Tweet
Hi to all hope some body can help me!
I am in the midst of trying to put a defence together to file asap at Manchester County Court and a) not sure what I should put down B) whether the facts I have correlated together are a defence c) if I am going about it in the right way - I will post my supposed defence below and I would be obliged for any feedback whatsoever, here goes:
Claimant : Waverley TBS
Solicitors : Pannone
Defendents: Mrs
Mrs
Claim No. : O
+++++++
Waverley TBS has recently been taken over, and it is my belief that their offices are awash with Accountants/Solicitors looking for what they term bad debt and are looking for any form of perceived asset that could be turned into trading cash.
Mrs .. and I ceased trading with Waverley TBS in October 2008.
The first indication that I had that the claimant, through their solicitors Pannone, were intent on pursuing us for a supposed debt was a letter dated 1 October 2010.
The figure they pertain is outstanding is different to that which appears on the Claim Form issued by Manchester County Court.
This letter is the only correspondence I have received directly from their Manchester Offices.
Both Mrs and I deny having a loan, under the terms set out in that letter. The account number quoted is not and never has been our account number with Waverley TBS when at the A... Inn.
I contend that the Particulars of Claim are so poorly particularised, and are set out in such a manner, as to hamper and hinder, us, the defendants, in being able to file a reliable defence.
Pannone have deliberately refused to acknowledge my correspondence, letters dated . .. And one a 'Prove it' letter and two CPR31.14 request they were obliged to do as, until allocated, this case remains trackless.
It is my belief that Pannone are putting this case before the Court in the hope that the court will rely much more heavily on 'balance of probabilities' rather than strict proof in black and white.
Our account number with Waverley TBS was and we did have a trade agreement with Waverley TBS for the sum of £5000 however this was written off by the claimant in October 2008 I have in my possession a document which I hope that the court will acknowledge as proof of same.
I would also ask the court to ask Pannone why they filed this claim citing Mrs address as the B.. H Inn, C (the address to which Mrs told them she was moving to in the above document when the said trading agreement was written off) and mine as M .. (which they would have had to find via the electoral roll) Mrs C has had no papers from Manchester County Court served on her as she has lived with me since we both moved from the B.. H . Inn in September 2009 (and Mrs is also shown on the same electoral roll where they found mine address).
Mrs . wrote to the Court on 20 October 2010 informing them of this fact.
I therefore respectfully request that the court Strike Out this claim for the following reasons:
1. I have no knowledge of the account that Pannone have sited
2. That Pannone did:
a) Knowingly site Mrs ..s address on the claim form as the B.. H Inn in the knowledge that a judgment would be awarded against her if she did not make an Acknowledgment to court
b) Knowingly have knowledge of the abovementioned letter in which Mrs C .. acknowledged to Mr C R . of Waverley TBS the writing off of the debt which took place in November 2008 when we ceased trading at the A . Inn or else the court papers would not have been forwarded to that address
hope this all makes sense as the whole rigmarole is getting so mix up I am having difficulty following my self now -
as I intimated Pannone have completedly ignored all correspondence I have written to them - I have had to employ a solicitor to get a copy of my trade agreement sent over from their offices in Manchester - but I cannot afford his services for more than this. He also supposedly got us an extension to file the defence by seven days - but when I checked the court this am they say the deadline is 4.00pm tomorrow - however our solicitor says that the extra seven days stand as it was an agreement between solicitors! whatever that means!
any help to formulate a defence would be appreciated
I am in the midst of trying to put a defence together to file asap at Manchester County Court and a) not sure what I should put down B) whether the facts I have correlated together are a defence c) if I am going about it in the right way - I will post my supposed defence below and I would be obliged for any feedback whatsoever, here goes:
Claimant : Waverley TBS
Solicitors : Pannone
Defendents: Mrs
Mrs
Claim No. : O
+++++++
Waverley TBS has recently been taken over, and it is my belief that their offices are awash with Accountants/Solicitors looking for what they term bad debt and are looking for any form of perceived asset that could be turned into trading cash.
Mrs .. and I ceased trading with Waverley TBS in October 2008.
The first indication that I had that the claimant, through their solicitors Pannone, were intent on pursuing us for a supposed debt was a letter dated 1 October 2010.
The figure they pertain is outstanding is different to that which appears on the Claim Form issued by Manchester County Court.
This letter is the only correspondence I have received directly from their Manchester Offices.
Both Mrs and I deny having a loan, under the terms set out in that letter. The account number quoted is not and never has been our account number with Waverley TBS when at the A... Inn.
I contend that the Particulars of Claim are so poorly particularised, and are set out in such a manner, as to hamper and hinder, us, the defendants, in being able to file a reliable defence.
Pannone have deliberately refused to acknowledge my correspondence, letters dated . .. And one a 'Prove it' letter and two CPR31.14 request they were obliged to do as, until allocated, this case remains trackless.
It is my belief that Pannone are putting this case before the Court in the hope that the court will rely much more heavily on 'balance of probabilities' rather than strict proof in black and white.
Our account number with Waverley TBS was and we did have a trade agreement with Waverley TBS for the sum of £5000 however this was written off by the claimant in October 2008 I have in my possession a document which I hope that the court will acknowledge as proof of same.
I would also ask the court to ask Pannone why they filed this claim citing Mrs address as the B.. H Inn, C (the address to which Mrs told them she was moving to in the above document when the said trading agreement was written off) and mine as M .. (which they would have had to find via the electoral roll) Mrs C has had no papers from Manchester County Court served on her as she has lived with me since we both moved from the B.. H . Inn in September 2009 (and Mrs is also shown on the same electoral roll where they found mine address).
Mrs . wrote to the Court on 20 October 2010 informing them of this fact.
I therefore respectfully request that the court Strike Out this claim for the following reasons:
1. I have no knowledge of the account that Pannone have sited
2. That Pannone did:
a) Knowingly site Mrs ..s address on the claim form as the B.. H Inn in the knowledge that a judgment would be awarded against her if she did not make an Acknowledgment to court
b) Knowingly have knowledge of the abovementioned letter in which Mrs C .. acknowledged to Mr C R . of Waverley TBS the writing off of the debt which took place in November 2008 when we ceased trading at the A . Inn or else the court papers would not have been forwarded to that address
hope this all makes sense as the whole rigmarole is getting so mix up I am having difficulty following my self now -
as I intimated Pannone have completedly ignored all correspondence I have written to them - I have had to employ a solicitor to get a copy of my trade agreement sent over from their offices in Manchester - but I cannot afford his services for more than this. He also supposedly got us an extension to file the defence by seven days - but when I checked the court this am they say the deadline is 4.00pm tomorrow - however our solicitor says that the extra seven days stand as it was an agreement between solicitors! whatever that means!
any help to formulate a defence would be appreciated
Comment