Jump to content

ChrisS1968

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    82
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

2 Neutral

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hi all, Its been bugging me for a while but AW have been running quite a relentless and no doubt costly self promoting TV ad campaign. Bearing in mind that unlike other commercial entities AW is fortunate that is has a huge region of its own with no outside competition meaning that its customers do not have an alternative supplier. At the very least their adverts are not factual in every way as they always finish with a scene showing of a couple engineers working through the night in fowl weather to repair a leak when in reality they do the exact opposite. My point though (before I go off on a rant about AW's many misgivings) is this. As end users with no alternative supplier, is it legal for a company with no outside competition to use their customers money to self promote themselves? Even if they are using money from their profits its still coming out of customers pockets via their water bills. The adverts are not going to drum up extra business as their customers are basically captive and have no other options. Cheers, Chris
  2. He wasn't confronted with evidence so to speak DX. I think the mediator passed on a message from Stonegate repeating that they have evidence. As I said I wasn't present so unable to assist him though I'm not sure how much help I could have been anyway.
  3. Hi Dave, To be honest the biggest worry (the worst that could of happened) here was getting a CCJ for the reasons stated above. Even if a judge saw fit to only award Stonegate £100 it would still have been a judgement. You are right though to say he didn't know what he was doing. He had already replied to their letter by email offering to pay in instalments before I even got involved. I have now drilled it into him that in future anything like this whatsoever he does not reply until taking advice. At the end of the day he is 26 and knows no better but hopefully he has learned one important lesson, keep quiet until you know better. As for his fear of court, it seems possible that they may have had some evidence. In this day and age they can bring up till transactions so easily they could have probably produced a spreadsheet with something incriminating on it thereby planting the seed of doubt in anyone preceding over the claim. Like you said, whats done is done.
  4. Hi all, sorry for the late update but work has been manic. So much for lockdown.......... This has now concluded. Not exactly the result I hoped for but my son in law is happy enough with the outcome. After a few phone calls between him, the mediator and Stonegate. They reached an agreement where all fees where dropped, legal and Unicorn food. The original balance was reduced as well but not by much imo, about £30.00. The main thing was to avoid a CCJ as they will need to remortgage at some point in the next few years. The other benefit (if you can call it that) is that they have gone from demanding full payment in one hit to paying it off at fifty pounds per month. So he now has to pay Stonegate fifty pounds for the next ten months. He could have gone to court I know but Stonegate claimed via the mediator that they had CCTV and till records showing him using his MORE card when he shouldn't have been and although he still insists he never benefited to the tune of £530 he believes they could possibly have something on him so took the safe option. Was this the right thing to do? I really dont know as mediation is something I have never heard of until this. Should he have gone to court? Personally I dont think so and he certainly didnt want it to just in case. Either way, as usual the folk on this site were a great help so thank you all for your input. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this outcome because I'm really not sure if he did the right thing but not being there when this all took place made it impossible to advise.
  5. Happy new year all!! My SIL received an EX370 today. I know he needs to sign it and return but what to do with regard to accepting their offer of mediation? By accepting it it becomes pretty much an admission really........ For the record, since filing his defense on Dec 21st he has had no further communication from the claimant and they have yet to respond on MCOL. My gut instinct would be to sign it and decline the offer and return but what do I know? If he had made a part admission then its a no brainer but as he's defending the full amount then I would guess he should decline? Chris EX730.pdf
  6. HI Andy, Thank you so much, it really is appreciated. Chris
  7. Hi Andy, Now you put it like that I guess your right, it wasn't a fair while ago. My apologies......
  8. Just spoke to SIL, He left well before this came about and left because he had another job. This action (or the threat of it) had absolutely no bearing on him leaving, he was leaving anyway. As for him being aware of the audit, he had left before it took place and only found out about it when he bumped into someone that he worked with whilst there who told him about it. He didn't get contacted about if either verbally or in writing whilst he was an employee, only after leaving and around 10 months after leaving. I had an idea this was the case but phoned him to confirm.
  9. Hi Andy, thought never entered my head. I was literally just asking. Fully understand
  10. Just had a thought, can I use the fact that my SIL never got a proper letter before action? I'm guessing so as they failed in the pre action protocol dept?
  11. Morning all, Can we cast an eye over this re-hashed defense please? 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. 2. Paragraph 2 is noted. The claimant has made a broad accusation towards the defendant and cannot seem to decide what exactly they claim the defendant has done. The claimant should be expected to clarify the following. (A) The use of the word stolen would infer that this is a criminal matter and not that of a civil matter. Also, the term unjustly enriched. Again, another term to imply an act of theft has taken place. Should the claimant have evidence to support such a claim then why was it never reported? (B) The claimant claims that the defendant failed to account. Had this been the case then the claimant needs to clarify how this came even to light? (C) The claimant claims that the defendant committed an act of deceit. The claimant would need to provide specifics to support such an allegation as without them it is again vague and speculative. 3. Paragraph 2 is noted. The defendant denies ever engaging in the practice of selling goods on behalf of the claimant and retaining monies for personal gain. Should the claimant believe this to be the case and the claimant has evidence to support their claim then this would surely be a criminal matter and not a civil matter. For this reason, the defendant contests all of the particulars of this claim on the grounds of it being vague and speculative. 4. Paragraph 3 claims that the claimant suffered a loss due to the defendant’s actions of £526.95 including the cost of investigation. As the claimant has only made an accusation without providing proof or evidence to the defendant, the defendant therefore denies owing any monies to the Claimant. As the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of wrongdoing by the defendant, the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how and when the Defendant has taken payment for goods on their behalf whilst retaining monies for personal gain by way of proof. (b) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for by means of a breakdown of losses and costs. 4. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 6. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief. Cheers
  12. Cheers DX, As stated, its just a draft and I always knew she wouldn't fly first time. I'll take your comments on board and have another stab. Don't worry, I will leave out number 2!
  13. Afternoon all, Ive had a stab at a defense for my SIL. Its made up of sections from other threads but not being able to find any similar cases of CAG ive had to kind of wing it. Please have a look and let me have your thoughts if you can. Tell me whats wrong or needs leaving out or editing. 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. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. Whilst employed by the claimant I have held a MORE card to which the claimant refers. |The defendant is however unaware of any of the alleged incidents to which the claimant refers nor has the defendant been given access to any evidence to support the particulars of its claim. 3. Paragraph 1 also claims that payment was taken and withheld for personal gain. This is denied and the defendant is unaware of any incidents to which the claimant refers to. 4. Paragraph 2 is noted. The defendant denies ever engaging in the practice of selling goods on behalf of the claimant and retaining monies for personal gain. Should the claimant believe this to be the case and the claimant has evidence to support their claim then this would surely be a criminal matter and not a civil matter. For this reason the defendant contests all of the particulars of this claim on the grounds of it being vague and speculative. 5. Paragraph claims that the claimant suffered a loss from the defendants actions of £526.95 including the costs of investigating the defendant. As the claimant has only made an accusation without providing proof or evidence to the defendant, the defendant therefore denies owing any monies to the Claimant. As the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of wrongdoing by the defendant. Therefore, the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how and when the Defendant has taken payment for goods on their behalf whilst retaining monies for personal gain by way of proof. (b) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and 5. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 6. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief. Many thanks, Chris
×
×
  • Create New...