Jump to content

kafkabee

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    73
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

1 Neutral
  1. Ok. I spoke to someone at the court just now who said that I could send an invoice kind of letter to the Judge who may award costs without a formal application. Obviously I don't want to be filling in Form 244 and paying £255 for the privilege.
  2. The Form N260 looks very detailed and quite overwhelming. In this case where a Notice of Discontinuance has been filed by the Claimant after the filing of my WS and before the trial date (21 Dec) is it absolutely necessary? If it is a requirement is there a template that would help me with the completion of this form? Or would the court accept a more simple setting out of my costs on a blank sheet?
  3. I sent a SAR to the original creditor - the resulting mass of documentation contained some useful correspondence. The Claimant was in breach of the Order made on 24 August 2017 in that it did not comply with the direction to supply statements of account by 20 October 2017. I filed and served my WS within the time limit (17 Nov) and have received by immediate return a letter from Restons: "Our client has taken the decision to discontinue proceedings [...]" with a Notice of Discontinuance. Thanks everyone for your help - in particular Andy and dx. Am I correct in thinking I am entitled to make an application for costs?
  4. Also, would it be worthwhile at this stage to SAR the original creditor Lloyds before the hearing?
  5. Andy a quick question: although I sent a CCA request to Cabot pre-action, would it be a good idea at this stage to send a SAR to Restons?
  6. Your experience has chimed with mine. The first hearing I attended was presided over by a Deputy District Judge who from the outset made it clear that she was not impressed with the claimant's failure to respond to the CCA request. She also made it fairly obvious that she didn't particularly like the sol, even refusing him permission to appeal. However, they did appeal and the appeal was heard by a Circuit Judge who allowed the appeal in part but would not order summary judgement. She wanted me to understand that usually a District Judge would hear this case but she said she was higher than a District Judge and would reserve this case for herself over the Christmas period - "I see no reason that there shouldn't be a hearing over Christmas" she said. At the end of the appeal hearing she looked at me pointedly and said, "I think you're going to have to pay this debt Mr X." I was flabbergasted that her last remark at the end of the hearing effectively pre-empted the outcome of the trial. Also, the usher would not let my wife sit next to me as a layperson to assist because I had not made a formal request before the hearing. I wrote to the Court Manager and complained that the court had not explained that I needed to secure permission beforehand and received a "my staff acted correctly" response. Actually it has to be said that the sol was/is a particularly greasy slimeball who introduced himself across the waiting room like a policeman. He came over to where I was sitting and thrusting his crotch toward my face asked me if I'd like to go through the papers with him to make sure we've both got the same stuff. I told him that I didn't want to talk to him. "No you don't have to," he said and scuttled off like a roach looking for a corner to hide in.
  7. Ok thanks Andy. At the moment the documents I would be relying on: my heavily redacted bank statements; appropriate and relevant fos correspondence; letters from the Claimant, transaction log etc; redacted overview of my credit report. I will be looking for other stuff that I can use before the submission deadline. Thanks again for your help - I can't stress enough how helpful it is and how useful the resources on this site are. Donation made.
  8. I wonder how many sols and DCA, Restons and Cabot in my case, are registered as CAG members?
  9. So the defence at post 102 is ok to submit by 6 October? Disclosure by list by 20 October. Disclosure by 27 October. WS by 17 November. Are you saying I should have the WS completed before sending the N265?
  10. Does anything need changing in the defence post number 102? Also, no I haven’t submitted a witness statement yet but the Claimant filed one at court before the first hearing in June. I’m assuming they will submit another witness statement in November - maybe they’ll submit the same one again. I understand disclosure by list but do I only supply the Claimant with actual copies of documents if they request them? Would my bank statements be classed as privileged documents? Thank you.
  11. Particulars of Claim 1.The claimant claims payment of the overdue balance due from the Defendant(s) under a contract between the Defendant(s) and Lloyds TSB dated on or about Apr 30 2007 and assigned to the claimant on Apr 13 2015 amended to Aug 3 2012 Particulars a/c no *************** Date 16/6/2015 Post Refrl Cr NIL TOTAL 26405.04 What is the value of the claim? £27693.27 Further to the defence dated 12 August 2015 submitted through CCBC and further to the Court’s Orders dated 19 June 2017 and 24 August 2017 in which the Claimant was ordered to file and serve further particularised particulars of claim. The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 1. The Claimant’s statement regarding the original debt is noted. The Defendant has had financial dealings with Lloyds TSB in the past but does not recall the precise details or the agreement and has sought verification from the Claimant by way of a CCA section 77 request in November 2013 which has not been complied with. 2. The Claimant’s statement regarding an overdue balance is denied. The Defendant does not recall receiving any Default Notice pursuant to the CCA1974. 3. The Claimant’s statement regarding the assignation of the debt is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served on the Defendant by Lloyds TSB on or around 3 August 2012. 4. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (i) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement (ii) show and evidence any cause of action and service of a Default Notice (iii) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for (iv) show and evidence how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim 5. In accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 6. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the Act 1974. 7. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief. However can I say something about the Claimant being given permission to amend the POC regarding date of assignation? Any help with this is welcome. Thanks
  12. Am I putting too much detail in the defence and answering points in their witness statement that I don't need to at this stage?
  13. I know it's a way off but obviously I've started drafting an amended defence. Andy would you take a look at my amended defence and give me any pointers and further advice please. DEFENCE Further to the defence dated 12 August 2015 submitted through CCBC and further to the Court’s Orders dated 19 June 2017 and 24 August 2017 in which the Claimant was ordered to file and serve further particularised particulars of claim. The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 1. The Claimant’s statement regarding the original debt is noted. The Defendant has had financial dealings with Lloyds TSB in the past but does not recall the precise details or the agreement and has sought verification from the Claimant by way of a CCA section 77 request in November 2013 which has not been complied with. 2. The Claimant’s statement regarding the Claimant’s Case Management System being a true record of the account is denied. The Defendant does not accept that the documentation filed at court by the Claimant is a true record of the account. 3. The Claimant’s statement regarding the assignation of the debt is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served on the Defendant by Lloyds TSB on or around 3 August 2012. 4. The Claimant’s statement regarding computer screenshots from the Original Creditor’s System is denied. 5. The Claimant’s statement regarding a Transaction Log from the Claimant’s system, showing credits and debits applied to the account between 25 August 2012 and 24 August 2015 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any payments made to any account which is related to and/or supported by the Claimant’s Transaction Log. 6. The Claimant’s statement that the last payment credited to the account was on 21 November 2014 is denied. 7. The Claimant’s statement regarding the outstanding balance is denied. 8. The Claimant’s statement regarding FOS having no bearing on its Claim is denied. 9. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (i) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement (ii) show and evidence any cause of action and service of a Default Notice (iii) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for (iv) show and evidence how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim 10. In accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), the Claimant is required to prove the allegation that money is owed to it by the Defendant. 11. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82 A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. 12. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
×
×
  • Create New...