Tweet
No need to include anything about the SAR in the defence...
1.The Defendant received the claim [Claim Number] from the [Name of Court – often Northampton or Salford] County Court 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 alleged to be for a Lloyds Bank Credit Card agreement regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
4.On the [Date in APRIL ] The Defendant sent a formal request for a copy of the original agreement to [Claimant] pursuant to section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 along with the statutory £1 fee.
5. The Claimant failed to comply with the request.
6. The Defendant received a formal letter of claim on or around xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and responded pursuant to the pre-action protocols for debt claims stating they did not know if they owe the debt and requesting further information being copies of documents; agreement, default notice, statements of account, notice of assignment.
6. The Defendant did not hear from the Claimant after requesting a copy of the documents until receipt of the claim form, contrary to the Pre-Action protocols for Debt Claims.
5. The Defendant further sent a formal request on [Date] after receipt of the claim in this case.
6.The Claimant has acknowledged in writing that the original Creditor, Lloyds Bank, is unable to produce any copy of the alleged agreement and accepts the debt is unenforceable.
7.The Claimant has failed to comply with s 78 (1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and by virtue of s 78 (6) Consumer Credit Act 1974 cannot enforce the agreement.
8.It is denied that [Original Creditor] 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. The Claimant is required to prove that the any Default notice relied upon complied with the requirements of s88(4A) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and that the notice was in the prescribed form as required by The Consumer Credit Enforcement Default and Termination Notice Regulations 1983.
9.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.
10. The Parties agreed to an extension to the time period allowed for filing of the defence under CPR 15.5 to allow the Claimants additional time to produce the relevant documentation to evidence their claim, however they have failed to do so. Considering the Defendant has been requesting more information relating to the Claimant's assertion that a debt is owed since April 2018 and has been more than reasonable in allowing the Claimant additional time to provide documents, the Defendant respectifully requests the court strike out the claim.
8. Therefore it is the Defendants contention that the claim should be struck out as having no prospect of success.
Originally posted by starting point
1.The Defendant received the claim [Claim Number] from the [Name of Court – often Northampton or Salford] County Court 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 alleged to be for a Lloyds Bank Credit Card agreement regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
4.On the [Date in APRIL ] The Defendant sent a formal request for a copy of the original agreement to [Claimant] pursuant to section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 along with the statutory £1 fee.
5. The Claimant failed to comply with the request.
6. The Defendant received a formal letter of claim on or around xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and responded pursuant to the pre-action protocols for debt claims stating they did not know if they owe the debt and requesting further information being copies of documents; agreement, default notice, statements of account, notice of assignment.
6. The Defendant did not hear from the Claimant after requesting a copy of the documents until receipt of the claim form, contrary to the Pre-Action protocols for Debt Claims.
5. The Defendant further sent a formal request on [Date] after receipt of the claim in this case.
6.The Claimant has acknowledged in writing that the original Creditor, Lloyds Bank, is unable to produce any copy of the alleged agreement and accepts the debt is unenforceable.
7.The Claimant has failed to comply with s 78 (1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and by virtue of s 78 (6) Consumer Credit Act 1974 cannot enforce the agreement.
8.It is denied that [Original Creditor] 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. The Claimant is required to prove that the any Default notice relied upon complied with the requirements of s88(4A) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and that the notice was in the prescribed form as required by The Consumer Credit Enforcement Default and Termination Notice Regulations 1983.
9.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.
10. The Parties agreed to an extension to the time period allowed for filing of the defence under CPR 15.5 to allow the Claimants additional time to produce the relevant documentation to evidence their claim, however they have failed to do so. Considering the Defendant has been requesting more information relating to the Claimant's assertion that a debt is owed since April 2018 and has been more than reasonable in allowing the Claimant additional time to provide documents, the Defendant respectifully requests the court strike out the claim.
8. Therefore it is the Defendants contention that the claim should be struck out as having no prospect of success.
xxx
Comment