Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I remember a similar issue with a customer claiming that 'alexia' had ordered something that wasn't ordered and when it should have been off, .. with Amazon quoting evidence that they had that the customer had said a word 'similar' to the activation word - which 'accidentally' activated it .. followed by 'accidental' ordering due to interpreting what was said   I would not ever consider one of these things in my house.
    • is installing an Alexa type device in your home similar to having bug listening devices installed by Police or security services ?   Woman finds recordings collected by Amazon’s Alexa – and you can hear yours WWW.INDEPENDENT.CO.UK Amazon customers can request all their data from the shopping giant, and can automatically delete voice data in the Alexa app  
    • Yes please I think we would like to know all about it. Saying "I didn't foresee any problems so I didn't bother to…" As I say I didn't bother to look when I cross the road because I didn't think I would be run over
    • My WS as I intend to send it... any problems anyone can spot?         In the county court at Middlesbrough Claim No:  Between Vehicle Control Services Limited (Claimant) V   (Defendant) Witness Statement Introduction It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of XXnn XXX   Locus standi/bye-laws and Relevant land Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (PoFA) allows recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. However, the first paragraph 1 (1) (a) states that it only applies “in respect of parking of the vehicle on relevant land:”. The definition of “relevant land” is given in paragraph 3 (1) where subsection (c) excludes “any land ... on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control”.  The bus stop is not on relevant land because the public road on which that stand is on is covered by the Road Traffic Act.  Notwithstanding that the claimant claims that " the claimant has given the Defendant its contractual licence to enter the site", the claimant has not given any contractual licence whatsoever. This is a road leading to/from the airport which is covered by the Road Traffic Act.  A list of highways on the Highways act 1980 does not even exist. The defendant brings the attention of the court that VCS is using this non existent document issue as a deliberate strategy to debunk the fact that this road is not relevant land. VCS are put to strict proof that it is relevant land not covered by the Road Traffic Act nor by Byelaws. While it is true that landowners can bring in their own terms, it is also true that whatever terms they bring  cannot overrule Byelaws and the Road Traffic Act. If Bye Laws are involved then the bus stop is not relevant land and neither is the specious argument about First Great Western Ltd. Is the claimant ignorant of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012? The road outside of Doncaster Sheffield Airport is not relevant land and is not covered by the Protection of Freedoms Act. That makes the charge against the claimant tantamount to fraud or extortion. The claimant mentions a couple occasions where they have won such cases. It is brought to the attention of the court that none of those cited cases were on airport land. VCS actually has also lost a lot more cases than they have won using their prohibitive signs.  Airport land is covered by Bye Laws and hence the claim by VCS is not applicable in this instance. The remit of VCS ends in the car park and does not extend to the bus stops on public roads or land which they have no jurisdiction over. All classes of people go to the airport. This includes travellers, taxis, fuel bowsers, airport staff, companies delivering food and drink for each aircraft, air traffic controllers and buses with passengers. It is therefore absolutely ridiculous to attribute VCS with any sort of permissions. The defendant submits that VCS should not confuse a major thoroughfare with a car park and presume to act as land owners and usurp the control of any land which is not relevant to them.   Protection of Freedoms Act The clearest point on section 4.1 of the Protection of Freedoms act is that “The provisions in Schedule 4 are intended to apply only on private land in England and Wales. Public highways are excluded as well as any parking places on public land which are either provided or controlled by a local authority (or other government body). Any land which already has statutory controls in relation to the parking of vehicles (such as byelaws applying to airports, ports and some railway station car parks) is also excluded.” Therefore, as this case pertains to an airport, the claimant unlawfully obtained the registered keeper’s details against the defendant’s vehicle. Thus, on this basis alone, the defendant implores the court to throw out this case. Notwithstanding the above point, if perchance Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 were to apply, the claimant is put to strict proof that they complied with the requirements of section 7 stating, “(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to driver for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met. The notice must — (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;” Without such proof the court must of necessity throw out this case forthwith.   Deceit, Intimidation and Extortion The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim include £50 legal costs, yet in the letter dated  03/06/2021, the Claimant stated that they were no longer represented by Elms Legal and all further correspondence should be sent to the VCS in-house litigation department. Why should the Claimant be asking the Defendant to contribute to their employee’s salary?  Furthermore, as per another letter dated 30th July 2021, the Claimant wrote, ‘Should you fail to accept our offer of settlement then we will proceed to Trial and bring this letter to the Court’s attention upon question of costs in order seek further costs of £220 incurred in having to instruct a local Solicitor to attend the hearing in conjunction with the amount claimed on the Claim Form.’ I find this an extraordinary statement given the Claimant knows legal costs are capped at £50 in Small Claims Court. I cannot think of any reason why the Claimant would write this letter other than to intimidate the opposing party with the threat of an extortionate sum of money, hoping they would be able to take advantage of someone not knowing the Small Claims Court rules. Given that this letter came from the Claimant’s in-house litigation department, clearly well-versed in the law, this cannot be anything but deceitful and disingenuous behaviour which the court should never tolerate.    Contractual costs / debt recovery charge  In addition to the £50 legal costs, the Claimant is seeking recovery of the original £100 parking charge plus an additional £60 which is described as ‘debt collection costs’. In the Vehicle Control Service v Claim Number: 18 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated, ‘Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates […] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court in Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law. It is hereby declared […] the claim be struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.’  In Claim number F0DP806M and F0DP201T, Britannia v Crosby went further in a landmark judgement in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain Hamilton-Douglas Hughes GC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of White & Wiltshire. District Judge Taylor echoed the earlier General Judgement or Orders of District Judge Grand stating, ‘It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedom Acts 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998…’ Vehicle Control Service v Claim Number: 19 51. Moreover, the addition of costs not specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.  It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4).  The Defendant is of the view that the Claimant knew, or should have known, that to claim in excess of £100 for a parking charge on private lands is disallowed under the Civil Procedure Rules, the Beavis Case, the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 and Consumer Rights Act 2015, and that relief from sanctions should be refused.   Alleged contract The court should consider if there is any contract to start with and if the alleged offence is on relevant land. The consideration will inevitably lead the court to conclude that there is no contract.  Also the court should note that there is no valid contract that exists between VCS and Peel. Under the Companies Act, a contract should be signed by the directors of both companies and witnessed by two independent individuals. This alleged contract, which makes no mention of pursuing registered keepers of vehicles to court, makes its first appearance as a Witness Statement. Thus the alleged contract is null and void.  The Beavis case referred to by the claimant is about parking in a car park. The claimant is here attempting to equate that case to stopping, not parking, in a bus stop and on a road that is covered by the Road Traffic Act. The defendant submits that there can be no contract as there is no offer but there is only a prohibition. Again, it is not relevant land and VCS has absolutely no rights over it. Further, the defendant would like to point out that motorists NEVER accept any contract just by entering the land. First they must read it and understand it and then, and only then can they realise that "No stopping" is prohibitive and cannot offer a contract.   Bus stop signage The signs around the bus stop do not mention who issued the “No Stopping” signs so it could not have been issued by VCS since the IPC CoP states that their signs should include the IPC logo and that the creditor should be identified. Nothing on the signs around the bus stop that says “NO Stopping” mentions VCS or Peel Investments who are now purporting to be the land owners of a public road. As the signage should identify the creditor, since it does not, this is a breach of the CoP.   The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 does not prohibit stopping in a restricted bus stop or stand, it prohibits stopping in a clearway. The defendant would like to ask the court to consider if any clause of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 that the claimant alleges has been violated by the defendant. There is no mention of permits on the signage. If there were, would it mean that Permit holders were allowed to stop on “No Stopping” roads? Notwithstanding what the claimant calls it, the mentioned signage is NOT a contractual clause. A “No stopping” sign is not an offer of parking terms.  Since the signage around the bus stop is prohibitive, it is as such is incapable of forming a contract. Further, the defendant would like to point out that the prohibitive sign is not actually at the bus stop but a few metres before the stand itself. There is no mention of a £100 charge for breaching the “No stopping” request, or if there is one then it is far too small to read, even for a pedestrian. As already stated, a Witness Statement between VCS and Peel Investments is not a valid document. It will need more than the Claimants feather to outweigh the case against the Defendant regardless of who was driving. There is no law of agency involved. This is not a case of employer/employee relationship. VCS cannot transfer the driver's liability to the registered keeper. There can be no comparison between a railway station and an airport. This is a totally fatuous analogy which cannot be applied to this case.  As stated in the defence, it is denied the Claimant is entitled to the recovery or any recovery at all. The nefarious parking charge notice given for a vehicle on a public road bus stop was ill advised to start with.   Conclusions:   VCS has failed to present ANY reasonable and valid cause to apply to the DVLA for the Defendants details. VCS has failed to provide ANY valid  contract with the landowners. “No stopping” is prohibitive therefore cannot form a contract the event happened on a bus stop over which VCS has no jurisdiction the signage either does not show that there was a charge of £100 for stopping, or the font size was too small for any motorist to be able to read it  the signage does not show the Creditor which fails the IPC CoP and hence the signage is not valid the WS contract does not authorise VCS to pursue motorists to Court Given all these factors it seems that VCS have breached the GDPR of the Defendant quite substantially and it would appear right that an exemplary award is made against VCS in the hope that they will drop all further cases at Doncaster airport where they are pursuing motorists on non relevant land. The Defendant wishes to bring to the attention of the court that the Claimant cites an irrelevant case of a car park and tries to apply its merits to a bus stop. That in itself invalidates the entire fallacious claim. Accordingly, this case is totally without merit. Some statements are pretty close to perjury and others are designed to mislead or misdirect. None of the analogies seem appropriate or relevant. All the false information presented as a statement of truth could have been stated using half the words and without all the repetition which appears to be trying to build a strong case where there is none at all. One particularly bad example of misdirection is in the photographs. The Clearway sign shown near the bus stop is very unclear unlike the Clearway sign two photos before it which may well include terms and conditions. The one by the bus stop is totally different.   47. Lastly I wish to bring to the attention of the court, a systematic pattern of the Claimant’s court action behaviour in several of their cases. They tend to have a VCS paralegal writing a Witness Statement, then mentioning in the last paragraph of the Witness Statement that they may be unable to attend court and subsequently the paralegals never turn up to be cross examined. In the event that Mohammed Wali is unable to attend court to be asked about his claims, then I would like to know why he is not able to attend when the hearing has been scheduled months in advance, is during working hours and as a result of covid, is online, meaning there is no travel involved. Ambreen Arshad, the other paralegal employed by VCS, does exactly the same. 
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Lowells/Overdales PAPLOC old shop direct Very CAT debt Court Claim Received.


 Share

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

I've uploaded all docs now. Not sure if the quality is sufficient.

 

Thanks

 

 

Apologies uploaded now.

Scan-compressed.pdf

Edited by jsa
reference number visible
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 78
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

so no default notice yet (typically fatal for lowells) 

and does the agreement by the online tick box give an IP address of sign up device used.?

 

is the name and address at the top align with the rest of the page or look like cut n paste....differing font etc?

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

The name and address do look odd. My name is in lowercase and email address, but address is all in uppercase.

 

No IP address anywhere.

 

Hi I was just wondering what to do know? As they have only given me 10 days to respond which is coming to it's end now.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

so what they have zero legal powers 

yours is not the next moved 

 

andyorch post 66 pdf is worth a read, so is the whole thread and any other lowell claimform threads here.

 

Creation Finance/Shoosmith Claimform - old Flybe Card - Now N244 to lift stay and request SJ - Page 3 - Financial Legal Issues - Consumer Action Group

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

IF IF IF and they haven't been doing too well on these dodgy CCA return and poss lack of DN court claims of recent in the claims we've dealt with as long as they are defended and tackled properly .

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

  • 1 month later...
  • Andyorch changed the title to Lowells/Overdales PAPLOC old shop direct Very CAT debt Court Claim Received.

Topic moved to Financial Legal Issues Forum in view of the court claim.

 

Please read the following link which explains the procedure and copy the Q,s and your responses back here for further advice.

You have 33 days in total if defending in full.

 

Regards

 

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 OTHERS

 

 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

Name of the Claimant ? Lowell portfolio ltd

 

Date of issue – 22 July 2021

 

 

Particulars of Claim

 

What is the claim for –

 

1.The claim is for the sum of £5734.20 due by the Defendant under an agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 for a shop direct account with an account reference of xxxxxxx

 

2.The defendant failed to maintain contractual payments required by the agreement and a default notice was served under s.87(1) of the consumer credit act 1974 which has not been complied with.

 

3.The debt was legally assigned to the claimant on 29-06-20. notice of which has been given to the defendant.

 

4.The claim statuary interest under S.69 of the county courts act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum form the date of assignment to the date of issue of these proceedings in the sum of £458.74.

The claimant claims the sum of £6192.94

 

What is the total value of the claim? £6747.94
 

Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? Yes
 

Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No
 

Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? Never changed

Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Catalogue
 

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

Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? Online
 

Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes
 

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. Debt purchaser
 

Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment?  I cannot remember
 

Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? yes
 

Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? No
 

Why did you cease payments? My wife was hospitalised after the birth of our baby girl, i had to look after my two other children plus my wife and new baby, also lost my job and I had to try and manage everything and I couldn't cope.
 

What was the date of your last payment? Nov 2019
 

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? Give answer here
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

pop up on the MCOL website detailed on the claimform.
[if mcol is not working return after the w/end or the next day if week time]
.
 register as an individual on the Gov't Gateway Site
 note down your details inc the long gateway number given, you might need it later.
 then log in to the MCOL Website
.
 select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box.
.
 then using the details required from the claimform
.
 defend all
 leave jurisdiction unticked
 you DO NOT file a defence at this time
[BUT you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 ]
click thru to the end
confirm and exit MCOL.
...

get a CPR  31:14  request running to the solicitors [if one is not listed send to the claimant]
...
.[use our other CPR letter if the claim is for an OD or Telecom Debt]
.

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/332546-legal-cpr-3114-request-request-for-information-when-a-claim-has-been-issued/

.

on BOTH type your name ONLY
Do Not sign anything
.
you DO NOT await the return of ANY paperwork 
you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform [1 in the count]

..............


 

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

dont forget you defence filing date and have a good read of a few of the 1000's of Lowell CAT claimform threads here already as i detailed earlier.

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

I've done the MCOL AOS.

This al looks so daunting right now.

 

Now what do I do?

I've no idea what the defence can be.

 

I will send the CPR  31:14 today.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you need to get reading up as advised, CAG is self help too.

there are 100's of like lowell CAT claimform threads here to read.

 

use our enhanced google search box

 

lowell claimform CAT 

 

 

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

I've read quite a few however am none the wiser. 

 

I know its self help. Unfortunately I can't understand what or how i'm supposed to do a defence? Pleas just help if you can.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

The std holding/no paperwork defence is just about in everyone of them

 

have a go post up your thoughts.

 

you have weeks yet (day 33)

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...

Overdales Solicitors have sent all the documents stating they have sent them previously.

I'm now very concerned as I can't think of any sort of defence.

 

I've searched through here but only found a case where Lowells won and the defendant was asked to pay the full amount.

 

I did see a letter in the bunch where it says Lowells say they  have bought the debt but then another letter from the catalogue company saying it's been assigned to Lowells.

 

Is this not a contradiction or does it not matter? My defence time will be up shortly. Any help at all would be great.

 

If I agree to pay lowells on a plan does this automatically give me a ccj?

 

Thanks 

Link to post
Share on other sites

who says the bogroll is even enforceable?

scan everything up to one mass PDF

read upload

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

urm..+£4k of debt but the agreement says max £1500.

those statements are too blurred.

 

defence due monday by 4pm.

 

that screenshot of a DN is no good to them.

 

 

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

Posted (edited)

I am stuck really can you possible help in anyway what I can write? as all the documents seem to be correct.

Or even one example on here I can use? If its not something anyone can help I will have to try a DMP with them.

Edited by jsa
more information
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read that witness statement but none if it is relevant maybe just one paragraph about an ip address and that's it. The rest I don't know how it applies to me. I'm seriously stressed as it's go to be in by tomorrow.

 

Can it all be about no ip address?

Link to post
Share on other sites

witness statement? that might not ever happen, you need to file a short defence, 100's of cat claimform threads here.

 

something like.

Here are some recent Cat defences that Andyorch drafted for another poster s 
.
You will have to edit slightly to suit your claimant Particulars and add your requests for CCA /CPR ect.....
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
.

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 noted. I have had an agreement in the past with [enter original creditor] but do not recognise the account number referred to by the claimant. 
.
Paragraph 2 is noted but not admitted. The claimant would not be aware of any alleged breach or in a position to plead such fact as an assignee as the defendant did not enter into any agreement with the claimant and is therefore put to strict proof to verify the alleged statement of its particulars.
.
 3 .Paragraph 3 is denied I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served over X years ago. 
.
 On the DD/MM/YYYY ( 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.
.
 3.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 with the Claimant; and
 (b) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and
 (c) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;
.
 4.As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.
.
 5.On the alternative, if 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. 
.
 6.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.
.
Regards
.
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

1.The claim is for the sum of £5734.20 due by the Defendant under an agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 for a shop direct account with an account reference of xxxxxxx

 

2.The defendant failed to maintain contractual payments required by the agreement and a default notice was served under s.87(1) of the consumer credit act 1974 which has not been complied with.

 

3.The debt was legally assigned to the claimant on 29-06-20. notice of which has been given to the defendant.

 

4.The claim statuary interest under S.69 of the county courts act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum form the date of assignment to the date of issue of these proceedings in the sum of £458.74.

The claimant claims the sum of £6192.94

 

Defence 

The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are 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 noted. I have had an agreement in the past with Shop Direct. I do not recall the precise details of the agreement and have sought conformation.

2. Paragraph 2 is noted. Although again I do not recall the details of the Notice and have therefore requested a copy from the claimant.

3. Paragraph 3 is noted although I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment ever being served pursuant to The Law of Property Act 1925 

4. On the DD/MM/YYYY I requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CPR 31.14 request and date xxx a Section 78 request. The claimant has partially complied although the alleged copy of the on line agreement although I remain skeptical as to its authenticity  as to whether it is the original agreement. The claimant has failed to disclose a copy of the Default Notice pursuant to sec 87 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and therefore again I am unable to validate its authenticity or service or whether it contained the prescribed terms or required allowances as to whether the alleged breach could be rectified. The disclosed screenshot that was disclosed is really immaterial and cannot be relied upon to validate its claim. 

5..It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant at this time, the Claimant has to date been unable to provide 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 and evidence the nature of any breach by way of a Default Notice
(c) 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;


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

7. On the alternative, if 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. 

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.

 

 

 

.

 


 

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

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...