of the original via s78 and SAR, but all they can provide are statements. We have a letter from the Information Commissioners Office stating that "no documentation was ever transferred from Monument to Barclaycard".

As I have said above, Cabot/Morgans have modified the documentation that they purport to be an agreement as well - which I can demonstrate to the DJ.

Alan

Originally Posted by alangee

 

 

They also say that if I want a copy I should go to the original creditor,and finally that if they were forced to submit the originals Cabot " would not be on an equal footing with regards to the evidence".

So Cabot took on an account for which there was no agreement ? They are now taking you to court. I would have thought that it was for them to provide evidence not you ?

I dont understand Cabot saying they would not be on an equal footing ? If they have the original, then they should let you have sight of or a copy of them.

As I have said above, Cabot/Morgans have modified the documentation that they purport to be an agreement as well - which I can demonstrate to the DJ.

 

Alan

Have you pointed this out to them or are you leaving it as ammo? If you point it out to them and they still proceed against you, it would be even more powerful as an argument.

invite them to withdraw and you wont apply for costs

Ok, lets clear up some confusion over the two provisons of the CPR which people seem to use in equal measure to obtain documents when they recieve a claim

 

CPR PART 18.

 

What is part 18 for?

 

Part 18 is for information purposes, so for example if the lender sends you three sets of terms and conditions during the course of proceedings and you are not sure which set relates to what? then you make a part 18 request.

 

The same applies if you need to clarify what happened with some of the money they are claiming , for example if the agreement has an amount of credit of say 10k but you only received 5k, then you would make a part 18 request for further information to clarify the points.

 

In any event BEFORE making a request you MUST read part 18 and Practice Direction 18

 

you will note that a Part 18 request can be in a letter format but it must set out that it is made pursuant to PART 18 and is intended to have Part 18 effect.

 

you MUST also avoid putting anything other than part 18 requests in the letter, so dont start telling them about what Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead said in Wilson.................... cos that will damage the request.

 

The alternative request under part 18 is as follows

 

 

 

Ok so Part 18 is NOT for DOCUMENTS

 

 

NOW THEN

 

CPR 31.14 and 31.15

 

What does this apply to?

 

If a party discloses a document by mention of it in amongst others his statement of case, then he has disclosed it and therefore pursuant to rule 31.14 you are entitled to inspect it.

 

Therefore you must follow the guidelines, write to the claimant or defendant, make clear the request is made under CPR 31.14 and request to be allowed to inspect or be provided copies of the document mentioned.

 

This type of request deals with things like credit agreement, default notice, deed of assignment etc which are mentioned in a claim form.

 

CPR 31.15 requires that upon receipt of a request in writing, the claimant must allow inspection of the documents and this must be done in 7 days from receipt of the request, if the claimant refuses then an application Must be made to the court for an order compelling disclosure

 

Also, within such a request, you should also seek an extension of time pursuant to CPR 15.5 to allow you time to receive the documents and review them and then formulate your defence.

 

you cant defend a claim under an agreement if you don't have the agreement as it is simply absurd to suggest you can,so, dont be panicked into putting in what people say is a "Embarrassed defence" as the rules are there to provide you with the tools and info you need to defend a case, you will not face criticism for using the rules by the court, but you will face a huge costs order if you muck around and file spurious and merit-less embarrased defences which have no legal basis.

 

Use the rules properly and you may face a discontinuance notice, use the rules WRONGLY and you will face summary judgement or a charging order or worst a order for sale.

 

For actual letters for requesting info under CPR 31.14 see this thread as it will assist you greatly

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/159445-getting-them-reveal-their.html

 

I hope this helps clarify things

Well written.

Hi PT2537

Can you please calrify something relating to CPR and track allocations?

I've read somewhere that full CPRules do not apply to all tracks equally. Is this correct?

Apparently, for Small Claims track some CPR requests can be disregarded by either party if they deem it 'unreasonable or disproportionate'. Any CPR request in such circumstances would then require a judge/court order to be complied with.

Your thoughts please? Ta

an unallocated claim is considered multi track so no probs there

If the claim is allocated to the SCT, then, i would suggest that an application would be suitable

however, i must qualify this statement and say that, at the point of issue and seeking disclosure you will not be allocated therefore the full disclosure rules apply

If the claim is allocated to the SCT, then, i would suggest that an application would be suitable

Thanks.

Are you saying if the court decides to allocate a claim to SCT, you would then submit an N244 asking for it to be re-allocated to Fast Track? Or would that be done via the Allocation Questionnaire?

I would see the main basis of this as being the benefit of full CPR 'protection'. However, does it not then leave the Defendant exposed to Claimant costs should they lose?

What about when they say they have provided the 'agreement' but you are convinced this is just an application form or it relates to a diferent card.

Is it still n244 to disclose or would you suggest something else.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/251664-g-bank-scotland-scm.html

PT

i read on one of you other threads (can't find it now) something about agreements BEFORE april 2007 could you clarify for me please

the rules on disclosure, which this thread is concerned applies to ANY docs mentioned in a parties statement of case

where can i read more about this?