Lowells/Carter claimform - overdraft - debt poss sb'd ***Claim Discontinued***

[Lightmen]

Hi there, I'm about to go to court (coming month) against Lowell's/Bryan Carter for an old overdraft debt that is statute barred.

 

I filed my defence in a hurry a while back. But in now re-reading it I just need to check it makes sense. Defence is as follows:

 

1 The Claimant's claim was issued on xxxxx.

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 £xxxxxx or any other sum, or relief of any kind is denied.

 

The part that's confusing me is the first line of para 2. Checking through a number of forums I've found that it seems to be written a number of ways?

 

'The Claimant contends that the Claimant's claim so issued...' 'The Defendant contends that the Claimant's claim so issued...' 'The Claimant's defendant contends that the Claimant's claim so issued...' Can anyone please clarify which is correct? Or are all correct? Getting a bit muddled because that starting sentence seems to make the paragraph make sense.

 

Thanks,Ryan

[Sidewinder]

Hi Ryan - and welcome

 

I have added some line breaks into your post so that it is a little easier to read.

 

Although it is not really my area, since you are the Defendant in the case it is YOU who is contending, not the Claimant, so:-

 

1 The Claimant's claim was issued on xxxxx.

2 The Defendant 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 £xxxxxx or any other sum, or relief of any kind is denied.

 

The part that's confusing me is the first line of para 2. Checking through a number of forums I've found that it seems to be written a number of ways?

 

'The Claimant contends that the Claimant's claim so issued...' 'The Defendant contends that the Claimant's claim so issued...' 'The Claimant's defendant contends that the Claimant's claim so issued...' Can anyone please clarify which is correct? Or are all correct? Getting a bit muddled because that starting sentence seems to make the paragraph make sense.

[/Quote]

 

The contention in Red is the correct wording - so the wording in Paragraph 2 needs to be changed as I have indicated in Red to reflect that YOU contend that the Claimant's Claim, so issued, is time barred

 

I think that the problem is that the Statute Barred defence is very commonly used and pretty standard regarding the wording, but with successive cutting and pasting sometimes words are substituted incorrectly

 

Other, more experienced Caggers may have further comment

[dx100uk]

sb defence

 

 

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

2 The Defendant 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 £[insert figure from their POC] or any other sum, or relief of any kind is denied.

 

 

..................

 

 

so what you have sent is correct...

 

 

how do you know you are going to court

have you had notice and already done mediation?

 

 

dx

[Lightmen]

Thankyou Sidewinder & Dx, Common sense was saying Defendant, but I'm no expert in law so was getting proper confused.

Will amend in my witness statement. Also thanks for the line breaks, tried to format last night but no joy...much appreciated!

 

And yes, I've had court dates through(next month). I said no to mediation because the debt is statute barred in my opinion.

I do have paperwork over the 6 year period to show debt amount hasn't changed,

so I'm thinking the only route Bryan Carter/Lowell's have is to make out I've had contact with them in the 6 year period, which I haven't.

 

I do have one more question though,

 

 

as the debt is an overdraft,

some of my research says that it's not covered by section 5 of the limitation act but actually by section 6(3) instead.

 

 

Was thinking of changing the wording in para 2 of my defence to 'provisions of section 6(3) of the limitation act 1980' instead of section 5, what do you think?

[dx100uk]

having contact makes no odds to SB.

only you paying on the debt or signing a letter to them acking it will change anything.

 

 

I wouldn't worry about the wording

we've never had it questioned to date.

 

 

dx

[Lightmen]

Thanks Dx Will get witness statement sorted now and see if Bryan Carter send theirs...thanks again!!! Ryan.

[dx100uk]

if you type witness statement into the search CAG of the red toolbar

there are examples if you need them.

 

 

dx

[Lightmen]

Just a quick update....sent witness statement to Bryan Carter and court a few days ago. Today received letter from Bryan Carter, it was a 'notice of discontinuance'. Thanks Dx and Sidewinder for the help/info when I needed it....much appreciated!!!

[AndyOrch]

Well done all involved........Lightmen enjoy your success:-)

 

Thread title amended to reflect the outcome.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[dx100uk]

and another fleecing attempts bites the dust

 

 

dx

[Sidewinder]

Good old Carter and Lowell - run and hide at the first sign of a viable defence

 

Well done!

[renegadeimp]

Check with the courts too. Just to be sure. How that sham of a solicitors company is still able to be in business is astounding.

[sillygirl1]

Well done. As has been said, check with the court and send them a copy of the Notice of Discontinuation.

[citizenB]

Very nice news indeed - do as advised and check with the court to ensure that the claim has definitely been discontinued