Capquest/restons claimform - old Shop direct CAT 'debt'

[HSBCrusher]

1. The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are brief, 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. The claimants first paragraph is in question with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant. The Defendant cannot recall having signed a contract with the claimant, and whether any monies were owed. The claimant has failed to provide any evidence of contract or breach as requested by CPR 31.14 and is in default of a Section 77 request.

 

3. The second paragraph is denied the Claimant is put to strict proof that a notice of assignment was issued to, and received by the Defendant. The Defendant maintains that a notice of assignment was never received. Regarding paragraph 2, 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.

 

4. On receipt of this claim, I the Defendant sent a request under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, by way of a section 77 for a copy of the agreement and payment of the statutory fee of £1.00. The claimant has refused to comply with my request.

 

5. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed and evidence any breach and notice of breach by way of a default notice or notice of sums in arrears.

 

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.

 

6. 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.

[AndyOrch]

So I am to admit to having a contract? If you never have then no dont admit but from your post #7 When did you enter into the original agreement before or after 2007? 2009 It would appear that you do know of it.

 

I can't remember ever signing a contract with these guys. I never said you did nor does my suggestion

 

As its a littlewoods type thing I would have not signed one anyway.

Correct that is why you are putting them to strict proof to disclose it...they will need it.

 

Andy

[HSBCrusher]

"If you never have then no dont admit but from your post #7 When did you enter into the original agreement before or after 2007? 2009 It would appear that you do know of it."

2009 is on the POC

[AndyOrch]

2. The claimants first paragraph is in question with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant. The Defendant cannot recall having signed a contract with the claimant, and whether any monies were owed. The claimant has failed to provide any evidence of contract or breach as requested by CPR 31.14 and is in default of a Section 77 (78) request.

 

They are the assignee...they never said you did sign an agreement with them the claimant ...they stated Shop Direct

[HSBCrusher]

good point.

[AndyOrch]

Simply change it to ...

 

1.Paragraph 1 is noted.Although I do not recall entering into a contractual relationship with Shop Direct or aware of any balance owing .I have therefore sought clarity by way of a CPR 31.14 and Section 78 request.To this date the claimant is and remains in default of my requests.

[HSBCrusher]

1. The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are brief, 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, although I do not recall entering into a contractual relationship with Shop Direct or am aware of any balance outstanding. I have therefore sought clarity by way of a CPR 31.14 and Section 78 request.To this date the claimant is and remains in default of my requests.

 

3. The second paragraph is denied the Claimant is put to strict proof that a notice of assignment was issued to, and received by the Defendant. The Defendant maintains that a notice of assignment was never received. Regarding paragraph 2, 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.

 

4. On receipt of this claim, I the Defendant sent a request under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, by way of a section 78 for a copy of the agreement and payment of the statutory fee of £1.00. The claimant has refused to comply with my request.

 

5. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed and evidence any breach and notice of breach by way of a default notice or notice of sums in arrears.

 

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.

 

6. 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.

Edited December 20, 2016 by HSBCrusher
try that...

[AndyOrch]

Purfect.....

[HSBCrusher]

lovely. Thank you.

The deadline for subitting a defence is the end of the week.

[HSBCrusher]

job done

[HSBCrusher]

I had a letter confirming my defence. The letter is dated the 21st Dec

 

Not heard a dicky-bird since. It says 28 days for them to respond on the letter, we have gone wayyyyyy past that.

 

I'm assuming the court will automatically stay the claim?

[Old Cogger]

ring court later next week and ask

[AndyOrch]

Its stayed...no need to check.

[HSBCrusher]

That's it then.

 

So they can just fire out court claims willy-nilly with no evidence, stressing people out.... this is bordering on abuse of the court system.

 

I suppose they could still apply to lift the stay.

 

TY for the support.

[dx100uk]

750,000 speculative claim were issues last year

hoping for a non contested default rubberstamped judgement

where nothing is checked and no human ever gets involved.

+85% succeed

 

 

there are recent moves in parl to outlaw it

but itll come to nothing

[HSBCrusher]

the figures explain themselves. 750,000 claims is making the "business centre" a lot of cash. I dont think the powers that be would want to give up on the income!

 

anyway, that's a big stress that turned out not to be.

 

ty for the help everyone.