Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

30 Excellent

About NoJusticeJustUs

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Ok, fair comment. I got my info partly from the following post from surfaceagentx20 posted on 11 Sept 2008. Re: Getting Them To Reveal Their Vitals. Using CPR 31.14 to Your Advantage Sorry, don't know how to link posts - am still a newbie really. Hope all goes well with your cases!
  2. Did you put on your CPR request that if they did not comply, then you would go for strike out? If so, then they know the score. Remember that pt2537 said to be proactive - so you could go straight ahead and ask for strike out on a number of counts by the sound of it. £75.00 well spent. Why do you have to wait til AQ if they have not supplied the docs? Maybe I am wrong on this. I am sure that someone will put me right if so. If it does get that far, then in the AQ, could you ask the court to give directions regarding whether you could go for a strike out if the court would not do it automatically? - which they apparently don't like to... Just a thought as it might save you £75.00. Would be even better if you put a corkin AQ additional info in, copied to them and then they discontinued before you had to pay for a strike out. Stranger things have happened!
  3. Does the agreement look enforceable? If you are unsure how it should look, have you asked one of the site team? Why did you send them a copy of DN? As claimant, they need to prove to you and the court that they have supplied all docs - not other way round. My understanding is that if docs are mentioned in POC, then they have to be produced in court and you can ask for order for disclosure, but again check first with someone more knowledgable. I think you could use the signature guard thing, or just sign with other hand! (or print it). And to go back a step, you might be able to ultimately go for a strike out based upon the fact that docs not supplied. Again I think you should check with site team or someone more knowledgable. I think you could hit the red triangle if urgent, otherwise, someone will be along soon. Keep smiling!
  4. As pt2537 has said - it is about how you start off if you are being sued. Look at the POC and see if it stands up to scrutiny - and then take it from there - being proactive and asking for proper help if you are not sure. It would seem that many of these claims would not get off the starting blocks if correctly addressed. After all, if it was you bringing a claim, you would surely expect to have to present something which actually stands up as a proper claim. This applies to everyone and it is everyone's right to ask that the proper procedures are followed. Panic sets in when the threatograms are coming through the letter box - we know the feeling well. And then when a blue one arrives, well... It is easy to look too far ahead and start preparing too far ahead. I think what is being said is that people need to take it one step at a time, check what they are dong and ask for more professional help if required. This site has fantastic templates and plenty of help on hand and as long as you ask for it in good time things can be addressed. From the threads I have seen it appears best to ask each question as it arises in each case as every one is bound to be a bit different. If you are going it alone and are quoting lots of case law, IMHO you would need to be able to argue the points and understand it all. Plus as it relates directly to you it is easy to see it a bit skewed whereas someone outside the situation would probably look at differently. I guess this is why doctors are not supposed to treat close family and friends. pt 2537 and the rest of the knowledgable CAG team/subscribers are extremely generous to give their time in this way - thank goodness they are there. I expect they must get a bit frustrated sometimes re-iterating stuff!
  5. Hi again, pt 2537, when you say you could or would not file a defence because of no agreement - would you say that on the acknowledgement? Cos obviously if you filed nothing, then they would win by default. So, if the POC were inadequate and did not comly with the CPR - part 16 - I think it is - could you not just go for a strike out straight away based upon this fact - i.e this is based upon the fact that the case might for instance rely on a written contract and they have not supplied one attached to the POC? How does this square with Ruprecht's comment that claimants are pleading that they do not have an agreement? So, this would mean that everyone who receives a claim form would need to scrutinise them first to make sure that the POC is compliant - before doing anything else? I thought that the CPR was meant to ensure active case management by the judges? Would they not pick up on such blatant abuse of process? So, are you saying that you must be pro-active and take every opportunity - i.e apply for strike outs etc whenever it appears possible? - at every stage?
  6. Just to clarify, maybe advised is a bit strong then -they said to include as much info as possible. Anyway, is all resolved now, so no strike out will be necessary. The court staff couldn't have been more helpful - and also thanks to CAG - invaluable! People do need to be careful as it is easy to get tripped up when you are going it alone!
  7. The defence was very short - 2 paragraphs. Straight to the pojt - no case law. The allocation questonnaire spporting info was long - as advised by the court officers.
  8. Ok then, so if a claim is brought and it has poor/non existent POC - not properly pleaded and the claimant say in their allocation questionnaire that they do not have to comply with pre-action protocols..having not contacted you prior to submitting this to the court, and you put in a great deal of supporting info to yours including this fact and request either a strike out or disclosure, having already served a notice for disclosure under CPR 18 and 31.14 etc on the claimant (no response within prescribed time limit, so no docs to base amended defence upon and original defence could be said to be embarrassed) and then you get... A Notice of Allocation from the court stating that: *A strike out has not been granted but any application for one should be made properly and on reciept of notice *Disclosure should be made of copy documents and statement (- but no list of what should be disclosed altough an order for disclosure was also put forward in the AQ) *Pre-trial checklist to be filed What would you make of this? If you have gone through all the recommended steps... what would you do next?
  9. sorry to be ignorant but how do i follow my post now it's on the legal forum?
  10. Thanks for looking through. I have edited my post on your advice. I have not seen the evidence although they have stated in AQ that docs were sent to the court. and yes thy have stated in AQ that debt cases are not subject to pre-action protocols. Can I PM you later your box is full at the moment.
  11. Hi, have a case pending with a well known firm of DCA. I lodged defence - SB and no enforceable CCA. DCA have not supplied any docs either with NOC or AQ - and despite CCA request in 2005 I still have no enforceable CCA or default notice, NOA, DOA, statements of interest added etc etc. I have letter ready to go asking for disclosure within 7 working days of receipt - does this sound reasonable request? DCA now saying that this case not covered by Pre-Action protocols - although they are prepared to abide by the spirit of them. They have actually written this in their AQ - which I received today and which presumably has gone to the court - although the closing date for receipt is not until 29.12.09 - which perturbs me a bit. They put in the AQ that they have enclosed docs with the AQ, but have not copied them to me. They have also asked for a stay of 1 month and ticked yes to considering settlement, but no to mediation. Is it correct that the case is not covered by pre Action protocols? I understood it that they have to abide by general protocols and procedures in any case. DCA saying that 3 payments of £1.00 made to third party collections agency in the month that the debt became SB - after a gap of 6 years with no acknowledgement or payment. This is untrue. They stated this in 2 separate letters - one with 1 payment date alleged and 1 with 2 payment dates alleged. These letters are signed by different people. This is untrue and I am concerned. Should I be taking this concern to the police? DCA also asking for £5,000 costs on fast track case with value of £11,000 (£16,000 total value of claim) - although initial NOC says £11,000 plus interest. - OC amount was £5,000 back in 2000 - other amounts must be interest and charges. Interest was originally frozen by initial in-house collections agency (have letter to prove this). Is this reasonable given that there is no legal counsel involved and the case seems to be being run by in-house litigation agents? I have also drafted out my Allocation Questionnaire response and additional info including Draft order for Directions asking for disclosure within 14 days if no response to my 7 day disclosure request. My AQ additional info covers all the points in my defence and raises issues surrounding the absence of docs and non compliance with pre-Action protocols. I would appreciate any comments and assistance with these questions. I have spoken to the court and advised them that I want to apply for Draft Directions - been told to go ahead as Judicial Matter and will be dealt with by DJ when reads AQ. Also discussed applying for Strike Out on 3 counts and been told to submit AQ and then re-contact court to proceed further if applicable rather than sending in any application or fee with the AQ. I have written all this in AQ as was advised when enquired at court to put as much info in AQ as possible.
  12. Sorry, forgot to add, no default on file at all - and we keep a check . This DCA did an unrecorded search of our credit score last month - we were alerted to this by credit Expert. Are they allowed to do this if debt unenforceable? Finally, no we have not CPR'd them as Debtline said we had done it once in 2005 and this would be considered reaonable in court - so suggested we just go for it with the defence. As I understand it, a cards on the table approach can be considered preferrable in court - nothing to hide etc - and we have pointed out that there are 2 possible last payment dates, but outside the SB time - so have shown that we are reasonable - but have not been provided with docs in pre Action letter or Notice of Action. We have simply used what was provided when we asked - and it took almost 8 weeks to get an application from out of them then - and this was a "mailer" request so could not have had any Tand C on reverse. It also had no account no, no amount of credit, no APR. You can clearly see where it says moisten and seal - even tho you can't read the rest of it.
  13. Documentation we have says 14.6.00 - as vendors statement of account, but we think it was probably September. The payment which was due on 14.11.00 reads as zero received to the account ( we have a statement of account from a screenshot sent with SAR stating this), so we had definitely stopped paying by this date and have not acknowledged it since. The SAR was not fully complied with as we have no NOA or default notice or statements - we never have received any statements. We have copies of letters from September 2000 and January 2001 saying that no payment received and debt outstanding for a long time. We stopped paying because the initial DCA had frozen interest and charges - and we have letter from 2000 stating this.- and then the account was sold on to this DCA who started applying interest at what appeared to be an exorbitant rate. Our payment plan had been accepted by the initial DCA and then rejected by the new one - we have letters to prove this. Our representative at he time was a magistrate and he tried to negotiate with them, but failed and advised that they were being unreasonable and that we should let them go for CCJ. They just kept sending silly letters refusing payment plans and negotiations, so have been obstructive and childish from the outset - as well as unprofessional and possibly criminal.
  • Create New...