Bumping post #448

I'll have a look in the morning

but in between 7 & 8 something about the agreement request i.e. why you did it - difficulties getting info or whatever

separate 8 into just eh s77 bit - the rest should be in after the s77 stuff

move 6& 7 after 11 & give reasons why it doesn't comply

after 14 - in respect of that which is denied, the defendant did receive a form from the claimant purporting to be a DN however it it not valid .... or something like that

woodchester case quotes?

just a few ideas?

Thanks gh. Will amend.

Must be losing it! That should read s.77 request in para 8, not CPR 31.14!

Morning All,

Latest edition

IN THE LOCAL COUNTY COURT CLAIM No.XXXXXXXX

BETWEEN:

1. I COSTA of XX XXXX XXXX, XXXXXXX, XXX XXX am the Defendant in this action and make the following statement as my defence to the claim made by TESCO PERSONAL FINANCE LIMITED.

2. Except where otherwise mentioned in this defence, the Defendant neither admits nor denies any allegation made in the Claimants’ Particulars of Claim and put the Claimant to strict proof thereof.

3. On XX XXXX 2010, the Defendant received an amended Particulars of Claim, issued by Cobbetts LLP acting on behalf of Tesco Personal Finance.

4. In paragraph 4 the Claimant states that on the X XXXXXX 2008 they entered into a credit agreement (“the agreement”) with the Defendant. The agreement would be regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (“CCA 1974”) as set out in s 8 of the CCA 1974.

5. In paragraph 3 the Claimant states that the agreement number was XXXXXXXX.

6. On XX XXXXXXX 2009 the Defendant received a letter from Incasso LLP informing him that they had been instructed by the Claimant to recover the full amount owed, a sum of £XXXXX.

7. In response to the letter from Incasso LLP the Defendant, on XX XXXXX 2009, made a request under Section 77 of the CCA 1974 for the disclosure and the production of a verified and legible copy of the Loan Agreement.

8. Section 77 of the CCA 1974 states that:

77. Duty to give information to debtor under fixed-sum credit agreement.

1) The creditor under a regulated agreement for fixed-sum credit, within the prescribed period after receiving a request in writing to that effect from the debtor and payment of a fee of £1, shall give the debtor a copy of the executed agreement (if any) and of any other document referred to in it, together with a statement signed by or on behalf of the creditor showing, according to the information to which it is practicable for him to refer,—

And follows that:

4) If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with subsection (1)

(a) he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement;

9. Further to the request under s.77 of the CCA 1974, at a hearing on X XXXX 2010 in the Local County Court, it was ordered by District Judge X that the Claimant file and serve ‘legible’ copies of any documents or give an explanation as to why such copies are unavailable. The copies of the loan Agreement attached to the Amended Particulars of Claim are illegible and there is no explanation of why legible copies are unavailable. Therefore the Claimant is in breach of the Judges Order and the Defendants request for information under Section 77 of the CCA 1974.

10. On XX XXXXX 2009, the Defendant received a Claim Form. The Claim Form was issued on XX XXXXXXX 2009 whilst the Claimant was in default of the Defendants request for information under s.77 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

11. The issuing of the Claim Form by the Claimant is a commencement of proceedings, and therefore the Claimant wishes to obtain a judgement to enforce the agreement contrary to s.77(4)(a) of the CCA 1974.

12. The agreement must, inter alia comply with s61 (1) CCA 1974 if it is to be properly executed.

13. The consequences of improper execution are that the agreement is unenforceable save for an order of the court under s65 (1) CCA 1974.

14. The Defendant denies receiving a Formal Demand issued by the Claimant on XX XXXXX 2009, as set out in paragraph 9.

15. The Defendant denies receiving a valid Default Notice issued by the Claimant on XX XXXXXX 2009, set out in paragraph 9 of the Particulars of Claim.

16. The Claimant must under Section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 serve a valid Default Notice before they can demand early payment of sums not yet due under a Regulated Credit Agreement. It is submitted that the Default Notice served under s87 (1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 failed to comply with the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983(SI 1983/1561), in respect of that which is denied, the Defendant did receive a form from the Claimant purporting to be a Default Notice however it is not valid.

17. In the case of Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain & Co [1998] All ER (D) 339 in the Court of Appeal, the court addressed in some detail the issue of the contents of a default notice and should the notice fail to comply with the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) it would render the Default Notice invalid, KENNEDY LJ commented: “This statute was plainly enacted to protect consumers, most of whom are likely to be individuals.When contracting with a large financial organisation they are at a disadvantage. The contract is likely to be in standard form and relatively complex with a number of detailed provisions. If the hirer is said to have broken its terms, the hirer needs to know precisely what he or she is said to have done wrong and what he or she needs to do to put matters right. The lender has the ability and the resources to give that information with precision. If he does not do so accurately then he cannot take what Mr Gruffyd conveniently referred to as "the next step"”. The judgement appears to confirm the consumer credit legislation made under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 as plainly enacted and set out to offer protection to the consumer. Therefore it is suggested that the failure of the Claimant to set out the Default Notice in accordance with the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) could unduly prejudice the Defendant as it failed to allow the required time to remedy the default and allow the Defendant to take the ‘next step’.

18. The Default Notice is defective in that it fails to allow the Statutory number of clear days that Parliament demands that you must be allowed. Fourteen clear days were not allowed between service of the default and the time laid out where the alleged breach needed to be remedied.

19. The Defendant cannot recall the actual date the Default Notice was received and its class of postage. The Defendant therefore puts the Claimant to strict proof as to the date of service and class of postage of said document.

20. Schedule 2 Regulation 2(2) 9A of the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) states that where an agreement makes provision for the charging of post-judgment interest in connection with a judgment sum, a statement in the following form should be included in the Default Notice:

"You should be aware that if we take you to court and get a judgment against you requiring you to pay us the money you owe us under the agreement, you may have to pay us both the amount of the judgment and interest under the agreement on all the sums owed by you at the date of the judgment until you have paid these in full. This means that even if you pay off the whole amount of the judgment, you may still have a further sum to pay."

21. The Claimant has not included this prescribed statement in the Default Notice.

22. The failure of the Claimant to set out the Default Notice in accordance with the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) denies the Claimant the right to demand early payment of sums not yet due. It also unduly prejudices the Defendant as it failed to allow the required time to remedy the default and failed to contain the prescribed statements.

23. A Default Notice must be issued in the prescribed format, correctly state the arrears and allow 14 clear days from date of service for the default to be remedied before a Consumer Credit Account can be terminated. Unless this is done the creditor cannot demand repayment of the full balance. If the Credit Company terminates an agreement on the strength of an invalid Default Notice, then all the Credit Company can claim is the arrears demanded on the Notice, not the full amount. Therefore termination is deemed to have been effected if the full balance is demanded.

24. The Claimant, in paragraph 10 of the Amended Particulars of Claim, is demanding repayment of the full balance on the Loan Account, a sum of £XXXXX. The Claimant has therefore terminated the Agreement on the strength of an invalid Default Notice. The Claimant is only entitled to demand the arrears demanded on the Notice.

25. It is not admitted that the sums claimed, set out in paragraph 10 of the Amended Particulars of Claim, are lawfully owing. The Claimant is put to strict proof as to how the sums claimed have been calculated and as to how it is asserted that the sums claimed are contractually owing.

26. In paragraph 10 the Claimant refers to clause 8(i) of the Loan Agreement which states, ‘if:- (i) you fail to make an Instalment Repayment within one month of its due date;…then we shall be entitled after the expiry of proper notice to demand immediate payment of the Loan plus interest and Charges on Default less (on payment) any applicable rebate…’. The copy of the Loan Agreement is annexed at pages 1 and 2 of the Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has been unfair to the Defendant by the way in which the Claimant has exercised or enforced his rights under the agreement. The Claimant issued an invalid Default Notice to demand early repayment of the outstanding sum of the loan which failed to allow the required time to remedy the default and did not contain the prescribed statements.

27. Section 140A(1) of the CCA 1974 states that:

The court may make an order under section 140B in connection with a credit agreement if it determines that the relationship between the creditor and the debtor arising out of the agreement (or the agreement taken with any related agreement) is unfair to the debtor because of one or more of the following…

(b) the way in which the creditor has exercised or enforced any of his rights under the agreement or any related agreement;

28. The Claimant is put to strict proof that he has not been unfair to the Defendant and that the Court may not make an order under s.140B of the CCA 1974.

Statement of Truth

The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Amended Defence are true.

Will add in reasons about the non compliant agreement later today.

Will also check Woodchester to see if there is anything else I can add.

Costa

Bumping #454.

Put in what I think is applicable from Woodchester.

Have a go at non compliant agreement at lunchtime!

IN THE LOCAL COUNTY COURT CLAIM No.XXXXXXXX

BETWEEN:

1. I COSTA of XX XXXX XXXX, XXXXXXX, XXX XXX am the Defendant in this action and make the following statement as my defence to the claim made by TESCO PERSONAL FINANCE LIMITED.

2. Except where otherwise mentioned in this defence, the Defendant neither admits nor denies any allegation made in the Claimants’ Particulars of Claim and put the Claimant to strict proof thereof.

3. On XX XXXX 2010, the Defendant received an amended Particulars of Claim, issued by Cobbetts LLP acting on behalf of Tesco Personal Finance.

4. In paragraph 4 the Claimant states that on the X XXXXXX 2008 they entered into a credit agreement (“the agreement”) with the Defendant. The agreement would be regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (“CCA 1974”) as set out in s 8 of the CCA 1974.

5. In paragraph 3 the Claimant states that the agreement number was XXXXXXXX.

6. On XX XXXXXXX 2009 the Defendant received a letter from Incasso LLP informing him that they had been instructed by the Claimant to recover the full amount owed, a sum of £XXXXX.

7. In response to the letter from Incasso LLP the Defendant, on XX XXXXX 2009, made a request under Section 77 of the CCA 1974 for the disclosure and the production of a verified and legible copy of the Loan Agreement.

8. Section 77 of the CCA 1974 states that:

77. Duty to give information to debtor under fixed-sum credit agreement.

1) The creditor under a regulated agreement for fixed-sum credit, within the prescribed period after receiving a request in writing to that effect from the debtor and payment of a fee of £1, shall give the debtor a copy of the executed agreement (if any) and of any other document referred to in it, together with a statement signed by or on behalf of the creditor showing, according to the information to which it is practicable for him to refer,—

And follows that:

4) If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with subsection (1)

(a) he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement;

9. Further to the request under s.77 of the CCA 1974, at a hearing on X XXXX 2010 in the Local County Court, it was ordered by District Judge X that the Claimant file and serve ‘legible’ copies of any documents or give an explanation as to why such copies are unavailable. The copies of the loan Agreement attached to the Amended Particulars of Claim are illegible and there is no explanation of why legible copies are unavailable. Therefore the Claimant is in breach of the Judges Order and the Defendants request for information under Section 77 of the CCA 1974.

10. On XX XXXXX 2009, the Defendant received a Claim Form. The Claim Form was issued on XX XXXXXXX 2009 whilst the Claimant was in default of the Defendants request for information under s.77 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

11. The issuing of the Claim Form by the Claimant is a commencement of proceedings, and therefore the Claimant wishes to obtain a judgement to enforce the agreement contrary to s.77(4)(a) of the CCA 1974.

12. The agreement must, inter alia comply with s61 (1) CCA 1974 if it is to be properly executed.

13. The consequences of improper execution are that the agreement is unenforceable save for an order of the court under s65 (1) CCA 1974.

14. The Agreement fails to state a term as required by Schedule 1, Regulation 2(1) Para 9 Consumer Credit Agreement Regulations 1983 (the Regulations) as the total charge for credit does not list its constituent parts and a statement explaining how and when interest charges are calculated and applied under the Agreement is missing.

15. S 61 CCA 1974 states:

“Signing of agreement

(1) A regulated agreement is not properly executed unless—

(a)a document in the prescribed form itself containing all the prescribed terms and conforming to regulations under section 60(1) is signed in the prescribed manner both by the debtor or hirer and by or on behalf of the creditor or owner”

16. The matters set out in paragraph 14 herein are prescribed terms and are required for compliance with s61 (1) (a) CCA 1974. The consequences of these terms missing render the agreement improperly executed.

17. S65 CCA 1974 states:

“Consequences of improper-execution

(1) An improperly-executed regulated agreement is enforceable against the debtor or hirer on an order of the court only.”

18. The Defendant denies receiving a Formal Demand issued by the Claimant on XX XXXXX 2009, as set out in paragraph 9.

19. The Defendant denies receiving a valid Default Notice issued by the Claimant on XX XXXXXX 2009, set out in paragraph 9 of the Particulars of Claim.

20. The Claimant must under Section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 serve a valid Default Notice before they can demand early payment of sums not yet due under a Regulated Credit Agreement. It is submitted that the Default Notice served under s87 (1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 failed to comply with the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983(SI 1983/1561), in respect of that which is denied, the Defendant did receive a form from the Claimant purporting to be a Default Notice however it is not valid.

21. In the case of Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain & Co [1998] All ER (D) 339 in the Court of Appeal, the court addressed in some detail the issue of the contents of a default notice and should the notice fail to comply with the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) it would render the Default Notice invalid, KENNEDY LJ commented: "This statute was plainly enacted to protect consumers, most of whom are likely to be individuals" the judgement appears to confirm the consumer credit legislation made under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 as plainly enacted and set out to offer protection to the consumer. Therefore it is suggested that the failure of the Claimant to set out the Default Notice in accordance with the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) could unduly prejudice the Defendant as it failed to allow the required time to remedy the default.

22. The Default Notice is defective in that it fails to allow the Statutory number of clear days that Parliament demands that you must be allowed. Fourteen clear days were not allowed between service of the default and the time laid out where the alleged breach needed to be remedied.

23. The Defendant cannot recall the actual date the Default Notice was received and its class of postage. The Defendant therefore puts the Claimant to strict proof as to the date of service and class of postage of said document.

24. Schedule 2 Regulation 2(2) 9A of the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) states that where an agreement makes provision for the charging of post-judgment interest in connection with a judgment sum, a statement in the following form should be included in the Default Notice:

"You should be aware that if we take you to court and get a judgment against you requiring you to pay us the money you owe us under the agreement, you may have to pay us both the amount of the judgment and interest under the agreement on all the sums owed by you at the date of the judgment until you have paid these in full. This means that even if you pay off the whole amount of the judgment, you may still have a further sum to pay."

25. The Claimant has not included this prescribed statement in the Default Notice.

26. The failure of the Claimant to set out the Default Notice in accordance with the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) denies the Claimant the right to demand early payment of sums not yet due. It also unduly prejudices the Defendant as it failed to allow the required time to remedy the default and failed to contain the prescribed statements.

27. A Default Notice must be issued in the prescribed format, correctly state the arrears and allow 14 clear days from date of service for the default to be remedied before a Consumer Credit Account can be terminated. Unless this is done the creditor cannot demand repayment of the full balance. If the Credit Company terminates an agreement on the strength of an invalid Default Notice, then all the Credit Company can claim is the arrears demanded on the Notice, not the full amount. Therefore termination is deemed to have been effected if the full balance is demanded.

28. The Claimant, in paragraph 10 of the Amended Particulars of Claim, is demanding repayment of the full balance on the Loan Account, a sum of £XXXXX. The Claimant has therefore terminated the Agreement on the strength of an invalid Default Notice. The Claimant is only entitled to demand the arrears demanded on the Notice.

29. It is not admitted that the sums claimed, set out in paragraph 10 of the Amended Particulars of Claim, are lawfully owing. The Claimant is put to strict proof as to how the sums claimed have been calculated and as to how it is asserted that the sums claimed are contractually owing.

30. In paragraph 10 the Claimant refers to clause 8(i) of the Loan Agreement which states, ‘if:- (i) you fail to make an Instalment Repayment within one month of its due date;…then we shall be entitled after the expiry of proper notice to demand immediate payment of the Loan plus interest and Charges on Default less (on payment) any applicable rebate…’. The copy of the Loan Agreement is annexed at pages 1 and 2 of the Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has been unfair to the Defendant by the way in which the Claimant has exercised or enforced his rights under the agreement. The Claimant issued an invalid Default Notice to demand early repayment of the outstanding sum of the loan which failed to allow the required time to remedy the default and did not contain the prescribed statements.

31. Section 140A(1) of the CCA 1974 states that:

The court may make an order under section 140B in connection with a credit agreement if it determines that the relationship between the creditor and the debtor arising out of the agreement (or the agreement taken with any related agreement) is unfair to the debtor because of one or more of the following…

(b) the way in which the creditor has exercised or enforced any of his rights under the agreement or any related agreement;

32. The Claimant is put to strict proof that he has not been unfair to the Defendant and that the Court may not make an order under s.140B of the CCA 1974.

Statement of Truth

The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Amended Defence are true.

That's it. Can't think of anything else or find anything else to include.

Will post tomorrow morning by special delivery so it will be filed and served on 1st April.

Still no news from court regarding my letter requesting restoration of the application for SJ/SO. Will phone again tomorrow. Maybe Judge waiting for my amended Defence.

Any comments on Defence welcome .

Costa

between 5 & 6 something like

Build up to this action

7. Having not received any documents from Incasso LLP the Defendant, on XX XXXXX 2009, made a statutory request under Section 77 of the CCA 1974

between 11 & 12 something like

The Agreement

Start 14 out with something like "From the part of the purported agreement that can be read ..." otherwise it sounds as though teh legibility is not an issue.

between 19 & 20 In respect of that which is denied, the Defendant did receive a document from the claimant on or about ##/##/###.

In 20 insert something along the lines of having to follow s87 as not only do they have to issue the notice, but they have to give you the time to rectify etc.

between 23 & 24 something along the lines of " The Defendant is aware of the regulations as to when a posted document is deemed served. and quote the regs

28 isn't quite right, they are entitled to teh arrears at termination, BUT in order to enforce those they must have complied with those other regs I quoted the other day. The new information on defaults etc ones

Cheers gh. Much appreciated. As always !

Had my brief day at court - N244.

Didnt get S/O as the judge said they can still get Judgement just not enforcement without credit agreement? wasn't confident enough to challenge him on that one. Tbh the judge was in no mood to push. He had us down for 15mins and that was all I was getting.

Anyway they were forced to redo POC and they didn't get their costs.

I did get my costs - so 2 steps forward 1 step back.

Looks like I'll be using your defence as a template.

Hi GuitarHero,

Some of the outcomes from today do not surprise me. No S/O, them told to redo POC.

Glad you got your costs. It's a start. Didn't get mine, however they didn't get theirs either. Only their agent got his fee (£90) which I have to cover.

Filing and serving my defence tomorrow. Then see what happens after Easter !

If I get somewhere with my defence then it's obviously worth using! Remember to amend to suit your individual case. My defence has run into 9 A4 pages. In response to their 2 page POC!

Not much was different to the original POC. Just some extra figures. Wouldn't surprise me if they do the same with you!

Costa

Hi All,

Completed my amended defence and been filed and served with the Court and Cobbetts.

Following that had a phone call from OH and the Judge has restored my application for SJ/SO and there is a hearing on 11th May 2010 . 40 mins has been allocated.

So plenty of time to prepare for that and time to see what Cobbetts try next .

Costa

Didnt get S/O as the judge said they can still get Judgement just not enforcement without credit agreement?

This is why it is soooo important to be confident in your case and to read and read again the caselaw

The reasons have been posted in this thread.

The brining of proceding is not enforcement - obtaining a judgement is. (see the Rakine, McGuffick & Carey cases)

e.g. McGuffick

80. So far as activities (iii) to (vi) are concerned, it was accepted on behalf of the claimant that these did not amount to enforcement or actions to enforce the agreement. That concession seems to me to be correct: at most these activities are steps preparatory to subsequent enforcement. Furthermore, in a recent decision, Rankine v American Express Services Europe Ltd [2009] CCLR 3, HHJ Simon Brown QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) concluded that the bringing of proceedings is only a step taken with a view to enforcement and not actually enforcement. It seems to me that that conclusion must be correct. Were it otherwise, as Mr Handyside pointed out, one would be left with the conundrum that the creditor could not apply to the court for an enforcement order under section 127(1), because to do so would amount to enforcement, not permitted by section 65(1).

In effect it says you can bring proceeding BUT if teh CCA says you cannot enforce then you cannot get a Judgement.

Part of teh problem is the fact that the creditors (IMHO purposely) make their POC so wooly that you do not know what they are really asking for.

Are they going for a 12791) enforcement order or enforcing their entitlement under s87 or other

JMHO

This is going to be the big point that the creditors argue on - so everyone must read up and at least know where to find points in the case law even if they can't remember it.

Just been reading Anatomy of a Default Notice. Very interesting thread.

 

Am I clutching at straws here or should the DN I received have the following statement in it:

 

 

SCHEDULE 2

 

 

FORM OF DEFAULT NOTICE BEFORE A CREDITOR OR OWNER CAN BECOME ENTITLED, BY REASON OF ANY BREACH BY THE DEBTOR OR HIRER OF A REGULATED AGREEEMENT, TO TERMINATE THE AGREEMENT, DEMAND EARLIER PAYMENT OF ANY SUM, RECOVER POSSESSION OF ANY GOODS OR LAND, TREAT ANY RIGHT CONFERRED ON THE DEBTOR OR HIRER BY THE

AGREEMENT AS TERMINATED, RESTRICTED OR DEFERRED OR ENFORCE ANY SECURITY

 

Regulation 2(2)

 

 

 

Where an agreement makes provision for the charging of post-judgment interest in connection with a judgment sum, a statement in the following form—

 

"You should be aware that if we take you to court and get a judgment against you requiring you to pay us the money you owe us under the agreement, you may have to pay us both the amount of the judgment and interest under the agreement

on all the sums owed by you at the date of the judgment until you have paid these in full. This means that even if you pay off the whole amount of the judgment, you may still have a further sum to pay."

 

It's an interesting point. IMO it will only negate their ability to claim post judgement interest though. but every little helps.

Have had a 'catch up' read today and I see you have time on your side . Work's been hellish this week so looking forward to the long weekend and some much needed rest and reading.

Anatomy of A DN is a good thread and i'd suggest that you pop your DN on there and see what comments it raises.

M

Hi M,

Good to hear from you. As you say time is on my side.

It was good to hear from the Court today that the Judge has restored my application for SJ/SO. He's obviously looked at their amended POC and the attached documents and noticed that they are the same ones he threw out of Court !

It will be interesting to see what Cobbetts come up with. They would of received the Hearing Notice today aswell. Would their's have different instructions to mine? My Notice just said to attend hearing on 11th May.

I will certainly be using my time wisely. I will be more than ready for the Hearing or whatever else they throw at me.

Thanks for the 'heads up' regarding the DN. As you say every little helps !

Enjoy the weekend.

Costa

Notice from court should IMO be the same for both parties.

As you say, be ready! Mine was a CMC combined with a SJ/SO hearing, and only 45 mins, but quickly turned into the full monty on the day. If the DJ thinks he/she has seen enough then they'll try and draw it to a conclusion to save time and costs. Makes sense when you think about it. So prepare well

M

Thanks M. Things certainly may come to an abrupt end. So I will be well prepared.

Got 6 weeks to get it all sorted. Will be using the time constructively!

Costa

Received another shambolic offering from Cobbetts in the post today.

Extract reads:

'We note that we have not received your amended Defence in accordance with the Order of District Judge X and put you on notice that unless we receive the same within 7 days together with confirmation that your Application is withdrawn we will proceed with an Application to strike out your Defence.........Yada yada'

Letter dated 30 March 2010.

The Order gave me 14 days after their cut-off date (18 March). So file and serve by today 1 April!

Will I be withdrawing my Application? NO!

Will I be putting something in writing? YES!

They can't even read a Judge's Order correctly !

Costa

me thinks you will quite enjoy replying to that

maybe some reference to today's date ;-)

if you're feeling bitchy .... "following the last minute filing of your amended POC and your apparent disregard for the Order of ##/##, DJ ##### having reviewed the file has ordered to re-instate my application. I am sure you will have already been notified of this fact, but for your convenience I enclose a further copy of the order, listing a hearing for ##/##"

needs tweaking cos it reads really badly

Got a nice long weekend to put something suitable together :D!

Thanks gh. Thats a nice start !

Received another shambolic offering from Cobbetts in the post today.

 

Extract reads:

 

'We note that we have not received your amended Defence in accordance with the Order of District Judge X and put you on notice that unless we receive the same within 7 days together with confirmation that your Application is withdrawn we will proceed with an Application to strike out your Defence.........Yada yada'

 

Letter dated 30 March 2010.

 

The Order gave me 14 days after their cut-off date (18 March). So file and serve by today 1 April!

 

Will I be withdrawing my Application? NO!

 

Will I be putting something in writing? YES!

 

They can't even read a Judge's Order correctly !

 

Costa

They just get better and better. LOL

M

They are unbelieveable M!

Going to enjoy putting this next letter together !