cheque cashers ltd

[robot00]

Hi Alan

 

Many thanks for all your advice.

 

With regard to giving 14 days notice to Cashflow Chequecashers to withdraw, I only have 10 days left to submit my defence ( i had already apllied for AOS to extend to 28days) I waited for an appointment with my local CAB hence the delay in responding.

Can I submit my defence and later on, outside of the 28day period, counterclaim for costs. Or can I submit defence without threat of counterclaim, or do you think Cashflow will then let it go to court and take their chance with the judge? Can I give them only 7 days to respond?

 

Cheers

[Planner]

Would seem to me that Chequecashers should have added the builder as a joint claimant against you as well. Another reason to have it struck out?

 

PART 19 - PARTIES AND GROUP LITIGATION

 

Provisions applicable where two or more persons are jointly entitled to a remedy 19.3 (1)Where a claimant claims a remedy to which some other person is jointly entitled with him, all persons jointly entitled to the remedy must be parties unless the court orders otherwise.

(2)If any person does not agree to be a claimant, he must be made a defendant, unless the court orders otherwise.

(3)This rule does not apply in probate proceedings.

[blazing-badger]

I agree that you have got them bang to rights and that Trading Standards and the Information Commissioner should be informed. I'm not sure that the defence needs to be so detailed (all of the background can come out in court, in the highly unlikely event that it ever gets that far). I would suggest this which is more along the lines that the banks use when the POC aren't detailed enough : -

 

• Defence is filed and served without prejudice to either party having right to strike out claim.
  
• The Defendant is embarrassed by the lack of particularity pleaded in the Particulars of Claim to the extent that the Particulars of Claim fail to disclose reasonable grounds for bringing a claim against the Defendant. In particular, the Particulars of Claim do not disclose any legally recognisable claim against the Defendant.
  
• The Defendant denies that any contract exists or has ever existed between himself and the Claimant. Further the Defendant denies that the Claimant has valuable consideration of the cheque because it is marked “Account Payee Only” and is therefore only payable to the payee “builder” in accordance with Section 81(A) of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 as amended by the Cheques Act 1992. The Defendant denies any contractual, tortuous or other liability to the Defendant.
  
• The Defendant invites the Claimant to remedy the above. In the event that the Claimant fails to do so within 14 days of the service of the Defence then the Defendant will apply to the Court for an Order striking out the Particulars of Claim.
  
• The Defendant reserves the right to plead further to the Particulars of Claim once and if the Claimant properly particularises the same. In the meantime, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief whether as pleaded or at all.

I agree that they are just trying to bully you into paying up with the threat of legal proceedings which they no have no merit.

 

Regards

 

B-B

[alanfromderby]

To answer blazing-badger - I think the intention would be to avoid it going to court.

 

Actually, you would not be counterclaiming as such - it was early in the morning and I used the wrong term.

 

My suggestion would be to submit the defence now, with a copy to Cheque-cashers, and a letter along the lines of what I said above.

 

If they do not agree to withdraw, you could then issue an Application for Strike Out (on form N244), which would include a request for costs due to the behaviour of the Claimant.

[robot00]

hi alan / badger

 

do you mean submit badgers defence, but send full letter to chequecashers asking to withdraw claim?

 

thanks

[alanfromderby]

I have PM'd.

[dw190]

I agree that you have got them bang to rights and that Trading Standards and the Information Commissioner should be informed. I'm not sure that the defence needs to be so detailed (all of the background can come out in court, in the highly unlikely event that it ever gets that far). I would suggest this which is more along the lines that the banks use when the POC aren't detailed enough : -

 

• Defence is filed and served without prejudice to either party having right to strike out claim.
  
• The Defendant is embarrassed by the lack of particularity pleaded in the Particulars of Claim to the extent that the Particulars of Claim fail to disclose reasonable grounds for bringing a claim against the Defendant. In particular, the Particulars of Claim do not disclose any legally recognisable claim against the Defendant.
  
• The Defendant denies that any contract exists or has ever existed between himself and the Claimant. Further the Defendant denies that the Claimant has valuable consideration of the cheque because it is marked “Account Payee Only” and is therefore only payable to the payee “builder” in accordance with Section 81(A) of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 as amended by the Cheques Act 1992. The Defendant denies any contractual, tortuous or other liability to the Defendant.
  
• The Defendant invites the Claimant to remedy the above. In the event that the Claimant fails to do so within 14 days of the service of the Defence then the Defendant will apply to the Court for an Order striking out the Particulars of Claim.
  
• The Defendant reserves the right to plead further to the Particulars of Claim once and if the Claimant properly particularises the same. In the meantime, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief whether as pleaded or at all.

I agree that they are just trying to bully you into paying up with the threat of legal proceedings which they no have no merit.

 

Regards

 

B-B

 

Is the above wording correct? Should the highlighted word not be Claimant?

[blazing-badger]

Er, yes it should.

 

I agree that the purpose is to avoid going to court - although the possibility should be prepared for. I don't think it's necessary to go into as much depth in the defence, though I agree that it could be set out in a letter to the claimant. For example, I'm not sure it's appropriate to set out all of the advice which you have received from the CAG or CAB in the defence, or go through the actions of the builder. It just clouds the issues. Keep it simple.

 

B-B

[Esio Trot]

The amount he has been charged (3% +£2) seems exceedingly low for a cheque of such a small amount.

 

We do cheque cashing, and would suggest that to get such a low commission rate the 'builder' would be a regular customer of the company. It is a high-risk business, particularly where new customers are concerned, hence a non-discounted charge for a cheque of this value would be between 5% to 6%.

 

We have had two attempted frauds this week (first was last Friday in collusion with someone still using the landline of a solicitors practice that in fact closed late last year, trying to cash an injury claim cheque of £2,500; the second, on the Saturday trying to cash a wages cheque of £960 (company closed - as a weekend) but closer examination of payslip and looking at tax tables showed the figures were completely wrong for the tax code quoted).

 

The charges to cash cheques are normally high to offset the risks to the casher. The charges to the builder were very low.

 

I do not understand where the cheque casher is coming from. They have no case IMO.

[alanfromderby]

Thanks for that ET, that is very interesting.

[fbnts]

Very interesting.

 

How did Chequecashers get your phone number & address? Surely if the builder gave them to Chequecashers then it must have been after the cheque bounced?

 

Tom

[alanfromderby]

It is also worth contacting the Information Commissioner, as they are clearly holding personal data without a registration.

[robot00]

filed defence and sent letter to cashflow chequecashers ltd outlining defence and requesting they withdraw claim or i would apply for strikeout and counterclaim for costs.

 

reply received from claimant;

 

'thank you for your letter dated 16th may 2007. this matter will be correctly dealt with in court in front of a judge.'

 

please advise next steps to get strikeout.

[alanfromderby]

You need a form N244 - which is available on the court services website. You will need to include the basis of your strike out application CPR 3.4(2) - and additionally you will be asking for summary judgement.

 

You will need to include what costs you are seeking - and the basis of seeking those costs CPR 27.2(g) - which would include the claimants failure to follow pre-action protocols CPR 44.5(a) - you are entitled to claim £9.25 per hour for preperation work on your claim (within reason) CPR 48.6 (PD 52.4).

[sequenci]

VERY interesting thread this.

 

best of luck with it.

[robot00]

Case up at county court today.

 

Dodgy Builder turned up as witness for chequecashers, to repeat porkies in his written statement, that cheque was for work he had already done. Fortunately I had statements to the contrary but they were not needed.

 

Judge called us in first case, said it was very simple, as cheque crossed a/c payee chequecashers had no case and threw out their claim and said only recourse was against the builder.

 

Builder threatened 'I'll be seeing you' as I was leaving room, in front of the judge, unbelievable!! I wish now I had counterclaimed for costs.

 

When I first got the Court Summons I had contacted a solicitor who wanted £200 to look into this case. The CAG has been brilliant in helping me through it successfully without spending a penny.

 

Many thanks for all the support and advice offered, especially 'Alanfromderby' whose help I am most grateful.

[dw190]

Well Done.

 

You really should have asked for your expenses as soon as the judge gave his decision.

 

No need to have a Counterclaim for expenses and actual costs of corresponding.

[blitz]

well done on the win

[Isiris]

I do like it when a thread appears in your subscriptions from such a long time ago to find a happy ending

[half ax I]

Well done - great result.