I am trying to follow your advice in post 21 which suggests the kennels T&Cs are over ruled by the CRA
As I understood it , even if the kennel felt they good reason to refuse the dog boarding, which would be a difficult point to argue , as I am unable to get the vet to confirm they said the dog “should “ be ok ,the most the kennel would be entitled to would be reasonable admin expenses due to refusing to accept the dog .
Then I read in you last post , which to me seems a contradiction .
Paragraph 3 suggests a Judge would favour the kennel and its stance ,then paragraph 4 says to deny a refund in unenforceable .
Surely if to deny me a refund is unenforceable at common law , then a Judge would have to rule in my favour .
So if I continue I need to be sure I am citing the correct sections of the CRA
To clear this up !This new ccj claim from cabot/Mortimer is for a bank i have no account with.And is obviously trying to make out my older debt is not statute barred.They think i will respond and start the six years all over again for a totally diferent debt.
I have no debt with the bank they are claiming against me with.
Do people not understand this?
The site has a drop down for different postal services, implying the exclusions are based on the service you use, yet when you select different services the exclusions appear to remain the same, and certainly in the case of Parcelforce do not tally with the cover included by Parcelforce.
My P2G account still shows the declaration I made.
Finally go a little time to myself, so knocked the defence from your given examples. How does it look?
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
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. They have sent an alleged copy dated 28th Jan 2018 from my cpr31.14 request. this is the first time I have seen this letter.
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
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.
If you think it's okay, I'll get it put in today.
Thank you for all your help on this.