NRAM Oridinary Cause - NRAM loan - In the face of a S78 Dispute.

[PRBrown]

Can I just re-inforce the statement made by SFU where he said: "But, in any event, the fact that a lender has driven anyone to the terrible position you find yourself in, wont make an account any more/less unenforceable. At the margin it MIGHT influence a court, but I dont see it determining anything. I certainly would not want to rely on it."

 

I know that that when the initial writ lands on your doormat it can cause period of panic but SFU is absolutely correct. It generally doesn't matter how badly they have behaved with yourself or other people, whether they seem to be riding roughshod over legislation designed to protect the consumer, or whether there's a dispute in place or not, because that isn't likely to be your defence. You need to try to put your feelings aside and focus on the things that now matter on a legal basis - the enforceability of the agreeement, whether there is an agreement, what agreement they are referring to, and what defence you will have if any.

 

I'm not condoning their actions in any way - it's certainly worthy of discussion at another time - but that's not relevant at this time and you need to stop spending time worrying about their bad behaviour. What's important for you now is to concentrate on what's going to get you through this in a legal sense.

 

If it's any consellation, I received an initial writ many many months ago. I panicked. I started to doubt the defence I had worked through in my mind. I thought that their case much be very strong or else they wouldn't take things to court. What I've learned in the last few months is that in Scotland the process is much fairer than it seems to be in England (but can be very expensive). It is drawn out and everyones cards are on the table so there are no surprises in court and you have time to prepare. Starting court action is not taken lightly by companies but it is taken partly as a scare tactic - their clients have unlimited fund to take these cases on. Solicitors rarely have all the information to hand from their client when action is raised, and its not until the adjustments process that they start to look at their case more closely.

 

CC companies are scared - I mean REALLY scared - of sites like this and are terrified of losing...if it looks like they will lose, or not definitely win, then they will generally attempt a settlement with a confidentiality agreement. My own solicitor and advocate haven't appeared in court yet, and neither have the pursuers solicitor, they just seem to agree everything in advance and then instruct a local solicitor to attend court for about 5 minutes to get the agreement of the Sheriff...it's a weird system that seems a bit remote and imprersonal at times, but that shouldn't surprise me because it is supposed to be a dispassionate process.

 

You only have to look for examples in Scottish Case Law for cases centering around the consumer credit act to see how few there are, and to realize that's because most are settled at some point usually with a gagging agreement or else abandoned.

 

In my case the action was sisted, the sist was recalled, then another was put in place, a date for an options hearing was set and now the pursuers have requested another delay for some reason. It can take a long time for the process to work through which will give you time to put things in order, so the chances are you have time.

 

I don't know where you are but I can recommend a solicitor if that would be any use to you - initial consultation is usually free. I've also had contact with an Advocate who specialises in Consumer Law who is an excellent resource to have on your side. If you are going to see them, get everything in order first with all your paperwork and outlines, give them a brief verbal outline, and then let them ask you any questions they need to. Keep it quick and short, don't get involved in irrelevant tangents about the behaviour of banks, the FOS, or anything that isn't relevant. Don't waste their time, or yours, on things that don't matter to your defence.

[PRBrown]

After reading what I wrote I quickly realized that it's easy to sit back and pontificate when you're not personally involved, and how difficult it can be to focus on what's really important when it seems your world is crashing in around you.

 

That's why things like this site are great, and with the vast experience of people like IdainFife and SFU, they can help to narrow down and focus your efforts on things that matter. I guess it's also why speaking to a solicitor or someone who understands the legislation and some of the arguements can be a help too.

 

When I received my initial writ I called many solicitors, and the attitude of most was "why do you think you don't owe the money?". Few had heard of the CCA 1974, and even fewer had anything more than a cursory knowledge of what it contained. That's why it's important to get third-party advice, but make sure the advice you get is from people who understand what goes on when it comes to debt.

 

- I do take your (originally SFU's of course) point. However, as I see it, there are two core issues...

1) Whether I actually owe the money or not. A matter XBANK could and should have worked to establish before taking action.

2) IF I owe the money whether legal action was actually necessary - And thus whether XBANK are entitled to interest and costs.

My personal opinion is that now that action has been taken, only point 1 is relevant and that's where you should be spending your time deciding on what you want to do next.

 

Bear in mind here that the necessity of action forms part of the pursuer's claim... I have been trying for over a year to establish what XBANK base their claims on. they REFUSE to respond to perfectly reasonable requests... And I beleive this IS relevant.

It shouldn't come as a surprise. Most people involved in the debt industry don't care about the human element. They just want their money and many rely upon the ignorance of the average consumer to play fast and loose with guidelines and legislation.

 

I don't condone it in any way, and I'd like to see more forceful regulation, but you have different things to focus on now. It's not the time for a general rant or discussion of their tactics, immorality, or bad behaviour. You have court action heading your way and you need to deal with the things that will protect you from that. You can leave the crusading for another day unless that will make up a large part of your defence.

Turning this one on its head slightly - as far as I am aware and was taught at college - one is obliged to act reasonably and within the law BEFORE moving to court action. Otherwise the court can view the action as vexatious and deny any application for costs or interest. - I stand to be corrected on that of course.

 

As far as I know Vexatious litigation is 'legal action which is brought, regardless of its merits, solely to harass or subdue an adversary'.

 

Can it seriously be the case that the Scottish courts have no view on this and are happy to be abused as 'tools of terror'? - And be used casually to support those who act in clear breach of the regulations that are supposed to govern them?

 

If so then the broader implications of my case are troubling... That is of course as an aside to my own case; but still, I feel, important... IS the Scottish court system effectively condoning abuse/disregard of consumer protection laws?

No, I personally don't think the Scottish Court system is condoning it, however, just as you have the right to defend yourself anyone has the right to initiate action at any time. The court is not a moral arbitrator, but a court of law and the pursuer has to make their case. Just because someone starts action it doesn't mean they will be succesful or even have a belief they will be succesful. Even if the action is vexatious, can you prove it? Do you know the mind of your pursuers? The Scottish court system allows for a period of adjustments, and that's where the pursuer will need to have better arguements than you. If they can make a case you can't then claim it was vexatious.

 

If I had any criticism of the Scottish court it would be the inability to claim all your expenses even if you win. That seems grossly unfair if the action was potentially vexatious or speculative (in my mind) as it would make companies less likely to take action until they knew the full details. On the other hand, give the amount of court action that goes on in England regarding consumer debts and the relative sparsity of those in Scotland, I'd say the Scottish process is less likely to be succesful with the flimsy evidence that seems to pass as proof in the English court system.

 

IF that is the case then I believe that is unacceptable - One certainly for the MPs and MSPs... Because , as far as I know, the system isn't supposed to operate in that manner. i.e. a court is not supposed to ignore or disregard wanton breaches of lawful regulation.

You're completely correct, but can you prove it? By all means, pursue any avenue you think will help, but please don't get distracted by things that won't help you NOW.

 

Frankly - having had my career effectively terminated in middle age, with the stigma of having suffered a breakdown left in effect unemployable - I have little more left to lose, and cannot imagine what XBANK hope to gain. - Certainly the stigma and effective ending of my 'credit life' is of no consequence.

 

I simply don't HAVE the money they are claiming. And, thanks in part to their actions to date, am unlikely to ever earn the sort of money I did in the past...

 

SO - If the action they are unnecessarily taking is not primarily designed to harass or subdue me (echoes of Harrison) what is it about?

That's the horrible thing about them. They have no interest in the person behind the debt. They want their money, they follow a path, and it seems that the whole process is largely automated and unthinking up to a point.

 

As you've said, there is little chance of them getting what they want even it they did win, but that doesn't stop the process being followed. It's disgusting and it's de-humanising but knowing that isn't going to solve your immediate problem.

 

On that basis I would hope to resist costs and interest...

Without details, I don't think I could say. The only thing I can point out is that unless you defend then you can't avoid them at all. You can make an application pay in installments but from what I understand in Scottish Courts this application to pay isn't likely to be granted if the period of repayment is extensive. I've heard that even 6 months is regarded as too long to repay...I hope I am wrong. Then again, if you have nothing to lose then they have nothing to get, but only you can decide where you stand on this spectrum.

 

the financial situation is so dire that even raising the £80 to file the court papers will mean going without food to some degree...

As IdaInFife suggested, have you checked you home insurance policy for legal cover? It may turn out in the end that you won't be covered, but you might get a lot of mileage out of solicitors acting for the insurance company while they decide whether you are covered or not.

 

There are some very knowledgeable people on this forum. SFU and IdaInFife who will be able help you. My knowledge is much smaller but I can offer a perspective because I'm going through the mill at the moment and I have some first-hand experience of what happens and how it feels. The only thing to remember is that they can offer advice, but they can't make up your mind for you..only you can do that.

 

I've been lucky to be able to spend time with solicitors and an advocate and I've been able to soak up some additional information from them about how the system works and what cc companies and banks try to get away with. I can tell you that their general feeling is that very few institutions have the correct paperwork in place to enforce older agreements. A word I've heard a couple of times in regard to them was "cavalier". They know exactly how these companies operate, and they know what ones have paperwork, what ones destroyed the originals, and although they've defended many cases between them, none of them have ever reached debate or proof...take from that what you will (I couldn't drag the details out of them).

 

At the moment it's difficult to see how I can access a solicitor. And this, as I have suggested, may be something these 'bully boys' are relying on. - It strikes me that XBANK have taken the step of instigating legal action VERY casually indeed.

 

A broader question my own case raises... How common is this sort of thing?

It is mad, but it is relatively common. As I said earlier very few cases make it through to proof or debate. The solicitor who started the action will likely have started it without having ANY details about the case. They will go on the word of the bank. If you defend, then the solicitor will start to ask for the paperwork, and during adjustments, if your defence is strong, they will soon realize whether they have a winable case or not. But, at the very beginning, they will know virtually nothing. Since most people don't know what to do (or bury their heads) when they receive the Writ, they will hope for a win by default without ever having to prove they had a case in the first place.

 

As SFU suggests - The non-legal route, complaining to the OFT, raising the matter with MSPs/MPs etc... Yes; something I fully intend to to in tandem with resisting the action.

If that will help them great. Just don't get distracted from the fact that you have an impending court case and you need to decide what to do.

[PRBrown]

Hi GLW.

Have you made any progress in this matter or lodged your Notice of Intention to Defend?

Why not do that

- even a blanket "Everything is denied"

then ask for the case to be sisted while you try to get more information

- even if you need to pay for a solicitor to do it for you.

 

 

Unless it is objected to

- unlikely unless they are sure they have a strong case

- the Sist will give you a bit of time to put your thoughts in order

and to hunt for any paperwork that will help.

 

 

It's hard,

but try not to let it get you down.

 

 

I received my initial writ last year,

and we still haven't got past the adjustments period yet.

 

 

As they say,

the wheels of justice move slowly so take advantage and give yourself the time you need.

Don't be railroaded into a timeframe that disadvantages you.

 

I'm certain that in most of these cases people either ignore the paperwork so the pursuers win by default,

or they just admit the debt and let "justice" take it's course.

 

 

The ones that are defended strongly rarely reach a conclusion in court.

 

 

From what you've said,

you seem to have merit to your defence.

 

 

I'd hate to think they'd got to you and you've given up. Keep us up-to-date.

[PRBrown]

You can't prosecute under the CPUTR so it is of no direct use to your defence. Neither is the OFT Guidelines because they are...erm....guidelines. They might be used to show a blatant disregard of consumer protection laws, but the unfairness of it all can't be used to protect you. You need to defend the case in LAW first, then you might get a chance show just how bad they have been and perhaps trading standards or the OFT will take up the case for you and prosecute them for their bad behaviour.

 

That's what I said earlier about keeping a focus on what's important. We know they've treated you badly, we know they've run roughshod over legislation and guidelines designed to protect the consumer, but that will not be your saviour in court. Stop talking about how badly you've been treated, and start thinking about your defence. You're running off on tangents and getting upset about things that are not important at this time. STOP. You might be able to use all this stuff to bolster your defence and show the judge just how badly they have acted and what misery they've put you through once you've won the legal case, but if you don't have a legal defence you will lose. The CPUTR is NOT your defence.

 

In amongst all this "noise" you seem to have a very good defence in the making and probably very good prospects. The fact that they haven't complied with your S78 request is a total defence (that they could possibly easily remedy...in theory). Other things like statements not matching, letters saying there is no debt then suddenly there is, their reliance on 6 year old agreement to provide funds - these are all things that are relevant and it's getting all that clear and absolute that counts.

 

While the judge may sympathise with your feelings, unless you have a defence you will lose and all the gnashing of teeth and "abuse of process", quoting of CPUTR, all the talk of vexatious action is nonsense. Sorry to be blunt, but you need to put your feelings aside and focus on what matters to the LEGAL side of your case first. Everything else is secondary.

 

Cases are won on technicalities of law and you must be in absolute control of your legal defence if you're going to defend yourself. I'll say it again LEGAL LEGAL LEGAL LEGAL LEGAL and in tiny writing "feelings". It looks to me like your getting your knickers in a twist and so busy running around saying "it's all so unfair, it's an abuse of process, the courts are colluding, the sky is falling in" that you're not getting down to the nitty-gritty of what is going to save you, and humiliate them, in court.

 

This is what it's about - they say you owe them money, you say they don't. Can they prove you owe them money? Can you cast enough doubt on their claim? Can you show non-compliance with the consumer credit act - s78, not properly executed, is there an agreement at all? Can you show money was never paid to you? Can you prove that they can't lend you money based on a 6-year old application? Can you show all liabilities were discharged at some point. These are the type of things you must concentrate on. Everything else you mention that is not specifically related to this is probably a waste of your breath.

 

I feel like a broken record, but it seems to me you're more focussed on the emotional aspect and haven't put a strong enough defence together yet. You need to get that straight in your head and gather what evidence you can in the short time you have available to do this e.g. apply for bank statements from all banks you dealt with at the relevant time (there can't be THAT many). You're wasting your precious time reading and then quoting legislation to us that can do nothing to protect you, and you're prattling on about how unfair it all is rather than spending the time concentrating on what is going to save you in court first.

 

I'm not unsympathetic to your plight...I know how hard it is....but I just see you getting all worked up about things that are fundamentally irrelevant. I don't care if they shouldn't be in court at all and didn't follow "nicely nicely" procedures. I couldn't care less that the Scottish Court System is being abused, colluding with, or being used as a blunt instrument, because you know what? THEY'VE TAKEN YOU TO COURT, and you'd better get your defence in place. You can care and get all emotive about it once you've won the legal part of your argument, but until you do that, put it aside.

 

I appreciate I won't win any friends by saying what I have, but you need to win this and you probably can win it from the relevant stuff you have mentioned. Just get on with what's important.

[PRBrown]

Well, it certainly got a reaction, but I'm glad to say that it's a reaction that I'm pleased to see. My worry - for you - was that you were over-concerned about things that won't help you in your court case. I'm glad I was wrong and your reply seems like you've got it in hand and are making a distinction between them.

P.R... You are appreciative of the fact that both NRAM staff and those of their Scottish Solicitors - Aberdein Considine - in all probability read these forums??? Actually, I'm quite certain that they do! There is much in terms of "noise" that I'd make on this open, public platform which I'll not have the opportunity to put to a court...

They may well be, and if they are they're either in possession of facts that you're not aware of or else they are worrying about what the heck they've done to unleash your fury. I'd love to be a fly on the wall.

 

And as much as my own plight is troubling and foremost in my mind; I see broader principals at stake here.

 

For instance - It strikes me that it would be most convenient for rogue lenders if they could simply 'railroad' people into court in much the same way as local councils can in respect of council tax... None of this 'messy' compliance with the CCA or troublesome OFT guidelines or even having to give people proper answers to reasonable questions... And how massively 'inconvenient' if it attention is drawn to CPUTR is something other than the mere 'rubber stamping' of an EU directive...

You're completely correct, but my mind is that while these are important issues that may need to be addressed, they are not a legal defence and that makes them largely irrelevant at this point.

 

I have simply pointed out; based on what I've read here and in other place, that the courts here in Scotland seem to be being routinely abused... A broad issue

That may very well be the case when it comes to debtors. Defending an action is expensive (unaffordable to the average person) when you need professional help, and being is debt is still embarrassing to a lot of people. In the past people often didn't defend and lost by default. Sites like this give you the tools to fight back and make it an almost equal fight if you're determined enough, able to assimilate facts and can articulate these on paper and in speaking.

 

I called a number of solicitors and one of them told me that ordinary actions can cost in the region of £20,000 to defend and you'll never get that back even if you win. Companies with deep pockets know it's an uneven fight where the average person can't get the funds for a professional defence when the person knows they won't get all that money back. That automatically discourages anyone from defending, and as that solicitor said, unless you're very rich or very poor, justice isn't always being served.

 

But, and it's an important but, so what? Change the broad issue later, defend yourself now because it's your defence that matters at this time. You're not going to change the law, prompt an OFT investigation, or get Trading Standards to prosecute them on the basis of a single complaint. It will be your complaint added to many others that will prompt action, and that action is unlikely to start before your court case and certainly won't finish before your case ends, so what's the point in bothering about it just now. The imminent court case is what counts at the moment.

 

Here's a technicality of law for you then.

The OFT guidelines (and yes; they are just that) provide a definition of what they, as the regulatory authority, view as unfair business practice. The CPUTR is a piece of statute law which outlaws unfair business practices... NRAM are legally bound to act within the law.

- If you have thoughts on why this is not so; I'd be pleased to learn your perspective.

I'm really not out to argue with you. I'm on your side. Although I'm new to being pursued, I've been involved in a few legal wranglings over time. What I've been frustrated with in some of the things I've seen is when there's been a lack of focus. Rather than concentrate on the things that are going to help people win, they take a sort of moral stance (it isn't fair!) and a blanket approach covering everything whether strictly relevant or not. The result is a mish-mash defence that fails to focus in on what counts and comes over as a disorganized mess where the hope seems to be that if they throw enough mud some of it will stick or else it becomes so obscure that no-one can reach a judgement. In court, the sheriff is smarter than that and has little time for random ramblings. I've seem the symptoms, and I was worrying you might be headed down that route. I'm delighted that you aren't.

 

As for my perspective, I'll say this. Yes the CPUTR is statute, and yes NRAM should adhere to, but it's statute that you cannot prosecute under and as such it's not immediately relevant to your circumstances. You can, and obviously are, going to report to the relevant authorities, and may even be able to stir-up some publicity that embarrasses the OFT into quick action, but it isn't going to make a jot of difference to your defence and I was worried that you were spending time on stuff that can't help you win in court right now.

 

I shall be answering their averments one-by-one.

They claim I entered into a "Consumer Credit Agreement" on a particular date - I didn't; I simply didn't - and the initial writ is actually the first I've heard of any alleged interaction with NRAM on that date! Furthermore I can prove I was otherwise occupied dodging the grim reaper on that date. - And a Consumer Credit Agreement - which is what they claim was established at that point - is a very specific thing is it not? Governed by whatever laws are in effect when it is entered into?

 

They claim, on that same date, I was advanced a sum of money and that repayment terms were established - The sum they say was 'advanced' is actually at odds with what they are suing for (there being no clarification in this respect). And as for the repayment schedule that they allude to; this is news to me! and what is ABSOLUTELY certain is that I received NO money from them on that date!!!

Bizarrely, they claim "the agreement" in respect of the above was signed some six years earlier - when the relevant law was different... And it seems to be a matter of remarkable foresight that I would arrange to borrow money six years in the future...

 

Maybe you are remarkably prescient.

 

As I say, a Consumer Credit Agreement is a very specific thing is it not?

Yes, governed by all sorts of rules and regulations.

 

You're right of course that the failure to date to supply a copy of the agreement is a defence under the CCA. - And yes; it is one that is easily remedied; assuming they have a copy of "the agreement"...

Easily remedied is easy to say, sometimes not so eay to do. You'll need to see what they come up with.

 

The first question there is though what agreement?

Yes. There's probably/maybe/possibly an agreement for something floating around, but is it relevant?

 

- A document I know cannot possibly exist detailing the concordance they claim I reached with them, presumably on a Hospital bed? Or some other document signed at a different time under a different law relating to a different sum of money to be paid back over a different period of time?

 

Is this competent?

Competent? Maybe not, failing so, irrelevant. You've got lots of good stuff there and you rightly question whether there's even an agreement at all, never mind a properly executed on, and THEN you have a whole pile of other questions. Put precisely, I can see them having a problem dealing with this.

 

Remember what I said at the start, the solicitors will have started action on the instruction of their client. They probably won't have any paperwork in their possession at this time. It won't be until you lodge your NID then lodge your defence that they will start to gather their evidence. That's when they'll know what their situation is.

 

Although adjustments are allowed; is it not incumbent on a Pursuer to be largely accurate in their initial averments? i.e. - Surely they can't just write down any old bunkum?

They are supposed to be accurate, but that's what your "Answers to Condescendence" and "Pleas in Law" will be about in your initial defence. You can tear them to bit here if you want, or introduce the dressing down at some other period.

 

The writ I received said something along the lines of "he owes us money we lent him, we want it back". It was no more complicated than that. No avertments as to the existence of an agreement, no account number, no mention of regulated agreements, no mention of dispute, no mention of years of legal correspondence. Oh, they did mention they had statements!

 

How far they get on a poor condescendence it up to you and is anyone's guess. My own pursuers rubbish condescendence is why many months later we're still not past the adjustments stage but it didn't stop the case being rubber-stamped for progress and I can never forget that they would have won by default if I hadn't defended.

 

Have a think about WHY the failure on the part of the Pursuer to supply a copy of the agreement is a defence under the CCA. - The document is required for informational purposes; and as I read it that much has been established in recent cases...

You might be mixing up the failure to comply with s78 for "information purposes" with the "proof of purpose" which they will need to provide if they want to win.

 

The solicitors in Scotland are clear on a couple of things from what I can gather.

 

1. A application form is not an agreement

2. The original must be produced in court

 

These requirements would likely be over-ridden or brushed aside in England where a "True Copy" of an agreement now seems to be sufficient to prove a properly executed agreement. It can't happen so easily in Scotland I think. There seems to be subtleties and twists in Scottish law regarding the formation of contracts (even if regulated by CCA 1974) that are in the defendants favour in case like yours and mine.

 

I say they are deliberately using the court to circumvent to provisions of statute law. I say that is an improper use of the court - and thus an abuse of process.

 

You say.

 

Well; I've explained why I think it ISN'T nonsense - perhaps you would be good enough to give a cogent explanation as to why you think it is?

It may very well be an abuse of process (I've never said it wasn't - I said it was a nonsense to your current situation i.e. defending the action first) but is that your defence? You may be able to prove it is, but only because you're able to defend on all the relevant points. That only comes when you take apart every bit of their prosecution regarding the competency of their initial writ, its relevancy, the agreement (if any), its execution, whether monies changed hands, whether they can rely upon a 6-year old agreement to provide funds, and whether any of it is enforceable. Remember, they need to prove their case. You need to be focussed on what they will need to do to prove their case as that will provide clues on where your defence needs to be strongest.

 

IF you don't defend competently, you lose, and if you lose they can't have abused the court. You can argue subtleties of this, but it's a fact of life. It may be unfair, it may be immoral, but what are you trying to do at this particular moment - defend yourself against the claim, or lay down a moral structure that must be adhered to in situations that follow you i.e. after you've won or lost? If it was me, I know I'd be putting aside everything else in an effort to defend myself and leave the other stuff till later.

 

That's why I was thinking you needed to focus on what's important to your defence because it's from that that everything else can flow...their abuse of process, their abuse of CPUTR and consumer protection legislation, and their dreadful behaviour toward you for additional sympathy from the Sheriff and hopefully a dressing down for them....but you need to win the defence first and that's the warning I was trying to give. I'm delighted to know you're focussed and in control of what you are doing.

[PRBrown]

Can you delete my account please; I can't seem to find that function int he user control panel

Oh, for goodness sake. The people are here to try to help, but if you take that attitude with them you'll get nowhere. If you think they've been harsh just wait until the period of adjustments or until you get into court if the pursuers are in any way competent (not likely, but possible). Swallow your pride, take a deep breath, and decide whether you want some help or not.

 

No-one can give you complete answers without seeing the wording of their condescendence. They also can't make up the words on your pleas-in-law because only you have the necessary details. There's a lot happened from what you've said before, now you need to get it straight and onto paper in a way that makes sense, can be understood, and has the law behind it.

 

The reply have a particular format. I've put together a sort-of layout but it needs polished and the words must be your own. It should also be double-spaced.

 

Your answers to their condescendence depend on exactly what they say. You either deny, agree, or explain.

 

Approx layout.

 

SHERIFFDOM OF...

 

COURT REF. NO:-

 

DEFENCES

 

in causa

 

NBAM

ADDRESS

 

Pursuers

 

 

Against

 

ME

ADDRESS

 

 

Defender

 

 

ANSWERS TO CONDESCENDENCE

 

1. The averments relating to the Defender and jurisdiction are admitted. Quoad ultra not known and not admitted. (i.e. I don't know anything else and I'm not admitting to it)

 

2. It is explained that

 

a. The Pursuers have not provided any documentation to substantiate their claim as craved.

b. The pursuers are idiots who haven't got a clue

 

The Pursuer’s averments are denied except insofar as coinciding herewith.

 

3. Denied. It is explained blah blah

 

4. Dened, agreed, or it is explained that

 

5. Denied that the Defender has delayed or refused to make payment. The defender did this...The Pursuers averments are denied except insofar as coinciding herewith

 

 

PLEAS-IN-LAW FOR THE DEFENDERS

 

1. e.g. The Pursuers, having failed to aver that the agreement exists and is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974, are in breach of The Act of Sederunt (Amendment of the Act of Sederunt (Sheriff Court Rules) (Miscellaneous Amendments) 2009) 2009. Accordingly, the action is incompetent, failing which irrelevant, and the Defender craves that this action should be dismissed.

 

2. Pursuers averments are irrelevant et separatim lacking in specification, the action should be dismissed

 

3. The Pursuers, having failed to comply with the terms of s.60(1), s.61(1) and s.78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 etc etc. Accordingly the action should be dismissed.

 

4. The Defender......reason....should be assoilzied from the conclusion of the writ and declared entitled in expenses.

 

5. The Defender....reason....decree should not be granted as craved.

 

6. Anything else

 

 

in respect whereof

 

 

Signed:

 

 

Date:

 

 

Your Name

Your Address

 

 

Defender

 

 

The other thing to watch with your Pleas is that you don't provide them with ammunition. You're defending against their condescendence as that is their "case". Your pleas are the legal reasons why they can't win their case. Don't bring in things that are irrelevant unless they will really help you.

 

Remember, it's a "period of adjustments" so don't give away everything now, you just need to provide some reason why they can't win based on their current condescendence, not every reason under the sun that you can think of. The sheriff does not see what is said during this process. There is no "instant decision".

 

You pleas are also asking for something to happen or for the sheriff to do something e.g. the case to be dismissed, expenses provided, for the claim to be asoilized, or whatever. Don't get the reason for your pleas and answers to condescendence mixed up.

Edited August 21, 2012 by PRBrown