**DISCONTINUED**County Court letter from Lowell - Old Vodafone debt

[enabled]

Re: County Court letter from Lowell - Old Vodafone debt

The PoC does not state a date on which the agreement was entered into; if it were me I'd leave the wording of para 5 as it is.

Not a problem. I can leave that as is.

I hope Rob sees this and can inform where he would suggest where to put in what he suggested earlier (see my previous post with his quote)

[charitynjw]

Re: County Court letter from Lowell - Old Vodafone debt

Not a problem. I can leave that as is.

I hope Rob sees this and can inform where he would suggest where to put in what he suggested earlier (see my previous post with his quote)

I'll give [MENTION=71570]R0b[/MENTION] a nudge.

[R0b]

Re: County Court letter from Lowell - Old Vodafone debt

HI, sorry have been busy this weekend, will try and have proper read of it tomorrow and get back to you.

[enabled]

Re: County Court letter from Lowell - Old Vodafone debt

HI, sorry have been busy this weekend, will try and have proper read of it tomorrow and get back to you.

Ok Rob thanks. ASAP if you can please. Think I need it in for tomorrow or Monday. I have done what char said and just await your input

Cheers

[enabled]

Re: County Court letter from Lowell - Old Vodafone debt

Anybody? Want to get this in today as I am sure tomorrow is deadline. Yeah I left it a bit late but better late than never lol

[R0b]

Re: County Court letter from Lowell - Old Vodafone debt

Sorry, busy weekend. Have had a quick look back through this thread and adjustments as below. Make sure you feel its all correct and if anything missing let me know, its a quick mock up but by no means perfect.

---------------

1. The Defendant received the claim xxxxxxxx from Northampton County Court on 26th August 2016

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

3. This claim appears to be for a telecommunications agreement (the “Agreement”) regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the “CCA”). Over the years, the Defendant recalls having entered into multiple agreements (each with different contractual dates) under the account reference the Claimant refers to.

4. The Claimants statement of case fails to comply with rule 16 of the Civil Procedure Rules (the “CPR”) in that it fails to give a concise statement of facts to enable the Defendant to properly assess [his/her] position as regards to the claim. In particular, the claim also fails to:

(a) state which specific Agreement the claim relates to under the account;
(b) the date on which the Defendant entered into the Agreement; and
(c) clarify whether a notice of termination was served on the Defendant and if so, what date;

5. The Claimant states that the account was assigned from Vodafone to Lowell on 30/06/2015 (the “Assignment”) however, the Claimant does not confirm who gave the notice of Assignment and on what date it was served. Further, the Defendant does not recall ever receiving the Assignment and the Claimant is required to provide evidence that the Assignment was validly served in accordance with all applicable laws.

6. The Defendant does not recall that a default notice was served by Vodafone to s87 of the CCA or ever receiving one. The Claimant is required to prove that a compliant Default Notice was served upon the Defendant pursuant to the CCA.

7. On the 03/09/2016 I sent a formal request for a copy of the Agreement to Lowell pursuant to section [77 or 78] of the CCA along with the statutory £1 fee. The Claimant has failed to provide a copy of the Agreement within 12 working days and so the Claimant cannot enforce the Agreement.

8. On the 06/09/2016 and in accordance with CPR 31.14, the Defendant requested a copy of the documents referred to in the Claimant’s statement of case. Since this date and despite repeated requests, the Claimant’s solicitors, Lowell Solicitors have not complied with the request. Consequently, due to the Claimant’s conduct and behaviour and failure to comply with the overriding objective under CPR 1.1, the Defendant is prejudiced in this claim.

9. The Defendant will rely on Expandable v Rubin [2008] EWCA Civ 59 (as per Rix LJ at paragraph 24):

“The general ethos of the CPR is for a more cards on the table approach to litigation. If a party thinks it worthwhile to mention a document in his pleadings, witness statements or affidavits, I do not see why, subject as I say to the question of privilege, the court should put difficulties in the way of inspection. I look upon the mention of a document in pleadings etc as a form of disclosure. The document in question has not been disclosed by list, or at any rate not yet, but it has been disclosed by mention in what, for the purposes of litigation, is another important and formal category of documents. If so, then the party deploying that document by its mention should in principle be prepared to be required to permit its inspection, and the other party should be entitled to its inspection.”

10. Further to the above, the Defendant can only assume that the Claimant does not have in possession the documents it seeks to rely upon given the lack of response, the result of which amounts to an abuse of process. The Defendant will refer to the dicta of Cooke J in Nomura International Plc v Granada Group [2007] EWHC 642 (Comm):

“… when regard is had to these authorities the key question must always be whether or not, at the time of issuing a Writ, the claimant was in a position properly to identify the essence of the tort or breach of contract complained of and if given appropriate time to marshall what it knew, to formulate Particulars of Claim. If the claimant was not in a position to do so, then the claimant could have no present intention of prosecuting proceedings, since it had no known basis for doing so. If a claimant cannot do that which is necessary to prosecute the claim by setting out the basis of it, even in a rudimentary way, a claimant has no business to issue a Claim Form at all in the hope that something may turn up” (at para. 37).

“In my judgment therefore if Nomura, at the time of issuing its Claim Form, was not in a position to do the minimum necessary to set out the nature of the claim it was making, it would be seeking an illegitimate benefit … That would be an abuse of the process of the court. Insofar as it sought to make any claim in contract, it would be necessary for it to be able to identify the particular contract and the alleged breach” (at para. 41).

11. Under CPR 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.

12. In light of the above circumstances, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or at all and the Defendant respectfully asks the Court that the claim is dismissed because:

(a) the Claimant’s claim is embarrassing for want of particularity;
(b) the Claimant has not complied with a number of rules under the CPR; and
(c) given the surrounding facts and evidence, it is more likely than not, that the Claimant does not possess the documents it seeks to rely upon in its statements of case. Therefore, and following Cooke J in Nomura v Granada, the claim can only amount to an abuse of process.

13. If the Court is not satisfied with the above, then alternatively the Defendant asks that the Court make a special direction that:

(a) unless the Claimant provides copies of the documents it seeks to rely upon within 14 days, the claim shall be struck out; and
(b) if the Claimant complies, the Defendant shall be entitled to amend and file [his/her] Defence accordingly with those costs borne by the Claimant.

[enabled]

Re: County Court letter from Lowell - Old Vodafone debt

We are sorry, but your request has been rejected owing to one or more technical reasons.
Please check your input and try again. If you continue to get this message then please contact the Money Claim helpdesk.

It can be contacted for support between 9:00am and 5:00pm, Monday to Friday on:

Tel: 0845 601 5935
Fax: 0845 601 5889

If you prefer to write your query instead, please contact:

Money Claim Online
Northampton County Court
21-27, St. Katherine Street
Northampton
NN1 2LH

Or email to customerservice.mcol@hmcourts-service.gsi.gov.uk

Please make a note of the following support id: 1193349104117750127

I am getting that message when I try to click next

[R0b]

Re: County Court letter from Lowell - Old Vodafone debt

It could be that the word count is more than what is allowed to be input, if this is the case then you will need to email to the specific MCOL address but it will need to be set out properly and headed properly.

I've uploaded a document in this format but you will need to sign and date it too as well as fill in the heading e.g. Claimant, your name and the Claim number at the top of the document. You can send email it to ccbcaq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

[enabled]

Re: County Court letter from Lowell - Old Vodafone debt

Digital sign yes? How come the email address you have provided is different to the one they have?

I have uploaded it for you to just to confirm it is ok and I will email it over.

Please confirm that us the right email address you have provided as they gave a different one

Thanks

[R0b]

Re: County Court letter from Lowell - Old Vodafone debt

Suppose you could digitally sign it yes, unusual but as long as it comes from an email that you can prove is yours that you use then can't see it being an issue, though the other side might dispute it. CPR 5 I believe says an electronic signature could be used.

What email address are you referring to that's different? The email I have supplied is the correct one and also confirms it when you look at the page on court finder. It confirms that claims and responses are to be emailed to the email I've given.

Just make sure to put in the subject title, claimant v defendant (claim no. Xxxxxxxx)

[enabled]

Re: County Court letter from Lowell - Old Vodafone debt

Suppose you could digitally sign it yes, unusual but as long as it comes from an email that you can prove is yours that you use then can't see it being an issue, though the other side might dispute it. CPR 5 I believe says an electronic signature could be used.

What email address are you referring to that's different? The email I have supplied is the correct one and also confirms it when you look at the page on court finder. It confirms that claims and responses are to be emailed to the email I've given.

Thanks Rob. I emailed it off about hour and half ago and got an automated response.

Thank you for emailing the County Court Business Centre’s ‘CCBC AQ’ Email

Account. We will endeavour to respond to your email within 5 working days (please do not re-send duplicate messages)

There was some other stuff in there too.

Do I need to log onto MCOL and do anything that says my defence was been sent?

Is it also worth me calling tomorrow to see if they have received it?

I had no other way to actually sign it, would of been looking at sending it through the post if I had to physically sign it. It was sent from my own personal email address so I can provide proof it was me if requested,

I titled the email RE CLAIM NUMBER : xxxxxxx - Hope that is ok.

[R0b]

Re: County Court letter from Lowell - Old Vodafone debt

Retain that acknowledgement email as that is proof that it has been sent before the cut off time regardless of whether they process it after Monday. For the purposes of it being filed, it has been filed in time

[piratepeter63]

Re: County Court letter from Lowell - Old Vodafone debt

hi rob
just a little info , ive been to court twice over a old vodafone debt, the first time it got adjourned, because i argued that i received lowells witness statement, two days prior to the court case, but i wasnt allowed to defend it unknowing to me i had not put in a witness statement, so the judge asked me why, i said to him, one minute im going to court then im not, then lowells want to mediate, then threatened with a ccj, i said everything is so confusing,
so he adjourned the case so i could produce a witness statement, but i had to pay lowells agent £210.00 for her being there,

i was back last monday i had not paid the agent her fee, my argument was that i received the court order three days after , the date for payment, of which i contacted the court by letter, and received one back which said its irrelavent that the court order was late.
lowells tried to win on that basis that i was debarred from defending the case for not paying on time, the judge said to her there is a cheque stapled to this so mr xxxx has tried to pay it and the courts have made a mess of things,

he then said to lowells agent, mr xxxx entered into a contract with vodafone in 2002 and defaulted in 2014 can you explain to me how mr xxxx can be charged £615.00 early termination fee forget get the calls and other charges, so he as adjourned the case, untill lowells give in writing how the fee as come about, copies of the five invoices relating to the debt and a copy of the signed terms and condition , to be in court within fourteen days .





3

[R0b]

Re: County Court letter from Lowell - Old Vodafone debt

hi rob
just a little info , ive been to court twice over a old vodafone debt, the first time it got adjourned, because i argued that i received lowells witness statement, two days prior to the court case, but i wasnt allowed to defend it unknowing to me i had not put in a witness statement, so the judge asked me why, i said to him, one minute im going to court then im not, then lowells want to mediate, then threatened with a ccj, i said everything is so confusing,
so he adjourned the case so i could produce a witness statement, but i had to pay lowells agent £210.00 for her being there,

i was back last monday i had not paid the agent her fee, my argument was that i received the court order three days after , the date for payment, of which i contacted the court by letter, and received one back which said its irrelavent that the court order was late.
lowells tried to win on that basis that i was debarred from defending the case for not paying on time, the judge said to her there is a cheque stapled to this so mr xxxx has tried to pay it and the courts have made a mess of things,

he then said to lowells agent, mr xxxx entered into a contract with vodafone in 2002 and defaulted in 2014 can you explain to me how mr xxxx can be charged £615.00 early termination fee forget get the calls and other charges, so he as adjourned the case, untill lowells give in writing how the fee as come about, copies of the five invoices relating to the debt and a copy of the signed terms and condition , to be in court within fourteen days .

3

Hi Peter, sorry your post is slightly all over the place. Are you saying that you are back in court in 14 days whereby Lowells must have provided you with copies of the invoices that supposedly amount to £615.00 for early termination? Do they require them to be authenticated and verified by Vodafone as being true copies?

I am also curious as to how you took out a contract in 2002 but default in 2014 if contracts these days are no more than 2 years at best?

[piratepeter63]

Re: County Court letter from Lowell - Old Vodafone debt

hi rob,
the full amount is £1200, vodafone, i think the judge as picked upon what i mentioned in my witness statement, that lowells are producing fraudulent paperwork, and altering them to suit there claim, so he wants a full breakdown in writing, how i can be charged a early termination fee for such a long service, the reason being because lowells havent produced any paper work, ie terms and conditions to show what was the length of my contract. i asked the judge if lowells can also produce the copies of the invoices which relates to the claim, of which lowells mentioned in there statement and he agreed, and can they produce the terms and conditions , now lowell have got three days to show the courts them.