Such as :

paragraph 2 is denied ,the Defendant has not been served with a notice of termination and the claimant is put to strict proof thereof.

??

bit missing in point 1 too...

1. Paragraph 1 is accepted insofar that a relationship did once exist between the Defendant and BT Plc however, I cannot recall this account (Agreement) // and has yet to supply me with a copy of the Account/Agreement mentioned in particulars of Claim.

So is this the sort of defence needed?

Particulars of Claim for cross reference only

1)The defendant entered into an agreement with BT PLC under account reference .......(`the Agreement`)

2)The defendant failed to maintain the required payments and the service was terminated.

3) The agreement was later assigned to the claimant on 27/03/2017 and notice given to the Defendant.

4) Despite repeated requests for payment, the sum of £412.52 remains due and outstanding.

And the claimant claims

a) the sum of £412.52

b)Interest pursuant to s69 County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of issue,accruing at a daily rate of £0.090,but limited to one year,being £33.00

c) Costs

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. Paragraph 1 is accepted insofar that a relationship did once exist between the Defendant and BT Plc however, I cannot recall this account (Agreement) The claimant has yet to disclose a copy of the Account/Agreement mentioned in particulars of Claim.

2. Paragraph 2 is denied ,the Defendant has not been served with a notice of termination and the claimant is put to strict proof thereof.

3.Paragraph 3 is denied .The defendant is unaware of any legal notice of assignment or Notice of Assignment pursuant to Law and property Act 1925 Section 136(1).

4.Therefore the defendant denies owing any money to the Claimant and the claimant is put to strict proof ,

Show how the Defendant has entered into an Agreement.

Show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for.

Show how the Claimant has legal right ,either under statue or equity to issue a claim.

5.As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4) it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed; having been provided with written requests for information under CPR 31.14 and to date have failed to provide any such documentation as detailed on the particulars of claim.

6.On the alternative, if 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 1925.

7.Notwithstanding the above should the alleged amount claimed include an early termination charge(s) amounting to the entire balance of the remaining contract. OFCOM guidance states that any Early Termination Charge that is made up of the entire balance if the remaining contract is unlikely to be fair as it fails to take into account the fact that the provider no longer has to provide and pay for their service.

8.By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.

So is this ready to submit to MCOL ?

no point 1 still needs doing

you've missed a bit out

and the claimant 'has yet....

Done...yes you can now submit your defence.

Do i ignore the counterclaim bit when submitting defence on MCOL??

I ignored counterclaims and submitted it

thanks

Defence was submitted on 27th June.

Havent hear anything until yesterday when we received this.

What do we do now just sit and wait.

Nothing changed on MCOL since our defence was submitted.

Thanks

the notice of assigment they mention is the same copied and pasted page shown in post #41

Just sit and wait.......

Thanks

Pdf next time please T&W so we can zoom

I will try ,just JPG is easier for me to black out the personal details.

blank as jpg then convert to pdf afterwards

I have one question

my son has just checked his credit report and the Lowell account (the account this thread is about) is still showing under closed accounts but the balance owing has gone from £412 to £530 which is the amount they are claiming including solicitor cost ,court costs and interest. ARE they allowed to do that ????

makes no odds

they've gotta win first...

no it wont hurt his file anymore or less

I received directions questionaire that ive filled in but this page was also received, is this just an information sheet or does that need sent to the court and solicitors as well ????

1217.pdf

N180

Yes to mediation

Yes to Small Claims Track

1 wit you

The rest is obv

3 copies

1 to the court

1 to the sols minus sig/phone/email

1 for your file

Ok but do i fill that bit in as attached above two tick boxes with ext ex730 on form or is it just an information sheet???

Also i couldnt tick the box saying we have enough information for mediation as we havent received any exact details of the bt contract agreement or whether its mobile /broadband or whatever/

its part of the N180

yes

yes

ok thanks , i tried printing the pdf form off the gov site but its printed all out without any spaces between the words!!!!

so i tick the box saying we have enough info even if we havent

Why are you not been reading other thread s??

You agree until the day of the call when you then say no

Yes i read what you`ve said , but somehow seems a bit of a daft thing to do ,saying you have enough info when you havent. I was also confused by the sheet above as it didnt seem part of the N180 form.

thanks anyway, i`ll keep you informed as it goes along.

The mediation sheet is part of the DQ assuming you opt for mediation when completing the DQ.

Entering into mediation is really nothing to do with what documents you have or not...thats just a question they seem to ask to decide if your suitable for mediation.

If your not in a position to comply with mediation for whatever reason then state no on the DQ...although the courts expect all parties to participate...your choice.

Andy