Stalling ?

[mickeyboy]

Re: Stalling ?

Hello Again ,Today I have had the following from the court,i do not known what a bar is or what to do next ? please help & please delete where needed ..
.Defence and Counterclaim


Claim number
XXXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant
XXXXXXXXXXXX

Defendant
XXXXXXXXXXXX


How much of the claim do you dispute?


I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form.


Do you dispute this claim because you have already paid it?


No, for other reasons.


Defence


This claim is address to the incorrect person. It is unjust and
unfounded.I have no case to answer. And it should be a 'strike
out'

As clearly stated in XXXXXX own claim statement, his issue
over payment is with XXXXXXXX. I do not 'own'
XXXXXXXXXX as alleged in the claim particulars.
XXXXXXXXX is a trading name of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
and not owned by any one person, including myself.

I was up until Feb 2015 a director of
the above company. The agreement to sell XXXXXXXXXX bike was made
between XXXXXXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXX Trading as XXXXXXXXXXXXXX.
At the time XXXXXXXXXXX made this agreement I was employed by XXXXXXX.

As the agreement was between XXXXXXXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXXX I
cannot comment on details of the agreement including fee's, or
other amounts. It is very clear from XXXXXXXXXXX claim that his
issue is with XXXXXXXXX. In fact he admits that he has
been told the company is liable for the purchase amount of his
motorcycle.

I have had no emails or text messages from XXXXXXXX
to any personal email address or mobile phone. I understand XXXXXXXX
has both emailed and sent text messages to the email
address of XXXXXXXXXXX and to the mobile phone owned and used by
the same company. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX have confirmed to me that the
motorcycle in question was purchased by them from XXXXXXXXXX.
XXXXXXX limited have confirmed to me that they owe XXXXXXXXXX for the
sale of his motorcycle but the amount is currently in dispute with
XXXXXXXXX.

I no longer work for above company. Nor do I work
for XXXXXXXXX as XXXXXXXXXXXXXX alleged in the claim. I work
full time for a business not connected to either of these 2
companies and totally unconnected in any way to motorcycles.

I have had no warning of legal action or request for payment of any
invoice. No letter of intent has been sent. As I am sure XXXXXXXX
has made a genuine mistake in directing his claim to me personally
and should have address this claim to the correct party - XXXXXXXX.

Due to the fact I believe this his his error I will not
counterclaim. However I will be claiming any out of pocket
expenses including but not limited to taking time off work to
attend court if this claim is not 'strike out' or re issued to the
correct legal entity - XXXXXXXXX Trading as XXXXXXXXXXXX.

XXXXXXXXXX did visit XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX and left a hand written note demanding
£3000, but with no explanation as it what the money was for. Any
further unauthorised visits to that address or demands for money
with be referred directly to the Police.

The fact remains that XXXXXXXXXXX fully admit the sale of
XXXXXXXXX' motorcycle on his behalf, the
purchaser XXXXXXXXXX also states that XXXXXXXX sold the
bike to them, and even XXXXXXXXXXXX in his claim admits that
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX (a trading name of XXXXXXXXX) owe's him
the claimed money.

The undisputed facts are that XXXXXXXXXX wanted
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (a trading name of XXXXXXXXXX) to sell his
motorcycle. XXXXXXXXX fully admit to this. XXXXXXXXXXX fully
admit to purchasing the motorcycle from XXXXXXXXXX. Nowhere in
these 3 facts does it in anyway amply that I XXXXXXXXXXX personally
had anything to do with this claim.

Both business involved and
even the claimant all agree XXXXXXXXXX (a trading name of
XXXXXXXXXXX) should be the defendant for this claim. As I am not
XXXXXXXXXX I am unable to comment on the amount claim, but I am
aware it is disputed by XXXXXXXXXX, however they should be asked
directly on this matter.

Rule 3.4 enables the court to strike out
the whole or part of a statement of case which discloses no
reasonable grounds for bringing a claim (rule 3.4(2)(a)), or which
is an abuse of the process of the court.

Clearly this claim is
such a case, as XXXXXXXXXX offers no evidence that I am liable for
the claim and further goes on to agree that XXXXXXXXXXXX (XXXXXXXXXX) are liable.

[wales01man]

Re: Stalling ?

Having read this before editing I would say the claim is against a LTD company if its true all paperwork and correspondence was with the company unless the claimant can prove different.
After all if you buy goods from a large store the claim would be against the company not an employee.

[des8]

Re: Stalling ?

From Defence:
"I was up until Feb 2015 a director of
the above company. The agreement to sell XXXXXXXXXX bike was made
between XXXXXXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXX Trading as XXXXXXXXXXXXXX.
At the time XXXXXXXXXXX made this agreement I was employed by XXXXXXX."

From Wales:
"Having read this before editing I would say the claim is against a LTD company"

Really need to know with whom the agreement to sell the bike was made:
Was it with the defendant as a private individual, or with other individuals trading as XXXX or with a limited company?

[mickeyboy]

Re: Stalling ?

I asked xxx to sell my bike ,i have had numerous new bikes off him in the past 2o years ,so regarded him as a friend ,i just assumed it was his shop as he has been running it for that length of time ,,at no time ever did he say he never owned the shop ,or that he would sell my motorbike through the company ,I had never heard of the other company until he sent details to the court, like i said in previous posts ,i gave it to him in all faith for him to sell for me and he just has not paid me ,i have all the texts and e-mails from him stating he would get me my money has soon as he had it ,and he also sent me a text with a document from his bank saying he has paid ,but it was a false document, it was not my bank details , he is just a compulsive liar....... this is what i have just found ,this might help my case ......Rossendale Motorcycles Ltd, a Kawasaki motorcycle dealership in lancashire UK.

Rossendale Kawasaki started life as "Stott Motors" just down the road from our present showroom, in the 1970's by brothers Ray & Jack Stott. After a move to our current location in 1976, we became Kawasaki "B" dealers and in 1981 Kawasaki Main Dealers.

Taken over by ex racer Tim Smith in 1995, the company quickly grew, from £250k turnover to £1m+ within a few years. Today it is the North West's leading solous Kawasaki dealer, with awards for customer satisfaction. It has a repuation seond to none for value and service. ......and his other company ,,,,,,http://www.feridax.com/dealer_locator/dealer_information.php?AccountID=53472&AddressID=0 ......i have also found other documentation stating he is the director of the company and i have info stating his other company was not trading since 31/07/2014 .,it was around 2 months after this date i asked him to sell my bike .....

[des8]

Re: Stalling ?

From Defence:." In fact he admits that he has been told the company is liable for the purchase amount of his
motorcycle. "
From post 19: "I had never heard of the other company until he sent details to the court"
From Defene: "and even XXXXXXXXXXXX in his claim admits that XXXXXXXXXXXXXX (a trading name of XXXXXXXXX) owe's him the claimed money. "

There are so many contradictions I think we need to see a copy of the claim.

[mickeyboy]

Re: Stalling ?

hi again my claim goes as this .....Particulars of Claim


I asked XXXXXXX who own's Rossendale
Kawasaki bike shop to sell my motorcycle ,We
agreed Over £3000 and i would settle for
£2900,I was trying to trace my bike because
his shop had been closed for several months
and i did not know where it was ,I found my
bike on ebay for sale ,I went to bury
motorcycles ,where XXXX said it had not sold
,At this time i took picture's of the bike in
the shop for future evidence ,I have since
found out he sold the bike to Bury
motorcycle's in June and never told me and
kept the money ,Since then he has been lying
to me and fobbing me off for around 3/4
months ,I have asked for my money constantly
and he promises then tells another lie,I have
all emails and text's stating our
conversation and the lie's he's told ,I have
found out he has now closed rossendale
kawasaki and works at bury motorcyles 2 days
a week now ,he has said it is not him but the
company that owe's the money I would like to
claim costs



Details of claim


Amount claimed
£2,900.00

Court fee
£105.00

Total amount
£3,005.00

[mickeyboy]

Re: Stalling ?

DQ sent to Mr T smith on 08/10/2015 ,from the court ,what is this as well please ? And i still need to know what the bar is ,Thanks

[mickeyboy]

Re: Stalling ?

sample of emails ...Hi Michael
I hope you are well !!

Sorry for the slow answer but I have been away so not checking my emails.

I am back next week, so will phone you either Monday or Tuesday (depending when I get back)

The good news is I took a deposit on your bike just before going away, so should be able to sort it out this week or next. I will phone the chap 1st then you, Monday or Tuesday.

Cheers Tim..................
Hi Michael

Still awaiting payment on your er6, I am giving him until next week then might have to put it back up for sale, as I don't want to be messed about !! And I want to get you the money asap

Kind Regards Tim...
The problem is at the moment that he cannot get the money to pay for it

I will speak again with him tomorrow and update you asap

Kind Regards Tim
I never noticed these emails were from tim@tsruk.co....


sample of textsHi michael different customer but taken a deposit on your er6 he's got his test on the 27th of august so i will contact you then and get you paid. Will £2850 be ok ? cheers tim
if he does not pass his test i will just buy it,i have spent a lot of time and some money doing it up so want to get something back for my effort !!!I am away from tomorrow until the 20th so i will ring you then if that is ok .if he passes and has it great otherwise i will just buy so you are sorted ....
I have lots of other text's as well Thanks for helping me Mickeyboy

[des8]

Re: Stalling ?

So XXX (UK) Ltd are registered at companies House.
Their activity is "Retail sale via mail order houses or via internet"
Correspondence address is 801 Burnley Rd, which is where there is a retail outlet "Rossendale Kawaski". (not exactly mail order or internet).
There were only 2 officers who both resigned 01 February 2015 are D J Smith and T D Smith (brothers?).


When you left your bike for sale, were you given a receipt?
If so what was the company on the heading?


The bar prevents you applying for a default judgement as a defence has been lodged.
DQ = Directions Questionnaire which is sent to both parties for completion to assist court in deciding on allocation to which track.

[mickeyboy]

Re: Stalling ?

So XXX (UK) Ltd are registered at companies House.
Their activity is "Retail sale via mail order houses or via internet"
Correspondence address is 801 Burnley Rd, which is where there is a retail outlet "Rossendale Kawaski". (not exactly mail order or internet).
There were only 2 officers who both resigned 01 February 2015 are D J Smith and T D Smith (brothers?).


When you left your bike for sale, were you given a receipt?
If so what was the company on the heading?


The bar prevents you applying for a default judgement as a defence has been lodged.
DQ = Directions Questionnaire which is sent to both parties for completion to assist court in deciding on allocation to which track.

Thanks; for the information ,And i did not get a receipt ,I just left it to him him to sell as i thought he was a friend who i have dealt with for years ,there has never been any other indication of anybody else owning that shop .I think the smaller named of the 2 business's has only been set up a couple of years ??

[des8]

Re: Stalling ?

Other than sharing an address (land and electronic) and directors/owners I can find no link between TSR uk Ltd And R. K.
TSR do not list retail sales of m/c from shops as one of their activities.

It is possible they are not actually linked, and in fact it is Mr T Smith who is trading as R.K.

In your reply to the defence I would suggest you put the defendant to strict proof as to the claim that TSR are t/a RK.

Other suggestions from Beagles welcomed!

[mickeyboy]

Re: Stalling ?

Thanks des 8 ,i was looking for anything to ridicule his silly falsehoods ,,i am going armed now all the way to get my money ,I cannot thank you enough for the info .

[des8]

Re: Stalling ?

You're welcome.
As you are continuing with the claim I would suggest that in future submissions to the court you refer to yourself as the claimant and the other party as the defendant. No more "I" and "he",
Paragraphs should be numbered, and line spacing 1.5.
This makes it easier for the court to read.
And don't forget to verify with a statement of truth.

[mickeyboy]

Re: Stalling ?

Thanks again des8 .Will i have to put Mr so and so the defendent and I the claimaint ? And yes i will go all the way to get my money as i cannot afford to lose £3000.

[des8]

Re: Stalling ?

Thanks again des8 .Will i have to put Mr so and so the defendent and I the claimaint ? And yes i will go all the way to get my money as i cannot afford to lose £3000.

No. Just "the claimant claims/ asserts/says etc"
and "The defendant owes/said/wrote etc"