Mortimer Clarke solicitors county county claim

[charitynjw]

Re: Mortimer Clarke solicitors county county claim

CPR & SB letters to solicitor. (can go in same envelope)

CCA request +£1 fee to Claimant.

File copies & proof of posting for all.

[nemesis45]

Re: Mortimer Clarke solicitors county county claim

ok have just typed out the CCA and CPR letters to send to mortimers should i send these as well??

Yes send them CCA request goes to the Claimant [ Cabot?] with £1.00 statutory fee ( use a postal order endorsed for statutory fee only)

Use signed for post and check delivery date and signature. CPR 31.14 to Mortimer Clarke ( no fee) again use signed for post.

nem

- - - Updated - - -

CPR & SB letters to solicitor. (can go in same envelope)

CCA request +£1 fee to Claimant.

File copies & proof of posting for all.

Posts crossed [MENTION=5553]charitynjw[/MENTION]

[Kim7699]

Re: Mortimer Clarke solicitors county county claim

Brill thanks your really helpful ! I was going to cave and pay but have a renewed vigour to fight them as they just make money out of people's misery !!! So do I need to fill a defence form for the court yet or will I receive some notification ??

[nemesis45]

Re: Mortimer Clarke solicitors county county claim

Brill thanks your really helpful ! I was going to cave and pay but have a renewed vigour to fight them as they just make money out of people's misery !!! So do I need to fill a defence form for the court yet or will I receive some notification ??

We can help you put together a defence appropriate for the statute barred status of the alleged debt so don't use the form .

nem

[Kim7699]

Re: Mortimer Clarke solicitors county county claim

ok brill. do i just wait to hear from the court now then ??

[nemesis45]

Re: Mortimer Clarke solicitors county county claim

ok brill. do i just wait to hear from the court now then ??

Now we start to compile a defence for you!

Please take a look at the specimen defence in the " Green Box" at the top of the main forum page, this will give you an idea of content and format you can make a draft defence post it here then we can tweak it for you.

nem

[Kim7699]

Re: Mortimer Clarke solicitors county county claim

Hi I have had a go at filling this in but not sure it is right.


DEFENCE






-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1: I received the claim C2CD2H20 from the County Court Business Centre, Northampton on 12th July 2016.

2: Each and every allegation in the Claimants statement of case is denied unless specifically admitted in this Defence.

3: This claim is for a Credit Card Account agreement regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

4: It is admitted that the Defendant has previously entered into an agreement with Vanquis for provision of credit.

4: The Claimants statement of case fails to give adequate information to enable me to properly assess my position with regards the claim.

5. The particulars of claim fail to state when the agreement was entered into.

6. The Claimants statement of case states that the account was assigned from Vanquis to Mortimer Clarke Solicitors. The Defendant does not recall receiving notice of this assignment.

7. It is denied that Vanquis served any Default notice on the Defendant pursuant to s87 Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Claimant is required to prove that a compliant Default Notice was served upon the Defendant.

8: On the 20th July 2016 I sent a request for inspection of documents mentioned in the claimants statement of case under Civil Procedure Rule 31.14 to Mortimer Clarke Solicitors. I requested the Claimant provide copies of the Agreement..

9. Mortimer Clarke Solicitors has not sent any of these documents to me.

10. On the 20th July 2016 I sent a formal request for a copy of the original agreement to Mortimer Clarke Solicitors pursuant to section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 along with the statutory £1 fee.

11. The Claimant has failed to comply with [s77 (1) / s 78 (1)] Consumer Credit Act 1974 and by virtue of [s77 (4) / s 78 (6)] Consumer Credit Act 1974 cannot enforce the agreement.

13. 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.

14. I request the court orders the Claimants to provide the necessary documentation in order for me to fully plead my case else the Claim should stand struck out.

15. In the event that the relevant documents are received from the Claimants I will then be in a position to amend my defence, and would ask that the Claimants bear the costs of the amendment.

16. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief as claimed or at all.

Statement of Truth

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



Signed …………………………………………

Dated .................................................. ....

[Kim7699]

Re: Mortimer Clarke solicitors county county claim

or do you think this template is more appropriate ???


Preliminary Matters

1. The Claimants claim form fails to adequately set out the nature of the Claim.

2. The Defendant avers that the Claimants pleadings are an abuse of process. The Claimants pleadings are lacking detail, there are no details as to when the alleged default occurred, the degree of default, despite requests for information from the Defendant, the Claimant has not provided any details as to how the sums claimed have accrued. Accordingly the Defendants contend that the pleadings are wholly inadequate for a contested matter and that the Claimant should be required to plead its case coherently and accurately as required by the CPR 16 and PD 16. The Defendants reserve the right to re-plead their defence should the Claimant re-plead its claim adequately

3. The Defendant accepts the claim was issued in the Northampton County Court Bulk Centre and that there are restrictions on pleading. However the bulk centre rules clearly state that if you cannot plead in the allowed number of characters then you should not use the Bulk Centre or in the alternative the Claimant was at liberty to issue and set out that particulars were to follow.


The Claim

4. The Claimant states the claim relates to a credit card account with Vanquis but without further details the Defendant is unable to identify such an account within his own records.

5. The particulars of claim fail to state when the agreement was entered into or what the agreement was for. The Defendant believes it would have been finance as Vanquis issue credit cards and is unaware of any goods or non financial services supplied by Vanquis to its customers.

6. The particulars of claim state that the account was assigned/purchased by Cabot Ltd **** 2005 and notice served pursuant to the Law of Property Act 1925. The Defendant does not recall receiving notice of this assignment.

7. Upon the Claimant clarifying matters set out above the Defendant reserves his position to amend this Defence further. The Defendant shall seek the costs of the amendments from the Claimant due to the Claimants failure to plead its case adequately.

8. In respect of matters, which the Defendant is able to plead to, on the 20th July the Defendant sent “recorded delivery” requests for information to the Claimant. The request was made pursuant to s78 (1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 to ascertain the agreement, which the Claimant was demanding payment under and to obtain further information about the terms of the contract.

9. The Claimant has failed to reply and has not disclosed any documents relating to their claim to the Defendant. 1

10. Accordingly the Claimant has failed to comply with s78 (1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and by virtue of s78 (6) Consumer Credit Act 1974 cannot enforce the agreement.

11. The Defendant has not yet been able to examine the terms and conditions which were in force at the time that the agreement was executed and therefore reserves the right to amend these pleadings to address any breaches that are identified if such terms and conditions are disclosed by the Claimant. The amendment will be due to the lack of disclosure by the Claimant and the failure to respond to the s78 CCA 1974 request correctly and the Defendant therefore also reserves the right to claim the costs of such amendment from the Claimant.

12. The Defendant has also sent a request for inspection of documents on the 20th July to Mortimer Clarke Solicitors mentioned in their statement of case as allowed under CPR 31.14. The Claimant has not replied to this letter.

13. The Defendant has refused the claimant an extension of time for filing a defence and suggests that the Claimant use her own records. The Claimant has not kept any financial records from 2005.

14. For the avoidance of doubt the Defendant requires the Claimant to plead effectively and disclose the legible documents upon which the Claim is based. In the event the Claimant fails to replead, then the Defendant reserves the right to apply for whatever orders it deems fit including an order striking the Claim out.

Default Notice

15. It is denied that the original creditor Vanquis, served any Default notice on the Defendant pursuant to s87 Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Claimant is required to prove that a compliant Default Notice was served upon the Defendant.

16. Due to the Claimants failure to allow the Defendant to inspect the Default notice alluded to within the Claim form the Defendant is prejudiced.

17. Accordingly the Defendant reserves his position to amend this Defence with the costs of the same paid by the Claimant if the Claimant provides a copy of the Default Notice.

Notice of sums in arrears.

19. It is denied that the Claimant has served notice of sums in arrears pursuant to s86B Consumer Credit Act 1974. A notice of sums in arrears is a condition precedent on enforcement and therefore the Claimant is not entitled to enforce the agreement.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the Defendant avers that

20. The Claimant has failed to plead properly in this matter and has failed to provide any information relating to this debt.

21. The Claimant has not complied with s78 or 86, and 87 Consumer Credit Act 1974 and therefore cannot enforce the agreement.

22. The Claimants attempts at claiming post judgement interest are an attempt at unjust enrichment. The Defendant refers to s74 County Courts Act 1984 and section 2 of the County Courts (Interest on Judgement Debts) Order 1991 as a statutory bar on the Claimants claim to interest. Furthermore no contract entitling the Claimant to post judgement interest has been adduced in evidence and accordingly there is no entitlement to post judgement interest. Interest being owed as claimed is denied.

23. Therefore, the Claimants Claim should be dismissed and the Claimant should pay the Defendants costs.

Statement of Truth
The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence are true

Signed
Dated

[charitynjw]

Re: Mortimer Clarke solicitors county county claim

Re para 13 in the 2nd version (post #23)

Are you sure that is correct?

[Kim7699]

Re: Mortimer Clarke solicitors county county claim

Preliminary Matters

1. The Claimants claim form fails to adequately set out the nature of the Claim.

2. The Defendant avers that the Claimants pleadings are an abuse of process. The Claimants pleadings are lacking detail, there are no details as to when the alleged default occurred, the degree of default, despite requests for information from the Defendant, the Claimant has not provided any details as to how the sums claimed have accrued. Accordingly the Defendants contend that the pleadings are wholly inadequate for a contested matter and that the Claimant should be required to plead its case coherently and accurately as required by the CPR 16 and PD 16. The Defendants reserve the right to re-plead their defence should the Claimant re-plead its claim adequately

3. The Defendant accepts the claim was issued in the Northampton County Court Bulk Centre and that there are restrictions on pleading. However the bulk centre rules clearly state that if you cannot plead in the allowed number of characters then you should not use the Bulk Centre or in the alternative the Claimant was at liberty to issue and set out that particulars were to follow.


TheClaim

4. The Claimant states the claim relates to a credit card account with Vanquis but without further details the Defendant is unable to identify such an account within his own records.

5. The particulars of claim fail to state when the agreement was entered into or what the agreement was for. The Defendant believes it would have been finance as Vanquis issue credit cards and is unaware of any goods or non financial services supplied by Vanquis to its customers.

6. The particulars of claim state that the account was assigned/purchased by Cabot Ltd **** 2005 and notice served pursuant to the Law of Property Act 1925. The Defendant does not recall receiving notice of this assignment.

7. Upon the Claimant clarifying matters set out above the Defendant reserves his position to amend this Defence further. The Defendant shall seek the costs of the amendments from the Claimant due to the Claimants failure to plead its case adequately.

8. In respect of matters, which the Defendant is able to plead to, on the 20th July the Defendant sent “recorded delivery” requests for information to the Claimant. The request was made pursuant to s78 (1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 to ascertain the agreement, which the Claimant was demanding payment under and to obtain further information about the terms of the contract.

9. The Claimant has failed to reply and has not disclosed any documents relating to their claim to the Defendant.

10. Accordingly the Claimant has failed to comply with s78 (1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and by virtue of s78 (6) Consumer Credit Act 1974 cannot enforce the agreement.

11. The Defendant has not yet been able to examine the terms and conditions which were in force at the time that the agreement was executed and therefore reserves the right to amend these pleadings to address any breaches that are identified if such terms and conditions are disclosed by the Claimant. The amendment will be due to the lack of disclosure by the Claimant and the failure to respond to the s78 CCA 1974 request correctly and the Defendant therefore also reserves the right to claim the costs of such amendment from the Claimant.

12. The Defendant has also sent a request for inspection of documents on the 20th July 2016 to Mortimer Clarke Solicitors mentioned in their statement of case as allowed under CPR 31.14. The Claimant has not replied to this letter.

13. For the avoidance of doubt the Defendant requires the Claimant to plead effectively and disclose the legible documents upon which the Claim is based. In the event the Claimant fails to re-plead, then the Defendant reserves the right to apply for whatever orders it deems fit including an order striking the Claim out.

Default Notice

15. It is denied that the original creditor Vanquis, served any Default notice on the Defendant pursuant to s87 Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Claimant is required to prove that a compliant Default Notice was served upon the Defendant.

16. Due to the Claimants failure to allow the Defendant to inspect the Default notice alluded to within the Claim form the Defendant is prejudiced.

17. Accordingly the Defendant reserves his position to amend this Defence with the costs of the same paid by the Claimant if the Claimant provides a copy of the Default Notice.

Notice of sums in arrears.

19. It is denied that the Claimant has served notice of sums in arrears pursuant to s86B Consumer Credit Act 1974. A notice of sums in arrears is a condition precedent on enforcement and therefore the Claimant is not entitled to enforce the agreement.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the Defendant avers that

20. The Claimant has failed to plead properly in this matter and has failed to provide any information relating to this debt.

21. The Claimant has not complied with s78 or 86, and 87 Consumer Credit Act 1974 and therefore cannot enforce the agreement.

22. The Claimants attempts at claiming post judgement interest are an attempt at unjust enrichment. The Defendant refers to s74 County Courts Act 1984 and section 2 of the County Courts (Interest on Judgement Debts) Order 1991 as a statutory bar on the Claimants claim to interest. Furthermore no contract entitling the Claimant to post judgement interest has been adduced in evidence and accordingly there is no entitlement to post judgement interest. Interest being owed as claimed is denied.

23. Therefore, the Claimants Claim should be dismissed and the Claimant should pay the Defendants costs.

Statement of Truth
The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence are true

Signed Kheywood
Dated 25/12/2016



I have taken section 13 out from previous draft. I think they did send me some stuff many years ago because did a subject access request but can't find the paperwork - does this matter surely they would need to provide everything again to support the claim anyway . If this defence is ok what do I do then do I send it to the court recorded delivery ???

[Kim7699]

Re: Mortimer Clarke solicitors county county claim

Do I need to mention that it is statute barred. ?

[Kim7699]

Re: Mortimer Clarke solicitors county county claim

Please can someone help is my defence ok or do I need to put in something about statute barred. And do I need to send it off now ???? To the court ???? Please help am panicking now they will issue a default

[charitynjw]

Re: Mortimer Clarke solicitors county county claim

You say that the claim issue date was the 12th July, & you have acknowledged it?

If so, you have until Sun 14th August (actually the next day, Monday, 4pm) to file a defence.

[Kim7699]

Re: Mortimer Clarke solicitors county county claim

HI

I have completed the defence and am going to send it to the court tomorrow recorded delivery. See below - still not sure whether to amend to include that I think it is statute barred in the defence or will that be obvious ??

Also my husband got a phone call on his mobile (the contract is in my name but I have never used his number for anything to do with this) from a company asking for kim - they said it was for a loan in 2006-2009 for £1500 am guessing it was Mortimer clarkes but wondering how they got his number - makes you worry about information being hacked by companies. Anyway he said he wasn't me and they proceeded to tell him about the apparent loan and wanted details of who he had his mortgage with ??? they asked him to take a message but he said he wouldn't so they got fed up and put the phone down. Worried me though - so not sure if this is a tactic to try and make me pay - they have not rang my number and it is detailed on the claim form - they have my address as well if they wanted to write. It is all a bit strange. Anyway if you could check over this defence am going to send it then I will feel better about the situation - so I know the defence is in.


Preliminary Matters

1. The Claimants claim form fails to adequately set out the nature of the Claim.

2. The Defendant avers that the Claimants pleadings are an abuse of process. The Claimants pleadings are lacking detail, there are no details as to when the alleged default occurred, the degree of default, despite requests for information from the Defendant, the Claimant has not provided any details as to how the sums claimed have accrued. Accordingly the Defendants contend that the pleadings are wholly inadequate for a contested matter and that the Claimant should be required to plead its case coherently and accurately as required by the CPR 16 and PD 16. The Defendants reserve the right to re-plead their defence should the Claimant re-plead its claim adequately

3. The Defendant accepts the claim was issued in the Northampton County Court Bulk Centre and that there are restrictions on pleading. However the bulk centre rules clearly state that if you cannot plead in the allowed number of characters then you should not use the Bulk Centre or in the alternative the Claimant was at liberty to issue and set out that particulars were to follow.


The Claim

4. The Claimant states the claim relates to a credit card account with Vanquis but without further details the Defendant is unable to identify such an account within her own records.

5. The particulars of claim fail to state when the agreement was entered into or what the agreement was for. The Defendant believes it would have been finance as Vanquis issue credit cards and is unaware of any goods or non financial services supplied by Vanquis to its customers.

6. The particulars of claim state that the account was assigned/purchased by Cabot Ltd **** 2005 and notice served pursuant to the Law of Property Act 1925. The Defendant does not recall receiving notice of this assignment.

7. Upon the Claimant clarifying matters set out above the Defendant reserves his position to amend this Defence further. The Defendant shall seek the costs of the amendments from the Claimant due to the Claimants failure to plead its case adequately.

8. In respect of matters, which the Defendant is able to plead to, on the 20th July the Defendant sent “recorded delivery” requests for information to the Claimant. The request was made pursuant to s78 (1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 to ascertain the agreement, which the Claimant was demanding payment under and to obtain further information about the terms of the contract.

9. The Claimant has failed to reply and has not disclosed any documents relating to their claim to the Defendant.

10. Accordingly the Claimant has failed to comply with s78 (1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and by virtue of s78 (6) Consumer Credit Act 1974 cannot enforce the agreement.

11. The Defendant has not yet been able to examine the terms and conditions which were in force at the time that the agreement was executed and therefore reserves the right to amend these pleadings to address any breaches that are identified if such terms and conditions are disclosed by the Claimant. The amendment will be due to the lack of disclosure by the Claimant and the failure to respond to the s78 CCA 1974 request correctly and the Defendant therefore also reserves the right to claim the costs of such amendment from the Claimant.

12. The Defendant has also sent a request for inspection of documents on the 20th July to Mortimer Clarke Solicitors mentioned in their statement of case as allowed under CPR 31.14. The Claimant has not replied to this letter.

13. The Defendant has refused the claimant an extension of time for filing a defence and suggests that the Claimant use her own records. The Claimant has not kept any financial records from 2005.

14. For the avoidance of doubt the Defendant requires the Claimant to plead effectively and disclose the legible documents upon which the Claim is based. In the event the Claimant fails to replead, then the Defendant reserves the right to apply for whatever orders it deems fit including an order striking the Claim out.

Default Notice

15. It is denied that the original creditor Vanquis, served any Default notice on the Defendant pursuant to s87 Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Claimant is required to prove that a compliant Default Notice was served upon the Defendant.

16. Due to the Claimants failure to allow the Defendant to inspect the Default notice alluded to within the Claim form the Defendant is prejudiced.

17. Accordingly the Defendant reserves his position to amend this Defence with the costs of the same paid by the Claimant if the Claimant provides a copy of the Default Notice.

Notice of sums in arrears.

19. It is denied that the Claimant has served notice of sums in arrears pursuant to s86B Consumer Credit Act 1974. A notice of sums in arrears is a condition precedent on enforcement and therefore the Claimant is not entitled to enforce the agreement.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the Defendant avers that

20. The Claimant has failed to plead properly in this matter and has failed to provide any information relating to this debt.

21. The Claimant has not complied with s78 or 86, and 87 Consumer Credit Act 1974 and therefore cannot enforce the agreement.

22. The Claimants attempts at claiming post judgement interest are an attempt at unjust enrichment. The Defendant refers to s74 County Courts Act 1984 and section 2 of the County Courts (Interest on Judgement Debts) Order 1991 as a statutory bar on the Claimants claim to interest. Furthermore no contract entitling the Claimant to post judgement interest has been adduced in evidence and accordingly there is no entitlement to post judgement interest. Interest being owed as claimed is denied.

23. Therefore, the Claimants Claim should be dismissed and the Claimant should pay the Defendants costs.

Statement of Truth


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

Signed
Dated