Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks again. Corrections made. Shall I submit now?   The Defendant contends that the particulars of this claim vague and 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.   The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol). The Claimant 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.   1. It is denied that details of the tuition fees have been delivered to me. It is denied I entered into any form of credit agreement with Goldsmith’s University.   2. It is denied any sums are outstanding or due.   3. Further on 28th September 2021 I issued a CPR 31.14 Request to Brachers LLP Solicitors requesting the signed Contract or Agreement and any General Terms and Conditions relied upon for this claim. The CPR 31.14 request was delivered on 1st October 2021 by Royal Mail Signed for postal service tracking number GQ-redacted-GB   To date I have not received a reply to this nor have I received any documentation evidencing the validity of the claim from Brachers LLP or any other party.   On the basis that STA and Brachers LLP acting on behalf of Goldsmith’s University have not produced a signed agreement or contract as evidence that I owe this amount I dispute the claim in full.   4. It is denied the claimant is entitled to claim interest pursuant to sec69 of the County Court Act 1984. It is denied that there is any debt outstanding or due.   5. 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.   Notwithstanding the above the claimant is invited to disclose all relevant documents in connection to its claim and on which its claim is based. Pursuant to CPR 16 and PD 16 any claim for monies based on a contract/agreement must be disclosed and the original signed contract /agreement are available for any hearing.  
    • they are not the claimant!! delete:  Claimant Michael Ronald Oatham of   5. 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.   red bit is for ref only not to be filed   dx  
    • Hi sorry for lack of replies/updates. I’ve been on holiday since 5/10 and only due back home tomorrow 26/10. I didn’t send the snotty letter before I went on holiday, I’m guessing it’s too late to do when I get back? If so what are my options now? apologies once again for not following advice given  
    • I've noticed a pattern with these supermarket cases where the supermarket fobs off the first complaint.  It's only motorists who follow up that get anywhere.   So I suggest you get nasty now.  E-mail them again.  No way is your father going to waste his time with a kangaroo court appeals procedure where the fleecers investigate themselves.  Lidl are the organ grinder.  About time they faced up to their responsibilities as they invited these vermin to infest their car parks.  Your dad refuses to pay.  When court action ensues he will add Lidl as a third party.  The local press will also be invited to court to publicise how Lidl treat a 91-year-old just doing his shopping accompanied by his wife who has Alzheimer's.  The same goes for the fact that Lidl and the fleecers are breaking the criminal law by pretending there is a 1-hour limit when the original planning permission stated otherwise.*  Plus their breach of equality law.  All this unpleasantness could easily be avoided by Lidl calling their dogs off.  Etc.   Now you still might not get anywhere since, as already scribbled, Lidl recently seem to have had a change of policy, but worth a go.   *This is a bluff as you don't know for sure, but it is highly, highly unlikely that the original planning permission for a supermarket only allowed one-hour free parking.  When you get time look up what the original PP was on your local council's portal.  EDIT  I was just about to post this when the cavalry arrived in the form of LFI.  So confirmation that Lidl/the fleecers have defied PP and just made up their own limit.  So, not a bluff at all.  Still look up the original PP though, I bet it was longer than 90 minutes.   Even if the above doesn't work, simply don't pay.  As BN says, if this ever got to court the judge would kick it out in about a quarter of a second on the grace period alone.
    • I think it was/is a fairly unprofessional outfit, so every chance he was a sole trader before registering a company, if he even declared himself as self-employed.   In the text messages he suggested my son was also self employed and that he as a boss didn’t have to pay pension or holidays.    It did cross my mind that if that was the case, maybe my son should just invoice him?   (My son was a 17 year old labourer in his first job since leaving college so he would have been quite naive about the whole situation.)    
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5312 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


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

Hi Jay,


Welcome to the forum.


Please start a thread,jay5526 V Natwest in the link;



Please take time to read the faq's

use the template letters.




Templates Library....

There is also live chat, visit if you need any quick advice.


Finally good Luck.



If my advice helps please tip the scales, left.

Link to post
Share on other sites


  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...