Robinson Way Court Proceedings - Help urgently needed!

[blaser]

thanks 42 man for the links makes interesting reading

[lilly white]

when do you need to have your defence in by

[blaser]

i am not really sure i guess i have to wait for court papers although the dj said 14 days and the rw 21 days to respond

[blaser]

hi after reading some threads i have just realised that i have not received a default notice from rw and as far as i am aware from abbey . there is nothing on my credit history about the loan or any asscoiation with abbey or rw .is these worth mentioning this in my defense

[blaser]

you can send in WS and a defence so as long as it gets there 24 hrs before hearing if you do this you must also send same to other side.

 

Thats my understanding but im sure i will be corrected if not

 

PF

hi after reading some threads i have just realised that i have not received a default notice from rw and as far as i am aware from abbey . there is nothing on my credit history about the loan or any asscoiation with abbey or rw .is these worth mentioning this in my defense

[lilly white]

Valid Default Notice

 

 

10. It is a condition precedent to the issue of Proceedings in respect of a Regulated agreement that certain steps prior to the issue of Proceedings must be taken. Specifically those steps are the issue of a valid default notice complying with the terms of the Act and the issue of a valid termination notice, also complying with the act.

 

 

11. It is not admitted that either a valid default notice or termination notice was ever served on me and the Claimant is put to strict proof.

 

 

12. It is noted 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 (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain & Co - [1998] All ER (D) 339). It must also allow a minimum of 14 days following date of service, in which to rectify any such breach. The prescribed format for such a document is further laid down in the 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 2006 (SI 2006/3094).

 

 

13. The Act also sets out via Section 88 that the Default Notice must be in the prescribed form and must allow the required time from date of service. The use of the word “must” indicates that this is mandatory and that it cannot be dismissed as a de minimus issue.

 

 

14. The Law in respect of service is governed by the Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 which indicates that service is deemed to be effectual on the day upon which the letter would be delivered in the usual course of business.

 

 

15. I refer to the practice direction, given by J R BICKFORD SMITH, Senior Master Queen's Bench Division, on8 March 1985 in relation to the Interpretation Act 1978, Section 7. It confirms that deemed service of documents sent by first class mail occurs on the 2nd business day after posting.

16. I further refer to CPR Part 6.26 Service of Documents which concurs with the above practice direction that the deemed date of service by first class post occurs:-

 

 

“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; or if not, the next business day after that day.”

 

 

17. The importance of CPR Part 6 and the Interpretation Act 1978 in determining the delivery of documents by ordinary post is further confirmed by the following Court of Appeal Case Consignia Plc v Sealy [2002] EWCA Civ 878 (19 June 2002).

 

 

18. For the avoidance of any doubt, in the event of an alleged breach by the Debtor 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.

[blaser]

wow thanks lillywhite

 

without making myself sound stupid does that mean that RW have to now provide evidence from Abbey that this was served correctly if at all. and also does this mean that the current alleged assignee R W have to also follow this course ,which there have not ?.

 

The PPi is also an issue that helped me get this case ajourned as i do remember being told that if i take it ,i will get loan (misselling).i cannot remember receiving any documentation on ppi and total breakdown of cost etc. the dj tried to work out a figure less ppi and suggested that the figure would be applicable to be struck of . I pointed out to her that the agreement CCA is unenforceable in law . she also could not come up with any figure anyway .

[blaser]

court order has arrived

[lilly white]

well wait till they see this.edit to suit

 

 

Payment Protection Insurance

1. From 10/04/07 or shortly afterwards the Claimant debited premiums in respect for Payment Protection Insurance.

 

a) Without sight of the original agreement, the Defendant makes no admission whether or not he applied for PPI.

 

b) If the Court decides that such an application was made, he contends that this insurance policy was mis-sold, the credit agreement was improperly executed and unenforceable due to s.127(3) and also unenforceable due to complete failure of consideration.

 

c) The Defendant researched the issues surrounding the OFT’s concerns over the lack of guidance and advice given in relation to PPI. The Defendant recalls that examples of a Northern Rock PLC Loan application form contemporary to the time that the Account was started in April 07 appear to imply that it was compulsory for PPI to be agreed to for credit to be considered, or that it was otherwise not made clear whether or not it was compulsory.

 

d) There was no statement under what circumstances that payment on any claim would be made and what exclusions would apply and in which circumstances.

 

e) The Defendant did not receive a policy certificate or schedule.

 

f) The Defendant suffers from a pre-existing Medical Condition. This condition precludes the Defendant from some forms of employment. No mention was made of the effect that pre-existing medical conditions would have, in the event of a claim.

 

g) No guidance was given as to whether other, better value insurance policies were available from other sources.

 

 

 

2. PPI was apparently supplied“ in house“, but there are no stated terms as to how payment would be made, whether premiums would be billed separately or whether they were to be added to the debit balance and the implications as to interest levied, or whether this was credit or a charge for credit. As it transpired, premiums were added to the debit balance and interest at the contractual compound rate was levied, thus making any credit interest stated inaccurate.

 

3. The Defendant asserts that such an agreement would be s.18 multiple agreement and as such, require separate prescribed terms for each part. The Defendant informs the Court that in a statutory request made under s.78(1) of the Act for a copy such an agreement, the Claimant failed to supply any relevant document.

 

 

4. The Defendant repeats that he makes no admission as to whether he agreed to the PPI, but asserts that in the event that he did, the PPI policy was mis-sold and premiums and interest were levied thereon unlawfully, and respectfully asks the Court to order equitable redress, whereby the Defendant is returned to the financial position he would be in today, if such mis-selling had not occurred.

 

5. Claimant charges interest to the Defendant, via the Account, at its published “Purchase rate” of 9.9% pa compound

 

6. The Claimant claims that it is entitled to charge these rates due to its terms and conditions.

 

7. Defendant contends that the PPI premiums were mis-sold for reasons outlined in para 1, above.

 

Failure of Consideration

8. The Defendant asserts that because of the previously stated reasons, the PPI policy is worthless. That is to say that the Claimant sold a PPI policy in circumstances that the Defendant would never ever be able to claim on. The Defendant asserts that this is a clear and total failure of consideration, as the consideration is worthless.

 

9. As authority, I quote the following from RESTITUTION (VOLUME 40(2) (REISSUE) PARAS 1301-1484)/6. TOTAL FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION/

 

1387. In general.

Money paid by the claimant to the defendant is, in principle, recoverable where it has been paid for a consideration which has wholly or totally failed

1, even in a case where the effect of allowing the claimant to recover is to enable him to escape from a bad bargain

2. A partial failure of consideration will not generally entitle a claimant to recover the value of the benefit which has been conferred on the defendant

3. The claim is one to recover money paid; it is not yet possible to recover the value of services rendered or goods supplied on the ground that the consideration for the performance of the services or the provision of the goods has failed.

 

1388. The meaning of 'failure of consideration'.

It was once thought that a claimant had to avoid a contract ab initio in order to be able to establish that there had been a total failure of consideration

1. It is now settled, however, that the test is not whether there has ever been a contract, but whether there has ever been any performance by the defendant of any of his obligations under the contract

2. While it has been stated that the phrase 'failure of consideration' 'is one which in its terminology presupposes that there has been at some stage a valid contract which has been partially performed by one party'

3, examples can be found of cases in which an identical, or at least very similar, principle seems to operate in a non-contractual context

4. Thus a claimant who pays money to the defendant on a 'subject to contract' basis and who then decides that he does not wish to go through with the purchase is entitled to recover from the defendant the sum so paid

5. Other examples can be found of money which has been advanced for a particular purpose and which has been held to be recoverable by the payor when the purpose for which it was paid has subsequently failed

2 'When one is considering the law of failure of consideration and of the quasi-contractual right to recover money on that ground, it is, generally speaking, not the promise which is referred to as the consideration, but the performance of the promise': Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd [1943] AC 32 at 48, [1942] 2 All ER 122 at 129, HL, per Viscount Simon LC (applied in Goss v Chilcott [1996] AC 788, [1997] 2 All ER 110, PC). See also Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council [1994] 4 All ER 890 at 924-925, 91 LGR 323 at 361-362 per Hobhouse J.

 

10. The Defendant further asserts that these PPI premiums and interest levied thereon, represent an undue cash enrichment to the Claimant, which the Claimant was not entitled to, and that the Claimant has already used the funds to enrich itself for many years and will continue to do so ad infinitum, unless redress for damages suffered takes place. The Defendant believes that he is entitled to recover money paid under the contract on the grounds that it was paid for a consideration which totally failed.

 

11. As authority the Defendant quotes the following:

RESTITUTION (VOLUME 40(2) (REISSUE) PARAS 1301-1484)/6. TOTAL FAILURE OF

CONSIDERATION/(4) VOID CONTRACTS/1407. Money paid under unenforceable contracts.

1407. Money paid under unenforceable contracts.

Where the contract between the parties is unenforceable rather than void, the unenforceability of the contract does not of itself give rise to a right to recover money paid under the contract. However, the claimant may be entitled to recover money paid on the ground that it was paid for a consideration which totally failed unless such a claim would undermine the rule which rendered the contract unenforceable. Where the contract is unenforceable but the defendant remains ready, able or willing to perform his obligations under the contract, the claimant will not, as a general rule, be entitled to recover money paid to the defendant.

 

1 For example, a contract which does not comply with the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 s 2 (as amended): see DEEDS AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS vol 13 (2007 Reissue) para 145; SALE OF LAND vol 42 (Reissue) para 29. See also CONTRACT vol 9(1) (Reissue) paras 607, 623.

 

2 Orakpo v Manson Investments Ltd [1978] AC 95, [1977] 3 All ER 1, HL.

 

3 Orakpo v Manson Investments Ltd [1978] AC 95, [1977] 3 All ER 1, HL. See also Goff and Jones The Law of Restitution (5th Edn, 1999 pp67-72.)

 

12. Using that reasoning and maintaining the principal of equity, mutuality and reciprocity between the parties, the Defendant contends that he is entitled to an equal rate of interest (9.9% pa compound) in this case. If the Defendant is mistaken, the Defendant contends that the lower rate of 8% should be applied; or whatever the Court deems just. The Defendant notes in particular that the Claimant erred in law, and had no legal right to apply PPI premiums to the Account.

 

13. If the Terms and Conditions form part of a contract between the parties hereto then there is an implied and/or imposed term of contract that the Claimant must pay the Defendant at the same rate of interest which it reserves for itself in similar circumstances. If no express contract exists between the parties hereto, then the Defendant contends that an implied and/or imposed contract exists between the parties hereto relating solely to the Defendant’s right to charge interest to the Claimant at the rate which it reserves for itself in relation to similar circumstances.

 

14. s.32.--

(1) .... where in the case of any action for which a period of limitation is prescribed by this Act, either-

(a) the action is based upon the fraud of the defendant; or

(b) any fact relevant to the plaintiff's right of action has been deliberately concealed from him by the defendant; or

© the action is for relief from the consequences of a mistake;

the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff has discovered the fraud, concealment or mistake (as the case may be) or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it. ....

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, deliberate commission of a breach of duty in circumstances in which it is unlikely to be discovered for some time amounts to deliberate concealment of the facts involved in that breach of duty.

 

15. I would also like to draw the Court’s attention to the requirements of CPR Practice Direction 16 7.3 which states:

Where a claim is based upon a written Agreement:

(1) a copy of the contract or documents constituting the Agreement should be attached to or served with the particulars of claim and the original(s) should be available at the hearing

 

Should the Claimant be unable to produce the original Agreement signed by both Debtor and Creditor and containing the Prescribed Terms, I request that the Court uses its powers under Section 142 Consumer Credit Act 1974 and declare the Agreement as unenforceable.

 

16. The Defendant requests that the court use its powers under section 142 of the consumer credit act to determine the rights of the parties. The Defendant respectfully asks the Court under s.142 (1) (b) of the Act to make a declaration that the creditor may not enforce this agreement.

　　

s.142 Power to declare rights of parties

(1) Where under any provision of this Act a thing can be done by a creditor or owner on an enforcement order only, and either—

(a) the court dismisses (except on technical grounds only) an application for an enforcement order, or

(b) where no such application has been made or such an application has been dismissed on technical grounds only, an interested party applies to the court for a declaration under this subsection,

the court may if it thinks just make a declaration that the creditor or owner is not entitled to do that thing, and thereafter no application for an enforcement order in respect of it shall be entertained.

(2) Where—

(a) a regulated agreement or linked transaction is cancelled under section 69(1), or becomes subject to section 69(2), or

(b) a regulated agreement is terminated under section 91, and an interested party applies to the court for a declaration under this subsection, the court may make a declaration to that effect.

　

[lilly white]

wow thanks lillywhite

 

without making myself sound stupid does that mean that RW have to now provide evidence from Abbey that this was served correctly if at all.yes

 

and also does this mean that the current alleged assignee R W have to also follow this course yes, which there have not ?.

 

The PPi is also an issue that helped me get this case ajourned as i do remember being told that if i take it ,i will get loan (misselling).i cannot remember receiving any documentation on ppi and total breakdown of cost etc. the dj tried to work out a figure less ppi and suggested that the figure would be applicable to be struck of . I pointed out to her that the agreement CCA is unenforceable in law . she also could not come up with any figure anyway .

 

 

tell the judge i also did try ,we got the pompy faith to have look we still do not know

 

also give the judge my regards

[blaser]

hi looks very interesting this will take me a while to read and understand thanks lilly white also looks like i am getting another judge next time but i will send your regards on thanks martin

[blaser]

removed

Edited September 27, 2009 by blaser
got my name on

[blaser]

removed to thread 94

Edited September 27, 2009 by blaser

[pompeyfaith]

blazer u need to remove it asap and edit it before reposting as it shows your name and address and claim number

[pompeyfaith]

second copy still has your personal details

[middenmess]

Blazer

 

Please edit as you have duplicated sections and it is very difficult to follow and comprehend!

[blaser]

hi i did not realise that this had happened as you can tell i am not very good at pc skills . will ask my good friend tinnud to correct

[blaser]

I Have Edited The Text Now With A Little Help Please See post 88 thanks

[blaser]

Re: Robinson Way Court Proceedings - Help urgently needed!

IN THE NORWICH COUNTY COURT BETWEEN - CLAIM NO

ROBINSON WAY LTD claimant

AND

defendant

DEFENSE STATEMENT OF

1 / On the 27’ of August 1997- I responded to an advert in Auto trader for a loan by telephone, of which I distinctly remember being assured by the person on the other line that the P.P.I policy would pay out even though I would probably be going self employed in the near future. I was told that to get the loan I would have to take out this P.P.I policy in order to help my credit score.

2/ A few months later a family crisis occurred which affected my health and ability to work, with the situation not getting any better I tried to make a claim only to be told that as I was self employed they could not cover me. I was unaware of any legislation as regards to the selling of P.P.I at the time.

3/ I visited the C A B who ran through all my finances and made offers of payment to my creditors which were duly accepted by all, including Abbey, after about a year later. I was contacted once more by outstanding services (Abbey debt firm) and we agreed to raise the monthly amount by 5x as much which I now know I had paid monthly by standing order and still was until March 2009 without missing one payment. Please see proof article 2.

4/ The interest was frozen as was agreed through the C A B, and was agreed to be kept in place around 1999 but I cannot be totally precise to the exact month.

5/ I received no further correspondence until late December 2008 from Robinson Way demanding payment in full. Please note, I had received no notification that the debt had been assigned to the claimant: “it is therefore submitted that the mere fact of giving a notice does not, of itself, create an assignment and that there must be an actual assignment in existence. It is the actual Assignment, not just the Section 136 notice, under which the Claimant derives title to bring the claim and the Claimant is put to strict proof that such Assignment exists. It is further averred that I am entitled, in any event, to view the document of assignment as a matter of law (Van Lynn Developments v Pelias Construction Co Ltd 1968 [3] All ER 824)” The Law of property act 1925, a copy of which is enclosed.

“It is further averred that to be valid the alleged notice of assignment must accurately describe the assignment (W F Harrison & Co Ltd v Burke & another [1956] 2 ALL ER 169). It is submitted that the alleged notice of assignment cannot be accurate as it refers to an amount that includes miss sold P.P.I” Which to this date I am still awaiting clarification. Please see statement of P.P.I proof article 3.

6/ On the 14’ February 2009- I received a court summons from the claimant, I requested all relevant documentation under the civil procedure rules i.e. an eligible signed consumer agreement, the assignment, and default notice commonly known as subject to access. I have enclosed copies of requests for this information including recorded delivery and postal order receipts as you can see in proof 4. Please note that I had to send four letters of request as the claimant did not acknowledge or indeed reply to any one of them.

7/ Since I had received no response from the claimant, I defended the claim on the basis that I

duly defended on the grounds that I have no knowledge of Robinson Way and the fact that without the requested content of the civil procedure rules pursuant to s.78(1) of the consumer credit act 1974 .I also sent the claimant a letter of notice reminding them of their obligations and that their use of legal action would appear to be in breach of the Consumer Protection From Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and the Office of Fair Trading Guidance on Debt Collection. I also reminded the claimants solicitors that the provisions of s.78(6) now apply .The claim was Transferred to Norwich County Court .

8/ On April 25th I received (copy of which enclosed) dated 22nd of April stating that there are unable to locate the agreement (C.C.A) due to the age of the agreement there is also no mention of the original assignment or indeed the default notice .This appears to be a total breach of the claimants legal obligations before starting the legal process as stated above .With the greatest respect the LAW is there for both sides to adhere to and i was amazed that the legal process was started without even the original agreement in their possession .How has the outstanding amount been worked out without sight of the terms and conditions and also the miss sold P.P.I policy terms ?

9/May 10th I received an eligible copy of the consumer credit agreement stating it has now been found i cannot read the terms and conditions and also the payments schedule needs explaining as there is no mention of the alleged miss sold P.P.I policy other than a monthly amount. This in short appears to be a multi agreement which is not in accordance with section 18 of the consumer credit act - 18.Multiple agreements.

—(1) This section applies to an agreement (a “multiple agreement ”) if its terms are such as—

(a)To place a part of it within one category of agreement mentioned in this Act, and another part of it within a different category of agreement so mentioned, or within a category of agreement not so mentioned, or

(b)To place it, or a part of it, within two or more categories of agreement so mentioned.

(2) Where a part of an agreement falls within subsection (1), that part shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as a separate agreement

10/ I have never received A DEFAULT NOTICE further i wish to examine the notice if this indeed was served on me ,I also question this as i was always in contact at the time with Abbey and i was paying the agreed reduced amount the relevance of which is clearly stated below____________________ ____________________

Valid Default Notice

 

It is a condition precedent to the issue of Proceedings in respect of a Regulated agreement that certain steps prior to the issue of Proceedings must be taken. Specifically those steps are the issue of a valid default notice complying with the terms of the Act and the issue of a valid termination notice, also complying with the act.

 

It is not admitted that either a valid default notice or termination notice was ever served on me and the Claimant is put to strict proof.

It is noted 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 (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain & Co - [1998] All ER (D) 339). It must also allow a minimum of 14 days following date of service, in which to rectify any such breach. The prescribed format for such a document is further laid down in the 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 2006 (SI 2006/3094).

 

The Act also sets out via Section 88 that the Default Notice must be in the prescribed form and must allow the required time from date of service. The use of the word “must” indicates that this is mandatory and that it cannot be dismissed as a de minimus issue.

 

The Law in respect of service is governed by the Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 which indicates that service is deemed to be effectual on the day upon which the letter would be delivered in the usual course of business.

 

I refer to the practice direction, given by J R BICKFORD SMITH, Senior Master Queen's Bench Division, on8 March 1985 in relation to the Interpretation Act 1978, Section 7. It confirms that deemed service of documents sent by first class mail occurs on the 2nd business day after posting.

16. I further refer to CPR Part 6.26 Service of Documents which concurs with the above practice direction that the deemed date of service by first class post occurs:-

 

“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; or if not, the next business day after that day.”

 

The importance of CPR Part 6 and the Interpretation Act 1978 in determining the delivery of documents by ordinary post is further confirmed by the following Court of Appeal Case Consignia Plc v Sealy [2002] EWCA Civ 878 (19 June 2002).

For the avoidance of any doubt, in the event of an alleged breach by the Debtor 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

Also the witness statement of Miram Scott states I was served an appropriate default notice if this was the case where is documentation to prove this? Further if the said document is in their possession why have they not supplied me with a copy as requested many times under the civil procedure rules act ?

11/It is further stated by Miriam Scott that I made payments Direct to Robinson Way which is seen as an open admission of liability ,This statement is not true and i request should be struck out as any payments they received were paid to them from outstanding services who i had a standing order set up with at the sum of £5.00 a month which i have previously stated have always paid up until the account came into dispute .I have never recognised Robinson Way as the assignees and am still awaiting documentation to prove otherwise . This could have been caused by ignorance of their own systems or with the greatest respect a blatant lie to further their claim in their favour of which I take great offense.

12/ I would like to high light the fact that I cannot read the terms and conditions of the CCA and further I have always paid the agreed amount and never defaulted on the revised agreement .Also I never heard anything from Abbey National to revise this amount from 1999 to the point that i had forgotten about this account as it was so long ago.

13/Finally to sum up, as I have never received any of the following,

1/ an assignment notice, AS STATED ON PARAGRAPH 5

2/ A default notice AS STATED ON PARAGRAPH 10

3/ A legible copy of C C A AS STATED ON PARAGRAPH 9

4/ A miss sold P P I policy statement with terms and conditions

5/ An accurate statement of alleged monies owed

This statement is true and factual backed up by letters of correspondence and the laws of the consumer credit act 1974 which have clearly not been adhered to by Robinson Way .

Based on these facts I feel I have every reason to ask the

[pompeyfaith]

Based on these facts I feel I have every reason to ask that the court strike out Robinson Way's claim forthwith.

[Tinnud]

Hi all,

 

Martin has asked me to post a copy of his latest Robinson Way letter.

 

He wants to know if they can use this as an official assignment...?

[blaser]

hi is there anyone out there who knows what the robbers are upto does this mean that the impending court case is still current? as there apparantley is a new assignee and not forgetting i am still awaiting reply of my defense

[cymruambyth]

Hi this letter is discussed from post 235 on this thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/212396-trying-set-aside-judgement-12.html

[RobinWayRobinme]

Don't think anything to panic about with purported notice of assignment as a) not properly served LPA requires special delivery or recorded. b) notice 2 different dates. I believe its not a lawful notice of assignment. I'm doing nothing at moment and wil pick my moment to use it to my advantage.

Robin

[blaser]

hi sorry i missed you last night sleeping to early morning shifts i read through thread seems to me that everyone is getting thiese does this mean that they have to restart all court action also it appears that they have added the previous court costs (which was ajourned no costs to them granted to rw )has been added regardless of what previous judge ruled . please bear with me i will try to get on pc this eveing