Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I've also seen it mentioned that the two parts of Ireland becoming closer is concerning HMG.   And that NI still coming under EU rules for trade could be showing that it's better to be in the EU than in Brexit Britain. If people start to think it shows Brexit isn't working, that's going to be a problem for Johnson et al.
    • You won't be able to bring a counterclaim unless you can produce a properly structured assessment of losses or costs or ancillary expenses and you will need to do this by producing at least written assessment et cetera as I have indicated above. Two of them would be much better. A court won't entertain a counterclaim simply based on your own speculation as to your possible costs. I understand very well that your preference would be to write off the entire job including all of the materials that were supplied and for you to recover your outlay for those materials but I think in order to do that you would have to show that you have acquired no value from those materials and once again I think that you would need an expert assessment which explained why the materials were completely wasted and that you would have to start from zero. You can be certain that the claimant will attempt to say that you have received value and in fact that the items which have been supplied or already installed can still be used. I'm afraid that because the attempt to arrange this contract as a cash only agreement inevitably invites the scepticism of the court, I think the court may well be open to consider arguments that the items which have already been supplied are of use to you. If you can get expert confirmation that the supplied materials are now of no use whatsoever, then you will also have to get a quote for uninstalling them and returning them to the claimant. This means that the whole thing is getting even more complicated. I do think that your best interests would be to discuss the matter with your new installer and to see what items which have been already supplied can be used to finish the project – and then to try and deal with the claimant in respect of those on the basis that the case would be withdrawn and everybody would walk away. I think it's time to start abandoning some of this rancour between you because it isn't helping and it won't impress anybody. Don't underestimate the disapproval that will be felt by the court when they get to know about the cash arrangement and this won't be helped by the fact that you then went ahead to try and get receipts. I understand very well that you say that you simply provided money and that in fact you were the purchaser of the items directly from the retailer – but there is no evidence for that and it would be an unusual arrangement and I think the court might express scepticism about that as well. I think we have to bear in mind your credibility in this – and I think that it is rather fragile at the moment. If you came up with a sensible business- like idea about how to put this one to bed and then put it to the claimant and also mention the fact that as he was involved in a cash only transaction, he also might find that he is incurring the displeasure of the court – particularly as he is the claimant, he might feel inclined to try and wrap it all up and bring it to an end. I think the next thing you must do is to get an expert report as I've already suggested above. You will need to do this anyway. If you don't have an expert report then even if you happen to win your argument that there is a breach of contract, the assessment of how much you win will be impossible for the court to decide. The court will absolutely want expert assessments. So you need an assessment as to the work which has been carried out so far and the work needed and costs involved to carry out the job. You need an assessment as to the usability or otherwise of the equipment which has been supplied. At least that for the moment. I don't think it is possible to do much more until you have this information. If you can get the information then we can decide what to do. Obviously I don't know anything about the subject, but I can't imagine that all of the equipment which has been supplied is useless. It could only be useless if you suddenly say that you want an entirely different system of gates – but on that matter, you are bound by your expectation in the contract and you would only be entitled to install a similar system using similar equipment.  
    • I wonder whether part of the UK issue with current NI protocol, is that it is enabling a better trading environment between Ireland and Northern Ireland.     Northern Irish businesses have anticipated import/export issues with Great Britain, so now trade with Ireland or via Ireland.   Apparently reports are that some Northern Irish businesses have seen an increase in trade. It is only businesses that mostly sell British fresh produce that have been affected by border controls  and even then, they could swap to local produce.   Agree that UK Government are using argument with EU as a convenient distraction, but also there must be a worry about increased risk of a united Ireland, as a indirect consequence of Brexit.
    • Fintan O'Toole has an article about the Brexit negotiations and what he thinks HMG's aims are.   Facing chaos and needing a scapegoat, the Tories seek an endless fight with Europe | Fintan O’Toole | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM The EU’s proposals on the Northern Ireland protocol offered what business leaders wanted, but the prime minister prefers failure and grievance  
    • The carmaking giant is investing £230m in its Halewood plant, safeguarding 500 jobs.View the full article
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Cabot Financial /Mortimer Clarke claim form - Sainsbury's personal loan


Boro
 Share

Recommended Posts

Ps please stop making reported posts!!

you dont need too!

 

Dx

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

Sorry DX & thanks for your reply, here is what I have now

 

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 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.

2. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have had in the past a contractual relationship with Sainsbury's Bank.


 

3. Paragraph 2 is noted but not admitted.The claimant has failed to state any agreement/account reference number within its particulars therefore I am unable to admit or deny the alleged debt claimed.


 

4. Paragraph 3 is denied I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or Sainsbury's bank.


 

5. On receipt of this claim on the 20/08/2021 I requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CPR 31.14 request and CCA1974 Section 77 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. Mortimer Clarke is yet to respond in relation to the CPR 31.14 request. To date, 20/09/2021, no documentation has been received.The claimant remains in default of my section 77 request.


 

It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:


 

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


 

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


 

(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, 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.


 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to answer their default notice para

Put your 1 back to what it was inc no agreement no. 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

1.By an agreement between Sainsburys & the Defendant on or around 21/06/2016 ('the agreement') Sainsburys agreed to loan the Defendant monies, The defendant did not pay the instalments as they fell due.

 

2.The agreement was terminated following the service of a default notice.

 

3.The agreement was assigned to the Claimant.

 

The Claimant therefore claims

1. 8713 2.

Costs

 

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 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.

2. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have had in the past a contractual relationship with Sainsbury's Bank. 
The claimant has failed to state any agreement/account reference number within its particulars therefore I am unable to admit or deny the alleged debt claimed. I do not recall the precise details or agreement and have sought verification from the claimant who has not complied with my requests for further information. 

 

3. paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by Sainsbury Bank and received by the Defendant.

 

 

4. Paragraph 3 is denied I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or Sainsbury's bank.


5. On receipt of this claim on the 20/08/2021 I requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CPR 31.14 request and CCA1974 Section 77 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. Mortimer Clarke is yet to respond in relation to the CPR 31.14 request. To date, 20/09/2021, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 77 request.


It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:


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

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

(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, 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.

 

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.

 

try that.

 

dx

 

 

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...