CCJ Registering from England

[kaalmac]

Hi again folks,

 

Well as you know my CCJ was setaside and the judge invited me to consider applying for the case to be struck out and a statement of truth and I completed that form and sent special delivery by 1 march 2010.

 

The claimants were told to file and serve witness statement and statement of truth by 27 march 2010. ( I have only received a copy of this from their solicitors today 2 april 2010 !! ). I am supposed to reply to this with a further statement of truth by today!!!. their solicitor has obviously held it back deliberatly so that I can not reply in time.

 

The hearing is on 13th april 2010. In which I am claiming to have their case struck out on grounds of jurisdiction.

 

In their rebuttal a couple of the lines they are using are as follows:

 

"4. It is simlply not correct to say that the defendant is a "consumer" or that there is any consumer credit agreement, whether or not it is regulated under the consumer credit act"

"6. subsequent to the termination of the defendant`s employment on 29 july 2005 the claimant company by mistake made payment to the defendant of £1730.56. the defendant had no entitlement to the said monies and despite requests has failed to repay the same" ( this is completely untrue )

"7. the claimant is a company registered at cardiff and any county court in england and wales has jurisdiction for an action such as this for recovery of monies paid under a mistake."

 

Please can any one advise me if they are just "at it" or do they really now have jurisdiction.

 

Thank you in advance again

Kaalmac

[IdaInFife]

asking for some help ida x

[seriously fed up]

OK, I think this one is relatively easy (or maybe its just me being stupid :-|) but the Civil Jurisdiction and Justice Act 1982 is pretty clear on this. Rather than me ramble on, I will copy the relevant part (section 8, rule 3 para 3 and 4 - this is re consumers)

"(3)A consumer may bring proceedings against the other party to a contract only in—(a)the courts for the place in which that party is domiciled;

(b)the courts for the place in which he is himself domiciled; or

©any court having jurisdiction by virtue of rule 2(f) or (i).

(4)Proceedings may be brought against a consumer by the other party to the contract only in the courts for the place where the consumer is domiciled or any court having jurisdiction under rule 2(i).

 

 

If they want to insist you arent a consumer but an employee then its section 8 rule 4, para 2 and 3 which are practically the same

" (2)An employer may be sued—

(a)in the courts for the place where he is domiciled; or

(b)in the courts for the place where the employee habitually carries out his work or in the courts for the last place where he did so; or

©if the employee does not or did not habitually carry out his work in any one place, in the courts for the place where the business which engaged the employee is or was situated.

(3)An employer may bring proceedings only in the courts for the place in which the employee is domiciled."

The only exception to this would be if there was (this is para 5) "an agreement on jurisdiction—

(a)which is entered into after the dispute has arisen; or

(b)which allows the employee to bring proceedings in courts other than those indicated in this rule"

I assume that (a) would not apply. In any event (b) isnt going to help them.

 

Thus their assertion that

 

""4. It is simlply not correct to say that the defendant is a "consumer" or that there is any consumer credit agreement, whether or not it is regulated under the consumer credit act" is neither here nor there, as rule 4 gives you the same rights as an employee, which they seem to accept you were in the next paragraph that you quote

"6. subsequent to the termination of the defendant`s employment on 29 july 2005 the claimant company by mistake made payment to the defendant of £1730.56. the defendant had no entitlement to the said monies and despite requests has failed to repay the same" ( this is completely untrue )

"7. the claimant is a company registered at cardiff and any county court in england and wales has jurisdiction for an action such as this for recovery of monies paid under a mistake." - this is just wrong. As you reside in Scotland (you do?) they can only raise this action here in my opinion as its an employment matter.

 

Dont know if they are just at it, or not all that well informed. One of the two.

 

Btw you can find the Civil Jurisdiction etc Act at http://www.uk-legislation.hmso.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1982/cukpga_19820027_en_22#sch11

Hope that helps you

SFU

[kaalmac]

Yes it does help me and thank you for taking the time and trouble to reply. You have put my mind at rest.

They were such a vengeful employer and i`m sure they are just "at it".

Your post has reassured me and I thank you for that and I will keep you all posted as to the out come.

Kaalmac

[seriously fed up]

OK, glad to help

Just a couple of things - first, dont let them wander away from this being an employment issue. Secondly, might they be able to get the case reopened up here, when the Civil Jurisdiction Act wouldnt be able to help you. Just something to watch out for.

[kaalmac]

They have held off sending me their response as I only received this today and I was supposed to lodge a rebuttal to it by 3pm today! I feel that the tactics they are using are so dirty. I am going to go and see my MSP regarding this.

Kaalmac

[kaalmac]

If they re-opened it up here , at least I could get proper legal representation and defend my self in which case I know I would win as it is a closed matter already from scottish ET and also County court liecster in england

[seriously fed up]

it would be your MP, I would think

You have a final judgement against them in England as well? I would think about going after them for abuse of process.

[kaalmac]

what do you mean about "final judgement against them" . Also please explain the abuse process as I was wondering how you stop people doing these kind of things.

Thanks

Kaalmac

[seriously fed up]

OK what i mean by "final judgement" is that, what I take from your post at 19.15 is that a Scottish Employment Tribunal has decided in your favour. What really shocks me is that you seem to be saying that a court in Leicester also decided in your favour. Was this on the same issue? Two things here

 

1. while they might play silly buggers with jurisdiction for the Scottish Tribunal judgement, this hardly seems possible with the Leicester judgement, which is the same jurisdiction (England and Wales).
   
2. that they have raised another action in another court when two judgements have already gone against them, just seems to me to be abusing the legal process. What are they going to do, haul this case round every court in the land till they find one that will side with them. This isnt process - the correct process would be to appeal either the Scottish or Leicester decisions. I would guess the latter is ruled out for them as the English system no longer has jursidiction (though presumably for the original decision it did so there might be an argument that as it started in England ...) and they dont fancy appealing the Tribunal decisions in a foreign country. Basically, I think they are taking serious advantage here - getting court papers isnt nice, its putting you to trouble and concern - and I think the full detail should be put to the court - ie not just that it lacks jurisdiction, but that you already have two judgements against them etc. - I would use this as a basis for an application for the costs of resisting their currrent claim. It might not be very much (court fee + something for your time etc) but it would send them a message.
   

[kaalmac]

You have summed up the whole thing perfectly!! That is exactly how it is , I just didn`t know how how to explain it. Are you a solicitor? If you are then YOUR HIRED!!

Kaalmac

[IdaInFife]

thanks SFU

 

ida x

[kaalmac]

Thank you Ida

 

Kaalmac

[seriously fed up]

ah wish - they make somewhat more money than I do!

So, you have judgement against them in Scotland and in England (Leicester) on the same matter and this is them trying it on now in Cardiff. You MUST include in that in your defence and seek costs on the grounds that they are just abusing process. As I said, you might not get very much, but its an important message for them that if they keep harassing you, you will extract as much revenge as you can.

On a closely related issue, any competent solicitor (or even legal assistant) in either Scotland or England will know about jurisdiction - even I did, and I aint a solicitor. I know a lawyer is like "a cab for hire" (to quote Geoff Hoon), but this is quite disgraceful. I am quite sure they must have been told that Cardiff lacked jurisdiction, but they hoped you didnt. Well ye ken noo.

[kaalmac]

I am now at my wits end:(, despite me paying a fee to have the other sides claim struck out and explaining that because I live in Scotland, because of logistics, cost and the fact that I can not get legal representation because of jurisdiction.... the other side has convinced the judge that they do have jurisdiction...... the judge has now set a "trial date". I am to go "on trial " 11th june 2010 at Barnsley County Court. I feel you couldn`t make this up! It`s like watching a film where you know who the baddie is but there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. I have managed to arrange a meeting with my MSP for tomorrow with a view to seeing if she can highlight my plight with the Scottish Justice Secretary as I am it seems a Scottish Citizen with no rights and not recognized within English law.

Pretty desperate now. The other side has now actually told a lie. They have told the court that they paid me by mistake after I was dismissed £1730.56. This is an absolute made up claim and I could prove this if brought to a Scottish court.

 

Yours

 

Kaalmac

[seriously fed up]

I feel like the solicitor who you refer to earlier in this thread - the one whose eyes glazed over because he cant believe it.

First thing is that the trial date is set for 11th June, so is more than 6 weeks away (just!), so there is time to deal with this. The question is how. The first thing to learn is on what justification the Judge at Barnsley has decided that he has jurisdiction, since, as has been pointed out several times now, the Civil Jurisdiction Act is pretty clear. Whether they are trying to sue you as an employee (Rule 3 [4])or a consumer (rule 4[3]), any action should be brought where employee/consumer is domiciled. So it would be useful to know what legal/ argumentative pyrotechnics have been used to try to navigate a way through one of these.

I have had a look through the thread and it looks to me as if these are the key events

1. you had been paying for a pc during your employment and owed c.£600 when you left. They prevented you paying this when you left

2. after leaving you successfully claimed unfair dismissal at a Tribunal in Scotland, won and were awarded £7k (if they introduced the pc issue at the hearing, and at the stage of determining compensation, this "debt" should have been taken into account then - if it wasnt hell mend them!)

3. to enforce you had to go to court in Leicester (why Leicester btw? I think I read somewhere on the thread that their HQ was Cardiff), who threw out their counter claim and ordered immedidate payment of the Scottish Tribunal award.

4.they have been after you for a debt over the years - what is the basis of this debt? The pc? But you send their solicitors the Tribunal papers, judgement etc and they back off. However at some point (December last year) they got a CCJ in Barnsley. Were the papers for this claim ever served on you?

5. That judgement has now been set aside, but the court has decided that it has jurisdiction and trial is set for 11th June.

Is that basically about it? Or is there anything that I have missed out? If not then there are two things we need to learn from you

A. on what basis has Barnsley Court decided that it does have jurisdiction to mess with a decision by a Scottish Tribunal. That decision should only be challenged at Employment Appeal Tribunal in Edinburgh.

B. on what basis are they bringing the case? Are they bringing it against you as an employee or as a consumer? Despite the fact that it shouldnt make a bit of difference, since either way jurisdiction resides in Scotland, if the latter then it might make things a LITTLE easier for them to claim jurisdiction (no less wrongly) lies in England, as the Tribunal judgement wouldnt be getting in the way. So if you can advise on that, it would be a big help.

I would CERTAINLY speak to my MSP if I were you (indeed as many as possible - remember there are list MSPs as well as the constituency one). This is utterly scandalous as its quite clear that jurisdiction resides in Scotland whether they are bringing the case against you as a consumer or as an employee. Either way they are showing two fingers to the Civil Jurisdiction Act. But if as an employee then they are doing the same thing to the whole Tribunal system in Scotland. More importantly so is the Barnsley Court.

Btw, I am not sure who it is you would want to get your MSP to approach. It could be one of a number

1. Shona Simon, who is President of Employment Tribunals in Scotland, I expect would have some trenchant views on this one

2. Elish Angiolini who is Lord Advocate or

3. Frank Mulholland who is Solicitor General

When you see the MSP (and dont be afraid to go round them - remember they are competing for your vote) find out if they can advise - or advise you to see someone who can advise - to get this sorted out. It has the potential for a nice wee constitutional crisis (you could be famous!), but most likely its some muppet judge in a county court who has no idea of the Civil Jurisdiction Act and/or considers everyone north of Carlisle as a hairy, kilted idiot.

Edited April 29, 2010 by seriously fed up

[kaalmac]

Hi Seriously and thank you.

I will answer your questions in order and factually.

Leicester because that is Cromwell HQ. I tried to do this in Scotland and was told that I would have to go to their local court to enforce for jurisdiction reasons. Seems it`s ok for them to do this to me from England but not for me to do that to them from Scotland!

The Judge at the court in Leicester threw out their counter claim and told them to pay me immediately when she found out it had already been ruled on in Scotland.

They have changed the amount and reason for the debt several times, pc, breach of contract over payment of wages and the latest is a mistaken payment of £1730.00 made to me which is completely untrue and I can prove this. There was no such payment. The papers for the CCJ were not served on me , instead I found by chance when checking my credit score in January that I had a CCJ.

5. Yes that is basically about it. You pretty much have a grasp of the situation. ( i`m glad some one does lol ) as it is getting extremely complicated. I feel what Cromwell are doing is bordering on "Criminal".

They are now bringing this case against me as an employee. Here are the 2 paragraphs that their solicitors sent to court that seem to have decided the Judge:

 

6. Subsequent to the termination of the Defendants employment, on the 29th July 2005 the Claimant company by mistake made payment to the defendant of £1730.56. The Defendant had no entitlement to the said monies and despite requests has failed to pay the same.

( facts are, I resigned and was unfairly dismissed on 20th July 2005, No payment was ever mad to me by mistake of £1730.56, there would be a "paper trail" if there was . this is now a lie)

 

7. The claimant is a company registered in Cardiff and any County Court in England and Wales has jurisdiction for an action such as this for recovery of monies paid under a mistake.

( They may be registered in Cardiff but Cromwell HQ is in Leicester )

 

I thank you very much for taking the time to reply to me, you seem to get a good grasp of it and almost calm me down with your answers

 

Thank you again

Allan ( Kaalmac )

[seriously fed up]

thanks for that, which does explain things quite clearly, but leaves me even more bewildered that a court in Barnsley would listen to this. I mean, why Barnsley? If their HQ is Leicester and they are registered in Cardiff (that must be the Cardiff ref), why Barnsley? Did they stick a pin in a map. It just gets more bizarre by the line.

Two important bits of information in what you said:

 

1. "7. The claimant is a company registered in Cardiff and any County Court in England and Wales has jurisdiction for an action such as this for recovery of monies paid under a mistake." - which is just nonsense. The Civil Jurisdiction Act is 1000000000000% clear on this. They are suing you as an employee and Schedule 8 rule 4, paragraph 3 says "(3)An employer may bring proceedings only in the courts for the place in which the employee is domiciled." How clearer can that be (this is why the eyes of the solicitor you visited glazed over - its a bit like someone telling you that humans can fly - it cant happen). About the only way I can make sense of this is that you have been really unlucky, and they have been very lucky, in getting some muppet who doesnt know about this and couldnt be bothered to look.
   
2. The second thing is this - "6. Subsequent to the termination of the Defendants employment, on the 29th July 2005 the Claimant company by mistake made payment to the defendant of £1730.56. The Defendant had no entitlement to the said monies and despite requests has failed to pay the same." You say you can disprove this. So your ex employer has been guilty of two wrongful acts - bringing the case in a court lacking jurisdiction. They would claim - I strongly suspect - they are not lawyers, but with the legal advice they have taken, not to mention it getting kicked into the long grass however many times because of jurisdiction, they MUST know. There is no way they cannot know. They are taking advantage of a poor judge ! Also they are bringing a case vexatiously - not only can you prove that their assertion is wrong and that they almost certainly know this, but the basis of the claims they have made against you over the years have changed. One could easily come to the view that this is persecution by the misuse of the legal system. I would be looking to see if there is some way you could get compensation for this. Probably not - but its worth looking and if it makes them sweat then its worthwhile in my view.
   

good luck with your MSP. As I said I would be inclined to go round the list MSPs as well. I would imagine that one from the SNP might be particularly useful and not just because they are the government party in Scotland. Its a pity that there is a Westminster election, as there are UK issues in this as well. Many of the contracts that we sign - and these are very common - often have a clause saying that any dispute will be determined by the law of England as that suits the company we will be dealing with. But the Civil Jurisdiction Act undermines all that. Doenst stop them putting it into contracts and, I suspect, using that contractual terms to deter legal actions being brought in Scotland (and often at all as the greater expense will put many off).

[kaalmac]

Ok, I had my meeting with my MSP Patricia Marwick ( Markinch ) this afternoon. She like everyone else is appalled and shocked that this situation has happened and like everyone else says she has never ever heard of such a thing ever happening before. Sadly because she says this situation has never happened there is no one she can think of can help me. She has offered to write to the Barnsley County Court, but does not think it may help as we in Scotland have no jurisdiction in England!!!. I am close to dispair.

I am thinking that before my whole life is ruined by the fact that I have discovered that I have less rights than a criminal or an Ilegal immigrant, I am going to have to go to Barnsley on 11th June to try at least to defend my self.

I would like to know is there anyone who is a solicitor on this forum based in Barnsley that would represent me and argue for me that the court has no jurisdiction?

Obviously I would have to pay.

I would need to work quick as well and perhaps pay another £75 to have it delayed to buy time to sort this out.

Please help I would be very greatful

Allan

[seriously fed up]

isnt it the 11th June before the case is due up again? If so it would be 6 weeks that you have got. By that time you will have a (new) MP who might be able to take your case up at Westminster level. The normal excuse is that the legislature doesnt interfere with the judiciary, but this is such a miscarriage - and in any event might take no more than a word in the right ear to sort out - that it would seem to be somewhere to start. I'm not sure when Westminster gets back to work, but I dont think its that long after the election. It might be worth making contact with your local candidates right now. From what you have said I would reckon the "two most likely to" are Lindsay Roy and David Alexander, and since it might be close, I would have thought they would be helpful - especially the former as he has at least been in Westminster (though not for very long) and might have contacts who would be relevant.

Another possibility might be to contact a journalist who might be prepared to take up your case. This would mean going public, but - and I dont mean to minimise your personal discomfort at events which I fully understand - but there are quite serious constitutional issues in this. This is why your MSP, and the solicitor are totally gobsmacked. This really should not be happening.

In the papers that you have received is there an indication of the court's rationale as to why they feel they have jurisdiction, or are they simply relying on the claim by the other side that it does? When you asked for the set aside, was it on the basis of the papers never having been served or did your argument include jurisdiction. I would be very worried if it did include the latter, as then the court could hardly plead ignorance and is basically going ahead in spite of the Act.

As for a defence, my inclination - at least half seriously - would be to submit a defence that is simply the relevant part of the Civil Jurisdiction Act 1982 with the relevant clause highlighted, because that stops it in its tracks. Let us know about your case for set aside to see if that helps us understand why it hasnt.

[kaalmac]

SFU, I am very impressed with your views!!! after my mail last night I had discussions with my wife and they mirror EXACTLY your mail. So views are actually converging . We are thinking of the newspapers also today. I would love to talk to you by phone if that was possible?

Allan

[exel]

Hi Allan,

 

May I start by quoting from SFU's excellent posts above -

"One could easily come to the view that this is persecution by the misuse of the legal system." For me, that comment struck a raw nerve! when allied to what you have told me of this matter by phone, and to what I have read here.

 

As a non-lawyer, but as one who has been bound by, and interested in the law, (both personally, professionally and corporately in Scotland and in Englad) for 40+ years, I would suggest that litigants (i.e. those bringing claims to the courts, whether English or Scottish) tend to fall into two main categories:

 

1/ Those with something to defend? (e.g. their security? customers? reputation? assets? brand? business? livelihood? or employees? - the SCRABBLE principle)

2/ Those with something to attack? (e.g. another party's security? customers? reputation? assets? brand? business? livelihood? or employees?)

 

Normally, those who simply wish to 'make a point' or 'right a wrong' and who keep on making it (by bringing various legal actions etc.) to the distress and inconvenience of others (and these people become known as 'vexatious litigants' by legal professionals, who tend to avoid them!!) are litigants in person and/or private individuals who feel very very deeply wronged by some past event, or circumstances, which they then often pursue to irrational ends, without regard for time or cost, because they have become consumed by the feeling of 'being wronged' and by the desire for retribution and revenge.

 

Now companies tend not to do this, unless their very brand or business is majorly at stake, and it is just not tenable to avoid focused legal action to protect the same from such very serious threat. Now I don't see any of that present in this case!

 

So what is driving Cromell? (a successful global business, after all)

 

The facts seems to be:

You served them as an employee (in Scotland) for circa 5 years to July 2005.

That employment ended badly at that time, for a number of reasons that are now history.

You claimed wrongful dismissal, which they disputed.

It went to tribunal (in Scotland) and you won that claim (albeit having spent much more than the award, in legal costs, to do so).

Cromwell appealled and it went on to that appeal stage.

Their appeal was not upheld, but the award in your favour was marginally reduced from circa £8k to circa £7k (to a corporate entity not a material difference, but to you an unwelcome drop!) presumably because all the then known accounting balances and entries in both directions (who owed whom what for what etc) were fully accounted for (this point seems crucial, so it is worth you checking).

They (Cromwell) then did not even have the 'good grace' to pay the reduced balance of circa £2k still owed to you (having only paid circa £5k of the reduced £7k settlement) despite having been directed to do so. In my experience, as an FCA and company director, this fact alone is literally unbelievable and surely constitutes near legal contempt by them and also very bad corporate practice?

You then contested their non-payment of that balance (bearing in mind that they are an English company at HQ level) through the County Court (in Leicester, England) and won settlement of that balance of £2k which (with their arms legally twisted by the judge on that occasion!) they finally paid to you.

Now, some 5 years on, they are trying by various means to drum up various balances (from a PC transfer?, via overpaid wages?, now, to amounts 'paid in error' - what next?) that they claim you still owe them??? (five years on!) when this has all been crawled through not just by an Employment Tribunal, but by an Appeal following such.....

You vigorously dispute these claims, (and the costs and interest they are starting to add in to make the numbers larger and more frightening), which they currently seek to press (being the latest of their attempts) at Barnsley County Court on 11/6/10.

 

This all brings me right back to SFU's expressed concerns. Now are these people really stupid? Or do they not recognise due legal authority (whether English or Scottish)? Or is this some form of persecution (of any ex-employee) for some unstated reason? (not something that companies tend to do in my view and experience of literally hundreds of corporate situations).

 

If I have captured the essence of this matter correctly, then it does seem that they have no case. Your bank statements around the time of 2005 should indeed help disprove their allegations that monies were 'paid to you in error' (again, not something that companies tend to do in my experience!). Equally, it is really incumbent on them to prove that they gave you money to which you were not entitled and which is completely outside of the matters ruled on by both the Employment Tribunal and its Appeal. If they can't, then 'persecution' for a reason, or reasons, unknown starts to loom again as a possibility. Are these people (Cromwell Group) the world's worst:

 

Losers?

Employers?

or Administrators?

 

Which is it...

 

As SFU states, there may even come a point when you ask them to consider compensating you for the time, costs and distress of being put through all of this vexatious and flawed litigation, over the years since they first revealed themselves as corporately unwilling to accept due legal authority. Why seek to apply to you that which they have been patently unwilling to accept for themselves? Are they Bad administrators? Bad employers? or Bad losers?

 

Why not send a copy of this post to their MD in Leicester and ask him which it is? Allan, I authorise you to give him (their MD in Leicester) my name and mobile number and to refer him to my firm's website. This has gone far enough. If they can prove to me that you owe them the money they claim, I will advise you to pay it. If they can't, I will advise them to make an ex gratia payment of £Xk to you, in full and final settlement, to recognise the pain that this vexatious, motivated and persecutory quest (on their part) has caused and is causing. Stuart

[kaalmac]

Wow! That e-mail must have taken ages!!! I can not express my gratitude enough for the support and the passion that obviously went in to it.

The story now is that a decision has been made based on the fantastic advice of those posts before. I have booked my flights and I WILL attend Barnsley County Court to nail this once and for all. I have my bundle of evidence ready ( took all day ).

Can I ask .... Is there a Solicitor on this forum based near Barnsley who could represent me on that day? Especially to question on my behalf the jurisdiction issue.

 

Thank you in advance.

Allan

[exel]

Hi Allan,

 

Glad that helped. Please keep checking what I have written for any factual inaccuracies. You are the expert on this case, and it is of paramount importance, and well before 11/6/10, to determine and marshall and get fluent on all the FACTS of the matter.

 

May I now explore a couple of more angles to help you. Let's look at it from the Cromwell viewpoint to understand what they have (and have not) done in this matter. Let's also compare that to "what is normal" in such matters. I write with 40 years of credit control experience, so let's imagine they did discover one day that they have overpaid you. So what did they do about that?

 

Did they write to you and very carefully explain where, and how, they have overpaid, and by how much?

 

Did they provide you with supporting evidence?

 

Did they take care to distinguish this alleged overpayment from the other matters that were all apparently taken into account by the Employment Tribunal, and by the Appeal to that - which upheld the result but amended the settlement down a bit, implying that something was 'taken into that settlement' by way of an adjustment?

 

Did they call you to discuss how you might be able to repay them?

 

Did they offer you any settlement terms (in instalments)?

 

Did they follow up with any statements or reminders?

 

Did they explain that they might be forced to consider legal action if you ignored their letters, statements and calls?

 

Or did they just pop something into the County Court system on a wing and prayer, without prior notice or warning?

 

If the latter, then the County Court system will want to know why the earlier steps (all 100% normal, in my experience, were such an overpayment to have happened) were not taken. In the real world, people don't go from zero to Court. They communicate, explain and support their contentions. If Crowell did so, did you refute their allegations in writing? If they didn't do so, then why not?

 

Remember, Judges expect businesses and people who "claim to be owed money" to have taken 'all reasonable measures' to collect that money before it becomes a Court matter. It is called 'credit control' and big companies (like Cromwell) have systems to deal with such things, in a properly managed process BEFORE having to 'go legal'. What happened here?

 

Trying to help, Stuart

[kaalmac]

On this specific matter on where we are now as regards Barnsley County Court 11/06/10 where they specifically claim that they "paid me, by mistake the sum of £1730.56 subsequent to me being dismissed on 29th July 2005"

 

The answer is most accurately the latter one where they have just made it up and popped it in! It is different from the other claims like PC, Breach of contract etc.

I did send you all the docs that I will rely upon in court, did you get them?

Any one else reading this..... I am still looking for a qualified person from this forum who could represent me in Barnsley County Court on the question of Jurisdiction. ( I will pay of course ).

 

Thanks

Allan