Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Is it unusual for them to have all the documents they have provided so far?
    • That still leaves it unclear if: a) you “made a mistake” and accidentally bought the wrong ticket (only to Three Bridges), or b) You had a “moment of very poor judgement” and deliberately bought a ‘short ticket’ It can’t be both.   Climb off the fence you are sitting on, it’ll give you splinters............ at the moment you are trying to hedge your bets but it is obvious that is what you are doing, and as a result: why should they believe the rest (expressions of regret, won’t do it again, sole income earner who will lose their job, etc.)
    • Email and call your local councillor, their details should be on Google.  Just explain everything to them and they will have the bailiffs off your back in short order.   Do it now, and this could be resolved by tomorrow.  
    • Your latest ramblings make no sense in relation to the issue (which is whether a person hearing an SD can question the maker as to its truthfulness and reject the declaration if they are not satisfied as such).     It's not within 21 days of the hearing it's within 21 days of learning of the conviction of which they were unaware. I don't know what it is you are reading or are referring to but there is no "debtor" involved in an SD that is made to have a conviction set aside. When an SD is heard in court the only officers involved are the court's Legal Advisor and the Magistrates themselves.   I’ve just been looking back at the original post which started all this off to ensure I wasn’t going mad. I’m pleased to say I don’t think I am. Instead I am of the opinion that you did not properly grasp what originally happened to the OP and compounded that by providing incorrect, misleading and confusing advice whilst plucking bits of irrelevant legislation from thin air randomly when you commented. Here’s a few of your quotes and my comments for you to consider.     The OP said no such thing. She said she had moved three years earlier. For some reason unknown, her change of address was not recorded by the DVLA. She said she was happy to accept the speeding allegation. This indicated she was driving (a fact she confirmed absolutely soon afterwards). Nowhere did she ever say she was not the owner of the vehicle at the relevant time.         So, from advice to plead Not Guilty to advice to plead Guilty inside two hours, with no new or additional information provided. Still you mention somebody else being the driver.         What is an “out of time statement” and where and when was one ever mentioned?     Then from the OP:       Your response:       The cause of any confusion was your comments. She said from the outset that she did not live at her old address when the offence was committed (in fact she went to some lengths to explain that was why she did not receive the court papers). Nowhere did she suggest she was not the driver nor that she could not or would not disclose who was.     No it isn’t. A Statutory Declaration voids the original conviction as if it never happened. Section 142 of the Magistrates’ Court Act is not involved with the resurrection of proceedings following an SD. That Section grants the Magistrates powers to re-open cases to rectify mistakes, etc. There has been no mistake here, the Magistrates will not be called upon to re-open the case and could not prevent it being revisited even if they wanted to.   Then we set off into the intricacies of the Statutory Declaration process which is covered above.   I’m not surprised the OP in this particular case became confused. Her matter is straightforward enough (for those who know the law and the process). In summary: She moved; She thought the DVLA had her vehicle registered at her new address but they hadn’t; Her vehicle (with her driving) was detected speeding; She (unsurprisingly) did not receive the notification of that offence or the request for driver’s details; She obviously didn’t reply to that request, she was prosecuted for it, convicted in her absence and without her knowledge.   Happens every day and simple to deal with.   Unfortunately, not when you became involved it isn't. Firstly you grasped the wrong end of the stick by assuming she was not the owner and/or the driver. You advised her to plead Not Guilty on that basis. Then, when you had grasped some idea of what had really happened you suggested she plead guilty to the S172 offence purely on the basis she had moved and the speeding information was sent to her old address. Very poor advice. Then you scared her witless by incorrectly suggesting there was a chance her SD would be rejected if it was thought her declaration may be untruthful. There also followed discussions about the six month time limit for prosecutions and the 21 day limit for SDs to be accepted unconditionally (both totally irrelevant).   I don’t suppose you will accept any of these criticisms but whether you do or not you clearly caused the OP considerable confusion and probably distress. My comments are not based on something I've heard on the net or on barroom (sic) knowledge. They are based on my knowledge of the law and of Magistrates' Court procedures.  It's obvious you will pay no heed to me so when I see any such clearly misleading information provided to an OP by you in this section in future I will simply report it to the site's administrators.
    • Just ignore unless you receive a PAP letter.    Chances are you will run out the clock and it will become SB'd.    
  • Our picks

pt2537

CPR part 18 vs CPR 31.14 Confused? well read here

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3248 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Ok, lets clear up some confusion over the two provisons of the CPR which people seem to use in equal measure to obtain documents when they recieve a claim

 

CPR PART 18.

 

What is part 18 for?

 

Part 18 is for information purposes, so for example if the lender sends you three sets of terms and conditions during the course of proceedings and you are not sure which set relates to what? then you make a part 18 request.

 

The same applies if you need to clarify what happened with some of the money they are claiming , for example if the agreement has an amount of credit of say 10k but you only received 5k, then you would make a part 18 request for further information to clarify the points.

 

In any event BEFORE making a request you MUST read part 18 and Practice Direction 18

 

you will note that a Part 18 request can be in a letter format but it must set out that it is made pursuant to PART 18 and is intended to have Part 18 effect.

 

you MUST also avoid putting anything other than part 18 requests in the letter, so dont start telling them about what Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead said in Wilson.................... cos that will damage the request.

 

The alternative request under part 18 is as follows

 

 

 

 

 

 

IN THE XXXXXXXXX

COUNTY COURT CLAIM NO:

 

 

BETWEEN:

 

XXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

 

 

and

 

 

XXXXXXXXXXX

 

Defendant

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________

PART 18 REQUEST FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

_____________________________________________________________________

 

 

To: XXXXXXXXXX (claimant)

 

Please answer the following questions:

 

1. What date is shown as the date the Claimant/Defendants account was transferred from XXXXXX to the Claimant/Defendant on the Deed of assignment?

 

2. What is the XXXXXXX account number shown on the Deed as being the Claimants/Defendants account?

 

 

 

TAKE NOTICE THAT YOU ARE REQUIRED TO ANSWER THE ABOVE REQUEST WITHIN 14 DAYS OF SERVICE OF THE SAME UPON YOU

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ok so Part 18 is NOT for DOCUMENTS

 

 

NOW THEN

 

CPR 31.14 and 31.15

 

What does this apply to?

 

If a party discloses a document by mention of it in amongst others his statement of case, then he has disclosed it and therefore pursuant to rule 31.14 you are entitled to inspect it.

 

Therefore you must follow the guidelines, write to the claimant or defendant, make clear the request is made under CPR 31.14 and request to be allowed to inspect or be provided copies of the document mentioned.

 

This type of request deals with things like credit agreement, default notice, deed of assignment etc which are mentioned in a claim form.

 

CPR 31.15 requires that upon receipt of a request in writing, the claimant must allow inspection of the documents and this must be done in 7 days from receipt of the request, if the claimant refuses then an application Must be made to the court for an order compelling disclosure

 

Also, within such a request, you should also seek an extension of time pursuant to CPR 15.5 to allow you time to receive the documents and review them and then formulate your defence.

 

you cant defend a claim under an agreement if you don't have the agreement as it is simply absurd to suggest you can,so, dont be panicked into putting in what people say is a "Embarrassed defence" as the rules are there to provide you with the tools and info you need to defend a case, you will not face criticism for using the rules by the court, but you will face a huge costs order if you muck around and file spurious and merit-less embarrased defences which have no legal basis.

 

Use the rules properly and you may face a discontinuance notice, use the rules WRONGLY and you will face summary judgement or a charging order or worst a order for sale.

 

For actual letters for requesting info under CPR 31.14 see this thread as it will assist you greatly

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/159445-getting-them-reveal-their.html

 

I hope this helps clarify things

Edited by pt2537

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice info there pt... I'm sure we will all benefit from this knowledge.

 

Would you agree CPR 32.19 is also useful for pinning the creditor down?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sent Morgans a CPR31.14 request which they have totally ignored, so have issued a N244 requesting strike out, waiting to be considered by Northampton at the moment.

 

I also sent them seperately a CPR18 request which they have finally responded to and sent redacted DOA etc with copy application form and advised they are waiting for original terms & conditions and copy default notices dut they advised DN not required as they are only claiming arrears, actually they have claimed the full balance outstanding amounting to £8.5K and they also offered an extension for filing defence till end of May due to their late response.

 

Is the N244 strike out request the correct route following PT's suggestion of CPR31.14 application and does the fact they responded without T&C to CPR18 change anything?

 

VOLVO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Volvo

 

Exactly the same thing happened to me, so I sent them a CPR 31.15 asking to inspect the originals. They replied by saying that they do not have the originals, so I issued an N244 requesting that they supply the originals for inspection.

 

Their defence to this is CPR 31.3 (they actually say 31.13), which states that "a party to whom a document has been disclosed has a right to inspect except where - (a) the document is no longer in control of the party who disclosed it", and CPR 31.8. This says, "(1) A party’s duty to disclose documents is limited to documents which are or have been in his control. (2) For this purpose a party has or has had a document in his control if –(a) it is or was in his physical possession;

 

(b) he has or has had a right to possession of it; or

 

© he has or has had a right to inspect or take copies of it."

 

 

They also say that if I want a copy I should go to the original creditor,and finally that if they were forced to submit the originals Cabot " would not be on an equal footing with regards to the evidence".

 

 

They seem to ignore the fact that either they (Morgans) or Cabot have modified the documentation to suit their claim, and I shall have great enjoyment in showing that to the court.

 

 

Alan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks AG

 

Surely, If my N244 strike out request fails, and it goes to a hearing then Morgans HAVE to produce the original terms and conditions, copy or otherwise.?

 

VOLVO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

They also say that if I want a copy I should go to the original creditor,and finally that if they were forced to submit the originals Cabot " would not be on an equal footing with regards to the evidence".

 

Can anyone please explain or expand on this??? or is it usual cabot/morhgans nonsence????

 

Hadituptohere :confused:


I'm far from an expert, but learning all the time!!!!!

 

If i've been at all helpful please click my star.

 

Hadituptohere OH V Capital One, **WON**

Hadituptohere V Cabot, (providian/Monument/Barclaycard cc) - ** claim struck out ** due to non complaince of CPR, Wasted Costs applied for, Default Cost Certificate issued by Court, Warrant of excecution and CC Baliffs instructed...lol 😎

Hadituptohere V Cabot, (morgan stanley dean witter/barclays cc) - account in dispute, LBA sent to barclays, awaiting responce, no responce.

Hadituptohere V RBS, default removal x 2, case dismissed, judge used Balance of Probabilities against hard Evidence.

Hadituptohere OH v Santander, Santander issue claim in court, settled out of court via Tomlin, less solicitors fees and interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Hadit

 

I assume that they mean that as they do not have the originals, then they would be at a disadvantage in presenting their case. The mere fact that either Morgans or Cabot have photoshopped the evidence that they have presented to the court for this CPR31.15 hearing would put them at more of a disadvantage.

 

I am interested to find out what happens to claimants who modify documentation to help prove their claim.

 

Alan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Alan

 

But if morgans have already issued this claim in court and dont have the original, CPR requires the original and morgans are claiming to be at a disadvantage, whos fault is that?

 

Hadituptohere


I'm far from an expert, but learning all the time!!!!!

 

If i've been at all helpful please click my star.

 

Hadituptohere OH V Capital One, **WON**

Hadituptohere V Cabot, (providian/Monument/Barclaycard cc) - ** claim struck out ** due to non complaince of CPR, Wasted Costs applied for, Default Cost Certificate issued by Court, Warrant of excecution and CC Baliffs instructed...lol 😎

Hadituptohere V Cabot, (morgan stanley dean witter/barclays cc) - account in dispute, LBA sent to barclays, awaiting responce, no responce.

Hadituptohere V RBS, default removal x 2, case dismissed, judge used Balance of Probabilities against hard Evidence.

Hadituptohere OH v Santander, Santander issue claim in court, settled out of court via Tomlin, less solicitors fees and interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a similar situation in which I asked for docs by CPR18. The DCA ignored the request and the DJ also ignored my request to adjorn. Instead the DJ finalised the CO, set aside the ealier judgement of instalment order and reinstated the default judgement from Northampton Court. I want to use N244 and set aside the original CCJ by claiming defective default notice and letter of NoA was not sent registered.

 

Any advice welcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I had a similar situation in which I asked for docs by CPR18. The DCA ignored the request and the DJ also ignored my request to adjorn. Instead the DJ finalised the CO, set aside the ealier judgement of instalment order and reinstated the default judgement from Northampton Court. I want to use N244 and set aside the original CCJ by claiming defective default notice and letter of NoA was not sent registered.

 

Any advice welcome.

 

If you have acknowledged receipt of the Notice of Assignment, it makes little difference IMHO, if it was sent by Registered post or carrier pigeon . (of course I could be wrong and will no doubt be corrected if so)

 

Was the Notice of Assignment correct, in dates of assignment, value assigned, etc. Have you started your own thread on this.


Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

 

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

 

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy -

HERE

2: Take back control of your finances -

Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors?

Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt

Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated -

Please Read

 

 

BCOBS

 

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as Cit B says

 

the whole point is to satisfy that service has been effected- therefore if someone admits receipt(service) of a document or notice- then any argument as to whether it was or was not served as prescribed is totally irrelevant- the purpose has been served (and so have you!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can anyone please explain or expand on this??? or is it usual cabot/morhgans nonsence????

 

Hadituptohere :confused:

Can someone please chip in on Hadituptohere's earlier question? It's a very important and fundamental point for all of us.

 

If the originals have been requested (repeatedly) and can no longer be produced for whatever reason, does the Court or Judge have any leeway? Or do they have to Order the disclosure or a Strike Out if disclosure cannot be made?

 

Also, is there any significant difference between a true copy that has 'your signature' on it and a copy that does not? What I'm trying to ascertain is how far can the 'produce the original with my signature argument' be taken?


The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO, I would say its the usual cabot

s/ morons nonsense.

Of course they would be at a disadvantage. But then effectively so are you without sight of the original document.

So if they are saying ask the original lender, that would be your next port of call.

You'll request it, they most likely wont have it, so what youre left with is a fabrication.

Now its up to you to put your argument across so the judge cannot be in any doubt of his/her power to proceed or dismiss the claim.

You MUST stick to your guns and if need be apply to the court for an order. This will have costs involved, but apart from upholding the law:rolleyes:,, The court is there to make money after all.

Those wigs cost an awful lot you know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All

 

We have asked the OC for a copy of the original via s78 and SAR, but all they can provide are statements. We have a letter from the Information Commissioners Office stating that "no documentation was ever transferred from Monument to Barclaycard".

 

As I have said above, Cabot/Morgans have modified the documentation that they purport to be an agreement as well - which I can demonstrate to the DJ.

 

Alan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted by alangee viewpost.gif

 

 

They also say that if I want a copy I should go to the original creditor,and finally that if they were forced to submit the originals Cabot " would not be on an equal footing with regards to the evidence".

 

So Cabot took on an account for which there was no agreement ? They are now taking you to court. I would have thought that it was for them to provide evidence not you ?

 

I dont understand Cabot saying they would not be on an equal footing ? If they have the original, then they should let you have sight of or a copy of them.


Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

 

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

 

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy -

HERE

2: Take back control of your finances -

Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors?

Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt

Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated -

Please Read

 

 

BCOBS

 

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I have said above, Cabot/Morgans have modified the documentation that they purport to be an agreement as well - which I can demonstrate to the DJ.

 

Alan

Have you pointed this out to them or are you leaving it as ammo? If you point it out to them and they still proceed against you, it would be even more powerful as an argument.


The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

invite them to withdraw and you wont apply for costs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, lets clear up some confusion over the two provisons of the CPR which people seem to use in equal measure to obtain documents when they recieve a claim

 

CPR PART 18.

 

What is part 18 for?

 

Part 18 is for information purposes, so for example if the lender sends you three sets of terms and conditions during the course of proceedings and you are not sure which set relates to what? then you make a part 18 request.

 

The same applies if you need to clarify what happened with some of the money they are claiming , for example if the agreement has an amount of credit of say 10k but you only received 5k, then you would make a part 18 request for further information to clarify the points.

 

In any event BEFORE making a request you MUST read part 18 and Practice Direction 18

 

you will note that a Part 18 request can be in a letter format but it must set out that it is made pursuant to PART 18 and is intended to have Part 18 effect.

 

you MUST also avoid putting anything other than part 18 requests in the letter, so dont start telling them about what Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead said in Wilson.................... cos that will damage the request.

 

The alternative request under part 18 is as follows

 

 

 

Ok so Part 18 is NOT for DOCUMENTS

 

 

NOW THEN

 

CPR 31.14 and 31.15

 

What does this apply to?

 

If a party discloses a document by mention of it in amongst others his statement of case, then he has disclosed it and therefore pursuant to rule 31.14 you are entitled to inspect it.

 

Therefore you must follow the guidelines, write to the claimant or defendant, make clear the request is made under CPR 31.14 and request to be allowed to inspect or be provided copies of the document mentioned.

 

This type of request deals with things like credit agreement, default notice, deed of assignment etc which are mentioned in a claim form.

 

CPR 31.15 requires that upon receipt of a request in writing, the claimant must allow inspection of the documents and this must be done in 7 days from receipt of the request, if the claimant refuses then an application Must be made to the court for an order compelling disclosure

 

Also, within such a request, you should also seek an extension of time pursuant to CPR 15.5 to allow you time to receive the documents and review them and then formulate your defence.

 

you cant defend a claim under an agreement if you don't have the agreement as it is simply absurd to suggest you can,so, dont be panicked into putting in what people say is a "Embarrassed defence" as the rules are there to provide you with the tools and info you need to defend a case, you will not face criticism for using the rules by the court, but you will face a huge costs order if you muck around and file spurious and merit-less embarrased defences which have no legal basis.

 

Use the rules properly and you may face a discontinuance notice, use the rules WRONGLY and you will face summary judgement or a charging order or worst a order for sale.

 

For actual letters for requesting info under CPR 31.14 see this thread as it will assist you greatly

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/159445-getting-them-reveal-their.html

 

I hope this helps clarify things

 

Well written.


:dizzy: "Dizzie Diva" ;)

 

<<<<<<<<<<please tip my star if my support or advise was useful?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi PT2537

 

Can you please calrify something relating to CPR and track allocations?

 

I've read somewhere that full CPRules do not apply to all tracks equally. Is this correct?

 

Apparently, for Small Claims track some CPR requests can be disregarded by either party if they deem it 'unreasonable or disproportionate'. Any CPR request in such circumstances would then require a judge/court order to be complied with.

 

Your thoughts please? Ta

Edited by bustthematrix

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

an unallocated claim is considered multi track so no probs there

 

If the claim is allocated to the SCT, then, i would suggest that an application would be suitable

 

however, i must qualify this statement and say that, at the point of issue and seeking disclosure you will not be allocated therefore the full disclosure rules apply

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the claim is allocated to the SCT, then, i would suggest that an application would be suitable

Thanks.

 

Are you saying if the court decides to allocate a claim to SCT, you would then submit an N244 asking for it to be re-allocated to Fast Track? Or would that be done via the Allocation Questionnaire?

 

I would see the main basis of this as being the benefit of full CPR 'protection'. However, does it not then leave the Defendant exposed to Claimant costs should they lose?


The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about when they say they have provided the 'agreement' but you are convinced this is just an application form or it relates to a diferent card.

Is it still n244 to disclose or would you suggest something else.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/251664-g-bank-scotland-scm.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PT

i read on one of you other threads (can't find it now) something about agreements BEFORE april 2007 could you clarify for me please

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the rules on disclosure, which this thread is concerned applies to ANY docs mentioned in a parties statement of case

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

where can i read more about this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3248 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...