Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Can I just leave it as saved and not submit or do I need to delete everything?
    • don't file yet not needed till/by 4pm tomorrow   let andyorch check things over 1st    
    • well the claim is stayed so don't panic for now.   is this the ONLY payment made and how did capquest get this out of you? by phone?   explain what caused you to make the payment and how you did it please   dx                
    • Lovely stuff.    1.The claim is for the sum of £882.53 due by the Defendant under the CCA 1974 for a Shop Direct account with the account ref of ********************    2.The Defendant failed to maintain contractual payments required by the agreement and a Default notice was served under s.87(1) of the CCA 1974 which has not been complied with.   3.The debt was legally assigned to the claimant on 08/01/18, notice of which has been given to the defendant.   4.The claim includes statutory interest under S.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of issue of these proceedings in the sum of £70.60 - The claimant claims the sum of £953.13   #####Defence######   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.   1. Paragraph 1 is denied. Whilst it is admitted I have held various catalogue agreements in the past, I have no recollection of ever entering into an agreement with Shop Direct and do not recognise the specific account number or recollect any outstanding debt and have therefore requested clarification by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request pursuant to The Consumer Credit Act 1974.   2. Paragraph 2 is denied I have not been served with a Default Notice pursuant to sec87(1) the Consumer Credit Act 1974.   3. Paragraph 3 is denied. I am unaware of a legal assignment or Notice of Assignment pursuant to the Law and Property Act 1925 Section 136(1)   4. On receipt of this claim form I, the Defendant, sent a request by way of a section 78 pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974, for a copy of the agreement, the Claimant has yet to comply and remains in default of the said request.   5. A further request made via CPR 31.14 to the claimant’s solicitor, requesting disclosure of documents on which the Claimant is basing their claim. The claimant has not complied.   6. 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 and; b) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for and; c) show the nature of the breach and evidence by way of a Default Notice pursuant to sec 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim   7. As per Civil Procedure 16.5 it is expected that the claimants prove the allegation that the money is owed   8. 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 will get this put into the defence section. Thank you again.
    • just remove the 2nd part where you mention some reply.
  • Our picks

petersalan6

UKCPM/gladstone claimform - Windscreen PCN - visitor permit own space *** Case Dismissed ***

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 505 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

Fine in theory EB.

 

However these companies only take a small percentage of cases to Court so the chances of any more than say two cases going to Court is probably pretty slim.

 

But I do like the idea of stuffing it to these greedy parking crooks.

Perhaps motorists who then come on here would feel more relaxed about these spurious invoices being treated so hilariously by us and lose their fear of the con men in pretty much the same way that Fuzzy Bobble did with DCAs for the banks back in the early days of CAG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what EB meant is not waiting for the PPC to initiate court action, but the vehicle keepers taking the PPC to court for the breach(es) of the DPA.

 

If that was done in such a way as to one morning, when the YTS kid is opening the mail, and letter after letter is a claim form for someone that's suing them, well, I'd love to be a fly on the wall that day :lol:


We could use your help

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

 

 

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.

 

If I've helped you at all, please feel free to click on the little star under my posts and leave feedback :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DF is correct, trick them into issuing a wodge of tickets and NTK's and then do them under the DPA as they know damned well that they have no right to trepass on YOUR space

 

If you can get a load of tickets slapped on various cars you get all of the peopel to file their cliams on the same day so the parking bandits have an avalanche of stuff to do in a limited time and the only way they could get it all done is by employing a superb legal team to help, probably one recommended by their Trade Association.

 

Once Gladstones are on the case you can guarantee that the defence will be screwed up completely and you all get double G&T's afterwards.

Edited by DragonFly1967
Spacing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...