Jump to content

joneshousehold

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    1,351
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by joneshousehold

  1. This topic was closed on 09 March 2019.

    If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there.

    If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

    - Consumer Action Group

  2. This topic was closed on 2019-03-08.

    If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there.

    If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

    - Consumer Action Group

  3. This topic was closed on 03/08/19.

    If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there.

    If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

    - Consumer Action Group

  4. This topic was closed on 03/06/19.

    If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there.

    If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

    - Consumer Action Group

  5. This topic was closed on 03/06/19.

    If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there.

    If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

    - Consumer Action Group

  6. This topic was closed on 03/06/19.

    If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there.

    If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

    - Consumer Action Group

  7. Evening. Just back from a couple of days working in London so I have not had a chance to respond earlier.

     

     

    I am really grateful for your help as I know what it's like to be pressed for time.

    If you can't give this the attention you think it needs it really is not a problem, no need to apologise.

    I am just happy with what you are able to do for me.

    Also there is no pressing deadline so I am not panicking...at least not yet.

     

    On the WS question,

    the defendant does not need to produce another at this stage.

    We are now waiting for the courts to tell us a new hearing date.

     

     

    I am just looking for what I need to prepare for the hearing, whenever that may be.

    Alternatively I could organise a letter to go to the claimant along the lines of

    - your case is not good, do you want to withdraw the claim.

     

     

    I am thinking this as an option because I need to alert the court and the claimant that there is an error in the witness statement recently sent (It says the defendant is trained in law rather than not trained in law!!) which warrants contacting them both

     

    I think you are right about creating doubt about their evidence and I think I (on behalf of or by the defendant depending on the judge on the day) will do that in the hearing.

     

    On the interest question , this was a catalogue account so is interest free.

    The agreement shows the interest rate is 0% to reflect this.

    As you have speculated, notional interest is usually built in to the price of the goods

  8. Ok, thanks for this.

     

    The current position is that the court asked for each side to send a second witness statement and the defendant sent his in (see #38) followed by the claimant's which is the one you have been looking at. We are now waiting to hear from the court presumably with a new date so at the moment I am trying to put together some notes for the court hearing.

     

    On the DN, the advocate for the claimant said the DN was not relevant as the claim related to sums due rather than the early repayment of a debt. I made a note of what she referred to and I will have a look at it again and see if I can put together an outline of what she said.

     

    You suggest the lack of signed agreement does not warrant attention. Is the CCA compliance argument one that judges tend to disregard? My understanding of the Act was that Parliament introduced this legislation to protect the debtor from the creditor who was perceived as a stronger party in the agreement. I know the legislation has been watered down a bit but the signed agreement part is still in place.

     

    Thanks again

  9. Not sure about the adjustments as I can't match the amounts to anything in the summary above. Many of the entries refer to commission or PROM PRICE ADJ which I took to be a promotion price. This is a catalogue account where the idea is that the account holder can earn commission on sales to other people.

     

    Also despite the wording saying 'in last 3 years' the dates show clearly it relates to a longer period with the first entry dated 24/11/08 and the last 25/1/13.

     

    Yes you are right there are two agreements provided. Both agreements are reconstituted but only the first one actually has any name/address etc inserted. Perhaps the claimant is not sure which version was actually issued at the time. The defendant says he never signed and returned any document, nor did he think it was an online application.

     

    The first document seems to be in the name of Littlewoods and the second in the name of Shop Direct. This seems to be linked to a change of company name which I have identified from Companies House actually took place on 5 January 2009 ie after the opening date of 12 November 2008 according to the documents supplied by the claimant. I have no idea why they supplied two and no explanation has ever been given. I used the layout of them both to indicate the first one showed this was not online based application so could not be deemed to have be electronically signed

  10. I had wondered the same but the total of the mysterious items is too high at £2005 and I couldn't find any way to link this cleanly to the balance of £1840.05

     

    The last 3 payments are as follows

    6/6/14 £108

    23/6/14 £150

    7/8/14 £150

    All show as bank payments in the schedule

     

    I have tried to make another pdf document of just the account transactions extract which is attached. Not sure if this is any clearer

    Account transactions.pdf

  11. Hi Andy, thanks for that

     

    Hi Sham, thanks for taking the time to look

    There are actually 5 purchases listed with a ? against them. They are

    20/07/12 £419

    03/10/13 £349

    11/11/13 £139

    19/05/14 £449

    06/09/14 £649

     

    I asked the defendant about each of them and he said he did not recall purchases at this sort of price and they are all a lot more than all the other items listed.

     

     

    The exception is the £139 on 11/11/13 which interestingly is duplicated in the next entry dated 26/11/13.

     

    The one dated 6/9/14 is particularly high and is seemingly dated after the defendant considered he paid off the account

     

    It was this situation that led me to look at the transactions in more detail and I do wonder if there have been some admin errors in the account that has led to this situation

     

    JHH

  12. 10. Supplementary Witness Statement (redacted version).doc

    The hearing that took place a month ago was very short. The Judge noted that he claimant produced evidence only at a very late stage leaving the defendsnt unable to respond. The judge therefore ruled that each party should make a 2nd witness statement. Here is the one sent by the defendant

     

    The claimant has now responded with the same Witness Statement as before with the following alterations

     

    The defence is made up of 5 elements and responds as follows

    1. the claimants particulars were insufficient - defendant admits to dealings with the original creditor and so debt is real

    2. the account was repaid in full - claimant put to strict burden of proof of payments (even though defendant has said all payments are outlined in claimants documents and it is the errors in those documents that demonstrates the account was cleared)

    3. the claimant has only produced a reconstituted agreement - the defendant has confirmed the original cannot be produced but is instructed by claimant that the reconstituted documents etc are correct

    4. no default notice was received - defendant is unable to provide evidence but no reason to believe not received. Statement of account clearly demonstrates the default date was as stated

    5. no notice of assignment was received - documents sent and no reason to believe not received

     

    There is no comment on S61(1)(a) CCA74 re lack of signed agreement

    There is no comment on doubt cast on reconstituted agreement re name of original creditor, date etc

    Defendant calculations showing account must have been cleared dismissed as irrelevant as the claimant asserts the document it provided is clear and is stated to be a summary of the account not a statement

     

    Other points I have to think about are

    1. the 2nd witness statement by defendant states incorrectly that he is trained in law and omits the (crucial) word not. My typo error and "over reading" purely to blame I think. My immediate reaction is the write to the court to rectify this and copy to claimant

    2. the dates of the first payment on the account does not accord with the alleged T&Cs which refer to payment due 21 days after statement of account which is issued every 28 days. The first payment should therefore be due no earlier than 49 days after the account was opened but was in fact shown as only 10 days after the account was opened. This is a new argument and I am not sure how the courts will react if it is was to be brought up at this late stage

    3. The claimant has made a comment about the witness statement sent to it not being signed. The copy to the courts was signed but the claimant was only given an unsigned copy. The claimant goes on to say that the witness statement should be inadmissible and this was raised at the earlier hearing. In fact this was not raised as there was no discussion on the case at all and the claimant's witness statement which was prepared by a Litigation Executive who was not present is incorrect. Not sure how useful or otherwise this point is as yet.

     

    Any thoughts?

     

    If I write to the court and the claimant I am wondering if I should say their statement is an admission the claim is fatally flawed and the defendant is willing to accept their withdrawal. The court was asked to agree costs could be considered if unreasonable action and so maybe I could ask for a token amount to cover small costs of unrepresented party in exchange for agreement to withdrawal.

     

    Alternatively if the defendant's case is strong enough would it be worth appointed a professional as the costs could be recovered

  13. Fictitious or not accurate - not necessarily the same thing.

     

    More likely admin errors I expect.

    I am told the account was paid off and when I looked at the figures, the numbers just do not add up.

     

    There are no charges on the transaction list which would be expected if the account was in arrears after the final payment.

     

    However payments are made regularly until they stop.

    Also the amounts paid exceed the amount of goods purchased by a significant amount for the period where all transactions are thought to be known (ie 2011 onwards).

     

    The excess would have to be for goods purchased prior to 2011 .

    Based on the level of payments at the time (c £100pm

    )

    the balance at the start of the period could be no more than £1200 given that the type of account allowed for 20 or 52 week payment periods only.

     

    In reality it is probably less and the surplus payments of £1000 confirm that.

     

    For the claimant's argument to hold up, the opening balance would have to be nearer £3000 and even at 52 week payment periods, that would be a minimum payment of £250-300 per month, much more than the actual payments

     

    If the defendant's statement is correct, it would seem wrong to make that a secondary argument.

     

    It should be the primary one and if the judge does not think he is a credible witness then the secondary arguments on validity of the agreement and lack of evidence of default notice should be considered.

     

    That was my thoughts but if you have any other ideas or suggestions give me a heads up and I will have a look at how it can be incorporated

×
×
  • Create New...