Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • you have acknowledged the claim on MCOL [AOS]?? and sent a CPR 31:14?   your defence is due Friday by 4pm
    • so this was a windscreen PCN for the driver walking off the site?   scan up all the paperwork you have had to date and ignored to date  including the front page of the letter of claim and the windscreen ticket.   you've been here long enough and have known about this PCN long enough to have read cag to conclude you should  NOT to have ignored the letter of claim    
    • I know it was over a year ago, but can you remember what you purchased and the name of the shop?  Even if you paid by cash, purchases can still be tracked down. 
    • It's been a while since I had my head in this subject area, but Carey v HSBC was based on determining what the creditor could do to fulfill their obligations when issued with a s.77/78 request by the debtor. It determined that a reconstituted agreement would satisfy the request, so long as it was a true copy. It does not mean the agreement is enforceable if put before the courts. The debtor could, if provided with a recon, decide to accept it and carry on as normal, or dispute it (and potentially withhold payments until the dispute is resolved - if ever).   You are in the position of disputing the recon as being properly executed (amongst other things), which is now at the stage of being put before the court to resolve. Your protection is s.127(3) of the CCA 1974 (repealed in April 2006), which states:   s.127 (3)The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a) (signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner).   The above is what makes a recon unenforceable in your case - but, you need to make a positive assertion to that effect. Whilst DX says Carey is not applicable, I think it's relevant. It explains the role of a recon in law, and it also explains what a properly executed credit agreement looks like, to the extent that could be declared enforceable by an order of the court. It also confirms that the creditor can continue to attempt collection of the debt, but they have no means of recourse through the courts. I would certainly be quoting Carey in support of an assertion that the claimant's recon is unenforceable, and s.127(3) prevents the court from making an enforcement order where s.61(1) was not complied with - as appears to be the case. You will need to spell it out for the court within your statement though. If the claimant is relying on their recon as evidence of their compliance of s.61(1)a then they fail comprehensively due to... (list the points) ...look up what the required prescribed terms are and list them as not being present (the text cannot be read, so they cannot be said to exist on the agreement), and also that all the terms are not contained within the one document (Carey case goes into this in some detail).   You can also throw in your other points relating to the balance and reference numbers, default notice, etc. Pull their case apart with as many arguments as you can. Explain why certain things are needed for the claim to succeed and how the claimant's case does not stack up on those points. Force the claimant to defeat your arguments with appropriate proof/evidence. Cast doubt in every direction you can, but properly support your arguments.   Hope this helps.
    • Am I right in thinking your brother is the keeper of the vehicle, and so VCS are suing him - but you were driving on the day?  In your first post you wrote "I received a PCN" but did you really mean your brother did?   if so, you can prepare the paperwork in his name if you want, and a decent defence later on will probably lead Simple Simon of VCS to wet himself and give in (if you look through the forum, there are very recent examples of this).   However, in the unlikely event that VCS go all the way to court, it will be your brother appearing, so it'd be a good idea if he too started to learn the legal procedure and how to beat these fleecers.
  • Our picks

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 777 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

what type of claim was struck out...


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A small claim against a public body for harassment.

 

It was struck out not because the claim itself but because I explained the facts in the claim form but not the law which has been broken even though according to me these facts related to the law which was broken.

 

I explained the law which was broken in a witness statement that I filed later but the judge told me that it was too late and I should have put this explanation in the claim form itself. However this Handbook for Litigants in Person says in its chapter 8.4 that to put forward in the claim form the facts only suffices

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be grateful to you if you put back my thread as a new thread and separate thread in the General Legal Issue subforum because this thread has nothing to do with my previous threads. Otherwise people will get confused

 

This new thread has nothing to do with Employment Law

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No confusion.

 

IMO : It should stand as merged. OP’s posting style and history is relevant background.

 

CAG site ‘breaks the link you posted. The last bit (.pdf) needs to be in lower case. The site converts this to upper case.

http://tinyurl.com/yczjyjaw should work.

 

In answer to your question:

a) chapter 6 deals with issues of law vs. issues of fact

b) we don’t know exactly what the judge said, only your summary interpreting what you believe they said ........ It may be that they felt your pleadings of facts failed to show a cause of action at law.

 

8.17 is relevant.

8.16 is relevant too : would it be fair to point out it has been suggested sometimes on CAG that you can be argumentative over non-essential matters (well, others say they aren’t key but you seem to feel they are!), or that you focus on intricacies of procedure.

If you irritated the judge they might have decided to offer you less latitude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my claim form I did not make any reference to a particular law being broken and the defendant has taken advantage of this to make an application to strike out.

 

In my reply to this application I say that the facts to which I made reference in my claim form related to breaches of a particular of law.

 

However the judge says that my claim as pleaded does not concern breach of this particular law because I did not make any reference to this particular law in my claim form and as a consequence he has struck out my claim

 

Irrespectively of what the judge says the issue is whether or not what is stated in 8.14 is correct or not i.e. whether or not the following passage is correct?

 

“The old adage ‘Facts not law; Facts not evidence’ remains as true today as ever. It means that you do not have to set out the legal basis of your claim in your pleading, simply the facts that go to make up your claim”

 

I would like to know also if you know authorities which confirm this passage because I need evidence if I want to appeal against the decision to strike out my claim because after all this document called “A_Handbook_for_Litigants_in_Person” seems to be only guidance and not the law?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh good. It is a repetition of your other threads in so far as:

You post a question

Someone answers

You ignore the answer and just repeat your question..... sometimes adding a “little twist”.

 

When was your claim struck out?

Did you ask for leave to appeal?

Are you still in time to appeal / have the strike-out set-aside?

 

“Irrespectively of what the judge says the issue is whether or not what is stated in 8.14 is correct or not ” : No, I consider that what the judge said is fairly relevant!!

What are your grounds for appeal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have already make an application for permission to appeal which was refused on papers and I have renewed it an an oral hearing and I am preparing this hearing.

 

What the judge told me is certainly relevant but he told me nothing more than I already told you. Moreover my only ground of appeal is paragraph 8.14 of this document called “A_Handbook_for_Litigants _in_Person” in particular the passage which says

 

“The old adage ‘Facts not law; Facts not evidence’ remains as true today as ever. It means that you do not have to set out the legal basis of your claim in your pleading, simply the facts that go to make up your claim”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are “dead in the water then”, if you just quote 8.14 without further explanation.

 

I’d have thought (for example) that your grounds would have had to have been something along the lines of “the judge misdirected themself.

There was a cause of action and it is .

This may not have been in the pleadings but it doesn’t have to be overtly stated .

The facts as pleaded demonstrate my cause of action”

 

However, you’ll still have to show that (as at 8.10(2)) that you had in fact shown within your pleadings that you had a cause of action.

 

The question then becomes if the judge erred in ruling you hadn’t established your claim, or was correct and you hadn’t established it on the facts stated in your pleading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I will put forward all the things you say but this would not be enough if I do not succeed to prove that the judge was wrong in law when he considered that my case was not properly pleaded because in my claim form I make reference only to the facts and not to the laws

 

This document A_Handbook_for_Litigants_in_Person” comes from the website https://www.judiciary.gov.uk which seems to come from the Government but I do not know if it comes from the Ministry of Justice and if it is the law or simple guidance. We can appeal only on a point of law.

 

Moreover I need to be sure that I interpret paragraph 8.14 of this document properly

 

It will be good also if I can strengthen my ground of appeal with some authorities which confirm this paragraph 8.14

 

Hence the issue is to clarify if whether or not in the claim form we need to put forward only the facts and not the law and the evidence. The law along with the evidence being put forward later in witness statements for the full hearing or in witness statements in reply to applications to strike out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another problem that I have in that in this document

“A_Handbook_for_Litigants_in_Person" that we can find in the website

 

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Guidance/A_Handbook_for_Litigants_in_Person.pdf

 

it is made reference to Appendix A, X and Y. However when I use the 'Find' facility of my computer to find them I cannot find them. I would like to know if you can explain me how to find these three appendixes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Another problem that I have in that in this document

“A_Handbook_for_Litigants_in_Person" that we can find in the website

 

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Guidance/A_Handbook_for_Litigants_in_Person.pdf

 

it is made reference to Appendix A, X and Y. However when I use the 'Find' facility of my computer to find them I cannot find them. I would like to know if you can explain me how to find these three appendixes

 

 

"A budget must in the form Precedent H [CPR PD3E.1], a copy of which will be found at appendix A."

 

Firstly, this is found at page 160, easily found by looking for "Precedent H". The fact that they haven't titled it "Appendix A" doesn't really matter.

Secondly, this is irrelevant to the issue you have raised that of your appeal.

 

Why are you obsessing about irrelevant details?, and details that (even if they were relevant to your appeal), aren't really an issue!. Does it matter that it isn't entitled "Appendix A"? it is in the form of an appendix, at the end of the document, and is easily found.

 

The reference to Appendix Y?.

 

"How to go about preparing your pleading as Defendant pleading a Defence (and Counterclaim) 8.18 First carry out preparation as suggested at 8.9 above:

  1. (i) Work out the cause or causes of action which form the basis of the claim against you, and note down the elements of the Claimant’s cause of action, (see Appendix Y)"

 

 

 

For a start, they point out that the person should note down the elements of the cause of action, and they have referred to these before, so they don't really have to provide an Appendix Y.

Perhaps they did have an Appendix Y in a previous draft, and it got removed, and they missed removing the reference to it.

Yet again, though, you are focusing on an irrelevance. The reference to Appendix Y is within "preparing your pleading as Defendant pleading a Defence", and you weren't the defendant.

 

 

The foreword makes a clear statement: "this handbook, which is specifically aimed at those litigants in person engaged in proceedings on the multi-track". It isn't a definitive statement on procedure in the small claims track, it is:

a) a guide / handbook, not definitive procedure. and

b) intended for the multi-track.

 

 

This is re-iterated in the preface:

"Thirdly, and most importantly, litigants should appreciate that judges are individuals. Some have their own particular way of doing things. We are confident that most judges sitting in the civil courts will agree with all the advice we have given in this Handbook. But you may appear before a judge who disagrees with individual points we have made. For the litigant, the most important judge is the judge before whom he is actually appearing"

An individual judge isn't bound by the handbook. You are better focusing on the CPR (but even that allows judges wide latitude in case management), and law.

 

 

 

Focusing on the guide alone won't get you far. Focusing on 3 missing appendices within the guide : an absolute waste of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In my claim form I did not make any reference to a particular law being broken and the defendant has taken advantage of this to make an application to strike out.

 

In my reply to this application I say that the facts to which I made reference in my claim form related to breaches of a particular of law.

 

However the judge says that my claim as pleaded does not concern breach of this particular law because I did not make any reference to this particular law in my claim form and as a consequence he has struck out my claim

 

Irrespectively of what the judge says the issue is whether or not what is stated in 8.14 is correct or not i.e. whether or not the following passage is correct?

 

“The old adage ‘Facts not law; Facts not evidence’ remains as true today as ever. It means that you do not have to set out the legal basis of your claim in your pleading, simply the facts that go to make up your claim”

 

I would like to know also if you know authorities which confirm this passage because I need evidence if I want to appeal against the decision to strike out my claim because after all this document called “A_Handbook_for_Litigants_in_Person” seems to be only guidance and not the law?

 

 

We need to see exactly what you wrote.

 

Can you copy and paste it here please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I queried about these three appendices because they could contain important information I am not aware of

 

You make reference to appendix A and Y but not to appendix X which is this which interests me particularly because it concerns directly the drafting of pleadings which is relevant to the striking out of my claim. I would like to know its contents in case it has important information

 

Maybe Appendix X and the other two Appendices are in a separate document but I do not know which

 

The foreword says that this handbook is specifically aimed to the multi-track because it is very big and some information on it could be relevant only to the multi-track but this does not mean that some information on it which are general information cannot apply also to the small track. This is confirmed because it is made several references to the small claims in this handbook

 

My claim has been issued as a small claim but the judge in his judgement said that it should go to the multi-track because it is too complex

 

Yes this document is only guidance but it is confirmed by CPR 16.2 and 16.4 which says that the claimant should provide a concise statement of facts and not of the law in the claim form and in the particulars of claim. It is also confirmed by the Oxford definition of a cause of action

 

I cannot copy and paste the contents of my claim form because it contains confidential information.

 

However it does not make any reference to the law and the defendant in his application to strike out queried about what my claim could be and he put some assumptions about which law could be concerned by my claim and in my witness statement in reply to this application to strike out I put forward which laws I considered have been broken but the judge told me that it was too late because this information should have been set out in my claim form

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you use a program like MS Paint to obscure confidential details and show us the rest of the claim form?

 

HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or copy / print the claim form.

Obscure the identifying information.

Then scan it.

 

It depends if you actually want help or merely wish to argue over irrelevant minutiae like Appendices A and Y.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

click upload and READ


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this is too complicated I would have to buy tipex to blank some information and now the shops are closed and tomorrow is Sunday.

 

You can believe me what is stated in my claim form is not so important. It will be something like A told bad things to B about me and B did bad things to me following the bad things A told him about me..etc i.e. only facts but no law

 

I am more interested in knowing whether or not I am right concerning the interpretation of paragraph 8.14 of the document called “A_Handbook_for_Litigants _in_Person” and about any authorities linked to the issue raised by this document about law and/or facts in the claim form

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why do you need tipex..

 

take a photo

use MS paint and blank out the pers ID

everyone else can do it...


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had you even read 8.14 before your case was struck out?

Your case wasn’t struck out because you relied on paragraph 8.14 ....... there was the whole rest of the document.

Appendices A, Y and X not being present (or easily found) weren’t the issue either.

 

If you can’t be bothered to focus on what matters & allow people to help you, it makes it look like you just want to argue over trivia (& not for the first time : one of the reasons I suggested earlier not to de-merge this from a previous thread!)

 

IMO : It should stand as merged. OP’s posting style and history is relevant background.

 

You want to argue your claim form is “not too important”?.

Yet it is what was (or wasn’t) stated in it that goes to the heart of your claim being struck out!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is plenty of confidential information in my claim form and if I want to blank all the contents of my claim form will not make any sense. The summary I gave to you is better.

 

I did not know paragraph 8.14 when I issued my claim so it could not have been struck out because I relied on it. However it was struck out because I did not put forward the law which was broken and paragraph 8.14 says that I did not need to do so. Hence I would like to know if the judge erred in law but only concerning this issue because even if my claim was struck out for several reasons I am interested only in this reason?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why dont the moderators lock out this OP and put him out of his misery If you keep responding to his drivel you will still be doing it ad-infinitum he has been moaning and whinging about the advice he gets. His feeling of self importance is only matched by his perception that everyone should treat his complaints seriously

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to know for what 'OP' stand for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OP= original poster.

Not replying because you dont take advice and argue an unimportant insignificant point to the Nth degree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In threads relating to benefit overpayments it can mean “Over payment”, and I’m sure it can mean many other things in different contexts, but here, in this context it is pretty clear ‘OP’ is ‘original poster’, so : ‘you’, ‘poster : resources’.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

or other words that could describe to OP:madgrin:


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 777 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...