Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder

sillygirl1

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    9,720
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

sillygirl1 last won the day on January 10 2014

sillygirl1 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,793 Excellent

About sillygirl1

  • Rank
    Platinum Account Holder

Recent Profile Visitors

479 profile views
  1. I sent the defence to the courts and Lowells, had a notice of allocation which I said no to mediation and the court o be Croydon, that was just before Xmas then this notice arrived Friday. Nothing from Lowells.
  2. Update, Lowell’s have to enter a better defence and show all assignments, agreements and copies of notices of assignment by mid Feb. 10 days after that I have to do amended defence. Got a draft one ready I pinched from here.
  3. Still nothing from the court. Not going to phone Lowells, bet that is what they want. Will log onto court website later (if I can) and see if status has changed there.
  4. Brief update. A while ago received notification that defence had been submitted and now have received a Directions Questionairre asking for mediation. Lowells remain happy to discuss any aspect should I wish to contact them. ie Lowells wish to get me to pay up before mediation. I gather it is just a waiting game now?
  5. Can I have sime advice in the above, I know it doesnt have to be in til Fridaybut I am manically busy this week and want it done by tomorrow night.
  6. This is taken from one of the Lowell threads and amended Particulars of claim for reference only 1) The Claim comprises the following Agreements the Defendant entered into: a. Talk Talk Telecom Group plc with ref xxxxx current balance £120.87 b. E.on Energy Solutions Ltd with ref of xxxx and current balance of £1141.65 2)The Agreements were terminated as payments were not maintained and subsequently assigned to the Claimant. And the Claimant claims: a) total of thensaid sums being £1262.52 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 being £101.00 c) Costs Defence 1.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. The claimant has placed two unrelated bills from two different companies and therefore their claim is misleading. 2. 1a Is denied.The first unsubstantiated claim is for a closed mobile phone/broadband account. It was closed due to Talk Talk’s well publicised data breaches. The defendant was assured they could leave with no penalty, yet a penalty was applied and a further data breach occurred when this was passed to debt collectors.The defendant has repeatedly requested documentation on this and has not been supplied with any proof the claimants are due relief as stated in their poorly particularised claim 3. 1b is denied. The claimant further claims the amount of xxx in respect to a long disputed alleged debt with eon energy suppliers. The defendant had been incorrectly placed on a very high tariff with the company in 2012 despite being a low energy user and had continually had problems with back billing and estimated readings. The defendant made a part payment to eon in 2013 to attempt a resolution but eon failed to keep their agreement. They removed a faulty meter and destroyed it before checking it and again refused to clear charges on the account relating to a period when the defendant was not living at the property in question. The defendant changed suppliers in early 2014. The defendant moved in 2015 and had received no annual statement or requests from EON until June 2019 when the claimant was/s assigned the alleged debt. 3.Furthermore, the claimant has given no details as to the breakdown of their claim what dates it relates to ,so I am unable to defend specifically until the claimant can particularise and quantify its pleadings. 4. The claimant openly admits that they do not have access to the agreement nor was the Assignor required to retain a copy.Therefore their claim is unsubstantiated. Pursuant to the civil procedure rules Practice Direction 16 (7.3) Where a claim is based upon a written agreement:- (1) a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement should be attached to or served with the particulars of claim and the original(s) should be available at the hearing. With the court’s permission the Claimant is put to strict proof to:- a) show and disclose how the Defendant has entered into an agreement/s; b) show and disclose how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed ; c) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute 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 monies are owed. 6. It is therefore denied that the defendant is indebted to the claimant as alleged or at all.
  7. My defence is that the alleged debt has long been in dispute with the original creditor, one is nigh on statute barred. The two debts should not be on the same claim. I have this evening to get this sorted out.
  8. All I need then is a direct copy of a defence here that I can use. Ive used simple defences before with good results, mostly discontiniations.
  9. To be quite honest I would like to keep it as simple ss possible, a CPR was sent but no reply. I aim to get this in by Sunday as I have a lot on over the next few weeks. If yoy can add anything I would aporeciate it.
  10. Draft defence 1, The claimants are claiming two different accounts with two different companies,. 2. Repeated requests to the claimants for information regarding these accounts have been ignored. 3. The Talk Talk account for 120 is for charges after the account was closed due to well publicised data breaches, a further data breach occurred when they passed the unsubstantiated claim to the claimants. 4. The Eon debt has been long running since the inception of that account in 2012. In November 2013 a partial payment was made to try and resolve the issue but Eon failed to uphold their agreement and contract with me, Therefore this account has been in dispute for a considerable time. 5. The claimants sent a series of letters about these two alleged debts offering discounts of up to 70%, each time I telephoned and asked for further information they failed to provide it. 6. By putting two unrelated debts together the claimants have provided the courts with misleading information and therefore the claim should be struck out. 7. The defendant has continually informed the claimants of the circumstances around these disputed debts and has been denied any evidence the claimants have a right to legal action. 8. The defendant has no legal training and can not afford legal fees, therefore the claimants claim for costs and interest should be denied. 9. This is a statement of truth by ..... I don’t
×
×
  • Create New...