Managed to edit them on my phone. I received the SAR data from creation last week and the data they claim I didn’t supply is in the SAR, so they already have it and haven’t sent it to their lawyers:- so I will send a reply to the defence once I am back at the computer pointing that out. Defence Creation.pdf Part 20 Claim - R v Creation Financial Services.pdf

I’ve always been of the view that pentagon are very dishonest, very slippery and too painful for me to sue. Eversheds have appointed very serious counsel to draft the pleadings and I can’t imagine that any nonsense from pentagon will be tolerated. So long as we can make it a small claim, I think this is a good development. I’ll post the documents as soon as I can edit the personal details out.

The defendant has filed a defence and also a counterclaim. I’m on holiday so can’t edit the documents to upload them until Saturday morning, but in short they have brought Pentagon Ltd in as a part 20 defendant accusing them of misrepresentation and breaches of contract related to the consumer rights act 2015. The battle now is to get us on the small claims track. The defendant is claiming costs from Pentagon under contract and under the CCA 1974, so I’m not to sure if they will care which track it goes on, fingers crossed!

Things have progressed - Creation sent the SAR. They printed the postage on 16 October but backdated the letter to 29 September, 2 days before deadline, so that issue is dead now. They have shown how dishonest they are and I will take it up with ICO with no expectation of anything. The solicitors I used take the small DPA cases because they get full costs. LBA etc will cost them £50 of paralegal time. If the claim is filed and no SAR data has been supplied they are guaranteed to get paid a decent amount for filing a boiler plate case. They also have cheap ATE as it is process driven. The downside to them is that the defendant can defuse the bomb by supplying the data and this turns it back to a very low value money claim. As such the sols have dropped me and I will not be suing over a 20 day delay.

I rang my trade union helpline (that I just found out existed) and a solicitor from a large north west commercial litigation department rang me and confirmed what I thought with regards to 31.14 Additionally, a firm has offered me a no win no fee on the SAR issue. As such that issue is no longer live. They will send a letter and file a Part 8 claim on my behalf. One of the advantages to it being part 8 of course is that they can get paid. I sent the email below to D solicitor in the car claim based on what I was told: Having taken legal advice, I have been told to send the following: Part 31 of the CPR does not apply to small claims. Putting aside the issue regarding small claims, a defendant is entitled to inspect documents referred to in the statement of case of a claimant as per 31.14. Disclosure under 31.14 is strictly limited to documents referred to in that statement of case. You have sent a list that goes way beyond the scope of what a competent solicitor acting in good faith would believe they are entitled to under rule 31.14. If a defendant wishes to inspect those documents they should make a request under 31.15 (a). Copies of documents that a defendant has the right to inspect may be requested by a defendant under rule 31.15(c) if they give an undertaking to pay the reasonable costs of such copy production. No such undertaking has been given by you or your client. Having checked emails between myself and your client, I believe that your client already has copies of all documents referred to in the statement of case that they would be entitled to under 31.14, if it applied to small claims. Please can you clarify the request you made yesterday given the above. In order to assist with the overriding objective I am willing to comply with properly made requests and to help where I am able and where it is not detrimental to either my case or the interests of justice. I feel that I must remind you that I am not legally represented and would once again refer you to the SRA rules for dealing with LiP's and would you refer you also to rule one of the CPR - This is a simple, low value claim (that your client ignored the pre action correspondence for) and it should be litigated as such.

I accept that the case isn't allocated yet. The new Rule 1 makes it clear cases should be dealt with proportionate to value so a costly application for disclosure is an abuse to my mind. The rule on 31.14 can be enforced with an order. There would be a costs bill if they got that order - They are entitled to SEE documents in the pleadings. They already have copies. Both documents are digital so they cannot see the originals unless they come view the emails on screen? 31.14 is often used to prove a claimant has documents and that they are real. I see that another forum likes to get debtors to make them to dodgy creditors. Why the current defendants are using 31.14 to ask for everything I have I do not get though, it seems like dishonest bullying to me. I will be happy to disclose with the statements but I do not want to give in to what are wrongful requests made under a rule that doesn't allow them to be made.

Replied to that email they sent today. I think I Have read every article ever written on 31.14. The defendants have all documents mentioned in pleadings and that is what they are entitled to under rule 31.14. They also failed to give the undertaking on copy costs so the 7 day deadline does not start. Dear x The court told me that the AoS paperwork had not been filed with them. As of 08:30 this morning the court did not show any evidence of the papers being received. It is not for me to accept your word that you have filed paperwork. The paperwork is now showing as filed with the court and they have confirmed to me on the telephone today at 13:29 that the judgment will not be issued. CPR 31.14 does not apply to small claims. Your client has already been provided with almost all of the documents you mention. There is no good reason for me to provide you with a copy of the logbook unless ordered by the court. Your client has already been sent the DEKRA Report, the adverts, the photo and the quotation from the repair centre and a copy of the email to the dealership. They already haves link to the video presentation which is hosted on the Mercedes video website. I am not sure why you are referring to CPR 31.14 or making threats regarding costs at this stage and would direct you to the guidance issued by the SRA on aggressive and misleading conduct towards litigants in person. I would further note that your client acknowledged and accepted receiving a letter before action and declined to respond and ask that you consider this fact when making threats about costs. Please file a defence to the claim. Regards XX

My concern is that they are trying to push me around into giving them disclosure they aren’t entitled to by using a part of the CPR that doesn’t apply. under 31.14 they are entitled to the documents referred to in the pleadings if it isn’t a small claim. As it is a small claim I don’t understand why they are trying to use the part 31 procedure. Ignoring the small claims they would be entitled to the DEKRA report, which they have, and the email to the dealer which they have. Also to get all these copies they ought to be providing an undertaking to pay for the copies, which they haven’t given. I’m concerned that bowing to unreasonable demands sends the wrong message.

Can I ask why I should do that?

D’s solicitors sent the email below The judgment has not been issued and the AoS is showing as having been filed. To be safe I called the court to confirm they won’t issue the judgment as it would be irregular now the AoS is filed with the court. The email wants documents under 31.14, but doesn’t that only give them a right to inspect the documents I referred to in my pleadings? That would be the email from husband and DEKRA report. Does rule 31 apply to unallocated claims that willl inevitably become small claims?

Thanks I have submitted that now.

I am now able to request a default judgment online. It does not seem like the defendant has actually filed the AoS with the court. GIven that they claim to have filed it, should I be requesting one, or should I be contacting D or the court first?

Hopefully that is good news. FIngers crossed!

Eversheds aren't owned by Creation are they? I must admit they are not the firm I thought. I had confused them with Freshfields somehow!

I hope so too. I will post the defence when it arrives. I am 50/50 as to whether I think they will bring Marshalls in as a part 20 defendant. It both helps and hurts them, however as you say it will set them against each other, which may be a good thing for me. Let's see. Thank you .