** DISCONTINUED/STRUCK ** HackingBack Vs JC International Acquisition

[HackingBack]

Hi all,

I received a claim from JC International via Moriarty Law for an alleged £170 (£250 with solicitors & court costs) debt with TalkTalk from 2009.

I remember this from around that time, and believe it was due to TalkTalk's terrible administration, as I had written to cancel the contract with them because I was moving. I had rung when they first wrote to me saying that I still owed them some money, to explain that I had paid them all they were due, and believed that I had reached understanding with their representative.

Heard nothing about this for years and then in May 2015 I got a letter from a company called Pastdue, whom I rang and asked to provide proof that I owed them money - nothing was forthcoming and I believed it had gone away until I received a letter from Moriarty Law in May this year, then a claim from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton dated the 15th June 2017.

I followed the brilliant 'first steps' on this site and have acknowledged service on the 19th June, which - if I have my calculations correct - should give me until the 17th July to give defence. I also sent on the 19th a CPR request letter to the solicitors.

I believe that this claim is statute Barred as the original agreement (with TalkTalk) is dated October 2009, and the claim form says that the debt was assigned on 26/3/14.

The claim form also says that I agreed to pay monthly instalments but I have failed to do so. I have absolutely no recollection of doing any such thing! (are they allowed to get away with bare-faced lies?!)

So far I have had nothing back from Moriarty Law, as per the CPR request, and hope I won't!

From what I'm reading on this absolutely amazing site, I now have to wait until I hear from the solicitors to determine what my defence might be - but how long should I leave it before submitting my defence?

Thank you for the information provided on here, and thanks in advance to anybody who can help.

HB

[Kati]

Re: HackingBack Vs JC International Acquisition

tagging [MENTION=6]Amethyst[/MENTION] [MENTION=98117]warwick65[/MENTION] [MENTION=87380]Diana M[/MENTION]

[warwick65]

Re: HackingBack Vs JC International Acquisition

Hi
So you have acknowledged the claim (online via MCOL?)

By my rough calculations you have until 4pm next monday 17th to file your defence

You believe this is statute barred and from what you say it may well be but ...what did you say in your letter to them in 2015 ?

It may be that in that letter you acknowledged the debt which would potentially reset the SB clock and it would be remiss of me (or anyone) to say you definitely had a SB defence

In addition were there any communications (or payments) between you and talktalk during that time

Another potentially relevant question would be , when did you enter the contract with talktalk and how long was it for - I am just trying to think ahead about barriers they might use when you say it is statute barred

I really have little insight into telecoms debts so can not offer advice on the defence other than you pleading SB

Remember , if you do plead SB and then before mediation (if it gets that far) theyare able to show its not you can still make an arrangement that would not land you with a ccj

It may well be this is just a speculative claim and they hope you won't defend

[HackingBack]

Re: HackingBack Vs JC International Acquisition

Thanks for your response Warwick, just to clarify I didn't write to them in 2015 but rang in response to a demand for payment from a company called PastDue - pretty sure that all I asked them was to provide proof that I owed them any money, so hopefully I've not jeopardised my defence.

Also, I have acknowledged service via MCOL

As yet I haven't received anything back from Moriarty regarding the CPR request, and with only Saturday and Monday left for post, this leaves me very little time to prepare and post a defence - is it ok to leave it until the last minute, so to speak, or does my defence need to be in by - say - 9am on the 17th?

Also, should I just be adapting the standard defence letter on here, or does anyone know of a more specific one relating to utilities?

Thanks again

HB

[HackingBack]

Re: HackingBack Vs JC International Acquisition

Thanks for your response Warwick, just to clarify I didn't write to them in 2015 but rang in response to a demand for payment from a company called PastDue - pretty sure that all I asked them was to provide proof that I owed them any money, so hopefully I've not jeopardised my defence.

Also, I have acknowledged service via MCOL

As yet I haven't received anything back from Moriarty regarding the CPR request, and with only Saturday and Monday left for post, this leaves me very little time to prepare and post a defence - is it ok to leave it until the last minute, so to speak, or does my defence need to be in by - say - 9am on the 17th?

Also, should I just be adapting the standard defence letter on here, or does anyone know of a more specific one relating to utilities?

Thanks again

HB

[warwick65]

Re: HackingBack Vs JC International Acquisition

[MENTION=6]Amethyst[/MENTION] [MENTION=551]pt2537[/MENTION] can you help as i do not know much about telecoms

Your defence will have to be based on SB and no documents

[HackingBack]

Re: HackingBack Vs JC International Acquisition

Hi again [MENTION=98117]warwick65[/MENTION], [MENTION=6]Amethyst[/MENTION] [MENTION=551]pt2537[/MENTION],

Submitted my defence on Monday at 2.54pm, the MCOL website recognises that it was submitted at this time, but says that it was received at 16.01 - is this normal? slightly worried that I've been sucked into a legal trap here and might now be ordered to pay!

Here is the defence I submitted:

1.I received the claim XXXXXXXX from the Northampton County Court on 17/6/2017.

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 an alleged agreement with TalkTalk Limited

4.The Claimants statement of case fails to give adequate information to enable me to properly assess my position with regards to the claim.

5. 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

6.The Claimants statement of case states that the account was assigned from Talk Talk Limited to JC International Acquisition LLC on xx/03/2014. The Defendant does not recall receiving notice of this assignment.

7.It is denied that Talk Talk Limited served any Default notice. The Claimant is required to prove that a compliant Default Notice was served upon the Defendant.

8.On the 19/6/2017 I sent a request for inspection of documents mentioned in the claimant’s statement of case under Civil Procedure Rule 31.14 to Moriarty Law. I requested the Claimant provide copies of the Agreement, Default Notice and Notice of Assignment.

9. Moriarty Law has not sent any of these documents to me.

10.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.

11. 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.

12.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.

13.It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief as claimed or at all.

Does this look ok? I wasn't sure if the last paragraph (13) was necessary, but tried to keep it within the bounds of what seemed sensible!

I understand that I now have to wait for the case to be transferred to a small claims track for hearing? is this correct?

Regards

HB

[warwick65]

Re: HackingBack Vs JC International Acquisition

Hi
You have entered your defence so the next stage would be for the claimant to review your defence and decide if they are going to proceed. If they do you will be sent a directions Questionnaire to fill out.

If you use MCOL , just keep an eye on it to see if they have sent in the DQ and if one has been sent out to you - it should show it, mine does

From that you fill it in and tick yes to mediation etc and go from there

[HackingBack]

Re: HackingBack Vs JC International Acquisition

Hello all,

There have been a few developments since I last posted - namely I had a letter from Moriarty Law saying that they were still pursuing the case, this was followed by a directions questionnaire, which was duly filled out and returned with a request for mediation.

Bringing this up-to-date, the mediation service have been in touch with a proposed date for mediation. This asks me to get in touch (preferably via email), if any of three conditions can't be met - the second of these is

" I can confirm that I have enough information about the claim to allow me to enter into negotiations and that I do not require any further evidence from the other party before the appointment."


As I can't answer yes to this (because Moriarty haven't sent me any of the requested docs!) do I just email them back telling them of the failure?

What happens next please?!

Regards

HB

[MIKE770]

Re: HackingBack Vs JC International Acquisition

they have failed to supply documents requested - they will then state not suitable for mediation and pass back to the court system for the courts next move

[HackingBack]

Re: HackingBack Vs JC International Acquisition

Hi Mike, thanks for your response.

So, I'll sit tight and wait what happens!

Thanks again

HB

[MIKE770]

Re: HackingBack Vs JC International Acquisition

tell mediator that failure to supply the necessary documents = they will state not suitable for mediation and they will pass back to the court system>

[HackingBack]

Re: HackingBack Vs JC International Acquisition

Thank you to all who helped me with this I have received a notice of discontinuance from Moriarty Law and also on the same day a General Form of Judgement or Order to say that the claim has been STRUCK OUT . So thanks to [MENTION=98117]warwick65[/MENTION] [MENTION=3599]MIKE770[/MENTION] and anybody else who has contributed. Thank you so much!

[Amethyst]

Re: HackingBack Vs JC International Acquisition

I've added both to the title... both have same effect but if they were struck out before they managed to discontinue they have far less chance of picking it back up again later. And the discontinuance makes it a bit more certain they aren't going to argue against the strike out. Should all be over and done with now..... Congratulations

[warwick65]

Re: ** DISCONTINUED/STRUCK ** HackingBack Vs JC International Acquisition

Well done. Really pleased for you. Yet another example of why cases should be defended. If you hadn't bothered you would ha e a default judgement bit you won.