If Lloyds are monitoring this thread or their request for a hearing to dismiss is granted then they will get a free bite of the claim raised against them - most likely as they intended. In any case I have prepared my first crack at the witness statement (attached below) I will likely have to submit for any hearing to dismiss. Questions, comments, critiques gratefully received. Lloyds - Hearing to Dismiss - Witness Statement - Redacted.pdf

Thank you - claim submitted, the particulars do not fit into MCOL so a full copy will be served to the Defendant along with a Certificate of Service to the Court.

Amendmant to line 4 is as follows: 4) On 13/12/21 the Defendant stated they could not hand over my goods as arranged by the Claimant because they had sold my goods.

As an attempt to resolve the conflict between us resulting from FS's breach of contract I offered to make the bank transfer despite the fact are yet to refund my credit card. FS informed me they had sold my goods. I proposed a resolution which was declined. If there are no further comments then I will bring my claim as per the particulars above.

Mr Shotton-Orza wrote to me as "Legal Counsel - Legal Services" for Shell Energy Retail Ltd. I cannot locate their name on the Solicitors Register, is it worthwhile making a complaint regarding this?

FS know full well what is going on, the reason they won't address certain points is because they can't not because they don't understand them. They will probably become very understanding when all the evidence is presented at a hearing. I presume another reason they wish to collect a bank transfer is perhaps as some form of insurance incase couriers cause any damage to other equipment during collection. Whatever their motives are I don't really care, they will have to convince a judge not me that their motives are justified. I consider that FS have made their final positon very clear and therefore there is no need to wait the 14 days stipulated in my LBC to bring my claim. I propose the following particulars to be submitted when they refuse my collection. While any input is greatly appreciated, as it is likely FS are monitoring this thread I respectfully request discretion from anyone that may inadvertantly assist FS with their defence following their comments.

Lloyds would not have charged the payment back I think that is a rather naive assumption, they would have agreed with whatever made up position Shell Energy come up with. Lloyds have witheld data from me concerning the payments. It is impossible for me to assess liability properly without the detailed information I requsetd so I believe I am justified in pursuing either company. I have decided to pursue Lloyds. Payment failures are a matter between Shell Energy and Lloyds Bank. They can fight it out between them if they so wish for the grand sum of £84. However I think you're probably right, it won't cause them any problems because they won't bother. Both companies will however bother to fight their customers with gusto. I am not convinced Chargeback is the corret route here, liability is for whomever is responsible for the multiple payment failures. However like the parking threads I will make my case in priority order and if I can make a case albeit weaker than my other cause for action then I will include it and the judge can either agree, disagree or ignore that part of my claim accordingly.

With all that out of the way I think my reply to their letter will now be as follows: If all of this spirals out of control I do think I have significant mitigating circumstances to present to the Court.

@dx100uk Thanks for your reply. Is it possible to discontinue a claim after judgement has been awarded, is that what this is about? There may be an error in my understanding that after the Warrant was returned to the Court that was the end of the matter? Ok that really was rather silly of me. I cannot discontinue after judgement has been awarded however I can mark the claim as settled. The issue I have with settled is that their statutory breach is on-going, provided it can be understood that settled refers to this judgement alone and not our ongoing dispute then I consider that to be satisfactory and will inform the Court. Disregard the above, I marked the claim using the first option "Paid in full".

I think perhaps now I consider that I must reply but with a little more direction:

@dx100uk Hi DX, if Shell Energy wish to set-aside the judgement awarded against them: 1) Will I receive copy of the N244 application from the Court? 2) Will I be offered the opportunity to agree to the set-aside by the Court or is Shell Energy obligated to provide me with an opportunity to agree to the set-aside and thus mitigate costs. 3) If not perhaps it is my responsibility to suggest that they do offer the opportunity, and in the event that they do not then they could be considered to have acted unreasonably.

@BankFodder Is what they have sent me a disguised letter of claim? It does not state that it is a letter of claim but it does propose a 14 day deadline and a reference to costs. For the time being I assume it is simply designed to intimidate.

I think if they are entitled to a reply or if it would be unreasonable not to reply then I propose the very simple reply below: It has not gone un-noticed the lengths these companies go to in order to frustrate matters. Instead of following the standard letter format they deliberately produce their correspondence address in a light grey text to blend in with the page of the letter. In addition I note that return addresses are in a place where their envelopes are opened presumably hoping that when they are opened this makes it more difficult to piece together the return address.

I expect that Shell Energy have written to the court stating they intend to claim the costs of any enforcement action as the payment was made. It appears to be progressing in a very similar vein to the other thread you referred to. There may be an element of game playing in that Shell Energy are attempting to insist that their GOGW dated 1st October was payment for the judgement however in my opinion that will be easy to refute, and can easily explain my reasonable action to delay accepting their payment.

Hi BF thank you for your response. That has already been done, I have received the courts acknowledgement as well as confirmation from the Court the Warrant has not been enforced due to payment in full. I wrote to the court twice, once to confirm the payment. The second time re-confirming the payment after I received the first letter from Shell Energy. Surely it cannot be a coincidence the next day the Court send me confirmation the Warrant has been withdrawn? And what of Shell Energy, continue ignoring them for the time being? Lastly despite filing the defence against both claims they have not sent me a copy. I predict I will receive a last minute e-mail of the defence like the parking operator companies. The fact I have made a second claim for the incomplete disclosure leads me to believe that actually they are looking for a reason to suspend the judgement of the first claim and fight the whole thing on round two.

With regards to the claim I have filed for harassment, I note I have not received text messages yesterday and today. Shell Energy will be invited to explain why the messages suddenly stopped and whether it had anything to do with the claim they filed a defence for on 10th December 2021. Afterall if Shell Energy were insistent that how they were acting was lawful why stop sending me messages?

Today I received the following letter (attached below) from Mr Malcolm Henchley - Director of Legal Regulation and Compliance of Shell Energy Retail Ltd. It appears they are upset that I did not respond to their letter. I find this odd considering they pride their business on ignoring the concerns of their customers perhaps it's one rule for them and not for the people that contribute to their salaries. They are clearly upset that their cheque was not accepted immediately and most likely despite being a director it is unlikely he is aware of the subsequent communication regarding their subversive attempt to offer me a GOGW for a poor level of service not for the judgement issued against them. If he were knowledgeable of such communication then I expect any Court would look very poorly at the correspondence he has just written to me. Mr Henchley appears not to have his facts straight. The judgement was awarded on 15th September 2021. Their "GOGW" was dated 1st October 2021, they appear to be under the mistaken impression that is when they paid in reference to the judgement awarded against them. Mr Henchley insists the judgement needs to be removed, I'm not sure that it does. A claim was brought they failed to respond and it took a period of time for them to confirm their intentions as to what their payment was in relation to. This is where I am perhaps unclear, in my experience if a timely payment is made then no record of judgement will be made however the way they chose to provide it is a matter for them and ultimately they are responsible for the reasons it may not have been accepted in time for them not to receive a judgement entered in record. Mr Henchley insists the Court instructed him to write to me requesting a letter of confirmation, it appears he wishes that I take his word for it as no copy of the letter has been sent to me. The Court have confirmed to me that the Warrant has not been executed as a result of confirmed payment, I'm unsure as to whether they also notify the defendant. Shell Energy have chosen to defend the second claim for their incomplete disclosure as well as the claim for their continued harassment of me using my mobile phone. I was hoping @BankFodder would help me decide whether I should reply and if so how to word it but I appreciate you have been busy helping others and myself on other threads. SE - Letter 10.12.21 - Redacted.pdf

If there are no further comments to make then I think it best to reply to FS's latest communication reproduced below. The reply I propose.

I had even more faith than what you are suggesting. I expected them to quote me a price for delivery using their couriers seeing as they deliver nationwide. The fact they then went on to refuse to even make such a simple arrangement is even more baffling and is the point I began to feel very strongly that I should be re-imbursed for the losses I have incurred as a result of their breach of contract.

I sent FS a copy of the courier contract for collection so they should be no confusion for them as to how I intend to collect my goods. FS have rescinded the contract between us for a third time without my agreement by way of indicating they have refunded my third purchase of the treadmill. As of yet they have not re-listed the item. I think they understand perfectly well what is going on. They don't actually have any issue with what I have done by way of arranging a courier to collect my goods. They ultimately want to insist on a form of payment which results in their customers giving up their consumer protections for a method of payment they accepted without question. While I don't believe I should have to pay in the way they insist (it appears they have withdrawn the offer anyway) they would prefer to rescind the contract without my agreement and I have to say I really will be feeling the loss of enjoyment of my goods quite strongly in a few days time.

FS re-listed the item stating collection only. At checkout standard delivery was available. As my couriers are due to collect the item I have re-purchased the treadmill for a third time.

I realise importantly I may have been incorrect in saying there is no other treadmill available. They have two more available at other stores, both ex-display but listed as not for delivery. However I expect the point is they do have a way of providing me with the actual goods we contracted for instead of something similar for replacement.

FS have made partial disclosure of data following the SAR they received. Upon review it is incomplete, they have included our e-mail correspondence but have failed to disclose a copy of the order confirmation indicating the item will be delivered. As usual I am happy to prepare a response but will await your suggestion. Ordinarily I would make an immediate complaint to the ICO but on this rare occassion there is time left regarding the one month deadline. In my experience companies normally disclose their data a day or two prior to the one month deadline.

FS cancelled the order again with the following e-mail: My comments are in red: At this point I could make the bank transfer under protest as you suggested earlier to ensure I receive the goods.

"Owner of treadmill forced to repurchase their own goods twice from Fitness Superstore" Of course I will keep you updated.