Hoist/Howard Cohen

[Diana M]

Re: Hoist/Howard Cohen

You need to file your Defence to a claim which you say was issued in April.

Diana M

[ADDLED]

Re: Hoist/Howard Cohen

You need to file your Defence to a claim which you say was issued in April.
Diana M

I know, and i am seriously worried for this one reason; I dont know what my defence is.

Reading other posts there has been a lot of feedback as to the validity of the agreement supplied by the claimant. This is my sticking point; i need advice as to whether or not the agreement that theyve sent me is actually valid, whether it covers the dates they claim (they havent mentioned a date of agreement in their claim or the re-hashed agreement).

In a previous case i had with Lowells [MENTION=55034]nemesis45[/MENTION], [MENTION=5553]charitynjw[/MENTION] and yourself were very helpful in examining the agreement to ascertain its validity and provenance. I won on the basis that there were flaws in the agreement that contradicted the claimants argument; i.e. we could prove that the agreement doc given in evidence was published years after they claim the agreement was taken out.

Could someone pleae take another look at the agreement i posted and let me know what they think, so as i can draft a defence.

thanks again... in desperation.
ADD

[Diana M]

Re: Hoist/Howard Cohen

In a previous case i had with Lowells @nemesis45, @charitynjw and yourself were very helpful in examining the agreement to ascertain its validity and provenance. I won on the basis that there were flaws in the agreement that contradicted the claimants argument

Actually that wasn't the case.

I've read your Lowells thread which started before I was even a member of this forum. You filed your Defence before I was a member of this forum. You filed your WS before I joined your thread. You attended a hearing before I joined your thread.

My sole contribution was to guide you on the importance of complying with a court Order (made by the DJ at the first hearing) which obliged you to pay for a handwriting expert. You chose not to.

You posted that the DJ dismissed the claim after the Claimant or their legal representative failed to attend the hearing and failed to comply with court Orders.

At no time did I "examine the agreement to ascertain it's validity".

I hope this clarifies things for you and I wish you good luck with both of your claims.

Diana M

[Diana M]

Re: Hoist/Howard Cohen

I know, and i am seriously worried for this one reason; I dont know what my defence is.

Reading other posts there has been a lot of feedback as to the validity of the agreement supplied by the claimant. This is my sticking point; i need advice as to whether or not the agreement that theyve sent me is actually valid, whether it covers the dates they claim (they havent mentioned a date of agreement in their claim or the re-hashed agreement).

. . . . . Could someone pleae take another look at the agreement i posted and let me know what they think, so as i can draft a defence.

[MENTION=551]pt2537[/MENTION] has offered to do that.

You need to file your Defence as a matter of urgency (it's two months overdue).

ahh ok, well the above case still holds water here. In wegmuller, the signed app was illegible in part but contained none of the statutory information such as prescribed terms, rights and remedies, so even though in that case they had a signed document it still didnt get them over the line.

People often focus on very narrow points while missing the broader issues around the outside which still can play a part. To quote Bruce Lee — 'Its like a finger pointing away to the moon. Dont concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory.


So while your point about no signed agreement may well be right, lets look at the documents they do have, which still leave them with a problem or three

Di

[ADDLED]

Re: Hoist/Howard Cohen

Actually that wasn't the case.

I've read your Lowells thread which started before I was even a member of this forum. You filed your Defence before I was a member of this forum. You filed your WS before I joined your thread. You attended a hearing before I joined your thread.

My sole contribution was to guide you on the importance of complying with a court Order (made by the DJ at the first hearing) which obliged you to pay for a handwriting expert. You chose not to.

You posted that the DJ dismissed the claim after the Claimant or their legal representative failed to attend the hearing and failed to comply with court Orders.

At no time did I "examine the agreement to ascertain it's validity". Diana M

Wow, i seem to have touched a nerve, and i humbly apologise. I had remembered that you, amongst many others, were helpful to me in the Lowells claim and so i mentioned your assitance in a positive light; i didnt mean to offend by getting my facts slightly wrong, rather was crediting you with having helped me.

[Diana M]

Re: Hoist/Howard Cohen

Wow, i seem to have touched a nerve, and i humbly apologise. I had remembered that you, amongst many others, were helpful to me in the Lowells claim and so i mentioned your assitance in a positive light; i didnt mean to offend by getting my facts slightly wrong, rather was crediting you with having helped me.

No offence taken.

But you need to file your Defence asap because every day that you don't (file your Defence) you're one step nearer to a Default Judgment (the deadline expired over two months ago).

Ask the forum for help and/or send a PM to a member of Site Team or Admin.

Di

[nemesis45]

Re: Hoist/Howard Cohen

Wow, i seem to have touched a nerve, and i humbly apologise. I had remembered that you, amongst many others, were helpful to me in the Lowells claim and so i mentioned your assitance in a positive light; i didnt mean to offend by getting my facts slightly wrong, rather was crediting you with having helped me.

Wouldn't worry too much about the above Add.

nem

[Amethyst]

Re: Hoist/Howard Cohen

ADD, I'm just going back through the docs and your thread, see if we can get you sorted before any crappy default judgment gets posted. At least one is in and sorted - did you get confirmation for that one?

[Joanna C]

Re: Hoist/Howard Cohen

No offence taken.

But you need to file your Defence asap because every day that you don't (file your Defence) you're one step nearer to a Default Judgment (the deadline expired over two months ago).

Ask the forum for help and/or send a PM to a member of Site Team or Admin.

Di

You must file a defence in as quickly as possible. If you don't then you will probably get a default judgment. What is the reason for the delay in this?

Are you not getting help from the forum? If not please try a pro bono centre or Law works .

[Amethyst]

Re: Hoist/Howard Cohen

Roughly, and it is likely if they do provide further documents you will need to amend, but I think this is all you can do for the moment - if they do provide better documents with dates on and state when the agreement was entered into THEN you can look better (&maybe get some formal legal help) at Wegmuller and more technical prescribed terms arguments but this should keep you safe from default judgment ( assuming they haven't already snuck in with it - presumably you've checked ). Unlikely you'll be able to file on MCOl as it's so far past the filing date and this might be a little long anyway, so probably email it as a PDF. There are a few bits to fill in ( claim number etc ) Paragraph 7 is statute barred - I couldn't see anything on the thread re limitations so if you don't think you have paid anything to this at all since 2012 you can leave it in, otherwise take it out ( and renumber) Make sure you read it all, check it and make any amendments - it really is just a very rough draft.

[In the Northampton County Court Business Centre
Claim No: [XXXXX]

[Claimants Name]
Claimant
And

[Defendants Name]
Defendant



DEFENCE

1. I received the claim [Claim Number] from the Northampton County Court Business Centre on [Date you received the claim]
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 / Running Credit agreement originally with Barclaycard regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
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 Claimant fails to give any breakdown or detail of how the sum claimed has been calculated.
6. The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim fail to state when the agreement was entered into.
7. The Defendant contends the alleged debt is statute barred by virtue of Section 5 of the Limitations Act 1980 in that no payment or acknowledgment has been made for over 6 years
8. The Claimants statement of case states that the account was assigned from MKDP to the Claimant. The Defendant has not received notice of this assignment.
9. In addition, the Defendant has received no notice of assignment of any alleged agreement from Barclaycard to MKDP. The Claimant is required to evidence that MKDP held the legal right to assign the agreement.
10. It is denied that neither Barclaycard, nor MKDP, nor the Claimant, 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.
11. On the [Date] I sent a request for inspection of documents mentioned in the claimant’s statement of case under Civil Procedure Rule 31.14 to the Claimant’s solicitors, Howard Cohen. I requested the Claimant provide copies of the Agreement, Default Notice and Notice of Assignment.
12. The Claimant has not sent any copies of a Default Notice or Notice of Assignment.
13. On the [Date] I sent a formal request for a copy of the original agreement to Hoist Portfolio pursuant to section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 along with the statutory £1 fee.
14. The Claimant has failed to comply with section 78 Consumer Credit Act 1974 and by virtue of s78(6) Consumer Credit Act 1974 cannot enforce the agreement.
15. The Claimant has provided two photocopies of terms and conditions it alleges were applicable to the account. One set of terms appears to be dated October 2012 and the other set is undated. As the Claimant has not stated the date of the alleged agreement, nor provided dates on the sets of terms sent, the Defendant is unable to ascertain the validity of these terms.
16. Neither set of terms contains the Defendant’s details or signature and the Defendant has not seen either of these documents previously.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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 ________________________________

[ADDLED]

Re: Hoist/Howard Cohen

Hi all, thanks for the recent updates. I've just got back from a couple from days with family - sis has just popped first baby so all been a bit up in the air and havent had a chance to look at this yet.
I'll re-draft Amethyst's template, should i post it up for a check over before i email it to the CC?
tks again
ADD

[ADDLED]

Re: Hoist/Howard Cohen

Hi again. Its dropped off MCOL by the looks of things so i cant tell if theyve applied or default judgement so will call CC in the morning, as of Friday it was still good.

Thanks so much for that draft defence Amethyst. All i did was insert dates/details and i left the SB paragraph in because im quite sure i havent addressed/acknowledged anything since v.early 2012 at the latest.

I'll report back tomorrow when ive spoken with the CC.

tks again.
ADD

[Amethyst]

Re: Hoist/Howard Cohen

Ooo congrats on the niece/nephew ... nice to have something fun (to concentrate on let us know what court say tmw.

[warwick65]

Re: Hoist/Howard Cohen

Hi Addled
Will this complete both defences for both claims?

[warwick65]

Re: Hoist/Howard Cohen

Just to add

Have both claims dropped of MCOL?

So
Mastercard - on MCOL?, defence entered?

Visa-, on MCOL?, defence entered?

Sorry if you have answered these but the thread has become complicated