Yes the were adding on further costs with solicitors it would of been 1500 with rent a sol x 2 on there The judge wanted to see us and he buggered up references again all duly pointed out I had badgered him down previous and started at the lowest payable as I had bought the items I told him to prove it Hubbie said people could hear us bartering and were looking but it worked Technically I had a year free and got a interest free period of 5 years with the out come not that much more than the original items at a payable rate Yes I could of gone for trial and been stuck with more costs bit weighing up this see ned sensible Also they will have more costs ant travel expenses from the rent a sols So a win I think and pre court

Been to court the new rent a sol after arguing with me pre trial struck a deal He wanted 1500 with costs ( Thomson order which is affordable ) I struck him down to 1000 did try for 850 Hr deducted my payments and charges by very but costs were rising with sol costs He then asked what I wanted to pay after I said where's his proof I didn't have a buy now pay later So I told him 10 per month they wanted 20 I said no so we struck a 15 per month I also showed him up in front of the judge with incorrect reference He put the wrong claim number Even now he's done his maths wrong we will see he said 5 years @ 15 per month 900 It wasn't about not paying but what they have done

Thanks fingers crossed

OK any charges on low income self employed

What's next procedure if I get a ccj Income and expenses as I couldn't be paid off in one go Tia

Thanks andy I'm going through everything I can I'd any one spots anything please say Fingers crossed

Hi any one have any thoughts on what else is there to be brought up have resent the email confirming I had the option of buy now pay 12 months also the order confirmations stating they were buy now pay 2 months as they said I didn't have it on buy now pay 12 have sent evidence that the judge mentioned I would have to prove I never received the df there was massive floods it was on the news I sent copies of emails & notification off the post office so hopefully that will suffice resent my bank statement as they said they couldn't see the dates but dates were on the top of the statements I think it was a delaying tactic pointed out in the 2 nd ws lowel state the account number had not been changed they have the wrong account number & where would I fin a old closed account from 12 years ago also found the Wilson v hurstanger to hopefully counter him trying to get this on quantum although this only come up at the weekend so wont have chance to submit but as she took docs off the sol when he asked for it to be looked at via quantum when she told him they had not complied with section 78 is there anything I have missed or not getting right tia

Hi Singapore Only produced a one in the ws but not in prescribed terms the judge had hammered them 3 times saying they had not so that's why rent a sol said look at it in quantum However I've managed to find a email from them stating the goods were on a buy now pay 12 months Debt was sold 10 months in and they claim it wasn't on a buy now Also my payments were allocated to a old account of mine closed 12 years ago how could I get a old account number I think it was fiddled when they changed names Also the sol in 2 ws also gave the wrong account number so that gives 3 accounts the original the one I paid when they changed name and the sol wrong one all pointed out when I sent the new evidence in Only thing I havent introduced is the Wilson thing but I'm willing to point out she allowed rent a sol to hand documents over for when he said quantum so I should be allowed Thanks for this I was feeling lost with it all Yep it was section 78 the judge had said they haven't complied with

Thankyou Singapore my judge hammered them and only then the rent a sol say he wanted it looked at by quantum and handed her some documentation which I didn't see just wanted to be prepared if he try to again would I need the full case if I were to take it I already have my ws in but if she was going to accept his I see no reason why she shouldn't accept mine Tia

Hi I've been reading and not understanding how does the Wilson work my judge adjourned the case to be brought again next week The sol said he wanted the same as you looked at as knew of quantum so I'm just trying to be as prepared as I can Tia

Interesting as this is what the sol mentioned to my judge He wanted it looked at as quantum Will have to do a bit of research on this Wilson stuff

Just a thought if terms had been changed in a buy now pay later would the 14 days refund be relevant or a cool off period noted aswell in the second ws they have the wrong account number

new court date the 12/7/17

oh ok I'm overthinking it thanks andy

Final which I am going to send does this look ok? In The Claim Number Lowell Portfolio Ltd And Supplemental Disclosure Statement/New Evidence I, the above named defendant state that I have carried out a reasonable and proportionate search to locate all the documents. Letter/email welcome for Buy Now Pay later & order confirmation & statement recalling Buy now pay later. Exhibit 1 Bank Details of Very which is inconceivable i the defendant would & could pay into a closed bank account from 12 years ago, to which payments should be traceable from the dates given & no Payments have ever been refunded, so the defendant assumes the funds are in a bank account & gaining Interest. Exhibit 2 Emails & List of mail drops at that time of Postal problems ranging from november postage drops to after march raising issues that mail was not reaching myself the defendant or clients & a statement from Royal Mail which was published and sent out outlining the postal issues due to circumstance beyond my control to over 500 clients which was for work memberships to be renewed for the ending period 2016, forms were sent out early Oct 15 for renewals. Exhibit 3 which I am required to disclose under the order made by the court on day of I did not search: (1) for documents predating Feb15, (2) for documents located elsewhere than emails paper copies & website, (3) for documents in categories other than woolworths , Very & Postal Issues I carried out a search for electronic documents contained on or created by the following: Statements & Correspondence from Woolworths , Very & Postal Problems I did not search for the following: (1) documents created before Feb 15, (2) documents contained on or created by the Claimant's PCs/portable data storage media/databases/servers/backup tapes/off-site storage/mobile phones/laptops/notebooks/handheld devices/PDA devices (3) documents contained on or created by the Claimant's calendar files/spreadsheet files/graphic and presentation files, (4) documents other than by reference to the following keyword(s)/concepts Woolworths, Very & Postal Issues Royal Mail. . I certify that I understand the duty of disclosure and to the best of my knowledge I have carried out that duty. I certify that the list above is a complete list of all documents which are or have been in my control and which I am obliged under the said order to disclose

Possibly another bingo moment just found a email stating welcome to your new account with credit limit stating you can buy now & pay nothing for 12 months

sorry to be bothersome again does the above look alright in format or am I missing something potential (cant think of anything else really) although I am digging around if this was to go my way who would I report this to the missing payments etc fos & ico?? tia

OK just draft at the moment would go into more details but didn't want to elaborate on the postal issues here as would give out my detai Supplemental Disclosure statement/ New Evidence I, the above named defendant state that I have carried out a reasonable and proportionate search to locate all the documents. Buy Now Pay later confirmation & Statement recalling Buy now pay later. Bank Details of Very which is inconceivable i the defendant could pay into a closed bank account from 12 years ago without details passed to me the claimant Emails at that time of Postal problems & Statement from Royal Mail which was published & sent out outlining the postal issues due to circumstance beyond control to over 500 xxxx which I am required to disclose under the order made by the court on day of . I did not search: (1) for documents predating Feb15, (2) for documents located elsewhere than emails paper copies & website, (3) for documents in categories other than woolworths , Very & Postal problems I carried out a search for electronic documents contained on or created by the following: Statements & Correspondence from Woolworths , Very & Postal Problems I did not search for the following: (1) documents created before Feb 15, (2) documents contained on or created by the Claimant's PCs/portable data storage media/databases/servers/backup tapes/off-site storage/mobile phones/laptops/notebooks/handheld devices/PDA devices (3) documents contained on or created by the Claimant's calendar files/spreadsheet files/graphic and presentation files, (4) documents other than by reference to the following keyword(s)/concepts Woolworths, Very * Postal Problems Royal Mail. . I certify that I understand the duty of disclosure and to the best of my knowledge I have carried out that duty. I certify that the list above is a complete list of all documents which are or have been in my control and which I am obliged under the said order to disclose will add on ref numbers for the evidence

this is what I sent off and in my defence, taking a look at that section now On the 12/10/16 (sent by recorded delivery) I requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CPR 31.14 request and a Section 78 request. The claimant has failed to date to respond to the CPR and remains in default of the section 78 request. 4.It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of assignment/balance/breach requested by CPR 31. 14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and (b) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and © 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 money is owed. so fill out a n265?? or am I covered in my cpr ok think i might have my head around this im going to work on a supplimental disclosure statement will post up as soon as i have done

just going through everything now will get back soon the jargon gets me at times cca request was done & cpr, I disclosed in my witness statement these letters and bank statements showing payments and the letters as evidence in my defence sorry having a blonde day

not sure what that is I did a ws post 92 before the trial and trail was adjourned will have a look around now for standard disclosure yes cpr was sent off at the beginning if I'm right in what you are thinking

OK so how do I go about that not too sure on the procedure for it Also have evidence of postal problems at that time which I might need to depend on

Lowells new ws attached should I write and ask for the proof I was declined a buy now pay later ( which I was not this is complete Hogwash) and where my payments have gone? Ive just had a bingo moment actually have found the order confirmations stating Buy now pay later so any thoughts should I write to lowells and ask for proof of not having a buy now pay later & proof of my payments or do I need to do another ws revised lowell WS.pdf

the Case is adjourned she wants statements of the debt and payment so they have 28 days to produce documents she also said she wanted dated document from very She stated 3 times that they hadn't complied with section 78 The solicitor then went in to say o think it should be looked at quantum and gave her some legislation which I did not see She did say I would have to prove not getting the default and the default was in the required time The question is the amount and the buy now pay later So will have to see if they can provide statements judge requested the case was adjourned due to my payments and default notice and the above not sure on this it should be looked at by quantum?? Quantum Meruit [Latin, As much as is deserved.] In the law of contracts, a doctrine by which the law infers a promise to pay a reasonable amount for labor and materials furnished, even in the absence of a specific legally enforceable agreement between the parties. A party who performs a valuable service for another party usually enters into a written contract or agreement before performing the service, particularly when the party is in the business of performing that service. For instance, most professional roofers hired to repair a roof insist on having a formal agreement with the owner of the house before beginning the repairs. In the absence of an agreement or formal contract, the roofer may be unable to recover losses in court if the transaction goes awry. Quantum meruit is a judicial doctrine that allows a party to recover losses in the absence of an agreement or binding contract. By allowing the recovery of the value of labor and materials, quantum meruit prevents the Unjust Enrichment of the other party. A person would be unjustly enriched if she received a benefit and did not pay for it when fairness required that payment be made. Quantum meruit can be used to address situations where no contract exists or where a contract exists but for some reason is unenforceable. In such cases courts imply a contract to avoid an unjust result. Such contracts are called quasi contracts. Quantum meruit also describes a method used to determine the exact amount owed to a person. A court may measure this amount either by determining how much the defendant has benefited from the transaction or by determining how much the plaintiff has expended in materials and services. The doctrine of quantum meruit was developed in the seventeenth century by the royal Court of Chancery in England. This court worked apart from the common-law courts to grant relief that was due under general principles of fairness but could not be obtained under the strict legal precedents of the common-law courts. The system of basing decisions on basic principles of fairness became known as Equity. The Chancery Court developed quantum meruit along with other equitable doctrines that allowed a person to recover or collect for other valuable acts performed without a contract, such as the delivery of goods or money. Some of the first cases of quantum meruit involved recovery by persons in so-called trades of common calling, such as innkeepers, tailors, blacksmiths, and tanners. As service industries increased, so did claims for recovery under quantum meruit, and the doctrine was adopted by colonial courts. U.S. courts now apply quantum meruit principles in a wide variety of cases, including cases involving attorneys' fees, physicians' fees, construction work, government contracts, and even domestic relations suits for "palimony." Palimony is a form of financial support that is similar to Alimony but arises out of a nonmarital relationship. Courts have crafted four basic elements that the plaintiff must prove before she may recover under the doctrine of quantum meruit: (1) that valuable services were rendered; (2) that the services were rendered to the defendant; (3) that the services were accepted, used, and enjoyed by the defendant; and (4) that the defendant was aware that the plaintiff, in performing the services, expected to be paid by the defendant. The case of Montes v. Naismith and Trevino Construction Co., 459 S.W.2d 691 (Tex. Civ. App. 1970), illustrates how quantum meruit works. In August 1968 Abraham Montes began oral negotiations with Abdon Perez regarding improvements Montes sought for his homestead. Perez testified that Montes brought a contract to him more than once, but that the contract was never complete, and no contract was ever signed. Despite the lack of a contract, Perez arranged for the Naismith and Trevino Construction Company to do the work on Montes's house. Montes paid $1,800 to Perez, and Perez withdrew from the transaction. Naismith and Trevino made improvements on Montes's homestead for a total value of $3,835.36, but Montes refused to pay for the improvements. Naismith and Trevino brought suit against Montes, arguing that even though they did not have a contract with Montes, they should be paid for their labor and the materials they used in making improvements to his house. The court agreed and entered judgment for Naismith and Trevino in the amount of $1,760, the amount of the services and materials provided by Naismith and Trevino less the amount Montes had paid to Perez. The court based its ruling on the theory of quantum meruit. The doctrine of quantum meruit is contained in court decisions and, to a lesser extent, in statutes. It can be a confusing doctrine: many courts mix quantum meruit with the similar principles of restitution and unjust enrichment. Restitution is a broad term that describes measures taken by a civil or criminal defendant to restore a victim to the status that he enjoyed before the defendant caused a loss or injury. Unjust enrichment is an equitable approach to civil relationships that covers more than just contractual situations. A civil plaintiff may recover under the doctrine of unjust enrichment by showing (1) that the plaintiff conferred a benefit on the defendant; (2) that the defendant appreciated or knew of the benefit; and (3) that, under the circumstances, it was unfair for the defendant to accept or retain the benefit without paying for it. Most courts consider quantum meruit a particular form of legal restitution that follows the basic restitutionary principle of preventing unjust enrichment.

now have a new ws from lowels ( will post up once I black out personal info) They have said now that I didn't have my goods on a buy now pay later this is utter hog wash as when I had spoke to the regarding a letter regarding delivery payment it was confirmed that the goods were on a buy now pay 12 do I write and request proof of this? the amount no statements can be given by lowells so they only accept 2 payments and I also have & £96.00 of charges they claim that my other payments with the reference number had not changed only the brand woolworths to very my reference number was wrong ( I had taken the details of the letter at the time) the money had been allocated to a old account that was closed 12 years ago ( I believe they sent the wrong number on the correspondence as where the dickens would I get a reference from for a old account closed 12 years ago) my payments have been were rejected no money has ever been refunded I take it they are sitting in account gathering dust & interest and for very to disclose that this is a old account they must be able to verify which account? also very must be able to transfer these ammounts over using the reference and date on the bank statement the earliest statement I can download from very is june 2016 with the balance saying including buy now pay later items they were also asked to provide shop direct dated letter which is the same as in the original ws from lowells not very so no other new evidence from lowells first ws the judge had said that I would have a hard time proving I hadn't received the dn I have half a ream of paper showing the problems I had in business due to royal mail at that time due to the floods mail going out & mail coming in whats the next step? tia