Restons / Capquest Shop Direct Claim

[Amethyst]

Apologies for missing your posts. Just having a read back xxx

[Amethyst]

Can anyone advise me on the legalities of not advising the courts of a change of solicitor.

We received an n434 from the claimant saying that Restons were no longer acting on their behalf and they were now a rep themselves. Just sending the papers off and noticed we had 3 address for the claimant so called the court to see which one to send to and they said they had no notification of a change of solicitor and that Restons are still listed as acting so use Restons address.

If they have not informed the court of a change then does that blow the witness statement of their new representative out of the water? Papers have gone off now but just wondered how we go about it in court next week?

Did you ask the court if they had received the Witness Statement from the Claimants ?

What date did they file the WS and what date is the N434 ?

The court can be a little bit behind on their paperwork so maybe worth checking in a couple days, but to save any issues, as you HAVE been informed of the change of rep, I would send a copy of your WS to the claimant (or new Rep) as well as to Restons.

How did you get on with your response to their application ?

The debt is due to become SB on 7th Nov 2018, so would this date still stand? So at the next hearing in Dec, if the Mrs flutters her eyes at the judge and we can convince the him or her to dismiss it then in effect the wife would walk out of court and the debt would be SB?

Yes, if the case is dismissed then it is statute barred and unless they appeal the dismissal and get the claim reinstated somehow that'd be that.

[sytra]

Amethyst Hi, their ws was filed at court on 6th Sep and the date on the n434 is 4th Sep so had plenty of time to catch up..

The application hearing is on Thursday so not sure what's going to happen yet, all we can do is try our best, it is listed to be heard with a District Judge Humphreys at Welshpool, has anyone come across this particular judge? Is he pretty fair and lenient to lip's?

[Amethyst]

Best of luck. This is a hearing for their application to lift the stay and request summary Judgment isn't it.

Did you do a WS in response to their application?

What are your main arguments against summary judgment being awarded against you?

On the change of representation - CPR 42 https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pr...es/part42#42.2 - doesn't seem to have a consequence of non compliance although if the court aren't aware of the change their documents will have continued to go to Restons.

You've been requesting the documents since 2013 and they brought the claim in Jan 2017 and, in your view, continue to fail to provide the correct documents, all you're asking for is the original agreement , terms and transactions so you can check the amounts being claimed are correct - you are concerned as you had a littlewoods account around a similar time which was settled and the documents they have produced ( what did they actually produce with their application ? ) seem to be confused as to who the original account was with. ( you're only interested in documents the claimant has produced not under the SAR from SD )

I'm afraid I don't know anything about DJ Humphreys pt2537 ?

[pt2537]

Best of luck. This is a hearing for their application to lift the stay and request summary Judgment isn't it.

Did you do a WS in response to their application?

What are your main arguments against summary judgment being awarded against you?

On the change of representation - CPR 42 https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pr...es/part42#42.2 - doesn't seem to have a consequence of non compliance although if the court aren't aware of the change their documents will have continued to go to Restons.

You've been requesting the documents since 2013 and they brought the claim in Jan 2017 and, in your view, continue to fail to provide the correct documents, all you're asking for is the original agreement , terms and transactions so you can check the amounts being claimed are correct - you are concerned as you had a littlewoods account around a similar time which was settled and the documents they have produced ( what did they actually produce with their application ? ) seem to be confused as to who the original account was with. ( you're only interested in documents the claimant has produced not under the SAR from SD )

I'm afraid I don't know anything about DJ Humphreys pt2537 ?

Names familiar, we may have had this judge before.

If they are applying for judgment under part 24 then it really is vital that a statement is filed in opposition and in accordance with part 24 otherwise you could end up with judgment being grated.

[sytra]

pt2537 we did file a statement opposing the judgment, don't know how effective it will be though.

It all really hinges on the agreement, being a postal one and not online how the account was opened, that they claim the first movement / Acc opened was in Aug 07, statements show first order was in Dec 07 so assuming like most catalogues as it was opened online the credit would have been completed at time of order, they insist it was a sdfs account throughout the term of the contract and still refer to it as sdfs with no assignment to sdfc, so default from sdfc inaccurate as wrong creditor and the varying dates of assignment.

[pt2537]

pt2537 we did file a statement opposing the judgment, don't know how effective it will be though.

It all really hinges on the agreement, being a postal one and not online how the account was opened, that they claim the first movement / Acc opened was in Aug 07, statements show first order was in Dec 07 so assuming like most catalogues as it was opened online the credit would have been completed at time of order, they insist it was a sdfs account throughout the term of the contract and still refer to it as sdfs with no assignment to sdfc, so default from sdfc inaccurate as wrong creditor and the varying dates of assignment.

Why do you say it hinges on a postal agreement vs an online one? In 2007 you could open an account on line without issue? unless im missing something it wont really help

[sytra]

Well, the hearing was adjourned however we were talking to the solicitor capquest sent and he said (unofficially) he did not like dealing with capquests claims and he could see that there was a good reason why the claim would not get struck out, in the assignments issues he said speaking as a solicitor and not as the claimants solicitor that shop direct had not properly assigned the old marshall ward accounts and as far as he was concerned that was reason enough not to strike out the claim and that in his opinion it should be heard at trial.

however he then also said that Capquest will get the solicitor to try and quickly gloss over the assignments and argue more relevant points that will go against us.

In the end we decided it best to offer a payment as a f&f. so in the end we have paid £750 as f&f they wanted £1 per month on top of the £750 but after a bit of arguing they agreed to the original offer which we have in writing from them. Not too bad really considering the claim stood at over 2k.