LTSB sar and found PPI was selected - but not by me!

[Always Struggling]

A SoT can be a Defence or a WS...considering you have already submitted a defence then I would assume a WS AS.

 

I haven't submitted a defence andy, I have made a claim which they have defended and applied for a strike out. The J told me I must make a statement of truth and submit supporting evidence to my claim of section 32 (1) Limitations Act.

 

This is where I am unsure.

 

Is it

a) WS with supporting evidence,

b) a Statment of Case with evidence,

or

c) an order under rule 18.1 to provide further information?

 

All I remember from the court was her saying provide a statement of truth and supporting evidence, it was all a bit of a blur tbh.

 

Thanks for any guidance

 

AS

[AndyOrch]

Apologies AS I cant recall all the defence and claims Im subbed to.

 

Ok it will be a Statement of Case with evidence.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[AndyOrch]

PS. Dont forget the fact that she awarded costs on a failed application...dont let that rest.

[Always Struggling]

PS. Dont forget the fact that she awarded costs on a failed application...dont let that rest.

 

I will remember to bring it up in the next hearing

 

Back to SoC... does this look right andy? Also have added a point I am still unclear on - 14.

 

IN THE WORCESTER COUNTY COURT

BETWEEN:

XXXXX XXXXXXX

Claimant

- and –

Lloyds TSB

Defendant

CASE No. XXXXXXX

***************

STATEMENT OF CASE

 

I, XXXX of XXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXX WILL SAY AS FOLLOWS :

1. I am the claimant and litigant in person in this case and I include evidence with my Witness Statement, marked WS2.

 

2. I give this statement and evidence in support of my claim not being time barred by virtue of section 32 (1) of The Limitations Act as shown on my Particulars of Claim paragraph 30.

 

3. I did not know prior to April 2011 that late fee charges could be challenged. It was around April 2011, through various media and news, that I discovered late payment penalty charges/fees that had been applied unfairly to my account by mistake could be challenged.

 

4. As a consequence of discovering the above information I made a subject access request (SAR), dated 1st April 2011, for personal information, in respect to my accounts held with the defendant.

 

5. In response to my informational request the defendant sent me statements from 2004 onwards, claiming that statements prior to May 2004 were no longer available. I also received a poor quality copy of my credit card agreement.

 

6. I include as evidence a copy of the agreement (WS2, page i) received from the defendant. Although of poor quality, it is clear enough to show the Card Payment Protection (PPI) section of the agreement has been altered to include PPI. Through this alteration the defendant has mistakenly included PPI (possibly fraudulently or negligently). I know it wasn't myself that altered the agreement and bring the Data Protection Act (DPA)1998, schedule 1, part 1, section 7 to the courts attention which states:

 

· Appropriate technical and organisational measures shall be taken against unauthorised or unlawful processing of personal data and against accidental loss or destruction of, or damage to, personal data.

 

7. The defence claims in paragraph 3.2 of their defence, that the PPI was selected by myself. I am content to have the hand writing of the agreement analysed by an independent expert, as already requested by myself in my Allocation Questionnaire (WS2, pageii). I also include magnified areas of the agreement for the courts convenience and visual clarity on the differing hand writing involved (WS2, page iii).

 

8. I have never had, nor wanted, PPI on any of my accounts with the defendant, as evidenced by other financial agreements held with the defendant all declining the inclusion of PPI (WS2, page iv).

 

9. Notwithstanding the above points, the PPI would still have been applied to my account by mistake as I would have failed to meet the requirements to be accepted for PPI: I was paid by commission only and didn't have a permanent contract of employment. I would therefore put the defendant to strict proof of the PPI acceptance process.

 

10. As mentioned in paragraph 5 of this witness statement the defendant claimed on 9th June 2011 (WS2, page v) and again on the 29th July 2011 (WS2, page vi) that statements prior to May 2004 were no longer held on any of their systems and could no longer be provided.

 

11. At around this same time I had written to Credit Security Limited(CSL) (a debt collection agency who were acting on behalf of the defendant and actively pursuing the debt at the time), to explain I was awaiting to hear from their client in respect to my information. CSL then sent me my credit card statements on 8th August 2011 covering the time period prior to May 2004(WS2 page vii), statements that the defendant had twice already claimed were no longer available and not held on any of their systems.

 

12. The defendant again claimed the non-existence of my statements in reply to my 'letter before action' . The defendant responded on 25th June 2012 with the claim that they no longer held details of my credit card statements showing any details due to the passage of time (WS2, page viii) this was after I had received them via their representative and knew they did in fact exist.

 

13. The defendant includes in his defence an 'error' or false statement. The defendant offered a settlement amount in June 2012, as evidenced in paragraph 12, based on their 'best guess' as per information and rules set out by the Financial Ombudsman Services, the defendant claiming that credit card statements for that period are no longer available. The defence has claimed that the settlement offer letter to myself is headed 'Without Prejudice' and should not be brought into court proceedings. The defence has signed a Statement of Truth to this point. I have included the settlement letter which is not headed 'Without Prejudice' as the defence claims but who still signed a statement of truth that it is, demonstrating the defendants continued misrepresentations.

 

14. At paragraph 31 of the defence the defendant claims the balance owed by myself was written off on 22nd February 2010 and that I have suffered no loss as a result of the disputed charges. I enclose correspondence from the defendants representative (WS2 page ix) showing that the balance is actively pursued and that token payments have been made to the claimants representative after the date that it is claimed to have been written off. Further, that the defendant threatens court proceedings via their representative to take court action to recover the balance that the defendant claims was written off.

 

I believe that the facts stated in this Statement of Case are true

Signed XXXXXXXXX

 

Let me know if I should leave '14' out or not please andy.

 

Just have to get page numbers right for evidence WS2

 

Thanks

 

AS

[AndyOrch]

14 is a valid point I would let it remain.

[Always Struggling]

Ok, thanks andy

 

AS

[Always Struggling]

Just got a letter from SCM asking for my Witness Statement as they haven't got it yet.

Sent them a Statement of Case already

 

I hope that if I resend the Statement of Case renamed as 'Witness Statement' and covering letter explaining my error to both them and the court this will be ok?

 

Can someone confirm this please?

 

Thanks

 

AS

[AndyOrch]

Statement of Case is not a WS AS.SoC are usually referred to Particulars of Claim CPR 16 :-

 

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part16

[Always Struggling]

So sending it now as WS should be ok then?

 

AS

[citizenB]

So sending it now as WS should be ok then?

 

AS

 

I would think so