Claimant threatening summary judgement on stayed ccj claim. Should I reply?

[peterfranks]

just out of curiosity how much is this all costing them to chase down a debt they probably paid pennies on the pound for?

[jaguarsuk]

Depending on the value of the claim the court issue fee, what ever they paid Restons to get to the stay, £255 to apply to lift the stay, their in house counsel’s wages and dependant on the value of the claim the hearing fee.

what you have to remember is that cost is relative, for every claim like this one that costs them say £1,000 to win or lose, they probably get hundreds of judgements in default on those who don’t respond to the claim form.

[peterfranks]

Still I will hold out for a couple of days to see if the court responds, then put in my amended defence here on thursday to see if it passes muster then post to the relevant parties Friday or I think Saturday might be ok as well...need to check the post times.

[peterfranks]

I've put the matter about them missing the deadline up top, how is this?

Case number XXXXXXXXXXX


Case between

ARROW GLOBAL LIMITED Claimant
XXXXXXXXXXXX Defendant


WITNESS STATEMENT OF XXXXXXXXX Defendant

1. The Defendant received the claim XXXXXXX from the Northampton County Court Business Centre dated XXXXXX
2. In accordance with the Order of District Judge XXX dated 2XXXX the defendant files an amended defence by way of response to the Claimants Amended Particulars of Claim dated 07/06/2019.
3. The Claimant failed to comply with the order of District Judge XXX dated 24/05/2019 to file and serve Amended Particulars of Claim prejudicing the Defendants ability to comply with the deadline to file an Amended Defence by the date ordered.
4. Each and every allegation in the Claimants Amended Particulars of Claim is denied unless specifically admitted in this Amended Defence.
5. This claim appears to be for a Credit Card agreement regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
6. On the 14/08/2017 The Defendant sent a request for inspection of documents mentioned in the claimant’s statement of case under Civil Procedure Rule 31.14 to Restons Solicitors Limited. Now produced and marked ST1 is a copy of that request.
7. Restons Solicitors Limited did not provide copies of the Agreement, Default Notice and Notice of Assignment requested.
8. The Defendant will now plead to the individual paragraphs in the claimants Amended Particulars of Claim using their numbered paragraphs.
9. Paragraph 3 is admitted, the Defendant has previously entered into an agreement with New Day Limited (‘New Day’) for provision of credit
10. Paragraph 4 is denied,
11. NY02 does not prove a default notice was issued by New Day under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 s.87.
12. For the avoidance of doubt it is denied the letter in NY02 is for a default notice, however if it were the date of issue of one it would not suffice to evidence any default notice was compliant with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 s.88.
13. The illegibility of NY02 makes it impossible to determine whom issued a letter on 10/09/2014 entitled "0013 COLLTRS."
14. The Defendant asserts that the issue of "0013 COLLTRS" is in fact the issue of a debt collector's letter by Idem Capital Securities Limited ('Idem') and no default notice was issued by New Day under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 s.87.
15. Paragraph 5 is neither admitted nor denied.
16. Paragraph 6 is denied,
17. The Defendant was not served the letter NY03 dated 05/12/2016.
18. The Law of Property Act 1925 s.136 specifically talks about the assignor's obligations and the claimant has failed to provide any evidence from either assignor.
19. The Claimant has failed to evidence a notice of assignment from New Day of the alleged debt being assigned to Idem.
20. The Claimant has failed to evidence a notice of assignment from Idem of the alleged debt being assigned to them.
21. It is for these reasons the Claimant has no right to bring a claim as they cannot prove themselves to be the lawful owners of the alleged debt.
22. Paragraph 7 is denied for the reasons set out in paragraphs 9 and 11 of this Amended Defence, the Claimant has failed to evidence a default notice compliant with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 s.88 was ever issued under s.87 and to provide sufficient evidence to the court of the chain of assignment between New Day, Idem and the Claimant under the Law of Property Act 1925 s.136.
23. Under Civil Procedure Rule 16.5 (4) “Where the claim includes a money claim, a Defendant shall be taken to require that any allegation relating to the amount of money claimed be proved unless he expressly admits the allegation. Therefore, it is expected that the Claimant be required to prove the allegation that the money is owed as claimed.
24. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief as claimed or at all and the Defendant respectfully requests it be dismissed.
25. The Defendant respectfully requests the Claimant is ordered to pay costs of and occasioned in dealing with this matter to the Defendant pursuant to CPR 27.14 due to unreasonable conduct on the claim, namely
26. Pursuant to CPR 7E 5.2 (2) the Claimant and Restons Solicitors Limited had opportunity to avail the Defendant of a Detailed Particulars of Claim with the original claim form dated 07/08/2017.
27. The Claimant by admission of counsel in her Witness Statement dated XXXX was in receipt of a request under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 s.77-78, but they chose only to treat it as a request under s.77 to prevent them having to evidence the claim prior to the defence deadline.
28. The title of form N1 on which this claim was issued is "Claim Form" not "Claim Form (Small Claims Track)." Prior to the filing of an N180 "Directions questionnaire (Small Claims Track)" there is no allocation to Small Claims Track in this or any other claim and therefore CPR 27.2 (b) did not relieve Restons Solicitors Limited of their Part 31 obligations at the time of the request under CPR 31.14.
29. The Claimant failed to comply with the order of District Judge XXX dated 24/05/2019 to file and serve Amended Particulars of Claim prejudicing the Defendants ability to comply with the deadline to file an Amended Defence by the date ordered.

Statement of Truth

The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence are true.
XXXXXX

SIGNED______________________

DATE XXXXXX

[jaguarsuk]

It should be titled “Amended Defence” not what you have.

Paragraphs 11-14, 17-22 and 26-29 should be sub paragraphs of 10, 16 and 25 respectively.

Paragraph 3 delete from “prejudicing” to end and replace with:

”by the date in paragraph X of that order resulting in the defendant having just X days to compile an Amended Defence in compliance with the order and prejudicing his ability to fully asses his position.”

[jaguarsuk]

Paragraph 29 add to the end:

and have opportunity to fully asses his position.

[peterfranks]

AMENDED DEFENCE OF XXXXXXX Defendant

1. The Defendant received the claim XXXXXX from the Northampton County Court Business Centre dated 07/08/2017.
2. In accordance with the Order of District Judge XXX dated 24/05/2019 the defendant files an amended defence by way of response to the Claimants Amended Particulars of Claim dated 07/06/2019.
3. The Claimant failed to comply with the order of District Judge XXXdated 24/05/2019 to file and serve Amended Particulars of Claim by the date in paragraph 3 of that order resulting in the defendant having fewer days to compile an Amended Defence in compliance with the order. This action prejudicing the Defendants ability to fully assess his position and comply with the deadline to file an Amended Defence by the date ordered.

1. Each and every allegation in the Claimants Amended Particulars of Claim is denied unless specifically admitted in this Amended Defence.

1. This claim appears to be for a Credit Card agreement regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

1. On the 14/08/2017 The Defendant sent a request for inspection of documents mentioned in the claimant’s statement of case under Civil Procedure Rule 31.14 to Restons Solicitors Limited. Now produced and marked ST1 is a copy of that request.

1. Restons Solicitors Limited did not provide copies of the Agreement, Default Notice and Notice of Assignment requested.

1. The Defendant will now plead to the individual paragraphs in the claimants Amended Particulars of Claim using their numbered paragraphs.

1. Paragraph 3 is admitted; the Defendant has previously entered into an agreement with New Day Limited (‘New Day’) for provision of credit

1. Paragraph 4 is denied,

1. NY02 does not prove a default notice was issued by New Day under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 s.87.
2. For the avoidance of doubt it is denied the letter in NY02 is for a default notice, however if it were the date of issue of one it would not suffice to evidence any default notice was compliant with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 s.88.
3. The illegibility of NY02 makes it impossible to determine whom issued a letter on 10/09/2014 entitled "0013 COLLTRS."
4. The Defendant asserts that the issue of "0013 COLLTRS" is in fact the issue of a debt collector's letter by Idem Capital Securities Limited ('Idem') and no default notice was issued by New Day under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 s.87.

1. Paragraph 5 is neither admitted nor denied.

1. Paragraph 6 is denied,

1. The Defendant was not served the letter NY03 dated 05/12/2016.

1. The Law of Property Act 1925 s.136 specifically talks about the assignor's obligations and the claimant has failed to provide any evidence from either assignor.

1. The Claimant has failed to evidence a notice of assignment from New Day of the alleged debt being assigned to Idem.

1. The Claimant has failed to evidence a notice of assignment from Idem of the alleged debt being assigned to them.

1. It is for these reasons the Claimant has no right to bring a claim as they cannot prove themselves to be the lawful owners of the alleged debt.

1. Paragraph 7 is denied for the reasons set out in paragraphs 9 and 11 of this Amended Defence, the Claimant has failed to evidence a default notice compliant with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 s.88 was ever issued under s.87 and to provide sufficient evidence to the court of the chain of assignment between New Day, Idem and the Claimant under the Law of Property Act 1925 s.136.

1. Under Civil Procedure Rule 16.5 (4) “Where the claim includes a money claim, a Defendant shall be taken to require that any allegation relating to the amount of money claimed be proved unless he expressly admits the allegation. Therefore, it is expected that the Claimant be required to prove the allegation that the money is owed as claimed.

1. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief as claimed or at all and the Defendant respectfully requests it be dismissed.

1. The Defendant respectfully requests the Claimant is ordered to pay costs of and occasioned in dealing with this matter to the Defendant pursuant to CPR 27.14 due to unreasonable conduct on the claim, namely
2. Pursuant to CPR 7E 5.2 (2) the Claimant and Restons Solicitors Limited had opportunity to avail the Defendant of a Detailed Particulars of Claim with the original claim form dated 07/08/2017.
3. The Claimant by admission of counsel in her Witness Statement dated 19/03/2019 was in receipt of a request under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 s.77-78, but they chose only to treat it as a request under s.77 to prevent them having to evidence the claim prior to the defence deadline.
4. The title of form N1 on which this claim was issued is "Claim Form" not "Claim Form (Small Claims Track)." Prior to the filing of an N180 "Directions questionnaire (Small Claims Track)" there is no allocation to Small Claims Track in this or any other claim and therefore CPR 27.2 (b) did not relieve Restons Solicitors Limited of their Part 31 obligations at the time of the request under CPR 31.14.
5. The Claimant failed to comply with the order of District Judge XXXX dated 24/05/2019 to file and serve Amended Particulars of Claim prejudicing the Defendants ability to comply with the deadline to file an Amended Defence by the date ordered and have opportunity to fully assess his position

[peterfranks]

i ll try again in a bit, the formatting has gone whack

[jaguarsuk]

In the title delete from “of” to end.

In Para 3 I would say the number of days, you got it like Monday and have to post Friday, 5 days sounds a lot worse than fewer.

[peterfranks]

AMMENDED DEFENCE xxxxxx (DEFENDANT)

1. The defendant received the claim xxxxxx from the Northampton County Court Business Centre dated 07/08/2017
2. In accordance with the Order of District Judge xxxx dated 24/05/2019 the defendant now files an amended defence by way of response to the Claimants Amended Particulars of claim dated 07/06/2019
3. The Claimant failed to comply with the order of District Judge xxxxt dated 24/05/2019 to file and serve Amended Particulars of Claim by the date in paragraph 3 of that order resulting in the defendant having 6 days to compile an Amended Defence in compliance with the order. This action prejudicing the Defendants ability to fully assess his position and comply with the deadline to file an Amended Defence by the date ordered (05/06/2019)
4. Each and every allegation in the Claimants Amended Particulars of Claim is denied unless specifically admitted in this Amended Defence.
5. This claim appears to be for a Credit Card agreement regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
6. On the 14/08/2017 The Defendant sent a request for inspection of documents mentioned in the claimant’s statement of case under Civil Procedure Rule 31.14 to Restons Solicitors Limited. Now produced and marked ST1 is a copy of that request.
7. Restons Solicitors Limited did not provide copies of the Agreement, Default Notice and Notice of Assignment requested.
8. On filing of this application nearly two years later, the claimant having dispensed with the services of Restons Solicitors Limited, has now served some documentation, but have still failed to evidence their claim and pursuant to CPR 24.2(a)(i) the claimant has no real prospect of succeeding on the claim.
9. The Defendant will now plead to the individual paragraphs in the claimants Amended Particulars of Claim using their numbered paragraphs.
10. Paragraph 3 is admitted; the Defendant has previously entered into an agreement with New Day Limited (‘New Day’) for provision of credit.
11. Paragraph 4 is denied,

1. NY02 does not prove a default notice was issued by New Day under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 s.87.
2. For the avoidance of doubt it is denied the letter in NY02 is for a default notice, however if it were the date of issue of one it would not suffice to evidence any default notice was compliant with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 s.88.
3. The illegibility of NY02 makes it impossible to determine whom issued a letter on 10/09/2014 entitled "0013 COLLTRS."
4. The Defendant asserts that the issue of "0013 COLLTRS" is in fact the issue of a debt collector's letter by Idem Capital Securities Limited ('Idem') and no default notice was issued by New Day under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 s.87.

1. Paragraph 5 is neither admitted nor denied.
2. Paragraph 6 is denied,

1. The Defendant was not served the letter NY03 dated 05/12/2016
2. The Law of Property Act 1925 s.136 specifically talks about the assignor's obligations and the claimant has failed to provide any evidence from either assignor.
3. The Claimant has failed to evidence a notice of assignment from New Day of the alleged debt being assigned to Idem.
4. The Claimant has failed to evidence a notice of assignment from Idem of the alleged debt being assigned to them.
5. It is for these reasons the Claimant has no right to bring a claim as they cannot prove themselves to be the lawful owners of the alleged debt.

1. Paragraph 7 is denied for the reasons set out in paragraphs 9 and 11 of this Amended Defence, the Claimant has failed to evidence a default notice compliant with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 s.88 was ever issued under s.87 and to provide sufficient evidence to the court of the chain of assignment between New Day, Idem and the Claimant under the Law of Property Act 1925 s.136.
2. Under Civil Procedure Rule 16.5 (4) “Where the claim includes a money claim, a Defendant shall be taken to require that any allegation relating to the amount of money claimed be proved unless he expressly admits the allegation. Therefore, it is expected that the Claimant be required to prove the allegation that the money is owed as claimed.
3. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief as claimed or at all and the Defendant respectfully requests it be dismissed.

1. The Defendant respectfully requests the Claimant is ordered to pay costs of and occasioned in dealing with this matter to the Defendant pursuant to CPR 27.14 due to unreasonable conduct on the claim, namely
2. Pursuant to CPR 7E 5.2 (2) the Claimant and Restons Solicitors Limited had opportunity to avail the Defendant of a Detailed Particulars of Claim with the original claim form dated 07/08/2017.
3. The Claimant by admission of counsel in her Witness Statement dated 19/03/2019 was in receipt of a request under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 s.77-78, but they chose only to treat it as a request under s.77 to prevent them having to evidence the claim prior to the defence deadline.
4. The title of form N1 on which this claim was issued is "Claim Form" not "Claim Form (Small Claims Track)." Prior to the filing of an N180 "Directions questionnaire (Small Claims Track)" there is no allocation to Small Claims Track in this or any other claim and therefore CPR 27.2 (b) did not relieve Restons Solicitors Limited of their Part 31 obligations at the time of the request under CPR 31.14.
5. The Claimant failed to comply with the order of District Judge xxxx dated 24/05/2019 to file and serve Amended Particulars of Claim prejudicing the Defendants ability to comply with the deadline to file an Amended Defence by the date ordered and have opportunity to fully assess his position.

Statement of Truth

[peterfranks]

The formatting is still hatstand, so ill send a word doc copy.
I added an extra paragraph (8) mentioning the 2 years since I first made my defence since I remember the judge pointing this out several times during the last hearing ("they have had two years in which to put their house in order") so felt it would be good reminding

[jaguarsuk]

The title just needs to be “Amended Defence”

I wouldn’t add the new paragraph 8, that’s not something that should be in the defence and is Witness Statement stuff. Was a hearing date set in the order or did the judge order after you file an amended defence N180’s to be filed?

[peterfranks]

Ok I'll take it out.
There was no hearing date in the order, just dates and deadlines for claims, amended defences and questionnaires..

[jaguarsuk]

Okay, so you’ll get to file Supplementary Witness Statements in advance of a hearing and I wouldn’t put the new para 8 in the defence. Also in para 6 delete from “””Now””” to end as we’’ll send that as part of the Witness Statement bundle too.

Good thing is that you can be confident that what they have got is all they can get because she didn’t have to plead those Amended PoC citing evidence in the way she has and could have bought them extra time to source documents to counter what she knows your defence is from the Witness Statement.

Either that or she’s a terrible litigant.

[peterfranks]

Ok, will do. Thanks again.