Court Claim for O/draft from Nthmtn (CCBC)

[r&b]

SJ Application:

src="http://i615.photobucket.com/albums/tt231/robntanya/LLOYDSSJ.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket">

 

WS p1:

src="http://i615.photobucket.com/albums/tt231/robntanya/LLOYDSSJWS1.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket">

 

p2:

src="http://i615.photobucket.com/albums/tt231/robntanya/LLOYDSSJWS2.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket">

 

p3:

src="http://i615.photobucket.com/albums/tt231/robntanya/LLOYDSSJWS3.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket">

 

p4:

src="http://i615.photobucket.com/albums/tt231/robntanya/LLOYDSSJWS4.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket">

 

p5:

src="http://i615.photobucket.com/albums/tt231/robntanya/LLOYDSSJWS5.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket">

 

p6:

src="http://i615.photobucket.com/albums/tt231/robntanya/LLOYDSSJWS6.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket">

 

p7:

src="http://i615.photobucket.com/albums/tt231/robntanya/LLOYDSSJWS7-1.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket">

[r&b]

this was in a reply to my cpr18 rqst and admitted they kept no DN just record on the banks files.

 

http://i615.photobucket.com/albums/tt231/robntanya/Lloyds3118reply1.jpg

 

im thinking this is the crux of my defence here. anyone else any ideas on:

 

1) their conduct leaving me such scant time to file and serve (just usual tricks i guess)

2) any other angles of attack initially for the SJ, bearing in mind this is for an overdraft not a cred card/loan etc

 

many thanks

[r&b]

im having a look thru to see wot my options r but as time is short any ideas on the SJ wud be appreciated thanks

 

 

added: sorting witness statement in reply

Edited June 24, 2009 by r&b
added

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello r&b!

 

I regret I'm not too familiar with Overdrafts, so can only comment on the Default Notice issues.

 

Their letter in April is a bit condescending, as they have overlooked that they need to provide proof of posting. Failing that, then at best, it has to be assumed they posted via 2nd Class.

 

Next problem for them, is there is no evidence that the Default Notice, if such was ever posted, was valid.

 

Just saying they posted one is not enough. How was it set out, what were the time scales they allowed, what clauses did they say you breached, did they state the default sum accurately etc etc.

 

Just getting a Witness to swear they did what suited them at the time, is a bit too easy and convenient. All you need to do is point out the number of cases that are thrown out when either a Default Notice is not available, or was found to be defective, to show that it is a key issue and not one that can be relegated to the simplicity and lack of accountability of a suspiciously convenient Witness Statement.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[r&b]

Hello r&b!

 

I regret I'm not too familiar with Overdrafts, so can only comment on the Default Notice issues.

 

me neither im afraid

 

Their letter in April is a bit condescending, as they have overlooked that they need to provide proof of posting. Failing that, then at best, it has to be assumed they posted via 2nd Class.

 

Next problem for them, is there is no evidence that the Default Notice, if such was ever posted, was valid.

 

Just saying they posted one is not enough. How was it set out, what were the time scales they allowed, what clauses did they say you breached, did they state the default sum accurately etc etc.

if they produce a valid DN concocted or not am i at liberty to ask for the original? my worry is them concocting a compliant DN and saying thats wot it wud have looked like.

 

Just getting a Witness to swear they did what suited them at the time, is a bit too easy and convenient. All you need to do is point out the number of cases that are thrown out when either a Default Notice is not available, or was found to be defective, to show that it is a key issue and not one that can be relegated to the simplicity and lack of accountability of a suspiciously convenient Witness Statement.

 

do u mean case law (woodchester is the only one i know of relating to DN issues) here or the number of claims being thrown out at county court lvl?

 

Cheers,

BRW

 

thanks BRW appreciate u looking in.

[AndyOrch]

Hi R&B

 

Ok the Claimants have applied for SJ.Did they state they would in their AQ? SJ applications are not straight forward and are not always guaranteed,sometimes they back fire and the Claimants get their case struck out,so lets see what you have.

Did you ever recieve the Notice served under sections 76(1) and 98 (1) of the CCA with regards to this overdraft (overdraft version of a DN)?

Have you checked the amount in question?

Does it contain penalty charges?

Have you checked the dates to verify the termination date does it allow 14 days?

 

Regards

 

Andy

[r&b]

Hi R&B

 

hi andy thanks for the help.....

 

Ok the Claimants have applied for SJ.Did they state they would in their AQ?

i have had letters stating that if i didnt get in touch with them within 14 days they wud go for a SJ. heer it is.

http://i615.photobucket.com/albums/tt231/robntanya/LLOYDSSCMletter.jpg

 

i did reply post 51 is pretty much the letter sent

 

SJ applications are not straight forward and are not always guaranteed,sometimes they back fire and the Claimants get their case struck out,so lets see what you have.

Did you ever recieve the Notice served under sections 76(1) and 98 (1) of the CCA with regards to this overdraft (overdraft version of a DN)?

 

im not sure i havent got it, but i have asked for a copy of the original in CPR18 requests bringing no joy, just this response:

 

http://i615.photobucket.com/albums/tt231/robntanya/Lloyds3118reply1.jpg

 

Have you checked the amount in question?

 

only from the end of the statements. i ll check again.

 

Does it contain penalty charges?

 

yes its about £1300 incl interest on the capital (not overdraft interest.)

 

Have you checked the dates to verify the termination date does it allow 14 days?

 

no i havent as ive not received any copy of DN, however their WS states: on (wednesday) 20/08/08 the claimants computer system recorded a DN...required payment of the arrears of £490.60 by (monday)8/9/09. so i dont know when it was sent/served.

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

im trying to formulate a point by point response to their WS myself at the moment.

 

oh ive got to have my AQ in by 26th as well

 

thanks

[citizenB]

As there is no PROOF of postage, it has to be assumed that it was sent 2nd class or business which is 4 working days.

 

The 20th was a Wednesday and therefore 4 working days assumes you couldnt have received it until the following Tuesday, 26th = 12/13 days. Not the 14 parliament says you MUST be given.

[AndyOrch]

Hi R&B

 

Ok take onboard the above points.

Summary Judgement before AQs mmmmmmmm!!!!!

Wait and see the DJs response to that before i comment.

Which AQ 150? are you ofay with completing this?

Have you recieved a copy of the Claimants?

When you have completed your WS in response to the Claimants WS post up ill take a look also post up your AQ response before submission.

 

Regards

 

Andy

Edited June 24, 2009 by Andyorch

[r&b]

Hi R&B

 

Ok take onboard th e above points.

Summary Judgement before AQs mmmmmmmm!!!!!

Wait and see the DJs response to that before i comment.

Which AQ 150? are you ofay with completing this?

Have you recieved a copy of the Claimants?

When you have have completing you WS in respons to the Claimants WS post up ill take a look also post up your AQ response before submission.

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

thanks andy

 

1.the 4 days for service issue...just to clarify we take the day after the date of the DN (on the system in this case) as the first day and not the date on the DN? thats an issue here as its rite on the cusp.

2. i take it thats a poor show then. good.

3. its n150 im at work now but posts 68/69 are wot ive come up with for the AQs b4 this. the form seems fairly self explanatory from memory. is there anything i shud look out for?

4.no copy of the claimants no.

 

 

appreciate the help

[r&b]

first draft witness statement in reply:

I r&b of xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, am the Defendant in this case. I make this statement in reply to the Summary Judgment application and attached witness statement of the Claimant. Save where I indicate to the contrary, the matters set out in this witness statement are known to me personally.

I shall reply to the individual points of the Claimants Witness Statement:

Introduction:

1. No reply required

2. No reply required

Nature of Claim:

3.I held a bank account with the Claimant for approximately 23 years going overdrawn from time to time.

Account Statements:

4. I have received copy statements from the Defendant.

Added Value Accounts:

5. The account in question may have had its status changed I do not remember the exact details.

6. No reply required

7. No reply required

Planned Overdraft Facilities:

8. I had a planned overdraft facility on this account with the Claimant. I do not remember the exact details of the changes in the aforementioned overdraft facility.

Unplanned Overdraft:

9. The exact dates of the excess of the overdraft are unknown to me however, around this time I was having financial difficulties, a fact which I made the Claimant aware. I stopped all transactions on the account by cancelling direct debits, standing orders etc such that the balance of the account would not change save for any penalties levied by the Claimant. The account at this time was within the Planned Overdraft Limit.

10. The Direct Debits and other transactions referred to by the Claimant in this instance are payments to a credit card no. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx held by myself, also with the Claimant. I made several phone calls to the Claimant, being transferred to an offshore call centre, where I explained that I was unhappy with these payments as they would obviously incur additional charges by taking the account beyond the agreed limit. The staff with whom I was in communication at this juncture were highly uncooperative. I was promised a call back by a manager but never received such a call. I would estimate that I made at least 3 calls of this nature in reply to letters I received from the Claimant announcing that they were allowing such payments on this account.

List Of Charges:

11. I have complied my own list of charges to include interest, tabled in exhibit marked “RB1”.

Bank Charges:

12. As the charges aspect of this case are disputed I do not agree to the stay of this part of the case and if any stay is requested it should refer to the whole of this case. My table for charges with some interest on the capital, not overdraft interest, is previously set out in exhibit marked “RB1”.

Overdraft Interest:

No reply required

Fee-Account Charge:

No reply required

Default Notice:

13. I have on several occasions attempted to gain access to the true original Default Notice that the Claimant claims to have issued on 20th August 2008. As this is a running credit agreement and therefore regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the Act), should the Claimant wish to enjoy the benefits bestowed under s.87 of the Act, they would necessarily have to abide by the rules laid down in s.88 of the Act. Without sight of the Default Notice, which the Claimant avers not to be retained by the bank in their letter of xx April 2009 exhibit marked “RB2”, I and the Court are unable to ascertain the validity of said Default Notice as to whether it included all the prescribed elements required and in the prescribed form.

In any event the dates given by the Claimant in relation to the Default Notice do not allow sufficient time for the remedy of the default as laid down by parliament, given that service will have to be deemed as 4 days as in the same letter of xx April 2009 the Claimant admits that “no proof of postage will be available to the Bank” exhibit “RB2”. This timeframe is a clear 14 days after service and allows no room for manoeuvre:

s.88 CCA1974 states:

(2) A date specified under subsection (1) must not be less than [F1 14] days after the date of service of the default notice, and the creditor or owner shall not take action such as is mentioned in section 87(1) before the date so specified or (if no requirement is made under subsection (1)) before those [F1 14] days have elapsed.

The date of the Default Notice on the Claimants system is Wednesday the 20th August 2008. The Default Notice could not therefore have been deemed as served until Tuesday 26th August 2008. The remedy date is given as 8th September 2008, which leaves 13 clear days in which to remedy, in strict contrast with s.88 CCA1974. This leaves the Default Notice invalid and precludes the Claimant from enjoying any benefits under s.87 of the Act, relying solely on the arrears stated in the Default Notice for retribution of this debt.

Claimants Computer Records:

14. The Consumer Credit Act 1974 is very clear that any Default Notice must have the prescribed terms in the prescribed format. In order for this to be ascertained, the original must be produced. Entries on a computer record are clearly insufficient proof in this case.

Defendants Failure To Remedy Breach:

15. The final demand issued by the Claimants Solicitor on the 12th September 2008 constitutes termination of the running credit of the account and therefore termination of the agreement.

As a further point, no further Default Notices may be issued subsequent to such termination as a Default Notice requires a point in the future for any breach to be remedied, which is clearly impossible on a terminated account.

Closure Of The Account:

16. No reply required

Debt Collection Agency:

17. Although I am unsure as to the details, content, times and dates of contact, I would probably have told any Debt Collection Agency that I was indeed dealing with the CCCS at the time due to my financial difficulties. The CCCS would not have contacted them as my income was insufficient to warrant a Debt Management Plan.

Claimant Instructing Solicitors:

18. No reply required

19. No reply required

20. The Claimant avers that this account is not regulated by the Act, however I refer the Court to s.10 of the Act which clearly outlines the details of an account such as this in regard to running credit and fixed credit.

Accounts such as this are indeed excluded form Part V (ENTRY INTO CREDIT OR HIRE AGREEMENTS):

74.—(1) This Part (except section 56) does not apply to—

(a) a non-commercial agreement, or

(b) a debtor-creditor agreement enabling the debtor to overdraw on a current account, or

© a debtor-creditor agreement to finance the making of such payments

arising on, or connected with, the death of a person as may be prescribed.

As such an omission is detailed within the Act, by definition, this implies that other sections of the Act do indeed apply to such accounts.

I have repeatedly attempted to gain sight of the documentation relating to this claim such that I may submit a proper defence. In answer to my requests under the Civil Procedure Rule 18 to clarify the points of this claim, exhibits marked “RB3”, I have to date received statements for the period September 2001- xxxx 2008.

As I have indicated to the Claimant, I realise that there is no need for an agreement as such under the Act for a running credit account such as this, but there are still restrictions as outlined in the explanation of the lack of Default Notice previously that require the Claimant to produce documentation to substantiate the correct procedure to end this agreement and lawfully collect this claim. To date no such documentation has been forthcoming.

21. I have covered the stay on charges issue previously and ask that this issue is not fit for Summary Judgment and does indeed require a trial due to the complexities involved.

its by no means finished but first draft for critique and additions

many thanks

[AndyOrch]

Hi R&B did the site go down?

 

Ok the above is a start but it will need a lot more polishing to be deemed effective in objecting to the SJ.

When the Claimant submits a statement in application to SJ you have to trash it, bury it, give the DJ who is dealing with the application that not everything is as it appears.

Concentrate on the Termination Notice and the penalty charges,just as the Claimants Witness as skirted it.You need to remind all involved with this claim the reason for your argument and why legally the claim is incorrect.I wouldnot advocate laying out in the fashion of your draft but just go to the crux of the matter, refuting were the Witness is incorrect and why SJ must be denied and that the claim being complex will need trial.

I have just pinched this from one of 42mans post.Digest and pick out parts for your statement.There is some very convincing law to back up your argument.

 

The requirement for a valid Default Notice to lawfully Terminate an Account whilst in default

 

1. Notwithstanding the matters pleaded above, the Claimant must under Section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 serve a valid Default Notice before they can demand early payment of sums not yet due under a Regulated Credit Agreement.

 

2. Under the Interpretation Act 1978 Section 7, it states:

 

Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression "serve" or the expressions "give" or "send" or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post."

 

2. Practice Direction

Service of Documents - First and Second Class Mail.

 

With effect from 16 April 1985 the Practice Direction issued on 30 July 1968 is hereby revoked and the following is substituted therefore.

1). Under S7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 service by post is deemed to have been effected, unless the contrary has been proved, at the time when the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.

2). To avoid uncertainty as to the date of service it will be taken (subject to proof to the contrary) that delivery in the ordinary course of post was effected:-

(a) in the case of first class mail, on the second working day after posting;

(b) in the case of second class mail, on the fourth working day after posting.

"Working days" are Monday to Friday, excluding any bank holiday.

3). Affidavits of service shall state whether the document was dispatched by first or second class mail. If this information is omitted it will be assumed that second class mail was used.

4). This direction is subject to the special provisions of RSC Order 10, rule 1(3) relating to the service of originating process.

 

8th March 1985

J R BICKFORD SMITH Senior Master

Queen's Bench Division

 

3. Further to point 2 above, CPR rules on service also state the required timescales to be given for serving of documents :-

 

Under CPR 6.26 First class post (or other service which provides for delivery on the next business day) is deemed to be “served” The second day after it was posted, left with, delivered to or collected by the relevant service provider provided that day is a business day.

 

4. The Default notice supplied by the Claimant is dated Friday 3rd August, to allow service in line with the statutory requirements mentioned in points 2 & 3 above, 2 working days were required to allow for 1st Class postage. Thus the Rectify date should be 14 calendar days from Wednesday 8th August, namely Wednesday 22nd August 2007, not the 14 calendar days from the date of the letter as stated in the Default notice which would have been 17th August.

 

5. I therefore put the Claimant to strict proof that any Default Notice sent to me was valid and allowed the statutory 14 clear days to rectify the breach. I also note that to be valid, a Default Notice needs to be accurate in terms of both the scope and nature of breach and include an accurate figure required to remedy any such breach. The prescribed format for such document is laid down in Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) and Amendment regulations the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/3237).

 

6. The failure of a Default Notice to be accurate not only invalidates the Default Notice (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain and Co - [2001] GCCR 2255) but is an unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the Court enforcing any alleged debt, but give me a counter claim for damages Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119.

 

7. It is submitted that the above Default Notice served s87(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 failed to comply with the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561).

 

8. For a Creditor to be entitled to terminate a regulated Credit Agreement where there is a breach, demand repayment in full or take any legal action to recover any monies due under the Agreement, a creditor must serve a Default Notice under section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 which states:

 

Section 87. Need for Default Notice

 

(1) Service of a notice on the Debtor or hirer in accordance with section 88 (a "Default Notice ") is necessary before the creditor or owner can become entitled, by reason of any breach by the Debtor or hirer of a regulated Agreement -

 

(a) to terminate the Agreement, or

 

(b) to demand earlier payment of any sum, or

 

© to recover possession of any goods or land, or

 

(d) to treat any right conferred on the Debtor or hirer by the Agreement as terminated, restricted or deferred, or

 

(e) to enforce any security.

 

9. The Act also sets out via Section 88(1), that the Default Notice must be in the prescribed form, as below:

 

Section 88. Contents and effect of Default Notice

 

(1) The Default Notice must be in the prescribed form…

 

10. The wording must make it clear that no variation is acceptable. Therefore it cannot be dispensed with as a De Minimus issue.

 

11. I note that the regulations do not allow any variation in the form of these statements and therefore it is suggested that where the statements are not as laid down in the regulations the Default Notice is rendered invalid as a consequence.

 

12. In the case of Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain & Co - [1998] All ER (D) 339 in the Court of Appeal, the Court addressed in some detail the issue of the contents of a Default Notice and should the notice fail to comply with the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) it would render the Default Notice invalid I quote the comment of KENNEDY LJ: "This statute was plainly enacted to protect consumers, most of whom are likely to be individuals" the judgment appears to confirm the consumer credit legislation made under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 as plainly enacted and set out to offer protection to the consumer. Therefore it is suggested that the failure of the Claimant to set out the Default Notice in accordance with the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) could unduly prejudice me as it failed to allow the required time to remedy the alleged default.

 

13. The Claimant’s failure to issue a valid Default Notice must surely prevent a right of action and would make any termination of the Agreement unlawful, as statute provides the procedure that must be followed. Since the Claimant has failed to adhere to statutory procedure it is averred that the Claimant does not have a right of action, and can never now have a right of action having terminated the Agreement unlawfully.

 

14. Furthermore, the Arrears Total outlined cannot be accurate, as the Balance on the Account was at least partly comprised of Unlawful Charges plus additional Charges and Interest added unlawfully whilst the Account was in Dispute. Therefore, the Arrears claimed cannot be accurate, as they are themselves calculated using a Total that was itself inaccurate.

 

15. This is at all times an Agreement Regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. There is no provision in the Act that allows a large financial institution to terminate an Agreement that is in alleged default or breach simply by giving notice to the Consumer. Section 98(6) makes that quite clear. The Creditor must follow the steps outlined in Section 87 and Section 88 if they are to lawfully Default and Terminate, and enjoy the benefits of Section 87.

 

16. Finally, an invalid Default Notice cannot be remedied by simply issuing a new Default Notice. The Claimant may not serve a second effective default notice in prescribed form post-termination of the agreement. Any such second default notice will necessarily state a date by when I would be required to comply after which in default the agreement would terminate. The second default notice would therefore contain the fiction that the agreement endured when that cannot be the case, as it was terminated on XX/XX/XX. Terminating an Agreement on the back of a defective Default Notice, simply confirms the undeniable truth that Termination of the agreement by the Claimant was carried out in circumstances which then prohibited them from enjoying the benefits of Section 87, namely the opportunity to seek early Payment of a sum that was, prior to Termination, only payable in the future.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[r&b]

great andy thanks ill have another bash ltr.

what wud u suggest as to the AQ in posts 68/69? do i need to add anth specific in regard to the SJ would u think? they have to be in by 26th#

 

added:also if im supposed to get this stuff served and filed 7 days b4 thats today? received yest.

oh n i havent had any probs with the site today myself

Edited June 24, 2009 by r&b
added

[AndyOrch]

XXXXXXXXXX -v- XXXXXXX

Claim No: xxxxxxxxx

 

 

 

 

 

 

N150 Allocation Questionnaire

 

 

 

 

 

Section I - Other Information

 

During the period in which the Account has been operating the Claimant debited numerous charges to the Account in respect of breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant or in respect of various purported services provided by the Claimant (“the Charges”). The Claimant also charged interest on the charges once applied. The Defendant understands that the Claimant contends that the charges were debited in accordance with the terms of the contract between itself and the Claimant.

Insofar as they purport to be services provided by the Claimant, the High Court on the 24th April 2008 rejected the notion that the blocking of cheques, direct debits and so forth were services in the sense commonly understood. Furthermore the High Court held that the Claimant's charges were subject to tests of unfairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulation 1999.

Directions

 

If the court is in agreement, the defendant respectfully requests that special directions may be given as per the attached draft order.

 

The defendant proposes these directions in mind of the Overriding Objectives, and in particular the duty of the parties to help the court further them. The issues outlined below are the crux upon which this claim rests, and the proposed directions identify these issues and will allow them to be assessed in advance of the hearing so that this claim may proceed justly and expeditiously.

Without production of the requested documents, I am at a disadvantage and am unable to serve a proper defence. I have made repeated attempts under CPR18 (5th April 2009, 6th May 2009 and 21st May 2009). Failure of the claimant to supply the requested documentation will make the case much harder for the court to deal with as, non production of the requested documentation will inhibit the courts ability to deal with the case.

 

It is respectfully requested this case be allocated to the fast track. It is a case however, that is easily resolved on production of the required documentation by the claimant, should the claimant not have the documentation required to progress this case, I suggest that there will be no case to answer

 

Therefore it stands to reason that these documents must be disclosed before this case can progress any further.

 

Please find the following attached to this allocation questionnaire;

 

1) Section I - other information

2) Draft order for directions

 

This allocation questionnaire and its attachments were sent to the claimant on **/**/2008.

 

 

anything need adding/changing?

 

Thats what i would put otherwise fine

 

Regards

 

Andy

[r&b]

many thanks again andy.

i ll be off for a few hours n have another crack at the WS ltr.

just a question is there any recourse to getting all this landed on the mat the day before its all due for reply? can i mention this fact if, inevitably im outside the 7 days to file and serve?

[AndyOrch]

many thanks again andy.

i ll be off for a few hours n have another crack at the WS ltr.

just a question is there any recourse to getting all this landed on the mat the day before its all due for reply? can i mention this fact if, inevitably im outside the 7 days to file and serve?

 

You send your AQ the day its due to Court.

You send the Claimants a copy when you have had theirs.

The WS you send on the last very day and also a copy to the claimants

(respond by a WS not less than 7 working days.)

 

If I have understood you correctly

 

 

Regards

 

Andy

[r&b]

You send your AQ the day its due to Court.

You send the Claimants a copy when you have had theirs.

The WS you send on the last very day and also a copy to the claimants

(respond by a WS not less than 7 working days.)

 

If I have understood you correctly

 

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

sorry i may not have been clear....the SJ hearing is on the 1st july, they sent me all the stuff yesterday, leaving me only today to get prepd n sent. the AQs due on 26th so thats ok..

[AndyOrch]

Just seen above ok so you have recieved a Notice of hearing.Not much time to prepare then you need to point this out also the date you got the notice and the lack of time to prepare

 

 

Regards

 

Andy

[r&b]

Just seen above ok so you have recieved a Notice of hearing.

 

only attached to their WS, nothing from the court.

 

Not much time to prepare then you need to point this out also the date you got the notice and the lack of time to prepare

 

ur not joking there. nice of them i thought!!!

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

ok home,fed and kids in bed working on it now..their costs came thru today as well bless em...a grand... gd work fellas

[AndyOrch]

ok home,fed and kids in bed working on it now..their costs came thru today as well bless em...a grand... gd work fellas

 

Hi R&B

 

Im a little concerned.What came attached to their WS?

You should have recieved a Notice of Hearing dated etc from your Local CC stating the date time and length of hearing.How do you know its on Monday then?Have you rang the Court that the above is real and the Courts are aware of it?

 

What have you recieved re the Costs? This should only come vis a vis the Claimants AQ

 

 

Regards

 

Andy

[r&b]

rite sorry andy we seem to have our wires crossed a bit.

 

i previously received the N150 AQ which i am due to submit on 26th june.

 

yesterday i received a bundle from SCM dated 8th june in regard to the SJ including the witness statement in the above post with a notice of summary judgment from the court (its stamped) for a 1 hour hearing attached dated 12th june with the hearing on 1st july. i received nth from the court to acknowledge this at all.

costs are re witness statment and prep of application.

Edited June 24, 2009 by r&b

[AndyOrch]

Ok

 

 

Retain the package the bundle came in 8th June recieved 23rd June might come in usefull.

 

Ok back to the N o H The form is N244A and will have your CC stamp/frank under the Courts address.The above is sent with the Claimants application and WS and docs referred to in the WS.From Court not the Claimant

Have you got the above ?

 

Regards

 

Andy

[r&b]

Ok

 

 

Retain the package the bundle came in 8th June recieved 23rd June might come in usefull.

 

yep no prob hav kept it..its franked from their offices so diff to tell when posted

 

Ok back to the N o H The form is N244A and will have your CC stamp/frank under the Courts address.The above is sent with the Claimants application and WS and docs referred to in the WS.From Court not the Claimant

Have you got the above ?

 

the form is N244 stamped by local CC and yes they have an exhibit list with the WS, which equates to statements from oct 2001-sep2008, a letter outlining an o/draft facility with t&cs, an outline of costs on the account,a printout of the DN entry on their comp system and a letter they sent explaing the CCA1974 exempts current a/c from section V. thats it

Regards

 

Andy

 

i have had nothing from the court itself

Edited June 24, 2009 by r&b

[AndyOrch]

Yes the Application form is the N244, anyone can send you that, i have hundreds.The form you have not got is the N244A This is the only official form that the court uses to notify you that the hearing as been set and granted.The Court send you the Application/WS/Docs along with the N244A not the Claimant.Hence I smell a Rat

Not wishing to be pedantic R&B and not wishing for us both to panic and do un nessasary work I think you may want to check with the Court first if the application as been recieved by them.I have seen nearly every trick in the book to try to unnerve Defendents in cases and the above dosent smell right.I could be wrong

 

Regards

 

Andy

Edited June 24, 2009 by Andyorch

[r&b]

Yes the Application form is the N244, anyone can send you that, i have hundreds.The form you have not got is the N244A This is the only official form that the court uses to notify you that the hearing as been set and granted.The Court send you the Application/WS/Docs along with the N244A not the Claimant.Hence I smell a Rat

Not wishing to be pedantic R&B and not wishing for us both to panic and do un nessasary work I think you may want to check with the Court first if the application as been recieved by them.I have seen nearly every trick in the book to try to unnerve Defendents in cases and the above dosent smell right.

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

ok Andy i ll take ur extra sensory perceptive advice. quite honestly nth wud surprise me with this lot. u think it may be a ruse to see if i know whats what regarding the DN issue which has to be their stumbling block?

ill phone the court first thing and see what the score is. my worry is that if this is real (the stamp is quite convincing lol) and im left with no time to sort out and submit (it takes me a while to research all this stuff). having said that the court is not far so it can be hand delivered.

 

by the way fantastic help andy really really appreciate it, makes so life much easier with someone on hand who knows their stuff cheers r&b