Shoesmiths Claim Form For Natwest loan, 7 days to reply !

[AndyOrch]

So the points to answer in the defence are:

 

DEFENCE

 

1. It is admitted the defendant holds an account with the claimant.

 

2. It is denied that the defendant has failed to pay any sums due, and the claimant is put to strict proof. A payment agreement is in place, and the defendant has not, at any time, defaulted on a payment under this agreement.

 

3. Furthermore, the defendant has received no demand for any payment from the claimant at all.

 

4. No letter before action nor any correspondence relevant to the issue of a claim was ever received by the defendant, and the claimant is put to strict proof of same. It is therefore denied that the claimant has complied in any way with pre-action protocols. Further, it is denied that any default notice as required by s87 of the CCA 1974 has been issued, which is a prerequisite for enforcement. Again, the claimant is put to strict proof.

 

5. It is denied therefore that the claimant is entitled to the relief claimed, or any relief.

 

6. The defendant further avers that the claimant, by raising a claim, has unilaterally broken the existing payment agreement, and that therefore the claimant is estopped from further demands for any payment in relation to the debt, pursuant to BCOBS FSA regulations and the creation of an unfair agreement under s140A of the CCA 1974.

 

Statement of truth... etc and include copies of the BCOBS and CCA items, and your payment agreement with Shoosmiths.

 

 

Then, we need your WITNESS STATEMENT which gives all the history and timeline, along the lines of... working on it...

 

 

 

Scales tipped accordingly DB

 

Regards

 

Andy

[dck321]

apolagies for the delay with the witness statement just getting all the information is chronological order taking longer than I thought!

 

so as I have to give both parties my evidence does this mean shoosmiths will have one over on me?

[DonkeyB]

Need Andy’s input here.

 

Andy, what is the recourse when the claimant will not be complying with the court order? For dck to file and serve would clearly hand an advantage to Shoosmiths.

[AndyOrch]

If they have failed to comply to an order then sanctions can be applied by the court and the claim struck out...CPR3

[dck321]

witness statement:

 

1.April 2012 I have a payment arrangement of £80.00 per month with Shoosmiths which is still on-going to date

2.Bank statements provided

3 18th December 2012 receive claim form dated 13th december 2012 which states that I have "failed to make payments" - which of course in untrue because I was in a repayment plan and have statements confirming that I was making the payments regularly and on time.

4.18th December 2012 I received a letter dated 17th December from Shoosmiths advising they had notice of issue and that unless I responded by 1st January 2013 they would be at liberty to request Judgment.even though that had already started proceedings. I would have thought this was incorrect and an attempt at intimidation just prior to Christmas ? so shoosmiths had started proceeding without an lba.

 

5.14th January 2013 I submitted my defence by way of the N9B form

6.14th January 2013 There was a subsequent telephone conversation with Shoosmiths which was recorded, in which I was told the only reason they issued the claim was because you had neglected to submit or complete an Income & Expenditure form.I had not been asked nor received any paperwork for an updated budget schedule which i stated in said telephone conversation.

7.14th February 2013 received notice that a defence has been filed and allocation questionaire was enclosed and was to be completed by 4th March which I adhered to.

8.28th February 2013 Shoosmiths requested the claim was stayed for a period of 1 month from the court requested date of 4th March to "narrow some of the issues referred to in the defence". Had no contact from Shoosmiths.

9.28th March 2013 Shoosmiths requested a 2nd stay of 1 month "to narrow some of the issues referred to in the defence" Still had no contact from shoosmiths.

10. 2nd April 2013 as I had still not had no contact from Shoosmiths I emailed a refusal of the 2nd stay to the CCBC defendant which was acknowledged.

 

11.17th April 2013 I received a notice of transfer of proceedings.

12. 21 May 2013 I received a court order dated stating that:- The defendant will file and serve an ammended defence setting out the full details of her defence by 4.00pm on 28th May 2013 and in default the defence is struck out.

13. 28th May 2013 I submitted an ammended defence.

 

14. 24th June 2013 received court order requesting that "Claimant and Defendant clarify case by filing and serving statements setting out their respective cases exhibiting any relevant documents by 18th July 2013

 

I believe that the facts stated are true

[DonkeyB]

Working on a more detailed one... gimme a few minutes...

[DonkeyB]

May be worth calling Shoosmiths again to see what the court says! Keep that recorder handy...

[dck321]

just spoke to shoosmiths and they stated they have put in post and I will receive tomorrow which I have on record

[dck321]

he actually said he had spoken to the courts and I will receive tomorrow

[DonkeyB]

Well, you can wait for the postman to come! If he doesn’t deliver the statement and documents, we’ll add in an extra bit to your statement, which you will be delivering by hand (get a receipt!).

 

Amazing how quickly they put all that together – a couple of hours? It’s taken me over two hours to pull your stuff together!

 

Wonder how many hours will show on their log for preparing that package? By their own admission, no more than two hours... should be interesting. Let’s keep that one up the sleeve... re costs.

 

So either they are fibbing about receiving the court order, or they are terribly quick (and therefore cheap – not £8k’s worth as stated on AQ!) at their job.

[dck321]

I really cant believe these tricks they pull

[DonkeyB]

OK, would appreciate especially Andy and CB’s input on this...

 

You already have the short, crisp defence.

 

This is the narrative – your version of what has happened. You’ll need to fill in a few gaps and add the appropriate exhibits, as well as correcting any factual errors or adding in any extras. Avoid emotion and general ‘unfairness’ issues – they have no place in law, alas.

 

I would also suggest that, if the postman doesn’t bring anything tomorrow, you offer to go over to Shoosmiths and collect their statements while handing them yours. Can’t see why they would, or could, refuse or object. Call their bluff – the optional last para below makes clear why many solicitors accidentally on purpose file just after you do, and subsequently blame the post. It’s amazing how often these unavoidably delayed statements refer to things in the defendant’s statement that have never been mentioned before! That’s why we always say keep the envelopes.

 

That said, and as I’ve said repeatedly in this thread, Shoosmith’s competence and behaviour in your case so far is unusually lax and underhand. They are one of the better solicitors in this industry, if there is such a thing. That’s why I hope that the optional para will not be needed – I hope Shoosmiths don’t start playing the games that many DCA solicitors are famed for.

 

 

WITNESS STATEMENT

 

1. This account is a personal loan account with NatWest, opened in October 2007... (state amount etc).

 

 

2. Due to financial difficulties (explain briefly), I requested a reduced payment plan with NatWest (explain details, dates). (Give initial amounts, and details of reviews/increased amounts).

 

 

3. At no time, up to the present, have I failed to keep up with these agreed payments.

 

 

4. On 18 December 2012 I received a claim form dated 13 December 2012 from Northampton CCBC (Exhibit X). At the same time I received a letter from the claimant’s solicitor, Shoosmiths (Exhibit X) dated 17 December stating that I needed to enter into an agreement to avoid a CCJ. This puzzled me, as a payment plan was in place, for £80 per month, and I had received no correspondence from Shoosmiths since February 2012 regarding the account (see Exhibits X). As Shoosmiths had negotiated these payments, as NatWest’s agent, they should have been aware of these facts.

 

I deny the claimant’s assertion made to me in a telephone conversation that letters and income & expenditure forms were sent to me. Importantly, no formal demand of any kind nor letter before action was received, and the claimant does not actually claim to have issued any such communications.

 

 

5. I subsequently filed my defence within the allotted timescales, on 14 January 2013.

 

 

6. Also on 14 January, I called Shoosmiths to ask why a claim had been issued when a payment agreement was in place and no payments had been missed.

 

I spoke to Xxxxx Xxxxx, and recorded the call, for my own records and to be able to accurately demonstrate the veracity of any statements made if necessary. I was told by Shoosmiths that the claim had only been issued due to my failure to complete an income & expenditure form, NOT because I had failed to pay any monies, as claimed in the Particulars of Claim. A transcript of this conversation is attached as Exhibit X. Again, I deny emphatically that any such I&E request had been made, and the claimant is put to strict proof of this.

 

Also within this recorded conversation, Shoosmiths stated that they would only accept a payment of £195 per month for the next five years, which appeared to totally negate the supposed purpose of requesting an I&E statement and, I believe, demonstrates that there was never any intention by Shoosmiths to renegotiate the level of payment.

 

Finally, Xxxxx Xxxxx told me that I should respond to the claim form and send it back to Shoosmiths to review, rather than to the court. I believe this request, recorded, was a blatant attempt to abuse process and to possibly pervert the course of justice.

 

 

7. On 14 February 2013 I received notice that a defence has been filed, together with an allocation questionnaire to be completed by 4 March (which I adhered to).

 

 

8. Subsequently I heard nothing until I received a copy of a letter to the court from Shoosmiths, dated 28 February and received by me on 2 March, requesting a stay of one month to ‘narrow the issues’ (attached as Exhibit X), to 4 April. An order from the court granting the stay, dated 4 March 2013, was received by me on [date], attached as Exhibit X. I was happy with this, ready to cooperate in accordance with CPR Part 1, the overriding objective.

 

 

9. Over the next month, not knowing what these ‘issues’ referred to by Shoosmiths were, I expected contact from Shoosmiths, but received no contact at all. Shoosmiths were already in receipt of my defence and I had talked to them, so the ball was firmly in their court on the narrowing of these issues.

 

 

10. On 30 March 2013 I received a further copy of a letter to the court from Shoosmiths, dated 28 March, requesting a further stay, again to supposedly ‘narrow the issues’ (Exhibit X). As Shoosmiths had failed totally to contact me at all to narrow these supposed issues, I objected to the stay (as allowed under CPR), and the court refused the stay on 2 April (confirmed to me by email), ordering Shoosmiths to now file their AQ.

 

I believe Shoosmiths acted unreasonably in attempting to request a further stay by failing to provide good reason or by complying with their previous stay request reasons, and attempting to bypass CPR by failing to first request my permission for another stay. This abuse of process has, sadly, been typical of their behaviour during this claim.

 

It should be noted that I have still not received ANY communication from Shoosmiths to narrow these so-called issues.

 

 

11.On 17 April 2013 I received a notice of transfer of proceedings.

 

 

12. On receipt of the claimant’s AQ, I noticed that they had NOT claimed nor ticked the box stating that pre-action protocols had been followed. It is my assertion that they had not, and this appears to be a clear acknowledgment of such.

 

 

13. I felt that because the claimant had failed to submit an AQ on time, it now had an advantage having received my original AQ, filed on time. I called the court to discuss this, and was told I could submit my own request for draft directions, which I sent to the court on 30 April. A copy of these draft directions is attached as Exhibit X.

 

 

14. However, on 21 May I received an order from the court, dated 3 May (Exhibit X), ordering that I file an amended defence by 28 May. It seemed clear that the court had failed to consider either the claimant’s or my draft directions. I submitted an amended defence on 28 May.

 

As neither party’s draft directions had been considered, I could only reiterate my existing defence, and state also that due to a lack of disclosure, I could not fully particularise my defence (Exhibit X).

 

 

15. Subsequently on 24 June I received from the court an order dated [date] requiring both the claimant and defendant to file and serve statements setting out their respective cases, exhibiting any relevant documents, by 18 July 2013.

 

 

 

OPTIONAL PARA IF NO DOCUMENTS RECEIVED IN TOMORROW’S POST (a bit strong, but time to play hard IF there’s no delivery...)

 

16. On 17 July I telephoned Shoosmiths to ensure that exchange of statements would be simultaneous on 18 July, but they claimed that they had received no order from the court as per the one I received on 24 June.

 

I am bound to follow the order of the court and file and serve on time, but believe that this claim by Shoosmiths that they have not received the order of the court is questionable.

 

Therefore, at 14.50hrs on 17 July 2013, two hours after Shoosmiths had emphatically denied receiving the court order, I called them again, and they advised me on this occasion that the statement and documents had just been put in the post to me.

 

However, as of today, 18 July, no statement or documents have been received from Shoosmiths. Given the very close geographical distance between myself and Shoosmiths, I find this odd.

 

I would therefore respectfully request that if Shoosmith’s or the claimant‘s subsequent or late statement covers any of the specific issues or allegations mentioned herein that are NOT already detailed or specified in my defence issued so far, that such issues be struck from their statements and disallowed as a gross abuse of process, as the content would be a clear result of their having sight of my statements before preparing their own.

 

I would also reserve my right to request a strike out of the claim for breaching the court’s order due to late filing and/or failure to serve..

 

 

 

Statement of Truth etc

[dck321]

thank you v much I will edit accordingly

[AndyOrch]

Perhaps a little more about the actual defence and why the claim is being defended...IE if Estoppel then give it a paragraph.

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

Andy

[dck321]

hi just to confirm a usb is not acceptable to give to the court and I need to write the conversation down?

 

as I have virtually filled in all the gaps and printed off letters, one letter I cannot find is the letter regarding receiving the letter regarding court action after they had already started proceedings, all I have is the edited version that I have put on this site, im presuming that will not be acceptable

[citizenB]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Due to financial difficulties (explain briefly), I requested a reduced payment plan with NatWest (explain details, dates). (Give initial amounts, and

details of reviews/increased amounts).

 

Should the fact that this was agreed in writing be added ?

[citizenB]

hi just to confirm a usb is not acceptable to give to the court and I need to write the conversation down?

 

as I have virtually filled in all the gaps and printed off letters, one letter I cannot find is the letter regarding receiving the letter regarding court action after they had already started proceedings, all I have is the edited version that I have put on this site, im presuming that will not be acceptable

 

Has it been tucked up against another letter ? It is obvious you had the letter because you were able to edit it.

[dck321]

I will keep looking!!

 

edited statement

 

WITNESS STATEMENT

 

1.This account is a personal loan account with Natwest, opened in October 2007 for £12000.

 

2.Due to financial difficulties namely my partner filing for bankruptcy in 2010, I requested a reduced payment plan with NatWest and initially started paying £70 in May 2011 up until may 2012. Then after a review and Income and expenditure form being filled in the payment was increased from May 2012 to £80.00 which I am still paying to the present.

 

3.At no time, up to the present, have I failed to keep up with these agreed payments.(Exhibit 1)

 

4. On 18 December 2012 I received a claim form dated 13 December 2012 from Northampton CCBC (Exhibit 2). At the same time I received a letter from the claimant’s solicitor, Shoosmiths (Exhibit 3) dated 17 December stating that I needed to enter into an agreement to avoid a CCJ. This puzzled me, as a payment plan was in place, for £80 per month, and I had received no correspondence from Shoosmiths since February 2012 regarding the account (see Exhibit 4). As Shoosmiths had negotiated these payments, as NatWest’s agent, they should have been aware of these facts.

 

I deny the claimant’s assertion made to me in a telephone conversation that letters and income & expenditure forms were sent to me. Importantly, no formal demand of any kind nor letter before action was received, and the claimant does not actually claim to have issued any such communications.

 

5.I subsequently filed my defence within the allotted timescales, on 14 January 2013.

 

6. Also on 14 January, I called Shoosmiths to ask why a claim had been issued when a payment agreement was in place and no payments had been missed.

 

I spoke to Jodie, and recorded the call, for my own records and to be able to accurately demonstrate the veracity of any statements made if necessary. I was told by Shoosmiths that the claim had only been issued due to my failure to complete an income & expenditure form, NOT because I had failed to pay any monies, as claimed in the Particulars of Claim. A transcript of this conversation is attached as Exhibit 5. Again, I deny emphatically that any such I&E request had been made, and the claimant is put to strict proof of this.

 

Also within this recorded conversation, Shoosmiths stated that they would only accept a payment of £195 per month for the next five years, which appeared to totally negate the supposed purpose of requesting an I&E statement and, I believe, demonstrates that there was never any intention by Shoosmiths to renegotiate the level of payment.

 

Finally, Jodie told me that I should respond to the claim form and send it back to Shoosmiths to review, rather than to the court. I believe this request, recorded, was a blatant attempt to abuse process and to possibly pervert the course of justice.

 

7. On 14 February 2013 I received notice that a defence has been filed, together with an allocation questionnaire

to be completed by 4 March (which I adhered to).

 

8. Subsequently I heard nothing until I received a copy of a letter to the court from Shoosmiths, dated 28 February and received by me on 2 March, requesting a stay of one month to ‘narrow the issues’ (attached as Exhibit 6), to 4 April. An order from the court granting the stay, dated 4 March 2013, was received by me on [date], attached as Exhibit 6. I was happy with this, ready to cooperate in accordance with CPR Part 1, the overriding objective.

 

9. Over the next month, not knowing what these ‘issues’ referred to by Shoosmiths were, I expected contact from Shoosmiths, but received no contact at all. Shoosmiths were already in receipt of my defence and I had talked to them, so the ball was firmly in their court on the narrowing of these issues.

 

10. On 30 March 2013 I received a further copy of a letter to the court from Shoosmiths, dated 28 March, requesting a further stay, again to supposedly ‘narrow the issues’ (Exhibit 7). As Shoosmiths had failed totally to contact me at all to narrow these supposed issues, I objected to the stay (as allowed under CPR), and the court refused the stay on 2 April (confirmed to me by email), ordering Shoosmiths to now file their AQ.

 

I believe Shoosmiths acted unreasonably in attempting to request a further stay by failing to provide good reason or by complying with their previous stay request reasons, and attempting to bypass CPR by failing to first request my permission for another stay. This abuse of process has, sadly, been typical of their behaviour during this claim.

 

It should be noted that I have still not received ANY communication from Shoosmiths to narrow these so-called issues.

 

11.On 17 April 2013 I received a notice of transfer of proceedings.

 

12. On receipt of the claimant’s AQ, I noticed that they had NOT claimed nor ticked the box stating that pre-action protocols had been followed. It is my assertion that they had not, and this appears to be a clear acknowledgment of such.

 

13. I felt that because the claimant had failed to submit an AQ on time, it now had an advantage having received my original AQ, filed on time. I called the court to discuss this, and was told I could submit my own request for draft directions, which I sent to the court on 30 April. A copy of these draft directions is attached as Exhibit 8.

 

14. However, on 21 May I received an order from the court, dated 3 May (Exhibit 9), ordering that I file an amended defence by 28 May. It seemed clear that the court had failed to consider either the claimant’s or my draft directions. I submitted an amended defence on 28 May.

 

As neither party’s draft directions had been considered, I could only reiterate my existing defence, and state also that due to a lack of disclosure, I could not fully particularise my defence (Exhibit 10).

 

15. Subsequently on 27 June I received from the court an order dated 24 June requiring both the claimant and defendant to file and serve statements setting out their respective cases, exhibiting any relevant documents, by 18 July 2013.

Edited July 17, 2013 by citizenB

[dck321]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]45247[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]45246[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]45245[/ATTACH]

 

I have just received shoosmiths paperwork

[dck321]

I have to serve by 4pm

[citizenB]

I see Mike and DB are on the thread and I have just sent an S.O.S. to andyorch.

[dck321]

ok thanks

 

im ready to take now but didnt know if i should wait just incase

[citizenB]

If you are ready to go now then.. do it.. I don't see anything in their WS that you haven't already covered.

 

I thought you were asking for more advice

[dck321]

Ha il take now

 

thanks

[AndyOrch]

Defendants name left on scan 1 (and most of the claim number) ....upload unapproved.