Some solicitors using Split Claims -- how does one defend

[coledog]

Update from DonkeyB to 'why do they issue these'.

 

'Actually, most people won't realise it's a split claim, or won't understand the implication. If you pay anything before judgment, you've acknowledged the debt - it's just another HFO con trick, trying to snare the uneducated and unaware'.

 

Presume therefore, you defend and only pay if you have to?

[JonCris]

I have evidence of Carter's claims shennaigans. A claim was issued for a small amount and judgement gained by default. At the bottom of the claim form Carter had written " we reserve the right to collect the remainder of the outstanding debt of £3,000). The debtor has paid the CCJ for the smaller amount - Carter then wrote to say he wanted payment of the balance and USED THE SAME JUDGEMENT NUMBER !! and now he has issued a warrant of execution for £150 when there is no balance left the pay on the judgement. He is attempting to get installments on the balance. N244 time I think?

 

 

This may not only be an abuse of process but also illegal as per the 2006 Fraud Act AND if its a regular occurrence they can hardly claim clerical error

[JonCris]

As many as possible should allow their name to be used by an LiP in their litigation to demonstrate to the court that its this lawyers normal practice

[coledog]

Bumping this again: Post from Sillygirl on yet another thread with split claim:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?277628-TurnBull-Rutherford-HFO-Services-Claiming-Arrears(3-Viewing)-nbsp

 

NO,, do not do an 'embarrassed' defence here, you have ABSOLUTE defence in that they are only claiming part of the account so state

 

"The defendant does not recognise where the PARTIAL SUM of xxx comes in the claimants defence, the defence itself is poorly particularlised, even given the restraints of the bulk issuing system and therefore the defendant denies this partial sum is owed.

 

The defendant is a litigant in person and requires sight of the following documentation to enable a proper defence to be entered.

 

Original agreement showing original sum owed

Full payment details on original sum owed

Original Default Notice

Explanation of PARTIAL SUM claimed on this claim

Explanation of UNSPECIFIED amount still deemed to be owed AFTER PARTIAL SUM CLAIMED

 

The defendant believes that the claimant is trying to split the claim which is not allowed by Civil Procedure

Rules.

 

Send in that and Turnbull will be stuffed.

 

Sorry, but an embarrassed claim will not help at the moment, you need to act fast and make sure you get a printout of the online acceptance - they do sneak claims in on the button, but with printed proof you have sent a defence and it is accepted it can be overturned at no cost to you.

 

I am alerting others of the HFO fanculb to this thread.

[coledog]

Sillygirl also advises the following letter to the court but I have been a bit wary of advising this when the defendent first receives a claim as an immediate response may result in the claimant withdrawing this and submitting one for the full amount, (when the split claim could actually be to the defendents advantage). I suppose there is good reason to inform the court when submitting a defence? Any thoughts on this?:

 

'write a covering letter to the court, addressed to the Court Manager and the Senior Circuit Judge to alert them to the split claim, just keep the letter simple and say "Dear xxx, the claimant in this case seems to think they can split their claim, please can you read the particulars and advise the claimant as to the legalities of a split claim.

 

I also want this letter to be taken as formal complaint as the claimant clearly wants to put the defendant in an unequal position with the split claim."

[sillygirl1]

Out of interest can somebody post up both Bryan Carter's and Turnbull Rutherfords addresses from the court forms, I have a sneaky suspicion growing on the split claim lark..... the addresses will help confirm that....

[coledog]

Link to bdcarr's claim form

 

http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/hh76/bdcarr/Morgan%20Stanley/scan0003-1.jpg

[sillygirl1]

As stressed if you do not inform the court separately of the legal firms split claim nothing much will happen until the defence is read - if it is just 'processed' as many courts are now doing (outsourcing court work should be BANNED) then it will be completely missed as the 'processor' will not have the legal training needed to spot the mistake.

 

Addressing both the court manager and the senior circuit judge will hopefully make the people responsible sit up and take notice that they are being taken for mugs - something NO judge or court takes lightly.

 

It is high time the likes of Turnbull Rutherford, Bryan Carter and the many other 'solicitors for rent' as I like to term them are brought to task.

 

Hope that clears some speculation up.

[SP500]

many thanks sillygirl

[DonkeyB]

An interesting possible split claim here from C-r-apquest...

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?276581-Urgent-help-needed-had-a-claim-form-from-northampton-county-court/page3

[broken arrow]

Carter thread

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?181366

[coledog]

Saw Palomeno' thread.

 

I am getting the feeling here that the rules are only being broken when the claimant goes back to claim the remaining balance - which they would do if they thought that the defendent/court had not realised what was going on.

 

This has been my concern with using the split claim as a defence as you can't prove they intend to do this.

[coledog]

The relevent passage relating to split claims is:

 

County Courts Act 1984 Part II, 'Miscellaneous provisions as to jurisdiction', Section 35, 'Division of causes of action' 'It shall not be lawful for any plaintiff to divide any cause of action for the purpose of bringing two or more actions in one or more of the county courts'.

 

Which suggests that you have to actually apply for both parts of the claim to be in the wrong. When they apply for the first part - you cannot prove that they intend to apply for the rest. However if you defend the first claim and loose, paying the small amount - you can then defend the second claim.

[Guest Cartaphilus]

Subscribing.

[coledog]

Bump - we have another one on legal forum -different solicitor entirely.

[DonkeyB]

Here it is:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?278007-Court-Claim-forms-from-Phoenix-REC-UK-LTD-for-a-debt-i-know-nothing-about..help

[DonkeyB]

I'm wondering if there's been some seminar, event or DCA press article that has said this is a good method of chasing debtors. It seems too much of a coincidence that its use is suddenly mushrooming. Maybe new case law? Time for an extensive Google...

[sillygirl1]

There has been a seminar, it was mentioned in the pages of Credit Today... they all gang up when somebody finds a way of harrassing 'delinquent debtors' that hasn't been tried before and legally can't hold water... I think they meet every 3 months.

[coledog]

This is why I think that this needs to be handled with caution - people in this situation need to look at all the factors in their defence, not just the split claim.

[broken arrow]

Abuse of Process – Henderson v Henderson

 

Henderson -v- Henderson – 1843 – Sir James Wigram VC – Litigation Practice

The court set down the principles to be applied in abuse of process cases, where a matter was raised again which should have been dealt with in earlier proceedings.

Sir James Wigram VC said: “In trying this question I believe I state the rule of the Court correctly when I say that, where a given matter becomes the subject of litigation in, and of adjudication by, a court of competent jurisdiction, the Court requires the parties to that litigation to bring forward their whole case, and will not (except under special circumstances) permit the same parties to open the same subject of litigation in respect of matter which might have been brought forward as part of the subject in contest, but which was not brought forward, only because they have, from negligence, inadvertence, or even accident, omitted part of their case. The plea of res judicata applies, except in special cases, not only to points upon which the Court was actually required by the parties to form an opinion and pronounce a judgment, but to every point which properly belonged to the subject of litigation, and which the parties, exercising reasonable diligence, might have brought forward at the time.”

Cited by:

Wain -v- Sherwood & Sons Transport Ltd CA (); Time Group Limited -v- Computer 2000 Distribution Limited and IBM United Kingdom Limited TCC ([2002] EWHC 126 (Technology)); Ansari and Another -v- Barclays Bank Plc CA ([1997] EWCA Civ 3055, [1997] EWCA Civ 3055); Gwendolen R Tilly -v- Hamleys of London Ltd Essex County Council CA ([1998] EWCA Civ 1767); Johnson -v- Gore Wood and Co (a Firm) CA ([1998] EWCA Civ 1763, [1999] BCC 474); Johnson -v- Gore Wood & Co HL ([2000] UKHL 65, [2001] 2 WLR 72, [2001] 1 All ER 481, [2002] 2 AC 31); Motorola Credit Corporation -v- Uzan and others (No 2) CA ([2003] EWCA Civ 752, , [2004] 1 WLR 113); The Sennar (No 2) HL ([1985] 1 WLR 490); Anyanwu and Ebuzoeme -v- South Bank Students’ Union South Bank University CA ([1999] EWCA Civ 1032); J A Pye (Oxford) Limited -v- South Gloucestershire District Council CA ([2000] EWCA Civ 268); Barrow -v- Bankside Members Agency Limited CA ([1996] 1 WLR 257); Yat Tung Investment Co Ltd -v- Dao Heng Bank Ltd PC ([1975] AC 581); Sweetman -v- Nathan and others CA ([2003] EWCA Civ 1115, [2004] PNLR 89); Arnold -v- National Westminster Bank Plc HL ([1991] 2 AC 93, [1991] 1736); Celador Productions Ltd -v- Melville ChD ([2004] EWHC 2362 (Ch)); Blackburn Chemicals Ltd -v- Bim Kemi Ab CA ([2004] EWCA Civ 1490, ); John Edwin Berry -v- Post Office Investigation Department CA ([1996] EWCA Civ 926); Hormel Foods Corporation -v- Antilles Landscape Investments NV ChD ([2005] RPC 28, [2005] EWHC 13 (Ch),); Phipps, Regina -v- CACD ([2005] EWCA Crim 33); Occidental Exploration & Production Company -v-Republic of Ecuador CA ([2005] EWCA Civ 1116, [2006] 2 WLR 70, [2006] QB 432); Dallal -v- Bank Mellat ([1986] 1 QB 441); Coulter -v- Chief Constable of Dorset Police CA ([2005] EWCA Civ 1113); Ganesmoorthy -v- Ganesmoorthy CA ([2002] EWCA Civ 1748, [2003] 3 FCR 167); Heffernan and Another -v- Grangewood Securities Ltd CA ([2001] EWCA Civ 1082); Vervaeke -v- Smith HL ([1983] AC 145); McBride -v- The Body Shop International Plc QBD ([2007] EWHC 1658 (QB)); Anyanwu and Another -v- South Bank Student Union and Another HL ([2001] UKHL 14, [2001] 2 All ER 353, [2001] 1 WLR 638, [2001] ICR 391, [2001] IRLR 305, [2001] Emp LR 420); Munir -v- Jang ([1989] ICR 1); Divine-Bortey -v- London Borough of Brent CA ([1998] EWCA Civ 830, [1998] EWCA Civ 831, [1998] EWCA Civ 832); Dimtsu -v- Westminster City Council EAT ([1991] IRLR 450); Campbell -v- Leeds United Association Football Misc ([2009] EW Misc 4 (EWCC)); Walbrook Trustees (Jersey) Ltd and Others -v- Fattal and Others CA ([2009] EWCA Civ 297);

[broken arrow]

A Bryan Carter split claim thread

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?148514-Bryan-Carter-amp-Co-Advice-on-tactics-please-***-WON-***&highlight=

[coledog]

Quote from Bryan Carter

 

'“As you are aware we have previously issued proceedings against you in respect of this matter …”

 

“We had hoped for suing for a small amount initially we would minimise costs to both parties and thereby ensure that the debt was repaid without the necessity for further court action..”

So that is why they do it.

[coledog]

I am still not finding any evidence for using the 'split claim' argument when the first claim is issued unless, the POC states explicily that there will be further action to make a claim for the balance.

[Thailand]

Quote from Bryan Carter

 

'“As you are aware we have previously issued proceedings against you in respect of this matter …”

 

“We had hoped for suing for a small amount initially we would minimise costs to both parties and thereby ensure that the debt was repaid without the necessity for further court action..”

 

 

 

So that is why they do it.

 

I would not say that is why he does it, he's a Billy bullshi**er. It's a numbers game, and in this scenario keeping his numbers down. His costs. That above is just his crappy talking the talk.

 

Hey Bryan chuck, I am still grateful and forever indebted to you (not) for your genourous split claim.

 

I love him for this, as should everybody else!! Of course, peeps need to be wise to his tricks which isn't easy when you don't know how. But keep threads like this up and it will, quite brilliantly, hit him in the knackers where it hurts.

[coledog]

Not just dear Bryan now but also Turnbull Rutherford and another bunch of chancers in Southend! The last one is interesting as they are claiming for 'arrears' and then seem to imply that if there are 'arrears' in the future they will claim for them again, the 'remaining balance' isn't mentioned.