Lowells/? claimform - old Shop Direct CAt debt

[Copier]

No not at all

[Copier]

No payment was due as within the buy now pay 12 months

[Old Cogger]

so they did what they did to me collated the debt at max figure ingnored credits which they acknowledged then sold account on.

[Copier]

Yes definitely

 

I think they have lost things in the transition from woolworths to very

[AndyOrch]

I only ceased payments when I got court papers

I bought good on buy now pay 12 months

I had made payments direct to them the original creditor to keep on top of the account

Debt was sold well before the buy now period was up

 

Thanks Copier....

 

Okay quickly looking through he WS and exhibits..the following errors stand out to me.

 

 

Account opened 28th Dec 2015

 

Default Notice Sent 16th Nov 2015 (Witness statement)

Default Date 8th Dec 2015 (Statement)

Account Terminated 7th Dec 2015 (Witness statement)

 

 

So if you run from the Statement Default date 8th Dec 2015 ...they cant legally terminate the account on the 7th Dec 2015 as the prescribed 14 days must be adhered to...and I would trust Shop Directs dates rather than Lowells WS dates.

 

Last Payment to Account 6th June 2015

 

Woolworths Account transfer 13th June 2015 ??

 

Regards

 

Andy

[Copier]

Item was actually bought later that was when the account was opened

Plus I made payments up to the end of Sept when I got the court papers in oct

[Copier]

Do I need to object or anything

I really have no idea how they do things

 

Tia

[AndyOrch]

No...proceed to trial now and raise all the errors that we have pointed out...you can draft a skeleton argument in preparation using bullet points that you will raise at the hearing

[Copier]

No...proceed to trial now and raise all the errors that we have pointed out...you can draft a skeleton argument in preparation using bullet points that you will raise at the hearing

 

Case is adjourned

she wants statements of the debt and payment so they have 28 days to produce documents

she also said she wanted dated document from very

 

She stated 3 times that they hadn't complied with section 78

 

The solicitor then went in to say o think it should be looked at quantum and gave her some legislation which I did not see

 

She did say I would have to prove not getting the default and the default was in the required time

The question is the ammount and the buy now pay later

 

So will have to see if they can provide statements

[AndyOrch]

Excellent .....should be the last you hear of it...they like to kill it in one hearing...not rack the costs up with further hearings.

[Copier]

The thing is they have on the shop direct document 96 in charges

 

So they must of been charging me

 

I requested they bring up the buy now pay later docs

[Copier]

now have a new ws from lowels ( will post up once I black out personal info)

 

They have said now that I didn't have my goods on a buy now pay later

this is utter hog wash as when I had spoke to the regarding a letter regarding delivery payment it was confirmed that the goods were on a buy now pay 12

 

do I write and request proof of this?

 

the amount no statements can be given by lowells so they only accept 2 payments and I also have & £96.00 of charges

 

they claim that my other payments with the reference number had not changed only the brand woolworths to very

 

my reference number was wrong ( I had taken the details of the letter at the time)

the money had been allocated to a old account that was closed 12 years ago

( I believe they sent the wrong number on the correspondence as where the dickens would I get a reference from for a old account closed 12 years ago)

 

my payments have been were rejected no money has ever been refunded

I take it they are sitting in account gathering dust & interest and for very to disclose that this is a old account they must be able to verify which account?

 

 

also very must be able to transfer these ammounts over using the reference and date on the bank statement

 

the earliest statement I can download from very is june 2016 with the balance saying including buy now pay later items

 

they were also asked to provide shop direct dated letter which is the same as in the original ws from lowells not very so no other new evidence from lowells first ws

 

the judge had said that I would have a hard time proving I hadn't received the dn

 

I have half a ream of paper showing the problems I had in business due to royal mail at that time due to the floods mail going out & mail coming in

 

whats the next step?

tia

[dx100uk]

so still no CCA return then?

why have they filed a new WS?

[Copier]

the Case is adjourned

she wants statements of the debt and payment so they have 28 days to produce documents

she also said she wanted dated document from very

 

She stated 3 times that they hadn't complied with section 78

 

The solicitor then went in to say o think it should be looked at quantum and gave her some legislation which I did not see

 

She did say I would have to prove not getting the default and the default was in the required time

The question is the amount and the buy now pay later

 

So will have to see if they can provide statements

 

judge requested the case was adjourned due to my payments and default notice and the above

 

not sure on this it should be looked at by quantum??

 

Quantum Meruit

 

[Latin, As much as is deserved.]

 

 

In the law of contracts, a doctrine by which the law infers a promise to pay a reasonable amount for labor and materials furnished, even in the absence of a specific legally enforceable agreement between the parties.

 

A party who performs a valuable service for another party usually enters into a written contract or agreement before performing the service, particularly when the party is in the business of performing that service.

 

 

For instance, most professional roofers hired to repair a roof insist on having a formal agreement with the owner of the house before beginning the repairs. In the absence of an agreement or formal contract, the roofer may be unable to recover losses in court if the transaction goes awry. Quantum meruit is a judicial doctrine that allows a party to recover losses in the absence of an agreement or binding contract.

 

By allowing the recovery of the value of labor and materials, quantum meruit prevents the Unjust Enrichment of the other party. A person would be unjustly enriched if she received a benefit and did not pay for it when fairness required that payment be made.

 

 

Quantum meruit can be used to address situations where no contract exists or where a contract exists but for some reason is unenforceable. In such cases courts imply a contract to avoid an unjust result. Such contracts are called quasi contracts.

 

Quantum meruit also describes a method used to determine the exact amount owed to a person. A court may measure this amount either by determining how much the defendant has benefited from the transaction or by determining how much the plaintiff has expended in materials and services.

 

The doctrine of quantum meruit was developed in the seventeenth century by the royal Court of Chancery in England. This court worked apart from the common-law courts to grant relief that was due under general principles of fairness but could not be obtained under the strict legal precedents of the common-law courts.

 

 

The system of basing decisions on basic principles of fairness became known as Equity.

The Chancery Court developed quantum meruit along with other equitable doctrines that allowed a person to recover or collect for other valuable acts performed without a contract, such as the delivery of goods or money. Some of the first cases of quantum meruit involved recovery by persons in so-called trades of common calling, such as innkeepers, tailors, blacksmiths, and tanners.

 

As service industries increased, so did claims for recovery under quantum meruit, and the doctrine was adopted by colonial courts. U.S. courts now apply quantum meruit principles in a wide variety of cases, including cases involving attorneys' fees, physicians' fees, construction work, government contracts, and even domestic relations suits for "palimony." Palimony is a form of financial support that is similar to Alimony but arises out of a nonmarital relationship.

 

Courts have crafted four basic elements that the plaintiff must prove before she may recover under the doctrine of quantum meruit: (1) that valuable services were rendered; (2) that the services were rendered to the defendant; (3) that the services were accepted, used, and enjoyed by the defendant; and (4) that the defendant was aware that the plaintiff, in performing the services, expected to be paid by the defendant.

 

The case of Montes v. Naismith and Trevino Construction Co., 459 S.W.2d 691 (Tex. Civ. App. 1970), illustrates how quantum meruit works. In August 1968 Abraham Montes began oral negotiations with Abdon Perez regarding improvements Montes sought for his homestead. Perez testified that Montes brought a contract to him more than once, but that the contract was never complete, and no contract was ever signed. Despite the lack of a contract, Perez arranged for the Naismith and Trevino Construction Company to do the work on Montes's house. Montes paid $1,800 to Perez, and Perez withdrew from the transaction.

 

Naismith and Trevino made improvements on Montes's homestead for a total value of $3,835.36, but Montes refused to pay for the improvements. Naismith and Trevino brought suit against Montes, arguing that even though they did not have a contract with Montes, they should be paid for their labor and the materials they used in making improvements to his house. The court agreed and entered judgment for Naismith and Trevino in the amount of $1,760, the amount of the services and materials provided by Naismith and Trevino less the amount Montes had paid to Perez. The court based its ruling on the theory of quantum meruit.

 

The doctrine of quantum meruit is contained in court decisions and, to a lesser extent, in statutes. It can be a confusing doctrine: many courts mix quantum meruit with the similar principles of restitution and unjust enrichment. Restitution is a broad term that describes measures taken by a civil or criminal defendant to restore a victim to the status that he enjoyed before the defendant caused a loss or injury. Unjust enrichment is an equitable approach to civil relationships that covers more than just contractual situations. A civil plaintiff may recover under the doctrine of unjust enrichment by showing (1) that the plaintiff conferred a benefit on the defendant; (2) that the defendant appreciated or knew of the benefit; and (3) that, under the circumstances, it was unfair for the defendant to accept or retain the benefit without paying for it. Most courts consider quantum meruit a particular form of legal restitution that follows the basic restitutionary principle of preventing unjust enrichment.

[Copier]

Lowells new ws attached

 

should I write and ask for the proof I was declined a buy now pay later

( which I was not this is complete Hogwash)

 

and where my payments have gone?

 

Ive just had a bingo moment actually have found the order confirmations stating Buy now pay later

 

so any thoughts should I write to lowells and ask for proof of not having a buy now pay later & proof of my payments

 

or do I need to do another ws

revised lowell WS.pdf

[AndyOrch]

Ive just had a bingo moment actually have found the order confirmations stating Buy now pay later

 

Then thats all you need to kill their point 13 (terms and conditions of the agreement) dead...shouldn't require a supplemental witness statement but you need to introduce that as new evidence (document) you wish to rely on.

 

Andy

[Copier]

OK so how do I go about that not too sure on the procedure for it

 

Also have evidence of postal problems at that time which I might need to depend on

[AndyOrch]

Have you done your standard disclosure yet...along with your witness statement ?

[Copier]

not sure what that is I did a ws post 92 before the trial and trail was adjourned

 

will have a look around now for standard disclosure

 

yes cpr was sent off at the beginning if I'm right in what you are thinking

[AndyOrch]

No disclosure of documents and witness statement are part of the courts directions within the Notice of Allocation...given that you have already done your WS I assumed you had done your disclosure (all documents referred to and relied upon mentioned within your defence and witness statement.)

 

If you have dont the above I would suggest a supplemental disclosure of the document you have just found as that is key to defeating their argument that its not a Buy now pay later agreement......bottom line is if you dont disclose it you cant use it.

[Copier]

just going through everything now will get back soon the jargon gets me at times cca request was done & cpr, I disclosed in my witness statement these letters and bank statements showing payments and the letters as evidence in my defence

 

sorry having a blonde day

[AndyOrch]

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part31/pd_part31a

 

See CPR 33 (3.3)

[Copier]

this is what I sent off and in my defence, taking a look at that section now

 

On the 12/10/16 (sent by recorded delivery) I requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CPR 31.14 request and a Section 78 request. The claimant has failed to date to respond to the CPR and remains in default of the section 78 request.

 

4.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 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;

 

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

 

so fill out a n265?? or am I covered in my cpr

 

ok think i might have my head around this im going to work on a supplimental disclosure statement

 

 

will post up as soon as i have done

[Copier]

OK just draft at the moment would go into more details but didn't want to elaborate on the postal issues here as would give out my detai

 

 

Supplemental Disclosure statement/ New Evidence

 

I, the above named defendant state that I have carried out a reasonable and proportionate search to locate all the documents.

 

 

 

Buy Now Pay later confirmation & Statement recalling Buy now pay later.

 

 

 

Bank Details of Very which is inconceivable i the defendant could pay into a closed bank account from 12 years ago without details passed to me the claimant

 

 

 

Emails at that time of Postal problems & Statement from Royal Mail which was published & sent out outlining the postal issues due to circumstance beyond control to over 500 xxxx

 

 

 

which I am required to disclose under the order made by the court on day of . I did not search:

 

(1) for documents predating Feb15,

 

(2) for documents located elsewhere than emails paper copies & website,

 

(3) for documents in categories other than woolworths , Very & Postal problems

 

 

 

I carried out a search for electronic documents contained on or created by the following:

 

Statements & Correspondence from Woolworths , Very & Postal Problems

 

I did not search for the following:

 

(1) documents created before Feb 15,

 

(2) documents contained on or created by the Claimant's PCs/portable data storage media/databases/servers/backup tapes/off-site storage/mobile phones/laptops/notebooks/handheld devices/PDA devices

 

(3) documents contained on or created by the Claimant's calendar files/spreadsheet files/graphic and presentation files,

 

(4) documents other than by reference to the following keyword(s)/concepts Woolworths, Very * Postal Problems Royal Mail.

 

.

 

I certify that I understand the duty of disclosure and to the best of my knowledge I have carried out that duty. I certify that the list above is a complete list of all documents which are or have been in my control and which I am obliged under the said order to disclose

 

 

will add on ref numbers for the evidence

Edited June 23, 2017 by Copier
add on

[Copier]

sorry to be bothersome again

 

does the above look alright in format or am I missing something potential (cant think of anything else really) although I am digging around

 

if this was to go my way who would I report this to the missing payments etc fos & ico??

 

tia