Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Well tbh that’s good news and something she can find out for herself.  She has no intention if peace.  I’m going to ask the thread stays open a little longer.   It seems she had not learned that I am just not the one!!!!  plus I have received new medical info from my vet today.   To remain within agreement, I need to generally ask for advice re:  If new medical information for the pup became apparent now- post agreement signing, that added proof a second genetic disease (tested for in those initial tests in the first case but relayed incorrectly to me then ), does it give me grounds for asking a court to unseal the deed so I can pursue this new info….. if she persists in being a pain ? If generally speaking, a first case was a cardiac issue that can be argued as both genetic and congenital until a genetic test is done and then a second absolute genetic only disease was then discovered, is that deemed a new case or grounds for unsealing? Make sense ?   This disease is only ever genetic!!!!  Rather more damning and indisputable proof of genetic disease breeding with no screening yk prevent.   The vet report showing this was uploaded in the original N1 pack.  Somehow rekeyed as normal when I was called with the results.  A vet visit today shows they were not normal and every symptom he has had reported in all reports uploaded from day one are related to the disease. 
    • Hi Roberto, Read some of the other threads here about S Sixes - they all follow the same routine of threats, threats, then nothing. When you do this, you'll see how many have been in exactly the same situation as you are. Keep us updated as necessary .............
    • Nationwide's takeover of Virgin Money is hitting the headlines as thousands of customers protest that they will not get a vote on whether it should happen.View the full article
    • unrelated to the agreement then, could have come from Lowells filing cabinet (who lowells - they dont do that - oh yes they do!! just look at a few lowell paypal EU court claim threads) no name and address for time of take out either which they MUST contain. just like the rest of the agreement then..utter bogroll that proves nothing toward you ... slippery lowells as usual it's only a case management discussion on 26 April 2024 at 10:00am by WebEx. thats good simply refer to the responses you made on your 4a form response only. pleanty of SPC thread here to read before the 26th i suggest you read at least one a day. dx  
    • I think you have the supremacy of contract as it allows you to park in designated areas. I would argue that there being parking enforcement there clearly means its to be used as parking and as such you can use it under your lease. Only need to worry if they ever follow through with a letter of claim and a claimform though
  • 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

JC/Moriarty claimform - Old talk talk home phone/broadband account.***Claim Dismissed***


dave466
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1622 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

Name of the Claimant ? Jc international acquisitions

Date of issue – 28th November 2018

 

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

 

1.The claimants claim is for the balance due under an agreement with talk talk limited dated 11/12/2012 Which was assigned to the claimant on 31/03/2015 and notice of which was given to the defendant on the 31/03/2015 and which is now all due and payable.

 

2.The defendant agreed to pay monthly instalments under account number xxxxxx but has failed to do so.

 

3.And the claimant claims the sum of £135.30.

The claimant also claims interest thereon pursuant to s.69 county court act 1984 limited to one year to the date hereof at the rate of 8.00% per annum amounting to £10.82

 

What is the value of the claim? £221.12

 

Is the claim for a current account (Overdraft) or credit/loan account or mobile phone account? The claim is from a house phone/broadband account.

 

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

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 debt purchaser issued by MORIARTY LAW.

 

Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? I don't believe so

 

Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? I don't believe so

 

Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Default sums” – at least once a year ? Not that I am aware.

 

Why did you cease payments? Not sure

 

What was the date of your last payment? Not sure

 

Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No.

Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? I don't believe so no.

Edited by dx100uk
format
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 83
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

https://cse.google.co.uk/cse?cx=partner-pub-8889411648654839:6449422593&ie=UTF-8&q=Jc+international+acquisitions&sa=Search+CAG

 

pop up on the MCOL website detailed on the claimform.

.

register as an individual

note the long gateway number given

then log in

.

select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box.

.

then using the details required from the claimform

.

defend all

leave jurisdiction unticked.

click thru to the end

confirm and exit MCOL.

.

get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors

.

type your name ONLY

 

no need to sign anything

.

you DO NOT await the return of paperwork.

you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform.

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

  • 3 weeks later...

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. The Claimant claims £221.12 is owed

I did not recall the precise details or agreement and have sought verification from the claimant and the claimants solicitor by way of a CPR 31.14 request who are yet to fully comply.

 

2. The Claimants statement regarding the assignation of the debt is denied.

I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served on the defendant from the Claimant Jc International acquisitions.

 

3. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to:

 

(a) show the nature of the breach and evidence by way of a Default Notice pursuant to sec 88 CCA1974

(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;

 

4. On receipt of this claim I requested, by way of a CPR 31.14 request, copies of the documents referred to within the Claimant's particulars in order to establish what the claim is for. To date the Claimant solicitors, Moriarty Law have failed to fully comply with this request.

 

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

 

6. 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 82 A of the consumer crediticon Act 1974.

 

7. 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.

 

Should there also be anything in there with regards to PAP?

Regards.

Edited by dx100uk
merge
Link to post
Share on other sites

yes if it wasn't sent elsewhere as you've moved?

 

read the link in post 2

that above is not our usual defence for a TT BB debt.

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

that is still not our std defence referring to no pap nor the Ofcom guidelines.

 

dx

 

- - - Updated - - -

 

adapt AS NECESSARY

THIS IS AN EXAMPLE ONLY

 

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.The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claimicon pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017.It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.

 

.

2. Paragraph 1 is accepted. I have, in the past, entered into a contract with EE Limited , however I do not recall the exact details. I have requested the claimant verify the exact details of this claim by way of a CPR 31.14. The claimant has refused to provide me with a copy of the agreement, stating they are not obligated to do so by virtue of the consumer credit Act 1974. To date, no statement of the alleged account has been received.

.

3. Paragraph 2 is noted, again I do not recall any breach and I have never received the stated Default Notice. The Claimant has stated, by letter, that he is not obligated to provide a copy of the Default Notice, again by virtue of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

4. Paragraph 3 is denied.I do not recall having received a Notice of Assignment, as stated by the Claimant. They have sent an alleged copy dated 18 November 2016 from my cpr31.14 request. This is the first time i have seen this letter.

.

5. Paragraph 4 is denied in regards that the claimant is misleading the court in its pleadings and has never made contact or made requests prior to issuing this claim. Its sole purpose in purchasing this debt was to litigate and secure a county court Judgment and therefore Pre Action Protocol was never attempted and should be considered in deciding the outcome of their claim

.

Therefore the Claimant is to provide strict proof to:

.

(a) show how the Defendant has entered into a Agreement/ Contract; 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. The Claimant has stated that he has made several requests for repayment, yet I do not acknowledge any debt to the Claimant.

.

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

.

8. 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.

.

9. Subject to the above, should the alleged amount claimed include an early termination charge(s) amounting to the total balance of the remaining contract, OFCOM guidance clearly states that any Early Termination Charge, that is made up of the entire balance of the remaining contract, is unlikely to be fair, as it fails to take into account the fact that the provider no longer has to provide and pay for their service.

.

10. 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

.

nicked from andyorch

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

Thankyou for the time and information.

I have adapted it accordingly to my case and hopefully this is better.

Thank You once again.

 

1.The claimants claim is for the balance due under an agreement with talk talk limited dated 11/12/2012 Which was assigned to the claimant on 31/03/2015 and notice of which was given to the defendant on the 31/03/2015 and which is now all due and payable.

 

2.The defendant agreed to pay monthly instalments under account number xxxxxx but has failed to do so.

 

3.And the claimant claims the sum of £135.30.

The claimant also claims interest thereon pursuant to s.69 county courticon act 1984 limited to one year to the date hereof at the rate of 8.00% per annum amounting to £10.82

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.The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (pre action protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claimicon pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017.It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.

 

2. Paragraph 1 is accepted. I have, in the past, entered into a contract with Talk Talk Limited , however I do not recall the exact details. I have requested the claimant verify the exact details of this claim by way of a CPR 31.14.

The claimant is yet to provide me with a copy of the agreement and to date no statement of the alleged account has been received.

I do not recall any breach and I have never received any Default Notice.

I do not recall having received a Notice of Assignment, as stated by the Claimant.

 

Therefore the Claimant is to provide strict proof to:

 

(a) show how the Defendant has entered into a Agreement/ Contract; 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;

 

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

 

4. 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.

 

5. Subject to the above, should the alleged amount claimed include an early termination charge(s) amounting to the total balance of the remaining contract, OFCOM guidance clearly states that any Early Termination Charge, that is made up of the entire balance of the remaining contract, is unlikely to be fair, as it fails to take into account the fact that the provider no longer has to provide and pay for their service.

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

You must put the claimant to strict proof to disclose....point (B) must be added

 

(a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement with the Claimant; and

(b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to section 87(1) CCA1974

© show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and

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

 

 

Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? I don't believe so

 

 

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

1.The claimants claim is for the balance due under an agreement with talk talk limited dated 11/12/2012 Which was assigned to the claimant on 31/03/2015 and notice of which was given to the defendant on the 31/03/2015 and which is now all due and payable.

 

2.The defendant agreed to pay monthly instalments under account number xxxxxx but has failed to do so.

 

3.And the claimant claims the sum of £135.30.

The claimant also claims interest thereon pursuant to s.69 county courticon act 1984 limited to one year to the date hereof at the rate of 8.00% per annum amounting to £10.82

 

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.The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (pre action protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claimicon pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017.It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.

 

2. Paragraph 1 is accepted. I have, in the past, entered into a contract with Talk Talk Limited , however I do not recall the exact details. I have requested the claimant verify the exact details of this claim by way of a CPR 31.14.

The claimant is yet to provide me with a copy of the agreement and to date no statement of the alleged account has been received.

I do not recall any breach and I have never received any Default Notice.

I do not recall having received a Notice of Assignment, as stated by the Claimant.

 

Therefore the Claimant is to provide strict proof to:

 

(a) show how the Defendant has entered into a Agreement/ Contract; and

(b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to section 87(1) CCA1974

© show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and

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

 

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

 

4. 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.

 

5. Subject to the above, should the alleged amount claimed include an early termination charge(s) amounting to the total balance of the remaining contract, OFCOM guidance clearly states that any Early Termination Charge, that is made up of the entire balance of the remaining contract, is unlikely to be fair, as it fails to take into account the fact that the provider no longer has to provide and pay for their service.

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just realised this is a telecom claim therefore CCA is not applicable.....amend the following and remove the parts in red

 

2. Paragraph 1 is accepted. I have, in the past, entered into a contract with Talk Talk Limited , however I do not recall the exact details. I have requested the claimant verify the exact details of this claim by way of a CPR 31.14.

The claimant is yet to provide me with a copy of the agreement and to date no statement of the alleged account has been received.

I do not recall any breach and I have never received any Default Notice.

I do not recall having received a Notice of Assignment, as stated by the Claimant.

 

Therefore the Claimant is to provide strict proof to:

 

(a) show how the Defendant has entered into a Agreement/ Contract; and

(b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to section 87(1) CCA1974

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

How's this now.

 

1.The claimants claim is for the balance due under an agreement with talk talk limited dated 11/12/2012 Which was assigned to the claimant on 31/03/2015 and notice of which was given to the defendant on the 31/03/2015 and which is now all due and payable.

 

2.The defendant agreed to pay monthly instalments under account number xxxxxx but has failed to do so.

 

3.And the claimant claims the sum of £135.30.

The claimant also claims interest thereon pursuant to s.69 county courticon act 1984 limited to one year to the date hereof at the rate of 8.00% per annum amounting to £10.82

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.The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (pre action protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claimicon pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017.It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.

 

2. Paragraph 1 is accepted. I have, in the past, entered into a contract with Talk Talk Limited , however I do not recall the exact details. I have requested the claimant verify the exact details of this claim by way of a CPR 31.14.

The claimant is yet to provide me with a copy of the agreement and to date no statement of the alleged account has been received.

 

I do not recall having received a Notice of Assignment, as stated by the Claimant.

 

Therefore the Claimant is to provide strict proof to:

 

(a) show how the Defendant has entered into a Agreement/ Contract; and

(b) show and evidence the nature of breach.

© show how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed for.

 

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

 

4. 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.

 

5. Subject to the above, should the alleged amount claimed include an early termination charge(s) amounting to the total balance of the remaining contract, OFCOM guidance clearly states that any Early Termination Charge, that is made up of the entire balance of the remaining contract, is unlikely to be fair, as it fails to take into account the fact that the provider no longer has to provide and pay for their service.

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

1.The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (pre action protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017.It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.

 

Did you not receive a LBA with PAP ?

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

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

:thumb:

 

I have also added to the above © show how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed for.

 

 

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

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 accepted. Save insofar as it is accepted that a contractual relationship once existed withTalk Talk Limited , however I do not recall the exact details. I have requested the claimant verify the exact details of this claim by way of a CPR 31.14.

The claimant is yet to provide me with a copy of the agreement and to date no statement of the alleged account has been received.

 

I do not recall having received a Notice of Assignment, as stated by the Claimant.

 

Therefore the Claimant is to provide strict proof to:

 

(a) show how the Defendant has entered into a Agreement/ Contract; and

(b) show and evidence the nature of breach.

© show how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed for.

 

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

 

3. 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.

 

4. Subject to the above, should the alleged amount claimed include an early termination charge(s) amounting to the total balance of the remaining contract, OFCOM guidance clearly states that any Early Termination Charge, that is made up of the entire balance of the remaining contract, is unlikely to be fair, as it fails to take into account the fact that the provider no longer has to provide and pay for their service.

 

5. 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

I would prefer " Save insofar as it is accepted that a contractual relationship once existed " rather than " I have, in the past, entered into a contract " ?

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

Yes you could remove that also then your good to go

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

Thank you Andy.

My final draft. All good to go?

 

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. Save insofar as it is accepted that a contractual relationship

once existed withTalk Talk Limited , however I do not recall the

exact details. I have requested the claimant verify the exact

details of this claim by way of a CPR 31.14. The claimant is yet

to provide me with a copy of the agreement and to date no

statement of the alleged account has been received.

 

I do not recall having received a Notice of Assignment, as stated

by the Claimant.

Therefore the Claimant is to provide strict proof to:

 

(a) show how the Defendant has entered into a Agreement/ Contract;

and

(b) show and evidence the nature of breach.

© show how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed for.

 

2. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is required that the

Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.

 

3. 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.

 

4. Subject to the above, should the alleged amount claimed include

an early termination charge(s) amounting to the total balance of

the remaining contract, OFCOM guidance clearly states that any

Early Termination Charge, that is made up of the entire balance of

the remaining contract, is unlikely to be fair, as it fails to

take into account the fact that the provider no longer has to

provide and pay for their service.

 

5. 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

  • 5 weeks later...

What are your thoughts on what they have disclosed ?

 

With regards to the N180....use the following to complete on screen run 3 copies.(Court/Claimants Sol/File

 

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?406099-LEGAL-N180-Directions-Questionnaire-(Small-Claims-Track)-**Correct-at-Sept-2016**

 

Yes to mediation

Yes to Small Claims Track

State your local county court

1 Witness ...you

 

The rest is self explanatory.

 

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...