Lowell/drydens claimform - old 02 mobile debt

[citizenB]

Ok.... You have until close of court on Monday to submit a defence. I will ask someone to look in and help you prepare something.. so don't start panicking just yet.

[XLNC1]

Thanks citizenb

[finlander]

Hi guys just to update you i havnt recived anything from drydensfairfax. I thought i would of recived somthing from them by today but nothing in the post. My defence needs to be put in by the 15th july so should i put my defence in this weekend or wait for monday 15th post. Could someone please advise how to write up a defence or paste a link to a template. Thank you

 

Hi, Im about to go at with Drydens. They have ignored all my correspondence so far as well. Will keep watching this thread and see if their tactics are . Good luck Geoff

[citizenB]

]Hi everyone this is my first post on the CAG forum and i would really appreariate some advice on a claim form i recived ive been looking around this forum and the forums (Removed)i will post the claim form details below and then ask some questions

 

issue date is 12/06/2013

AOS was done online 21/06/2013 but no defence entered yet

 

Lowell portfolio is the claimant and their solicitors are Drydensfairfax

Particulars of the claim

1. The claim is for the sum of 4xx.xx

and is in respect of monies owing

by the defendant on a mobile telephone

agreement with

Telefonica o2 Limited

under account number xxxxxxxxxx

 

The defendant failed to maintain the

contractual payments due under the terms of

the agreement

 

2. The debt was legally assigned by

Telefonica o2 Limited

to the claimant on

and notice of the

assigment was served upon the defendant

 

3.The claim also includes statutory

interest pursuant to section 69 of the County

Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum

(a daily rate of 0.07620) from the

date of the assignment of the agreement to the

date of issue (to 11/06/2013)

being an amount of xx.xx

 

now on 2. they havnt put a date to when the debt was legally assigned. I dont even remember this debt so could be quite old.

 

 

I have brought forward the PoC for reference.

 

If I remember correctly you are certain that you had a telefonica account which ended in 2003. In which case this is almost certainly statute barred.

 

In the absence of any response to your CPR requests, I would be inclined to go with a statute barred defence. Which would be as follows :

 

 

 

1 The Claimant's claim was issued on (date).

 

2 The Claimant contends that the Claimant's claim so issued is a claim in contract and is statute barred pursuant to the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act 1980. If, which is denied, the claimant contends that the Defendant is in breach of the alleged contract, in excess of 6 years have elapsed since the date on which any cause of action for breach accrued for the benefit of the Claimant.

 

3 The Claimant's claim to be entitled to payment of £x or any other sum, or relief of any kind is denied.

 

 

Or you could say..

 

 

1: The defendant admits there was a telephone agreement with Telefonica o2 Limited, which ended in 2003.

 

2: The defendant denies there was any outstanding balance owed at that time

 

3: In the event that there was, then the defendant will say that this is now time barred.

 

4: The Claimant contends that the Claimant's claim so issued is a claim in contract and is statute barred pursuant to the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act 1980. If, which is denied, the claimant contends that the Defendant is in breach of the alleged contract, in excess of 6 years have elapsed since the date on which any cause of action for breach accrued for the benefit of the Claimant.

 

5: The Claimant's claim to be entitled to payment of £x or any other sum, or relief of any kind is denied.

 

 

 

 

Anyway.. hold tight until one of the site team with more legal knowledge looks in on you.

[steampowered]

I would go with something like this:

 

1.This claim is neither admitted nor denied with regards to the Defendant entering in to an Agreement or contract referred to in the Particulars of Claim. The Defendant has no recollection of the alleged debt. The Claimant has yet to disclose any Agreement or contract in response to the Defendant's CPR 31.14 Request. The Defendant is put to strict proof as to the existence, execution and terms of any alleged Agreement or contract.

2. The Defendant contends that any claim the Claimant might have is statute barred pursuant to section 5 of the Limitation Act 1980. In excess of 6 years have elapsed since the date on which any cause of action accrued to the benefit of the Claimant.

3. The Particulars of Claim are denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to:

 

(a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement or contract with the Claimant; and

(b) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and

© show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;

4. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.

5. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Defendant has no recollection of receiving a notice of assignment.

6. The Agreement cannot be enforced against the Defendant without an order of the court by the reason of the fact that the Claimant is in default of a request for a copy of the executed agreement under Section 78 of the Act of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

7. Further, by reason of the fact that there is no document which has been signed by the Defendant containing a correct statement of the amount of the credit under the Agreement, and by reason of Section 127(3) of the Act, the Court has no power to make an enforcement order in respect of the Agreement because a term stating the amount of the credit is a prescribed term for the purposes of Sections 61(1)(a) and 127(3), prescribed by the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983, regulation 6(1) and paragraph 2 of Schedule 6.

8. By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.

 

 

Credit to andyorch, this is adapted from one of his Defences in another thread.

 

Also make a s78 CCA request if you haven't already.

[XLNC1]

Thank you very much steampowered and andyorch for an excellent defence, i will send it online this afternoon, i still have not received anything from drydens.