PT2537 vs Sigma and HL Legal

[pt2537]

Wow, id forgotten what it was like to be really able to pull apart a creditor and their lawyers.

So lets set the scene, i did have a T Mobile contract, the phones were shit, didnt work properly, T Mobile wouldnt ever accept they were wrong, the usual story, so after a while of having a pile of pigs crap phone i decided to say get stuffed T Mob im not paying. I referred them to the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 and explained my reasons for non payment.

Anyway, never heard anything else til HL / Sigma popped up. I called them when i got notice of assignment and set down my issues, and explained why i hadnt paid. This was Feb 2013.

In October 31st they sent me a letter with nothing more than the last statement attached. This last statement showed up helpfully a £58.00 penalty charge for terminating the contract (oops i happen to know a fair bit about liquidated damages) so i wont be paying that for starters.

But then, HL sent me a letter of claim, ive never laughed sooo sooo much in my life. But it shows that people get the pee taken out of them, especially when law firms like that write letters which A) contain lies, and B) threaten proceedings when the letter of claim fails to come close to the requirements of the CPR.

Anyway, illl post the contents of my letter to HL and the SRA shortly, but enjoy, the battle is going to be a very interesting one indeed.

[pt2537]

Re: PT2537 vs Sigma and HL Legal

Dear Sirs,

Thank you for your letter dated 8^th November 2013, received on 14^th November 2013.
Firstly, and I suggest you take note as a copy of this correspondence is being sent to the SRA , you state that I have “ignored” previous requests and I have “not given any reasons for non payment”.


Both those statements are factually untrue, they are with respect, outrageous lies.
I contacted your firm on receipt of your very first letter, it is not my fault if your call takers fail to understand the law, but I did explain in clear terms that not only was the quantum disputed (it still is by the way) but that also it was disputed that the goods and services provided complied with the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.


I asked for the provision of details of how the sums claimed accrued. You have provided the last pages of an invoice from T Mobile, this is in the main unhelpful as it fails to give an actual breakdown of the charges etc.


I also note that it is clearly stated within the document that there is a “penalty charge” of circa £50.00. Im sure I do not need to explain the law on penalties for breach of contract, the law on Liquidated Damages is very clear, but if you are unsure I would advise Halsburys Laws of England on Contract may assist, equally Chitty on Contract may be of assistance.
The charge levied is a penalty for breach of contract, there can be no question on this, it plainly does not cost £50.00 for a network operator to disconnect a mobile phone, it is my understanding from the information obtained from industry sources that the termination of a contract is processed by a computer. It therefore cannot be right to charge such a disproportionate charge. Furthermore, I require you to provide a copy of the contract, which I am entitled to pursuant to the Civil Procedure Rules Pre action Protocol Practice Direction. I have concerns over the validity of the charges levied and I wish to check the terms of the contract to ensure that the contract allows for such.


The debt is plainly disputed, that must be clear taking into consideration the contents of my initial call which I would suggest you revisit if there is any uncertainty. In any event I will require a copy of the calls I made to your offices in the event that this matter progresses to litigation.
Turning my attention to your letter of claim, as that is plainly what it is, I draw your attention firstly to the Pre Action Protocol Practice Direction. The PAP clearly sets down the content of letters of claim and extends further requirements where the party is a litigant in person (See Annex A of the PAP). Your letter fails to draw my attention to the issue of costs on failure to comply with the letter, it fails to address the places where I should seek help to deal with my debts, clearly this is a prejudicial point and places me at a clear disadvantage. I draw your attention to the Law Society note on dealing with litigants in person, which makes plain a solicitor should not take an unfair advantage of a litigant in person. It seems to me, prima facie that this is exactly what your company is doing here. You failed to draw my attention to my rights to further assistance while threatening me with legal action. Your letter also cuts down the time I am allowed to reply, it is dated 8^th November 2013 and was delivered as expected due to the postage used, on 14^th November 2013. This seriously prejudices me due to a lack of a reasonable period of time to reply.


Should you issue a claim as stated in your letter in the next 14 days, I assume this is from the 8^th November 2013 , then I simply place you on notice of the following.
1) 1) On receipt of a claim I will make an emergency application to the Court under the CPR Pre action protocol.
2) 2) I will seek an order of the Court staying the Claim to allow for compliance with the protocol.
3) 3) On securing such an order, I will seek an indemnity award of costs against your client on the basis that the issuing of a claim in these circumstances in premature, contrary to the ethos of the CPR, contrary to the overriding objective and disproportionate under the circumstances.
The level of costs which I am likely to incur will far exceed the claimed amount. I will not be claiming costs at the litigant in person rate either but at the actual amount of losses I sustain in making such an application. You have been warned.

I reserve the right to refer to the contents of this letter, and to present a copy of the same to the Court.

My letter to HL Legal

[Amethyst]

Re: PT2537 vs Sigma and HL Legal

Should be fun and I look forwards to it.... I just managed (not sure how) to get HL / Sigma to pay ME, via my Virgin Mobile account, £50 They are really a bunch of plonkers.

[pt2537]

Re: PT2537 vs Sigma and HL Legal

Dear Sir or Madam,


I write to draw to the attention of the SRA, practices by a firm of solicitors who are regulated by yourselves, which are plainly dishonest, which bring the profession into disrepute, which fail to comply with the Civil Procedure Rules and Law Society Practice note on dealing with Litigants in Person and which most worryingly resort to telling clear lies.


I work for a firm of solicitors myself, i have 7 years litigation experience and am fully aware of the Civil Procedure Rules, the SRA Code of Conduct, and other associated rules which regulate the profession.


It may assist to set down the background to this matter. I have enclosed below a copy of my email to the firm of solicitors in question and i have spoken with them this morning, and confirmed with them that their systems contain notes of all my correspondence with them, which shows plainly their letter is a lie. It can be nothing else. one merely need look to the Oxford English Dictionary definition of the word................

noun

• an intentionally false statement:they hint rather than tell outright lies the whole thing is a pack of lies
  
• used with reference to a situation involving deception or founded on a mistaken impression:all their married life she had been living a lie

verb (lies, lying, lied /ˈlʌɪɪŋ/)

[no object]

• tell a lie or lies:why had Ashenden lied about his visit to London? [with direct speech]:‘I am sixty-five,’ she lied
  
• (of a thing) present a false impression:the camera cannot lie

Plainly, as you will note from my email below, and from the fact that during a call to the solicitors this morning they confirmed that i had contacted them in February 2013 setting out my concerns and asking for key documents to be sent to me, documents incidentally that they only sent me some 2 days ago, they plainly knew that this matter WAS disputed, that there WERE issues which they WERE on notice of, and had been since February this year.


To say i have ignored them, plainly is a lie, it is an untruth that the solicitors knew was untrue but they still told a clear lie in their correspondence.


My issues are set out below, clearly and concisely, however i ask the SRA to take account of the following points.


Firstly, the solicitors sent a letter to me purporting to be a letter of claim, threatening legal action within 14 days if i do not pay. The letter is not in accordance with the Civil Procedure Rules Pre Action Protocol Practice Direction Annex A para 2.3., it also fails to comply with Annex A para 2.2.


The letter also plainly fails to comply with Annex B of the Practice Direction, as there is no detail on where to get help with debt matters. To put it bluntly, the letter prejudices a litigant in person, it contains a clear threat of legal proceedings but fails to comply with the requirements placed on a solicitor to bring to the debtors attention where to get help and the costs consequences of non compliance.


It is a fact, that letters such as this type in question have caused people to take their own lives because they do not know where to turn. This is serious. This cannot be ignored. The issue is made worst by the fact the letter only in real terms allows 7 days to address the matter. The letter was sent by second class post. It is dated 8th November 2013 and arrived as expected on 14th November 2013.


I have attached a scan of the letter to this email for your records so you can see exactly what is being sent out. i copied both front and back of the letter.


I would ask you to consider that a solicitor is lying in their correspondence and failing to comply with the rules of the Court. These are serious allegations.The Solicitors have admitted that they knew the matter was disputed as far back as February, they accepted that i had asked for documents and it was their dilatory reply that delayed matters, all of this is noted i am told on their case management system which produces the letter they send out, the same letter that they sent me, so there is no excuse for this.


My worries are the effect such would have on someone without legal knowledge, the letter misrepresents the situation legally and would leave a consumer in real difficulties due to the lack of information on where to get help in this letter, plainly as the SRA will know, people have committed suicide out of desperation, please deal with this company to ensure that they comply with the CPR, SRA rules, Law Society practice note on Litigant in person, and do not bring the profession into disrepute by lying to people.

My letter to the SRA which has been sent to HL too,

[Amethyst]

Re: PT2537 vs Sigma and HL Legal

Very good, did you hear back from them ?

My only wee niggle is I'm not sure that giving the dictionary definitions doesn't come across as a bit condescending (to the SRA I mean, don't care if it does to HL)

I presume it was just a bog standard template letter you got from HL because they just churn them out without any care or attention.

[pt2537]

Re: PT2537 vs Sigma and HL Legal

yep got a reply, standard SRA letter, but the point i was making is simply applying the common sense definition, the letter they sent was a plain lie. Template or not, a lies a lie, solicitors should proof their stuff before sending lmao.

[Amethyst]

Re: PT2537 vs Sigma and HL Legal

Yes they should, these letters have a big effect on people who receive them, so they should learn to give a flying hoot that the info on them is right before doing so, the only way to get things changed is to complain.

[pt2537]

Re: PT2537 vs Sigma and HL Legal

Indeed, and ill tell you what after sending my complaint to HL legal they have changed their tune totally.

But that makes me more angry too, because it seems only when presented with someone who can fight back they take a different view...................

now wheres my dictionary as i need to look up bully definition... LMAO as thats what they come across as, they are all big n tough till they realise they are fighting someone who knows how to fight back

[MIKE770]

Re: PT2537 vs Sigma and HL Legal

yep got a reply, standard SRA letter, but the point i was making is simply applying the common sense definition, the letter they sent was a plain lie. Template or not, a lies a lie, solicitors should proof their stuff before sending lmao.

The Standard Letter of Reply = SRA! familiar.

[pt2537]

Re: PT2537 vs Sigma and HL Legal

The Standard Letter of Reply = SRA! familiar.

yes but this case is also quite open and shut, the first letter said "further to our recent discussions via telephone" if i recall correct, the second letter says "you have ignored our correspondence" and "we are unaware of any reason why you have not paid" etc which plainly is wrong. It cannot be said to be true, and the creator of the second letter would have known this was the case, as they would have typed the letter on a case management system which housed all the comments etc.

In such circumstances , i cannot see how the company can try and defend itself, and how the SRA cannot take any action, its open and shut imho

[MIKE770]

Re: PT2537 vs Sigma and HL Legal

Will be interesting to see if the SRA do action!

[pt2537]

Re: PT2537 vs Sigma and HL Legal

Will be interesting to see if the SRA do action!

it will be published if they do, they never notify the consumer of the outcome, which in my view is wrong and does not breed confidence in their abilities to deal with things

[MIKE770]

Re: PT2537 vs Sigma and HL Legal

it will be published if they do, they never notify the consumer of the outcome, which in my view is wrong and does not breed confidence in their abilities to deal with things

Tell me about it ! I have two complaints lodged with them, and they do not inform you of any progress, you have to sit and hope they do something, which as you say is wrong & certainly not business like at all for a regulator of such.

[Gorang]

Re: PT2537 vs Sigma and HL Legal

the first letter said "further to our recent discussions via telephone" if i recall correct, the second letter says "you have ignored our correspondence" and "we are unaware of any reason why you have not paid" etc which plainly is wrong. It cannot be said to be true, and the creator of the second letter would have known this was the case, as they would have typed the letter on a case management system which housed all the comments etc.

In such circumstances , i cannot see how the company can try and defend itself, and how the SRA cannot take any action, its open and shut imho

PT
I am assuming that there is NOT a line on the 2nd letter saying sumit along the lines of
"if you have responded then please ignore this letter"

Am I right in also assuming that no one has actually signed the letter themselves and that it will be either signed by a computer generated signature or NO signature at all

If I'm right with the latter assumption will they not just use the "computer generated letter" BS, as their excuse, and say sumit like, the only manual intervention that applied to the letter was someone just simply stuffing it in an envelope so no one actually read into the case before the letter was sent?

If I am wrong with my latter assumption then they have NO excuse at all IMO

Either way with my latter assumption, IMO your right as this sort of rubbish needs to be stopped, so hats off to you, GO GET EM and if there anything I can do to help you then please shout

[CleverClogs]

Re: PT2537 vs Sigma and HL Legal

it will be published if they do, they never notify the consumer of the outcome, which in my view is wrong and does not breed confidence in their abilities to deal with things

I doubt that, whatever the outcome may be, the culprit will not be told to cease soliciting. :grin: