Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • thread tidied. new thread for the court claim is here  
    • new thread created for this claimform please post here now for anything to do with it now . pop up on the bulk court website detailed on the claimform. [if it is not working return after the w/end or the next day if week time] . When you select ‘Register’, you will be taken to a screen titled ‘Sign in using Government Gateway’. Choose ‘Create sign in details’ to register for the first time. You will be asked to provide your name, email address, set a password and a memorable recovery word. You will be emailed your Government Gateway 12-digit User ID. You should make a note of your memorable word, or password as these are not included in the email.  then log in to the bulk court Website .  select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box. .  then using the details required from the claimform . defend all leave jurisdiction unticked  you DO NOT file a defence at this time [BUT you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 ] click thru to the end confirm and exit the website .. get a CCA Request running to the claimant . https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/332502-cca-request-consumer-credit-act-1974-updated-january-2015/ .. Leave the £1 PO unsigned and uncrossed . get a CPR  31:14  request running to the solicitors [if one is not listed send to the claimant] ... https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/332546-legal-cpr-3114-request-request-for-information-when-a-claim-has-been-issued/ . .use our other CPR letter if the claim is for an OD or Telecom Debt or Util debt]  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/332546-legal-cpr-3114-request-request-for-information-when-a-claim-has-been-issued/ on BOTH type your name ONLY Do Not sign anything .do not ever use or give an email . you DO NOT await the return of ANY paperwork  you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform [1 in the count] ..............  
    • Which Court have you received the claim from ? Northampton  Name of the Claimant ? lowell Solicitors : Overdales solicitors  How many defendant's  joint or self ? Self Date of issue – top right hand corner of the claim form – this in order to establish the time line you need to adhere to.  13 may 2024 What is the claim for – the reason they have issued the claim? 1. the claim is for the sum of £6163.61due by the defendant under an agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974 for hsbc uk bank plc. Account (16 digits) 2. The defendant failed to maintain contractual payments required by the agreement and a default notice was served under s 87(1)  of the consumer credit act 1974 which as not been compiled with. 3. The debt was legally assigned to the Claimant on 23/08/23, notice on which as been given to the defendant.  4. The claim includes statutory interest under S.69 of the county courts act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of issue of these proceedings in the sum of £117.53 the Claimant claims the sum of £6281.14. Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ?   Not to my knowledge. Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? Online but it was for a smaller amount they kept on increasing this with me asking Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. It was assigned to a debt collection agency  Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? yes  Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Yes I also made offers to pay original creditor a smaller amount but was not replied to Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? No Why did you cease payments? I was made redundant and got a less paid job I also spent some time on furlough during covid and spent some 3 months on ssp off work. What was the date of your last payment? May 2021 Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? Yes at the time I communicated with all my creditor's that I was running out of funds to pay the original agreements once my redundancy money ran out that was when my accounts defaulted. I then wrote to all my creditor's with pro rata offers of payments but debt collectors took over the accounts.
    • Just an update for all. I received about a letter every other week, increasing in threat levels. Then I hadn't had one for a about two weeks, then Saturday received a carbon copy of the very first letter they sent me in February. Made me laugh, rinse and repeat. 
    • So, your response was not received by the SCP as you did not send it with a valid stamp. Therefore, from my two option in post #14, the first option is the only one available to you, but you do not have the option of asking to be sentenced at the fixed penalty level as the reason the SCP did not receive your response was down to you. Here's a reminder of what to do: Respond to the SJPN by pleading “Not Guilty” to both charges. In the “Reasons for pleading Not Guilty” box state that you are willing to plead guilty to the speeding charge providing, and only providing, the “Fail to Provide Driver's Details" (FtP) charge is dropped. This is a tried and tested method to deal with your problem and is almost always successful. Before the pandemic it was necessary to attend court to do this "deal" because it needs the agreement of the police prosecutor.. During the pandemic courts made every effort to have as few  people as possible attend and they began doing this deal under the "Single Justice" procedure without the defendant's attendance. Some courts have carried this procedure on whilst others have reverted to a personal attendance being necessary. If you are required to attend, your case will be taken out of the SJ procedure and you will be given a date for a hearing in the normal Magistrates' Court. If that is the way they do it in the area involved you will have to attend, see the prosecutor and offer your "deal" in person. 
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Perky DEFEATED in Oldham County Court 12 MAY 08 ***won on 2nd Hearing ***


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5686 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 221
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I am sure that Stethomas will let us know when the revised POC arrive, I for one will be very interested.

 

MCOL or not, if a case is thrown out with "no reasonable chance of success", you need to have a pretty good argument for a judge to then change his or her mind. I can't help feeling that it is going to cost the PPC a lot more in solicitors' fees than it would have to just drop the original ticket, plus of course the additional fee for submitting altered POC. :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

MCOL or not, if a case is thrown out with "no reasonable chance of success", you need to have a pretty good argument for a judge to then change his or her mind. I can't help feeling that it is going to cost the PPC a lot more in solicitors' fees than it would have to just drop the original ticket, plus of course the additional fee for submitting altered POC. :-D

 

I agree, but this was not thrown out at all and there was NO mention of it not having a reasonable chance of success ... it was only requested to resubmit the POC within 14-days to show in more detail as the character limit for MCOL did not allow a full explination and the judge considered it not to have enough detail to fully show reasonable grounds to bring the claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, but this was not thrown out at all and there was NO mention of it not having a reasonable chance of success ... it was only requested to resubmit the POC within 14-days to show in more detail as the character limit for MCOL did not allow a full explination and the judge considered it not to have enough detail to fully show reasonable grounds to bring the claim.

 

 

It was thrown out just what don't you understand about the word 'struck' out

 

Also the court could, if it felt so inclined, which it obviously didn't have allowed the claimant further time to amend their POC WITHOUT striking the claim out

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all, I am saying that if they want to send revised POC, they will need to do a lot better than what they had previously submitted, and that I would think they'll need proper legal advice to re-write the POC in a way which will convince the judge to re-instate the claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

and that I would think they'll need proper legal advice to re-write the POC in a way which will convince the judge to re-instate the claim.

They'll probably go to their resident legal "expert".

 

This is a direct quote from Perky88's own profile on CAG: "BA Hons Law & FD (Arts) Consumer Protection / Business Owner / Legal Advisor CAB / Consultant".

 

I choked on a few of those terms.........

 

It would appear that they have all the legal advice they need. Of course they'll have to improve on "We Just Do". I think the judge presented the folly of that line by striking out in the first place.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This does not constitute legal advice and is not represented as a substitute for legal advice from an appropriately qualified person or firm.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The case has NOT been discontinued,
Correct

it has NOT been thrown out
Err, incorrect. "struck out" is the correct term, but "thrown out" is what it means.

and the ONLY thing that happened is a revised particulars of claim be submitted within 14-days
Incorrect AGAIN. Date of order on order is dated 19th May, with new POC to be submitted by 26th May = 7 days. The defendant, OTOH, was given 14 days to lodge an amended defence, should the claimant have presented new POC within the above given deadline.

I understand that a revised particulars of claim have been submitted and this case will continue.
In which case, I am sure that Stethomas will be letting us know what these are so we can assist him with an amended defence. :-D

Oooh, this could be quite exciting, maybe we will see a properly defended case at last, which is after all what so many of the arguments have been about. :-D... Of course, if the promised amended POC don't materialise, of the PPC in question missed the deadline by misreading the court order, it's all going to be a bit of a damp squib, so here's hoping. :razz:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Correction999, could you please post up the document you submitted with the defendant's details removed - I for one would be very keen to see it.
I took the liberty of saving a copy earlier just in case... Here it is with the names blanked out:

 

thomaskc5.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has it really come to this for the great Perky - arguing the difference between "struck out" and "thrown out"? Note to CPS trolls: it is best not to post a document that is not in your favour and try to convince everyone that the words on there do not mean what they clearly mean. It is no wonder that Perky was defeated in Oldham if this was the level of his argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, just noticed something odd: The order is dated 12th May, but the "date" (at the top) says 19th May, so it may be argued that the PPC was indeed given 14 days to file amended POC. No idea why the 2 dates don't match, though. :-?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple Bookworm.

 

The date of the hearing was 12 May and that would be the day the Order commences from.

 

The date the Order was typed by the court was 19 May.

 

The date the new particulars had to be served by was 14 days from the day the judge gave the Order, so they must be filed by 4pm 26 May.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm reading this through, and my head hurts. Can someone help me out with the following:

 

  1. I can see from the form that the claim has been struck out. What seems unfair, from the defendant's viewpoint, is that the claimant is allowed to resubmit a new claim based on the same incident.
     
    Where does the defendant stand with regard to recovery of costs - if he has to go to court twice?
     
    Can he recover costs for the first incident?
  2. If the Judge also strikes out Perky's second effort, will the defendant get to know or would it just remain between Perky & the Judge.
  3. Surely Perky is not in a position to present new evidence to the court at this stage, not previously seen by the defendant, the best he can do is represent the evidence already given. It would seem that the issues, as far as the Judge is concerned, are somewhat deeper than mere presentation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see from the form that the claim has been struck out. What seems unfair, from the defendant's viewpoint, is that the claimant is allowed to resubmit a new claim based on the same incident.
I kind of disagree. Some courts have been known to throw out MCOL claims because of the 24 lines/1080 characters limitation, which is unfair considering that it is after all a courts devised system. The over-riding objective however means that anyone should have a chance to state their case in court, so if this particular judge is allergic to MCOL, then it is fair enough that he should allow revised POC. OTOH, if his reason for throwing out the case is that he deems there is no reasonable grounds for bringing the case and it is NOT because of the brevity of MCOL, then the PPC is going to have trouble, as I posted higher.

 

 

Where does the defendant stand with regard to recovery of costs - if he has to go to court twice?
That will depend, if the PPC presents 2nd POC which are just as bad, the judge may not reinstate the case and just confirm the case as struck out. Or he may allocate a date to hearing, and if the PPC goes to court for the hell of it without actually bringing a properly prepared case, then they could be deemed vexatious and the judge could award costs to defendant if he asked.

Can he recover costs for the first incident?

He could ask, but the usual rule is no costs either way, unless the claimant were to be deemed vexatious.

 

If the Judge also strikes out Perky's second effort, will the defendant get to know or would it just remain between Perky & the Judge.

The defendant will know.

 

Surely Perky is not in a position to present new evidence to the court at this stage, not previously seen by the defendant, the best he can do is represent the evidence already given. It would seem that the issues, as far as the Judge is concerned, are somewhat deeper than mere presentation.
Well, that's where the problem is. According to Stethomas, there was a proper hearing and the case was struck out fair and square. According to the posted order, it seems that the POC was the issue and the PPC was given a 2nd chance to redraft their POC. Since Stethomas only gave us the bare bones, it's anyone's guess what actually happened and what was going on in the judge's mind.
Link to post
Share on other sites

We do not know whether any member of CAG or Pepipoo has helped Stethomas with his defence and to what extent. All we have is allegations by the PPC wich appears on the other side of the case - not exactly the horse's mouth. We do not know if an amended defence has been filed or what stage the "revised" claim is at. Basically it seems to me we know diddly squat and I would imagine Stethomas will not enlighten us further, given what has gone on in relation to this PPC over the past few days (I would not blame him for staying well away). I would be grateful mods if for once you could leave this post where it is as it is clearly "on topic".

Link to post
Share on other sites

The facts of the matter are the MCOL service is limited to 1080 characters / 24 lines ... considering 5 of those are for interest leaves 19 lines of approx 40characters long.

 

Some judges do not like the MCOL service and in this case the judge wanted a full particulars of claim, the court now has these (they were served on the court and defendant at the same time) - so in essence this whole thread is a fuss about nothing.

 

Well, not exactly ... It shows a limitation of the MCOL service and for future claims issued by the MCOL service a claimant is advised to serve a full particulars of claim manually on the court and defendant to ensure this does not happen again.

 

It was not a victory or defeat for either party.

 

There is no new claim, just revised/enhanced particulars of the original claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is clearly a complete lack of understanding from our CPS troll about what has happened. Even when it is patiently explained to him on several occasions he does not get it. It has nothing to do with MCOL or limitations on the size of the particulars and everything to do with what the order says - "no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim". The Order is in English and appears perfectly understandable (to me anyway), yet there is this almost desperate attempt to pass it off as some sort of draw rather than a defeat for CPS. The more he asks us not to believe what our eyes and commonsense are telling us the more ridiculous he sounds. My advice to the CPS troll is: spend less time trolling here and more time reading up on the law, clearly some substantial investment in that area is badly needed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

fridgedoor, no matter what is posted you will not agree, If a PPC wins a case then it would have only won because of a badly prepared/presented defence.

If a driver wins it will be 100% proof (to you) that all tickets are unenforceable.

And so the merry-go-round will continue.

 

As you were not there, have not seen judgement transcript (before you ask, I have - you also can by filling in the form and paying the fee) .. you are not qualified to say or comment on what did/did not happen.

 

Here's a novel idea ... lets leave this topic there and not get into a debate that will not achieve anything - lets wait until (1) The court actually throws out/strikes out the full/detailed claim without a hearing and if it decides the revised POC does show sufficient grounds for bringing a claim (2) The outcome of the final hearing. (then you can refer to my first paragraph again for your response)

Link to post
Share on other sites

As you were not there, have not seen judgement transcript (before you ask, I have

 

If you have a copy of the transcript, and it is really as neutral as you say why not post it up? Then we can all see what went on and what line the judge took. Surely you could not have a problem with that, having just posted up the Order?And if you cared to read the many responses to your original post this afternoon, you would see that you are in a minority of one with your views on the Order. Without exception people have told you the claim was struck out (shorthand for thrown out) and the implications of that, yet you persist with this attempt to put a positive spin on it. If we will never agree (and I suspect I agree with you there!) it is because you don't appear to be able to admit what is staring you in the face.

Link to post
Share on other sites

fridgedoor, I have nothing to prove to you or anyone else on here..

 

I did not pay for the transcript and therefore abide by the rules that it was disclosed to me by, If it means that much to you then get it yourself - but trust me, it will not show anything but you are obviously on a mission so feel free.

 

Read into the order what you want to (as I am sure you will), the next update will be factual when I have it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...