Sigma / HL Legal Claim Form - old cancelled T-Mobile contract

[Nixunited]

Hi Guys I am new here I have a problem with HL legal

 

 

I received a claim form sent from Northampton Court I responded by email asking for proof or statement within 14 days to HL Legal

they replied back and said they have requested statements and once I receive it I can start filling my defense

 

but on the same date they issued a letter saying :

We are disappointed that you have not replied to the claim form issued against you recently via the Northampton county court.

 

We are now at liberty to enter default judgement against you for the full amount claimed together with interest to date of judgement and costs.

 

In the event that judgement is obtained details will be entered in a public register, where they will be held for six years.

 

They will also be passed to credit reference agencies, who will supply them to credit grantors and others seeking information on your financial standing.

This will make it difficult for you to get credit.

 

If judgement is entered against you and you ignore the order your goods may be removed and sold, or other enforcement proceedings may be taken against you.

If this happens further costs will be added.

 

To avoid judgement being entered please contact us immediately quoting reference number xxxxxxxxxx.

If you wish to pay by debit/credit card or discuss the matter personally then you must contact us on xxxxxxxxxxx.

 

they asking for 844 not 499 as per the claim form

 

I have requested 28 days and did say I intend to defend all of this claim

I filled it online so i have till the 11 of march to submit my defence

 

please help with the defense letter as I have no idea what to write and I do beleive HL legal tried to mislead me with there email and letter

 

sorry i forget to mention the debt they claiming for is t-mobile bill that i don't know where they got it from

 

i had a t-mobile contract but canceled and didn't upgrade and that was it so i don't have a debt with t-mobile

thats why i asked for statements or a contact HL Legal said T-mobile don't need to supply a contract

 

they will try to get statements i don't have the old contract because i moved house

and didn't really need it so we recycle it with other papers so any advice or help in filling my defence please,

 

 

Money Online Claim Page :

 

A claim was issued against you on 07/02/2013

Your acknowledgement of service was submitted on 23/02/2013 at 12:24:41

Your acknowledgement of service was received on 25/02/2013 so am not really sure when is my last day for the defence i hope you can help should i make a new thread?

 

i didn't acknowledge sooner because HL Legal tried to mislead me into not filling the acknowledgement and the defence than by saying wait for the statements

they requesting than i can fill my defence

 

but as i said before on same day they sent the email they sent me the letter dated 15 that i have not acknowledge

and they have the right to default from the court so not sure what to do next i know they trying to scare me

 

Thanks and Regards, Nixunited

Edited February 25, 2013 by Andyorch
Added MCOL Status

[AndyOrch]

Thread moved to legal Forum

 

You have 33 days in total from the date on the summons so if yours is dated 07/02/13 ...you should have AoS by the 26/02/13 and then your defence is due Monday 11th March 2013.

[Nixunited]

thanks Andy do you know how i can write my defence for this case ? any idea ?

[AndyOrch]

If you type Sigma into the search box (top right under the CAG logo) this will show all other threads involving this claimant...were you will find similar claims and defences...some I have drafted some by others.

You can then start to edit to suit your particulars.

 

Make a start (when you are ready and have gathered all information you require ) and we will check what you have.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[Nixunited]

Ok am trying to see but haven't found anything yet i have been searching the forum for couple of days can this be considered as split claim as they asked for different amount in the letter they sent and they claiming less through the court?

[AndyOrch]

You would have to type out their Particular of Claim (Verbatim) I cant comment until I know what they stated.

 

Andy

[Nixunited]

Hi Andy :Particulars of claim:

Part of the Balance outstanding under a contract made between Everything Everywhere Limited(t-mobile)and the defendant for the supply of mobile telecommunications services by Everything Everywhere limited (t-mobile) to the defendant account number xxxxxxxxx the benefit of which was assigned to the claimant on 31/08/2012. the terms of the contract were breached upon the defendant failure to make payments due under contract.the claimants seeks interest pursuant to section 69 of the county courts act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of issue continuing at the daily rate of 0.11 any payment or queries should be directed to the claimant on:01527405488 or email:[email protected]

they claiming for £499 + 30 + 50 =£579.99

[AndyOrch]

Excellent.

 

Ok I have have just searched and found 4 pages of Sigma claims so plenty for you to go at.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[Nixunited]

Excellent.

 

Ok I have have just searched and found 4 pages of Sigma claims so plenty for you to go at.

 

Regards

 

Andy

Please send me the link hope they have a defence writing so I can copy something thanks nixunited

[Nixunited]

Please send me the link hope they have a defence writing so I can copy something thanks nixunited

Most of the pages I can see are all banks or credit cards and theres couple of mobile phone contract but different situation bit confusing

[AndyOrch]

Makes no difference what the debt/claim is for..the process is the same and how to defend against Sigma.

[Nixunited]

Hi Andy i found this can this be used?

 

 

Defence

The Claimants pleaded case is not sufficient for the purposes of CPR 16.The Claimants pleaded case is lacking the most basic facts and detail such as following pre action protocols, dates of demands made by the Claimant, date of default, date of service of notice of assignment,date of service of default notice and date of agreement, which has been alleged to be breached. This information is fundamental to the Claimants case, yet no details are offered or pleaded.*

It is submitted the claimant failed to meet the regulations of Pre Action Protocol PD Annex B by failing to send a letter before action.

The claimant has, so far, failed to permit inspection of documents mentioned in the statement of case in accordance with the defendants CPR 31.14 request and further follow up requests for compliance with the request. The defendant respectfully requests permission to make any amendments to the defence once disclosure takes place and seeks the award of costs against the claimant.

The Claimant is put to strict proof of the assignment to the Defendants account and will be required to produce documents at trial of the same.

No admissions are made in respect of the assignment.

The Claimant is put to strict proof of a valid default notice having been served upon the defendant and will be required to produce documents at trial of the same. No Admissions are made in respect of the default notice.

The Claimants are put to strict proof of termination and the defendant denies having received same and the claimant will be required to produce documents at trial of the same.

The Claimants attempts at claiming post judgement interest are an attempt at unjust enrichment. The Defendant refers to s74 County Courts Act 1984 and section 2 of the County Courts (Interest on Judgement Debts)Order 1991 as a statutory bar on the Claimants claim to interest. Furthermore no contract entitling the Claimant to post judgement interest has been adduced in evidence and accordingly there is no entitlement to post judgement interest. Interest being owed as claimed is denied.

The defendant admits entering in to an agreement with Marks & Spencer Financial services PLC but denies that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or at all on the basis of numerous breaches of statutory requirements. The details of which are set out below.

Section78 (1) Consumer Credit Act 1974*

The Claimant is in breach of its obligations under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 section 78(1). The Defendant made a request in writing for a copy of the executed credit agreement from the original creditor. The document provided did not comply with the requirements of the aforesaid section because

The document was not easily legible as required by Regulation 2 Consumer Credit Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents Regulations 1983, Accordingly s78 (6) Consumer Credit Act 1974 acts as a bar on enforcement and the Claimants claim ought to be dismissed.

Irredeemable Breaches of Consumer Credit Act precluding enforcement

Furthermore, there are irredeemable breaches of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The particulars of the irredeemable breaches are as follows*

The Defendant avers that the application form, which he signed, was given to him at a checkout in a Marks & Spencer store. The application did not contain the prescribed terms which is a breach of s62 Consumer Credit Act 1974, and the agreement is improperly executed.

The terms and conditions applicable were not provided until the credit token was provided to the debtor. Accordingly this is a breach of s61 (1)(a) Consumer Credit Act 1974 as the prescribed terms were not present at the point of signing and the application did not contain any of the prescribed terms. Accordingly pursuant to s127 (3) Consumer Credit Act 1974 the Court may not make an enforcement order where there is a breach of s61 (1)(a) Consumer Credit Act 1974.

Furthermore and without prejudice to the above paragraphs, the Defendant avers that the terms and conditions produced are not incorporated into the contract. There is no reference apparent within the signed application form to any accompanying terms and conditions therefore the terms cannot be considered to have been embodied by reference as laid out within section 61(1)(a) or (b) Consumer Credit Act 1974. S189 clearly defines the word embody for the purpose of the Act.

Default under s78 (1) Consumer Credit Act 1974*

(a)*the provision of the agreement alleged to have been breached*The Claimant pleads that the Defendant breached his contract. By virtue of a breach of contract and pursuant to s87 (1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 the Claimant is required to serve a default notice in the form prescribed by Consumer Credit Default Enforcement and Termination Notices Regulations 1983 (The Regulations). No notice compliant with the Consumer Credit Act was served therefore the Claimant is barred from terminating the agreement and demanding the sums claimed from the Defendant. In respect of the defects within the Default notice, the Defendant relies upon the following particulars of the breaches.

The Default notice served fails to specify the information required by Regulation 2 and schedule 2 paragraphs 3(a-c) of the Regulations.*

The Default notice served fails to contain the statutory wording required by regulation 2 and schedule 2 Para 4 & Para 5 of the Regulations. For the avoidance of doubt the regulations require the wording specified by the schedule to be used without variation as laid out at Regulation 2(6) of the Regulations.

The Default notice served did not contain the Office of Fair Trading fact sheet as required by paragraph 10(A) of Schedule 2 of the Regulations.

Accordingly the Default notice is bad and no enforcement is permitted. The Defendant relies of*Harrison vs. Link Financial Limited*[2011] EWHC B2 Mercantile to support this.

Therefore, the Claimants Claim should be dismissed and the Claimant should pay the Defendants costs to be summarily assessed on an indemnity basis.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

Dated this xxxxxxxxx

To the court and

to the Claimant

[AndyOrch]

Depends on the reasons you wish to defend the matter and what disputes you have with the claim.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[Nixunited]

Hi Andy,

I have never spoken to HL other than when they sent the claim form i asked for more information a statement or contract to prove what they claiming for in my defence I dont owe this debt and that what am defending theres no proof and HL didn't send me the statements or contract and they saying that tmobile doesn't have to provide a copy of a contract and another thing they trying to get a split claim because they have send me different amount in the letter they sent after the email and they trying to misleading me to not fill defence untill I get the statements they requesting than sending me a letter that they can default the judjments because I didn't reply thats on the 15 after less than 14 days so thats the story of what I want to defend any help would be much appreciated thanks nixunited

[AndyOrch]

Well there will not be an agreement as this is a telecom/mobile debt therefore they will not have to provide any.

They should be able to account for the debt amount and how the debt has accrued.

The fact that you have never had any dealings with HL is not a defence the debt has now been assigned.

The fact they have not responded again not a reason of defence.

 

Their letter of Default Judgment is only mind games should you not submit a defence but the bottom line is did you have a debt with T.Mobile...is there money outstanding...and do you have a reason has to why you will not settle the debt.

 

If you can answer the above three points with reasonable reply and a cause of dispute then you are entitled to defend the matter.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[Signaller]

Nix, you admitted that you once had a contract with T Mobile, so you have had dealings with them, but cancelled it and didn't upgrade. If you cancelled it before the term was up, whether you upgraded or not, then you'll probably find that you did/do owe an outstanding ammount. My case is different because I have never had anything to do with them ever.

 

Signaller

[afcmc1]

But what if you cancelled the contract when the 18 months was up but they carried on payments for an extra 2 months even though the correct procedures have been implemented? does that mean i have every right to fight the case, HL solicitor’s don’t exist by the way people.