Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • He was one of four former top executives from Sam Bankman-Fried's firms to plead guilty to charges.View the full article
    • The private submersible industry was shaken after the implosion of the OceanGate Titan sub last year.View the full article
    • further polished WS using above suggestions and also included couple of more modifications highlighted in orange are those ok to include?   Background   1.1  The Defendant received the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the 06th of January 2020 following the vehicle being parked at Arla Old Dairy, South Ruislip on the 05th of December 2019.   Unfair PCN   2.1  On 19th December 2023 the Defendant sent the Claimant's solicitors a CPR request.  As shown in Exhibit 1 (pages 7-13) sent by the solicitors the signage displayed in their evidence clearly shows a £60.00 parking charge notice (which will be reduced to £30 if paid within 14 days of issue).  2.2  Yet the PCN sent by the Claimant is for a £100.00 parking charge notice (reduced to £60 if paid within 30 days of issue).   2.3        The Claimant relies on signage to create a contract.  It is unlawful for the Claimant to write that the charge is £60 on their signs and then send demands for £100.    2.4        The unlawful £100 charge is also the basis for the Claimant's Particulars of Claim.  No Locus Standi  3.1  I do not believe a contract with the landowner, that is provided following the defendant’s CPR request, gives MET Parking Services a right to bring claims in their own name. Definition of “Relevant contract” from the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4,  2 [1] means a contract Including a contract arising only when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land between the driver and a person who is-   (a) the owner or occupier of the land; or   (b) Authorised, under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land. According to https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/44   For a contract to be valid, it requires a director from each company to sign and then two independent witnesses must confirm those signatures.   3.2  The Defendant requested to see such a contract in the CPR request.  The fact that no contract has been produced with the witness signatures present means the contract has not been validly executed. Therefore, there can be no contract established between MET Parking Services and the motorist. Even if “Parking in Electric Bay” could form a contract (which it cannot), it is immaterial. There is no valid contract.  Illegal Conduct – No Contract Formed   4.1 At the time of writing, the Claimant has failed to provide the following, in response to the CPR request from myself.   4.2        The legal contract between the Claimant and the landowner (which in this case is Standard Life Investments UK) to provide evidence that there is an agreement in place with landowner with the necessary authority to issue parking charge notices and to pursue payment by means of litigation.   4.3 Proof of planning permission granted for signage etc under the Town and country Planning Act 1990. Lack of planning permission is a criminal offence under this Act and no contract can be formed where criminality is involved.   4.4        I also do not believe the claimant possesses these documents.   No Keeper Liability   5.1        The defendant was not the driver at the time and date mentioned in the PCN and the claimant has not established keeper liability under schedule 4 of the PoFA 2012. In this matter, the defendant puts it to the claimant to produce strict proof as to who was driving at the time.   5.2 The claimant in their Notice To Keeper also failed to comply with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 section 9[2][f] while mentioning “the right to recover from the keeper so much of that parking charge as remains unpaid” where they did not include statement “(if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)”.     5.3         The claimant did not mention parking period, times on the photographs are separate from the PCN and in any case are that arrival and departure times not the parking period since their times include driving to and from the parking space as a minimum and can include extra time to allow pedestrians and other vehicles to pass in front.    Protection of Freedoms Act 2012   The notice must -   (a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;  22. In the persuasive judgement K4GF167G - Premier Park Ltd v Mr Mathur - Horsham County Court – 5 January 2024 it was on this very point that the judge dismissed this claim.  5.4  A the PCN does not comply with the Act the Defendant as keeper is not liable.  No Breach of Contract   6.1       No breach of contract occurred because the PCN and contract provided as part of the defendant’s CPR request shows different post code, PCN shows HA4 0EY while contract shows HA4 0FY. According to PCN defendant parked on HA4 0EY which does not appear to be subject to the postcode covered by the contract.  6.2         The entrance sign does not mention anything about there being other terms inside the car park so does not offer a contract which makes it only an offer to treat,  Interest  7.1  It is unreasonable for the Claimant to delay litigation for  Double Recovery   7.2  The claim is littered with made-up charges.  7.3  As noted above, the Claimant's signs state a £60 charge yet their PCN is for £100.  7.4  As well as the £100 parking charge, the Claimant seeks recovery of an additional £70.  This is simply a poor attempt to circumvent the legal costs cap at small claims.  7.5 Since 2019, many County Courts have considered claims in excess of £100 to be an abuse of process leading to them being struck out ab initio. An example, in the Caernarfon Court in VCS v Davies, case No. FTQZ4W28 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated “Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones- Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates (...) in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued, he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared (…) the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.”  7.6 In Claim Nos. F0DP806M and F0DP201T, District Judge Taylor echoed earlier General Judgment or Orders of District Judge Grand, stating ''It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverabl15e under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in Parking Eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4)) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''  7.7 In the persuasive case of G4QZ465V - Excel Parking Services Ltd v Wilkinson – Bradford County Court -2 July 2020 (Exhibit 4) the judge had decided that Excel had won. However, due to Excel adding on the £60 the Judge dismissed the case.  7.8        The addition of costs not previously specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.   7.9        It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4).   In Conclusion   8.1        I invite the court to dismiss the claim.  Statement of Truth  I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.   
    • Well the difference is that in all our other cases It was Kev who was trying to entrap the motorist so sticking two fingers up to him and daring him to try court was from a position of strength. In your case, sorry, you made a mistake so you're not in the position of strength.  I've looked on Google Maps and the signs are few & far between as per Kev's MO, but there is an entrance sign saying "Pay & Display" (and you've admitted in writing that you knew you had to pay) and the signs by the payment machines do say "Sea View Car Park" (and you've admitted in writing you paid the wrong car park ... and maybe outed yourself as the driver). Something I missed in my previous post is that the LoC is only for one ticket, not two. Sorry, but it's impossible to definitively advise what to so. Personally I'd probably gamble on Kev being a serial bottler of court and reply with a snotty letter ridiculing the signage (given you mentioned the signage in your appeal) - but it is a gamble.  
    • No! What has happened is that your pix were up-to-date: 5 hours' maximum stay and £100 PCN. The lazy solicitors have sent ancient pictures: 4 hours' maximum stay and £60 PCN. Don't let on!  Let them be hoisted by their own lazy petard in the court hearing (if they don't bottle before).
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Lowell/carter claimform - Vanquis 'debt'***Claim Discontinued***


Doingmybest
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3193 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi there,

Received a claim form from Lowell via Bryan Carter this morning.

 

 

Going to acknowledge the form and send the CPR 31.14 request but wondered if there was any more I need to do at this stage.

 

 

Do I also do a CCA request or is that included in the CPR 31.14?

 

thanks in advance

 

Name of the Claimant ? Lowell Portfolio

Date of issue – 24 March 2015

 

 

What is the claim for – the reason they have issued the claim?

 

 

The claimants claim is for the sum of £2840.41.

Being monies due from the defendant to the claimant under an agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974

between the defendant and Vanquis under account reference xxxx

and assigned to the claimant on 01/07/2014, notice of which has been given to the defendant.

 

The defendant failed to to maintain contractual repayment under the terms of the agreement

and a default notice has been served which has not been complied with.

 

And the claimant claims £2840.41

 

The claimant also claims satatutory interest pursuant to s.69 of the county act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum

from the date of assignment of the agreement to date but limited to a maximum of one year and a maximum of 1000 amounting to £164.99

What is the value of the claim? £3005.40 court fee £185, sol costs £80 total £3270.40

Is the claim for a current account (overdraftlink3.gif) or credit/loan account or mobile phone account? Credit card

When did you enter into the original agreement before or after 2007? 2011

Has the claim been issued by the original creditor

or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. assigned to Lowell

Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? No

Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? I can't remember

Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Default sums” – at least once a year ? No

 

Why did you cease payments? Financial difficulties

 

What was the date of your last payment? Not sure but probably late 2012 early 2013

 

Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No dispute but I did do a CCA request which was ignored.

 

Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor

and make any attempt to enter into a debt managementlink3.gif plan? No management plan but I did inform Vanquis of my difficulties

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

yes send a cca request to lowells

£1 blank PO

don't sign anything

 

 

you might get luck

issue here is this is post apr 2007 agreement

so a recon will suffice

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi.

 

 

I've checked with Royal mail and the CCA request and the CPR 31.14 have been received and signed for.

 

 

I guess I just sit and wait for their responses

 

 

.I received a letter from Bryan Carter on Friday informing me that they had gone to court

 

 

and that I will have a judgement against me etc,

 

 

Is this usual and do I need to respond?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Only issued the claim 7 days ago...just follow the procedure and ignore their letter.

 

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

25th April (33 days from and including the date as day 1 on the summons)

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Morning.

 

Received a reply to the CPR 31.14

 

 

which just says that they've got proof of everything I've asked

 

 

but don't have to provide it which makes no sense to me

 

 

- I thought the point was that they had to provide these thingsconfused.gif

 

What is a deed of novation?

Link to post
Share on other sites

A Deed of Novation is used where one party transfers its rights and obligations under a contract to another party. A novation usually happens when the seller of a business transfers the contracts with his customers to the buyer. The consent of all three parties - the transferee, the transferor and the other contracting party - is required to effect the novation.

:mad2::-x:jaw::sad:
Link to post
Share on other sites

All rather pointless really because they will have to disclose everything if they wish to proceed to trial.

 

 

In most cases you will get this type of response to a CPR 31.14 request on a small claim track claim..

...the bit he does not understand that at this stage the claim is trackless and therefore CPR 31 does apply.

 

 

..it is a presumption although it is inevitable

 

 

..but at least you have requested it and they are failing to comply.

 

 

..which comes in very handy for your defence.

 

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Okay, so after lot's of reading I've think I've got my defence sorted. Please have a look and let me know if it's okay. It has to be in on the 25th.

 

The particulars of the claim are as follows:

 

1. The Claimant claims the sum of 2840.41 being monies due from the Defendant to the Claimant under a regulated agreement originally between the Defendant and Vanquis.

 

2. The Defendant's account number was************* and was assigned to the Claimant on 01/07/2014 notice of this has been provided to the Defendant.

 

3. The Defendant has failed to make payments in accordance with the terms of the agreement and the default notice has been served pursuant to the consumer credit Act 1974.

 

4. The Claimant claims the sum of 2840.41 and costs. The Claimant has complied, as far necessary, with the pre-action conduct practice direction.

 

Proposed Defence

 

1. The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and 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.

 

2. Paragraph 1 is noted from a vague recollection I have had financial dealing with VANQUIS in the past but I am unaware what the claimants refer to, in particular or the account number in question. I have never been contacted by VANQUIS with regards to any alleged outstanding monies. – I remember disputing penalty charges on the account and asking them to explain the balance at the time I went into arrears but they did not get back to me. – I don’t know if this is relevant here or how to word it.

 

3. Paragraph 2 is denied I am unaware of any alleged assignment purported to the account number referred to nor ever served any Notice of Assignment.

 

4. Paragraph 3 is denied. If true what is denied is that I have never been contacted with regards to payment since any alleged assignment.

 

5. It is also denied I have been served with a Default Notice pursuant to the consumer credit Act 1974. As the Assignee of this alleged debt the claimant would not be aware whether one had been served or not.

 

6. The Claimant has not complied, as far necessary, with any pre-action conduct practice direction. They have never contacted me with regards to this alleged debt nor have I ever heard of them up until receipt of this claim.

 

7. Notwithstanding the above a request was made under the customer credit Act 1974,by way of a section 77/78 for a copy of the agreement, and on payment of the statutory fee of £1.00; the Claimant is and remains in Default of said s77/78 request. Any Agreement cannot be enforced against the Defendant without an order of the court by the reason of the fact that both the Original Creditor and the Assignee remain in default by reason of Section 78 of the Act.

 

A further request made via CPR 31.14, after the claim had been issued, requesting disclosure of documents on which the Claimant is basing their claim. The Claimant has responded that, they will not provide the Deed of Assignment as it contains “commercially sensitive information”.

 

8. It is therefore not accepted 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 with the Claimant; and

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

c) Evidence any nature of breach and provide proof of any Default Notice and Notices of Sums in Arrears; and

d) Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;

 

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

 

9. 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.

 

10. The Agreement cannot be enforced against the Defendant without an order of the court by the reason of the fact that both the Original Creditor and the Assignee remain in default as set out above and by reason of Section 78 of the Act.

 

11. 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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

bit waffly and repetitive

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I've read through it again and will reword point 4 of the defence and lose 5;4.

 

 

Paragraph 3 is denied.

If true what is denied is that I have never been contacted with regards to payment since any alleged assignment.

 

 

It is also denied I have been served with a Default Notice pursuant to the consumer credit Act 1974.

 

 

As the Assignee of this alleged debt the claimant would not be aware whether one had been served or not.

 

 

Point 2 will be changed to:

 

 

2. Paragraph 1 is noted from a vague recollection I have had financial dealing with VANQUIS in the past

but I am unaware what the claimants refer to, in particular or the account number in question.

 

 

I will leave out the other bits as not sure how to word that the account was in dispute.

 

 

Can't really see what more to add or remove.

Any ideas?

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok well post it up

and put their poc at the top again

so we can check it properly

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

copy and paste from NOTEPAD not a word processor program

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've done some more reading and headed what you have said dx and changed it again;

 

 

The particulars of the claim are as follows:

 

1. The Claimant claims the sum of 2840.41 being monies due from the Defendant to the Claimant under a regulated agreement originally between the Defendant and Vanquis.

 

2. The Defendant's account number was************* and was assigned to the Claimant on 01/07/2014 notice of this has been provided to the Defendant.

 

3. The Defendant has failed to make payments in accordance with the terms of the agreement and the default notice has been served pursuant to the consumer crediticon Act 1974.

 

 

Proposed Defence

 

1. Paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant has no knowledge of, or has in their possession any agreement pertaining to the account number referred to in its Particulars of Claim.

 

2. Paragraph 2 is denied I have no knowledge of any legal assignment.I have never been served any Notice of Assignment from either the original creditor or the claimant pursuant to the Law of Property Act 1925.

 

3. Paragraph 3 is denied It is not accepted 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 with the original creditor; and

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

c) Show or evidence a Default Notice /Notice of Sums in Arrears,

d) 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.Despite a request being made under the consumer credit Act 1974, for the agreement and the other documents referred to in the Statement of Particulars, and on payment of the statutory fee of £1.00; the Claimant remains in breach of the sec78 request.

 

6.A further request made via CPR 31.14, after the claim had been issued, has also failed to elicit a copy of the agreement and other documents on which the Claimant claim relies upon.

 

7.Until such time the claimant can comply with the above sec78 request is therefore prevented from enforcing or seeking the relief claimed or any relief.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your 1 & 3 responses do not adequately answer/respond the claimants particulars of same Doingmybest...rest of the defence is sufficient.

 

Regards

 

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andy,is this better?

 

 

The particulars of the claim are as follows:

 

 

1. The Claimant claims the sum of 2840.41 being monies due from the Defendant to the Claimant under a regulated agreement originally between the Defendant and Vanquis.

 

 

2. The Defendant's account number was************* and was assigned to the Claimant on 01/07/2014 notice of this has been provided to the Defendant.

 

 

3. The Defendant has failed to make payments in accordance with the terms of the agreement

and the default notice has been served pursuant to the consumer credit Act 1974.

 

 

Proposed Defence

 

 

1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and 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.

 

 

2.Paragraph 1 is noted I have had financial dealing with VANQUIS in the past but I am unaware what account the claimants refers to.

I have never been contacted by VANQUIS with regards to any alleged outstanding monies.

 

 

3.Paragraph 2 is denied I have no knowledge of any legal assignment.I have never been served any Notice of Assignment from either the original creditor or the claimant pursuant to the Law of Property Act 1925.

 

 

4.Paragraph 3 is denied I have not been served with a Default Notice pursuant to the consumer credit Act 1974.

 

 

As an Assignee of this alleged debt the claimant would not be in a position to state whether one had been served or not, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:

 

a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement with the original creditor; and

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

c) Show or evidence a Default Notice /Notice of Sums in Arrears,

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

 

 

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

 

 

6.Despite a request being made under the consumer credit Act 1974, for the agreement and the other documents referred to in the Statement of Particulars and on payment of the statutory fee of £1.00; the Claimant remains in breach of the sec78 request.

 

 

7.A further request made via CPR 31.14, after the claim had been issued, has also failed to elicit a copy of the agreement

and other documents on which the Claimant claim relies upon.

 

 

8.Until such time the claimant can comply with the above sec 78 request is therefore prevented from enforcing or seeking the relief claimed or any relief.

Edited by Andyorch
Amended.
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...