Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I've inserted their poc re:your.. 1 ..they did send 2 paploc's  3. neither the agreement nor default is mentioned in their 2.        
    • Hi Guys, i read a fair few threads and saw a lot of similar templates being used. i liked this one below and although i could elaborate on certain things (they ignored my CCA and sent 2 PAPs etc etc) , am i right in that at this stage keep it short? If thats the case i cant see what i need to add/change about this one   1)   the defendant entered into a consumer credit act 1974 regulated agreements vanquis under account reference xxxxxxx 2)   The defendant failed to maintain the required payment, arrears began to accrue 3)   The agreement was later assigned to the claimant on 29 September 2017 and notice given to the defendant 4)   Despite repeated requests for payment, the sum of 2247.91 remains due outstanding And the claimant claims a)The said sum of £2247.91 b)The interest pursuant to S 69 county courts act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of issue, accruing at a daily rate of £xxxx, but limited to one year,  being £xxxx c)Costs   Defence:   The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim vague and are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.   1. The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC ( Pre Action Protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017.It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.   2. The Claimant claims £2247.91 is owed under a regulated consumer credit account under reference xxxxxxx. I do not recall the precise details or agreement and have sought verification from the claimant and the claimants solicitor by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request who are yet to fully comply.   3. Paragraph 2 is denied. I am unable to recall the precise details of the alleged agreement or any default notice served in breach of any defaulted payments. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied.The Defendant contends that no notice of assignment pursuant to s.136 of the Law of Property Act & s.82 A of the CCA1974 has ever been served by the Claimant as alleged or at all.   5. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of assignment/balance/breach requested by CPR 31. 14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:   (a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence any cause of action and service of a Default Notice or termination notice; and © show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;   6. After receiving this claim I requested by way of a CPR 31.14 request and a section 78 request for copies of any documents referred to within the Claimants' particulars to establish what the claim is for. To date they have failed to comply to my CPR 31.14 request and also my section 78 request and remain in default with regards to this request.   7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.   8. 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.   9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.  
    • i understand. Just be aware I am prepared to take some risks 😉
    • Thanks Tnook,   Bear with us while we discuss this behind the scenes - we want you to win just as much as you do but we want to find the right balance between maximising your claim without risking too much in court fees, and in possible court costs awarded to the defendant bank.
    • Tell your son and think on this. He can pay the £160  and have no further worries from them. If he read POFA  Scedule 4 he would find out that if he went to Court and lost which is unlikely on two counts at least [1] they don't do Court and 2] they know they would lose in Court] the most he would be liable to pay them is £100 or whatever the amount on the sign says. He is not liable for the admin charges as that only applies to the driver-perhaps.If he kept his nerve, he would find out that he does not owe them a penny and that applies to the driver as well. But we do need to see the signage at the entrance to the car park and around the car park as well as any T&Cs on the payment meter if there is one. He alone has to work out whether it is worth taking a few photographs to help avoid paying a single penny to these crooks as well as receiving letters threatening him with Court , bailiffs  etc trying to scare him into paying money he does not owe. They know they cannot take him to Court. They know he does not owe them a penny. But they are hoping he does not know so he pays them. If he does decide to pay, tell him to wait as eventually as a last throw of the dice they play Mister Nice Guy and offer a reduction. Great. Whatever he pays them it will be far more than he owes as their original PCN is worthless. Read other threads where our members have been ticketed for not having a permit. [We know so little about the situation that we do not know if he has a permit and forgot to display it. ]
  • Our picks

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 774 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

This OP has been posting on this thread since March 2014 on the same subject.

Any normal person would have got the message that he is "flogging a dead horse".

You can take a horse to water but you cannot make it drink.

 

He refuses to accept any advice and goes off on a tangent on totally irrelevant points.

 

The world does not owe him a living so after wasting three and a halfs years of his life on totally peurile arguments what I can only sugest is that you forget your alleged problems and get on with your life

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a new thread which has nothing to do with my thread of three and half years ago. This is the problem with having put together all my threads. People get confused and mix up in their mind all my threads. Obviously this affects their replies to my threads

 

I would have preferred to have my new thread kept separate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has everything to do with your habit of focusing on irrelevant minutiae, and arguing ad nauseam about them, or whatever new matter you introduce when you arem't getting people to agree (which seems pretty frequent).

People aren't confused, just fed up.

 

I guess, sometimes, (regarding your preference for a new thread):

 

you can't always get what you want

 

You can't always get what you want

You can't always get what you want

But if you try sometime you find

You get what you need

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a new thread which has nothing to do with my thread of three and half years ago. This is the problem with having put together all my threads. People get confused and mix up in their mind all my threads. Obviously this affects their replies to my threads

 

I would have preferred to have my new thread kept separate

 

It's impossible for people to advise if they don't have background, resources. Does your new query relate to a different thread then?

 

HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is the way I do the things. When there is still some doubts I do my best to find a solution to a problem.

And to do this I have to follow all possible leads even though those which could look like being only details but which could nevertheless contain important information.

 

I notice that some members of this forum have difficulties to accept when I am right and this leads to endless conversation.

For example concerning the interpretation of paragraph 8.14 of the document “A_Handbook_for_Litigants_in_Person"

if I am right I would like to be told that I am right or to be explained why I am wrong

 

There is no need to put together all my threads to have enough background to understand my new thread

because it has nothing to do with the other threads

 

people could get confused if you for example mix up threads about employment with threads like my new thread about Civil Litigations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is also a question of accessibility because by putting all my threads together you force me and the other members of this forum to go through all my threads and their numerous posts to access my new thread which is not convenient

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is also a question of accessibility because by putting all my threads together you force me and the other members of this forum to go through all my threads and their numerous posts to access my new thread which is not convenient

 

Untrue. If they click on the title of the thread under "new posts" it jumps to the last page.

 

What it does mean is that once on that last page it is easy for them to see that your threads ramble on with you arguing over minutiae. This way they can make a more informed choice if they want to spend time on a reply .....

(incidentally, I'm aware this reply will likely have NO IMPACT on 'resources', but other CAG'ers who aren't yet aware of that might find it useful), which is my reason for posting it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The applicable rules are in CPR 3.4(2), which states as follows:

 

(2) The court may strike out a statement of case if it appears to the court –

(a) that the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending the claim;

(b) that the statement of case is an abuse of the court’s process or is otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings; or

© that there has been a failure to comply with a rule, practice direction or court order.

 

 

It usually CPR 3.4(2)(a) which is used.

 

The court would not usually strike out a claim for minor non-compliance by a litigant in person. The court would however strike out claims which appear to be hopeless.

 

It seems unlikely that your claim was struck out only because you stated facts rather than law (or law rather than facts). I think we would need to know the full story before we are able to offer sensible advice.


PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The applicable rules are in CPR 3.4(2), which states as follows:

 

(2) The court may strike out a statement of case if it appears to the court –

(a) that the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending the claim;

(b) that the statement of case is an abuse of the court’s process or is otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings; or

© that there has been a failure to comply with a rule, practice direction or court order.

 

 

It usually CPR 3.4(2)(a) which is used.

 

The court would not usually strike out a claim for minor non-compliance by a litigant in person. The court would however strike out claims which appear to be hopeless.

 

It seems unlikely that your claim was struck out only because you stated facts rather than law (or law rather than facts). I think we would need to know the full story before we are able to offer sensible advice.

 

Noooo! that'd be much too sensible.

You need, instead, to start a discussion (as 'resources' did) over whether it is essential that the Precedent H example given at the end of the Handbook is labelled Appendix A or not ........ not that Precedent H (which relates to costs) has anything to do with the case being struck out!.

 

If you try to be sensible you'll get told (again) that they don't need to supply the details of the claim, as they've given us all we need in their summary.

Expect to hear that Appendix 8.14 is what needs discussion (leaving aside it is in a handbook, not the CPR).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.

Not all members of this forum think to click on the button “new posts”. I was myself even not aware that this button existed. Moreover when I click on it several threads appear except mine which is evidence that having put all my threads together has somehow messed up the things

 

2.

The fact that I have maybe or maybe not ramble in some of my previous threads does not mean that I will do the same in this new thread because each thread has its particularities. The consequence of putting all my threads together is that some members of this forum will be pushed off from responding to my new thread because as you say they will think wrongly that they are wasting their time which will deprive the others members of this forum and me from important information that we can get from my new thread if it was properly processed

 

3.

My claim was struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2). My claim concerns the non-compliance of several laws. The judge has dismissed my claim because my claim concerning the non-compliance of these laws was hopeless except for one law but for this law he says that my case is not properly pleaded because I make reference only to facts but not to this law in my claim form and in my particular of claims. Therefore if I can prove that the judge is wrong at least concerning this point I can hope to have his decision to strike out my claim cancelled. I order to do so I think that it will be good we concentrate on the interpretation of paragraph 8.14 of the document “A_Handbook_for_Litigants_in_Person" and its link with CPR 16.2 and 16.4 which say that we have to provide a concise statement of facts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Expect to hear that Appendix 8.14 is what needs discussion (leaving aside it is in a handbook, not the CPR).

 

and it only took 1 hour 19 minutes for my prediction to come good.

 

I order to do so I think that it will be good we concentrate on the interpretation of paragraph 8.14 of the document “A_Handbook_for_Litigants_in_Person" and its link with CPR 16.2 and 16.4 which say that we have to provide a concise statement of facts

 

Wow! Why haven't you raised this essential issue before?

I mean, you've only asked about it 9 times in less than 3 days ....... with no sign anyone else thinks it is important / relevant.

 

Clearly it needs its own thread!!

(No, it doesn't need its own thread, and this thread is probably past its sell by date, too).

Asking the same question repeatedly won't help you, and having it in its own thread won't make a difference, either.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1.

Not all members of this forum think to click on the button “new posts”. I was myself even not aware that this button existed. Moreover when I click on it several threads appear except mine which is evidence that having put all my threads together has somehow messed up the things

 

'New posts' only shows you, well, 'new posts'.

It'd show your thread if there had been a new post to it since the last time you checked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this has now run its course and serves no purpose.

 

Thread closed.

 

 

Andy


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

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 774 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...