Hello to you all.

[Bill-K]

Re: Hello to you all.

I think Shad's approach has got a lot going for it. Throw them as much rope as they can use.

But - I think what teaboy says has to be borne in mind. This may NOT be seen by the Court as a consumer issue, in that it appears to be a 'business-to-business' arrangement. As such, there is no 'Consumer' involved, and it may well be exempt from the CCA.

I suppose it would be seen as a 'peer-to-peer' contract, and subject to the broader implications of Contract Law.

[Shadowcat]

Re: Hello to you all.

That'll teach me not to read through properly - apologies Teaboy, I see you are already in the business.

[teaboy2]

Re: Hello to you all.

No worries Shadow

By the way the terms and conditions were attached to the trade account application form which is the same online as a paper version as you need to print it out sign and return by mail/email. So terms and conditions are there and Little probably did have them on his/her applicatuon form, though probably doesn't recall them.

Basically little needs to request by CPR31.14 a copy of the true signed trade account contract and hope they don't have it, as thats the only hope little has of defending, though he/she could defend on the basis that they completed the income and expenditure form with the desire to come to a monthly repayment plan, but screwfix ignored this. Same if little made an offer of monthly repayments.

Though he/she could argue that the intial application was declined and the card was sent unsolicted after application was declined and therefore no contract was signed as the application was originally rejected - Hope little still has the rejetion letter as it maybe the most important rejection in his/her life right now! Though it would be 50/50 for such arguement to be accepted!

[CleverClogs]

Re: Hello to you all.

This is the sort of thing one might expect from ScrewFux. (not a typo )

Most of their stuff is less expensive via eBay.

[charitynjw]

Re: Hello to you all.

Hi Little11, & welcome to Legal Beagles.

If you decide not to dispute the claim, but want to pay via an agreed plan, why not try mediation.

County courts have a scheme in place, & I don't think a judge would take too kindly to a claimant who rejects the offer.

Details here - http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTax...oney/DG_195936

[Little11]

Re: Hello to you all.

Many thanks for all your input, some differing opinions which is why I was a little unsure on which point of law I could rely on or use to help my situation.
I'm starting to get the horse bolted, stable door feeling though......

I shall bring you up to speed as I was kind of hoping some feedback would justify what I have already done .... mmmmm now I really should of shut that stable first I think :tinysmile_cry_t:

Here are the POC's of the claimant -

The Claimants claim is for 492.17 in respect of Goods and /or Services Supplied to the Defendant under a trade account card which is assigned to the account. Full particulars of the debt have previously been delivered to the Defendant and the outstanding amount was first requested to be settled by the Claimants solicitors on 18/01/12. AND the Claimant claims the sum of 492.17 TOGETHER with interest pursuant to Section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from 28/02/2012 to the 23/03/2012at 8% per annum being 2.75 and further interest on a daily basis until the date of payment or request for Judgment at the rate stated for the principal sum the daily rate being 11p. Claimant has complied as far as is necessary with the pre-action conduct practice direction. 23/03/2012.


In my hast and maybe naivety, I have already submitted a defence which I will post in a sec.
I have received an allocation questionnaire, the case has been transferred to my local CC.

:tinysmile_cry_t::tinysmile_cry_t:

[Little11]

Re: Hello to you all.

Ok and here is the defence I have submitted. I think I may of been a bit hasty on this but it is done now.


In response to this claim, It is of the defendants belief that pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and 2006 amendments that for a creditor to issue a claim in the courts against a debtor, a default or breach of contract must have taken place without resolvement .
A signed contract with prescribed terms does not exist between the claimant and the defendant. No such agreement has been received by the defendant and is unaware of the terms in which the said account is to operate.
The defendant was declined the mentioned account on Wednesday 17th Nov 2010 (See attached email ‘D1’). Trade UK then set up this account despite declining the application.
No credit agreement or associated paperwork was given to the defendant. It is also believed that for a contract to be fair and transparent a consumer must clearly know what agreement and terms he is entering into.
Therefore the defendant believes the claimant has no basis to issue a claim against the defendant if no breach has taken place due to no terms and conditions of contract exist.
I have included a household Income and Expenditure form (See ‘D2’) An Income and Expenditure form was sent to Trade UK at the end of January 2012. The defendant never had a response to this and the defendant now has little faith in the claimant’s administrative abilities due to the errors when setting up the mentioned account and lack of response from the claimant regarding income and expenditure.

It is respectfully asked that the judgment is not made against the defendant in this case.

[Shadowcat]

Re: Hello to you all.

Go with Teaboy. Sorry if I confused.

[bluebottle]

Re: Hello to you all.

Some firms and their shyster lawyers seem to think they can hoodwink the courts by saying they have complied with Civil Procedures Rules. Saying it is one thing, proving you have complied is another. My gut-feeling is that Screwfix haven't complied and their legal adviser has attempted to mislead the court, which will not go down well with the court or the SRA. If the OP did not receive any correspondence from Screwfix regarding non-payment prior to them issuing proceedings, then Screwfix have not complied, in which case, the OP needs to bring this to the court's attention. A visit to his local Law Centre would be a good idea.

[teaboy2]

Re: Hello to you all.

Ok and here is the defence I have submitted. I think I may of been a bit hasty on this but it is done now.


In response to this claim, It is of the defendants belief that pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and 2006 amendments that for a creditor to issue a claim in the courts against a debtor, a default or breach of contract must have taken place without resolvement .
A signed contract with prescribed terms does not exist between the claimant and the defendant. No such agreement has been received by the defendant and is unaware of the terms in which the said account is to operate.
The defendant was declined the mentioned account on Wednesday 17th Nov 2010 (See attached email ‘D1’). Trade UK then set up this account despite declining the application.
No credit agreement or associated paperwork was given to the defendant. It is also believed that for a contract to be fair and transparent a consumer must clearly know what agreement and terms he is entering into.
Therefore the defendant believes the claimant has no basis to issue a claim against the defendant if no breach has taken place due to no terms and conditions of contract exist.
I have included a household Income and Expenditure form (See ‘D2’) An Income and Expenditure form was sent to Trade UK at the end of January 2012. The defendant never had a response to this and the defendant now has little faith in the claimant’s administrative abilities due to the errors when setting up the mentioned account and lack of response from the claimant regarding income and expenditure.

It is respectfully asked that the judgment is not made against the defendant in this case.

The defence will be struck out, as the claim is not relevant to the consumer credit act it is a claim for sums owed on a business to business contract where they provided you with goods on 30-60 day credit. The account Card, is not a credit card, the long number is basically what they use to identify your account with them and access it in order to add any orders you make to your account and to enter any payments you made for any invoices that were due. This is a contract of goods and services, not a consumer credit agreement. As such the claim is not issued under the consumer credit act 1974, but under the terms of the trade account contract as per contractual law and their right to seek repayment of a sum owed for goods that remain unpaid for.

The online application form your filled out contains the terms of the contract, their are no perscibed terms under the consumer credit act required, as the contract is not an agreement regulated by the consumer credit act!

Your only line of defence is the fact they declined your application for the trade account only to send you and unsolicited account card via the post. But end of the day its a slim chance as you ordered the goods, the goods were delivered and you still owe for those goods. I know you have that in your defence, but you really need to be pushing hard on that point and forgetting the consumer credit act argument as it does not apply.

Infact to be perfectly honest with you, you would be better off, admitting the debt and making arrangement to repay the Screwfix a monthly amount that is within your means. Otherwise the debt will have cost of court proceedings added on top which could be £1,000s if you lose.

[Bill-K]

Re: Hello to you all.

Your only line of defence is the fact they declined your application for the trade account only to send you and unsolicited account card via the post. But end of the day its a slim chance as you ordered the goods, the goods were delivered and you still owe for those goods. I know you have that in your defence, but you really need to be pushing hard on that point and forgetting the consumer credit act argument as it does not apply.

Infact to be perfectly honest with you, you would be better off, admitting the debt and making arrangement to repay the Screwfix a monthly amount that is within your means. Otherwise the debt will have cost of court proceedings added on top which could be £1,000s if you lose.

I think - as Charity may have already seen earlier - this is now down to 'damage limitation.' Contrary to popular belief, you CAN bel slammed for costs in the Small Claims Court under certain circumstances. "Wasted Costs" is one such scenario, I believe.

But what Bluebottle says may be worth mentioning, and you may yet find favour with the Court as a 'Litigant in Person.' If you can show that you have done your best to resolve the matter before litigation, then this may possibly help. We may be talking 'long shots,' though.

Some firms and their shyster lawyers seem to think they can hoodwink the courts by saying they have complied with Civil Procedures Rules. Saying it is one thing, proving you have complied is another. My gut-feeling is that Screwfix haven't complied and their legal adviser has attempted to mislead the court, which will not go down well with the court or the SRA. If the OP did not receive any correspondence from Screwfix regarding non-payment prior to them issuing proceedings, then Screwfix have not complied, in which case, the OP needs to bring this to the court's attention. A visit to his local Law Centre would be a good idea.

[Little11]

Re: Hello to you all.

Good Morning

I telephoned their solicitors yesterday to come to some sort of agreement over this. I told them the original application was declined and that the new account was sent unsolicited (don't think they knew that as they asked for the date I was declined and the date the account was opened ) and that they ignored my I&E I sent them at the beginning of the year (they didn't know that either).

They said they will talk to their solicitor dealing with the allocation questionnaire and their client and will contact me by Monday.

Thank you all for your input and fingers crossed for a positive outcome on Monday.

:beagle:

[teaboy2]

Re: Hello to you all.

Good Morning

I telephoned their solicitors yesterday to come to some sort of agreement over this. I told them the original application was declined and that the new account was sent unsolicited (don't think they knew that as they asked for the date I was declined and the date the account was opened ) and that they ignored my I&E I sent them at the beginning of the year (they didn't know that either).

They said they will talk to their solicitor dealing with the allocation questionnaire and their client and will contact me by Monday.

Thank you all for your input and fingers crossed for a positive outcome on Monday.

:beagle:

Hi little

Am pleased to see you took the intiative and decided to work out a deal with them regarding the debt, instead risking it in court.

I do apologise for being a bit harsh in my last post, but i had to make it clear to you that the contract was not a consumer credit agreement but business to business contract to provide goods and sevices etc. I'd also had a bad start on friday morning too, so i wasn't in my bestest or moods at the time either, so when i saw your defence i was flabergasted to be honest!

Speaking off which, had you been advised by someone to use the consumer credit act as your defence? If so, then they or that person could have costs you £1,000's in court costs as even witht he unsolicited card argument you would have stood only a slim chance and more likely than not would have lost. If you were advised can you say who or where you got such poor advise from? If it was from just reading up on forums yourself, then its a good job you started this thread even if you had already submitted your defence.

Hopefully they will withdraw their claim, if not we will have to apply to change your defense to admit the debt, but challange the liability due them declining your original application and then sending out the unsolicted card. Now depending on what your did with the goods (did you use them yourself to carrying work, or were you a reseller?), we may be able to argue that you purchased as a consumer in the building trade to use the goods to complete jobs, therefore the distance selling regulations regarding unsolicited goods apply and we could try argue the account would therefore have been a unconditional free gift! But it is a long shot and its up to you, personally i would not risk it and would simply repay the current amount outstanding, but get them to agree to remove any adverse data and any registered defaults from your credit file in return!

On a seperate note - I am interested in hearing more details about the business you had tried to set up and whether your currently working now or not! As i may have something you maybe interested in, especially if you have sales experience and still want your own business! I can't go in to detail here as it will simply distract from the topic of the post, but if you pm me the details about the business you had and what experience you have i can fill you in on the details and then you can decide if your interested or not.

[Little11]

Re: Hello to you all.

Thanks for that post Teaboy.

I set up and ran a successful handyman business (which would include selling my services) dealing with property repair in banbury and had a good client base, then due to family reasons moved back to leicestershire. Since then I have had no work. I couldn't move my client base and the travelling wouldn't of been cost effective.
It's hard enough setting up a business in the first instance without setting it up twice which is what I effectively would of done. Cash flow is a major part of a small business and when that cash flow runs out ...... well you get the picture. I closed the business in February this year due to finances. So yes I used the goods to carry out my work.
As for the advice I got, myself and my bro came to a conclusion as per my defence, obviously this was incorrect so it was my fault totally I'm afraid.

I will wait to hear back from their solicitors on which way forward I will go but I don't want to make things worse and try to win on a technicality as that is not the way I operate.

Oh ... and your post was not harsh at all, straight forward honest feedback is what this site is based on and how it should always be..... thank you :rockon:

[bluebottle]

Re: Hello to you all.

From what the OP has said, it would appear Screwfix have been rather economical with the truth with their legal representatives. Withholding evidence from a legal professional who is representing you, with the intention of misleading a court, is serious. It is not fair on a defendant and certainly not fair on the legal representative. It is also failing to comply with CPR and is, potentially, Attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice.

The OP has taken the initiative to try and negotiate a settlement and that goes in his favour. If Screwfix have got any sense, they should either drop the case altogether or agree to a repayment plan that suits the OP.