Once again, thank's all. There is no number on the Claimant's Reply. It says that they have read my Form N9B and it is marked as to the Northampton (CCMCC) County Court. They have ticked Box [2] I do not wish to proceed with my claim and Box [3] I have sent a copy of this completed form to the defendant.

Thanks all! Am I right to assume that their reply form will end it at both?

Hi to all the helpful folk here - We appear to have won this one!? I submitted the defence referenced in #40 above. The claimants solicitor sent a Claimant's Reply in the **Northampton (CCMCC) County Court** and has ticked Box [2] I do not wish to proceed with my claim and Box [3] I have sent a copy of this completed form to the defendant. In their letter they also say; Please note that we have on two occasions written to the Court on the 25 April & 23 May confirming that payment had been received in full and asking for the proceedings to be withdrawn. We have not yet received any response from those letters and assume that the Court has failed to deal with the same. My concern is that my ex has never received any response from the Court to the Acknowledgement of Service or the Defence either? I'm also confused that the Claimant's Reply was in the**Northampton (CCMCC) County Court** but the original claim was in the**Colchester County Court** (albeit stamped Northampton CC. However, the response pack stated that acknowledgement/defence should be sent to CCMCC, Salford, M5 0BY which is where we sent them? PS: The Claimants solicitor also sent my ex the invoice for their clients bill for £350.00 in error!

First of all, thanks to everyone who helped and a massive thanks to AndyOrch for his fantastic guidance (and continued help with my ex's VAT legal issues.) The original payments made by me to WCS were set up in 2002 which was a time of great stress for me and a time when I was being chased by around 8 different DCA's. The payments appear to be part of a package including 3 others to WCS but, although WCS insist they were connected with Goldfish, I have no paperwork connecting them together and no recollection of a Goldfish card which is why I was willing to fight them. However I could only go with an 'Embarrassed Defence and, as I don't know for sure that I never owed the debt, I agreed to a repayment of less than half of their claim. I don't think I could argue SB because my last payment to them was May 2006 and they summonsed me in January 2012? They also claimed in mediation to have received payments until Nov 2006 (which is not true) and to have written to me in March 2007 (which I did not receive.) So, once again, many, many thanks. Stu

(See posts for summary.) They said that they cannot show me an individual deed of assignment because it's part of a bulk buy and contains confidential information. They feel, because I was paying from 2002 until 2006 that there is a probability that the Judge will see that as my acknowledgement of debt. They have dropped all interest, costs and taken it back down to the original £680.00 providing I sign a 'Tomlin Order' (which they will pay for) for £10.00 per month. I've agreed to this and will not have a CCJ. Not a win but I feel better for it.

Me too but, the mediator is pushing for me to agree and saying that it does show that I do owe??

Mediating now. They want me to agree payment terms in return for them providing a 'Notice of Assignment'. Should I consider that enough proof to agree?

Heavy indeed but I honestly don't understand if it works in her favour or not. However, thanks for the help. Her defence will be that she already paid the invoices and that the Claimant has unreasonably 'rushed' this through. The question as to the VAT on goods has more to do with creating a fear of opening a whole new 'can of worms' if they continue so, I think I'll have to leave it as it stands.

Phew - flippin eck! Thanks but that's waaaaay beyond my meagre mental capabilities. I do know that a person buying a going concern should be registered for VAT on or before the sale and if they're not they can be liable for the sellers VAT/penalties. This and the two clauses in the agreement, shown below is why she paid them: 16..2. the buyer warrants that it is or will be registered for the purpose of VAT legislation and 16.1.6. on any VAT payable on the sale , under the Agreement the buyer shall pay to the seller such tax and any penalty or interest incurred by the seller for late payment of such tax. However, another clause seems to contradict a part of the VAT element to do with stock: 16.3: All VAT payable in respect of goods and services supplied or deemed to be supplied by the Seller prior to the close of business on the date of completion of the sale and the purchase and all interest on the same and penalties in respect of the same shall be paid to HMRC by Seller. This could mean she paid them £1225 too much as the sale price of £19K was made up of: £9K Fixtures &Fittings .. 17.5% VAT £1575 £7K Goods/stock ......... 17.5% VAT £1225 £3K Goodwill.............. .... 0% VAT The defence is actually that she has paid them already but it would be good (if the above supposition was true) to use this as leverage.

Lol. Many thanks again. I think I have a bit of time to wait for verification from Gbarbm before I acknowledge with this defence because it looks like the claim was issued on the 24th so I should have until the 12/13th of May. The claim form says it's in Colchester CC but has a Northampton stamp and was posted from Salford Business Centre.

Brilliant! ... here's the whole thing, as short as possible: Pursuant to CPR 15.10b/2/3 (b) the Defendant states in her defence that she has paid to the Claimant the full amount of the original invoiced claim and respectfully requests that the court will send notice to the Claimant requiring him to state in writing whether he wishes the proceedings to continue and that when the claimant responds, he must serve a copy of his response on the defendant. She also requests that, if the Claimant fails to respond within 28 days after service of the court’s notice on him the claim shall be stayed. The Defendant asserts that the Claimant behaved ‘unfairly and unreasonably’ by not allowing sufficient time to investigate the validity of the claim and believes that she over-paid the Claimant by £1225.00 in that, whilst the Claimant quotes breaches in the Agreement date 18th March 2010, he fails to take into account clause 16.3 which states that “all VAT payable in respect of goods and services supplied or deemed to be supplied by the Seller prior to the close of business on the date of completion of the sale and the purchase and all interest on the same and penalties in respect of the same shall be paid to HMRC by Seller”. The dates below demonstrate the Claimant has not allowed a ‘fair or reasonable’ amount of time: 3 April 2012: Defendant receives a letter from her solicitor dated 30 March 2012 with enclosures from the Claimant's solicitors dated ten days earlier on 20 March 2012. This is the letter mentioned in point 11 of the Particulars of Claim and includes two invoices totalling £3200.00. 16 April 2012: Defendant signed for a letter from the claimant's solicitor, dated 3 April 2012, thirteen days earlier, demanding payment within three days by 6 April 2012 which was Good Friday. 18 April 2012: under duress and prior to completing a full investigation, the defendant sent a cheque for £3200.00 to the Claimant's solicitor by special delivery. The Post Office confirms this letter was signed for on 19 April 2012. Monies were withdrawn from the Defendant’s bank on 25 April 2012. 26 April 2012: Defendant receives a claim form post marked 25 April 2012, claim number XXXXXX from the Claimants solicitors; issue date 24 April 2012 and stamped "served on: 27 April 2012." NB: The Particulars of Claim are dated 16 April 2012 - the same day that the Defendant signed for the special delivery 'final demand'. It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant’s claim is entirely spurious and without merit. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to any of the relief claimed or at all.

Many thanks Andy you are as they say, a star!

How's this ... Pursuant to CPR 15.10b/2/3 (b) the Defendant states in her defence that she has paid to the Claimant the full amount of the original invoiced claim and respectfully requests that the court will send notice to the Claimant requiring him to state in writing whether he wishes the proceedings to continue and that when the claimant responds, he must serve a copy of his response on the defendant. She also requests that, if the Claimant fails to respond within 28 days after service of the court’s notice on him the claim shall be stayed. The Defendant asserts that the Claimant behaved ‘unfairly and unreasonably’ by not allowing sufficient time to investigate the validity of the claim and believes that she over-paid the Claimant by £1225.00 in that, whilst the Claimant quotes breaches in the Agreement date 18th March 2010, he fails to take into account clause 16.3 which states that “all VAT payable in respect of goods and services supplied or deemed to be supplied by the Seller prior to the close of business on the date of completion of the sale and the purchase and all interest on the same and penalties in respect of the same shall be paid to HMRC by Seller”. The dates below demonstrate the Claimant has not allowed a ‘fair or reasonable’ amount of time: 3 April 2012: the Defendant received a letter from her solicitor dated 30 March 2012 with enclosures from the Claimant's solicitors dated ten days earlier on 20 March 2012. This is the letter mentioned in point 11 of the Claimants Particulars of Claim and includes two invoices totalling £3200.00. 16 April 2012: the Defendant signed for a letter from the claimant's solicitor, dated thirteen days earlier on 3 April 2012 demanding payment within three days by 6 April 2012 which was Good Friday. 18 April 2012: under duress and prior to completing a full investigation, the defendant sent a cheque for £3200.00 to the Claimant's solicitor by special delivery. The Post Office confirms this letter was signed for on 19 April 2012. Monies were withdrawn from the Defendant’s bank on 25 April 2012. 26 April 2012: the Defendant received a claim form post marked 25 April 2012, claim number XXXXXX from the Claimants solicitors with the issue date of 24 April 2012 and stamped "served on: 27 April 2012." NB: The Particulars of Claim are dated 16 April 2012 - the same day that the Defendant signed for the special delivery 'final demand'.

Hi Andy, thanks for both of the above. You are right. In fact, we know that the vendor was chased by HMRC and has been subject to an investigation (he may be going bankcrupt). Unfortunately, as the business was transferred as a going concern. The HMRC, the Defendant's solicitor/accountant, have all told her she should have already been VAT registered to avoid this issue, especially as the Agreement states “Under clause 16..2. the Defendant warranted that it is registered for the purpose of VAT legislation” and “It was an express term of the Agreement under clause 16.1.6. that if any VAT shall be payable on the sale , under the Agreement the Defendant shall pay to the Claimant such tax and any penalty or interest incurred by the Claimant for late payment of such tax.” However, she may have paid too much because there is another clause in the agreement which states “16.3: All VAT payable in respect of goods and services supplied or deemed to be supplied by the Seller prior to the close of business on the date of completion of the sale and the purchase and all interest on the same and penalties in respect of the same shall be paid to HMRC by Seller”. I'm disappointed that she paid the money because I really don't think she'll get any back so the defence is really just that she has already paid the original invoice and that the Claimant has 'rushed' this to a CCJ ... the rest about the £1225.00 etc is just a 'warning shot' so to speak. Will the latest revision be OK?

Thanks Andy. The summons is: £3447.53 which is for £3247.53 (includes interest they have added) Court Fee £ 120.00. Solicitors Costs £ 80.00. Whilst the invoice, which has been paid, was for £3200.00. So - Would the amended defence below be OK? The Defendant states in her defence that she has paid to the Claimant the full amount of the original invoiced claim and respectfully requests that the court will send notice to the Claimant requiring him to state in writing whether he wishes the proceedings to continue and that when the claimant responds, he must serve a copy of his response on the defendant. She also requests that, if the Claimant fails to respond within 28 days after service of the court’s notice on him the claim shall be stayed. The Defendant believes the Claimant has behaved ‘unfairly and unreasonably’ by not allowing her sufficient time to investigate the validity of the claim. She believes that she may have over-paid the Claimant by £1225.00 because, whilst the Claimant quotes breaches the Agreement date 18th March 2010, he fails to take into account clause 16.3 which states that “all VAT payable in respect of goods and services supplied or deemed to be supplied by the Seller prior to the close of business on the date of completion of the sale and the purchase and all interest on the same and penalties in respect of the same shall be paid to HMRC by Seller”. The time scale below shows that the Claimant has not allowed the Defendant a ‘fair or reasonable’ amount of time to investigate fully. On 3 April 2012 the Defendant received a letter from her solicitor dated 30 March 2012, enclosing the letter from the Claimant's solicitors dated ten days earlier on 20 March 2012 which is mentioned in point 11 of the Claimants Particulars of Claim and includes two invoices totalling £3200.00. On 16 April 2012 the Defendant signed for a Special Delivery letter from the claimant's solicitor, dated thirteen days earlier on 3 April 2012 demanding payment within three days by 6 April 2012 which was the Good Friday. On 18 April 2012, under duress and prior to completing a full investigation into the validity of the Claimants claim, the defendant sent a cheque for £3200.00 to the Claimant by special delivery. The Post Office has confirmed that this letter was signed for on 19 April 2012 and the monies were withdrawn from the Defendant’s bank on 23 April 2012. On 26 April 2012, the Defendant received a claim form post marked 25 April 2012, claim number XXXXXXX from the Claimants solicitors with the issue date of 27 April 2012. It should be noted that the Particulars of Claim are dated 16 April 2012 which is the same day that the Defendant signed for the special delivery 'final demand'.