WELL WELL... guess just what's dropped through the letter box!!!! Letter from BC "Dear M2000 Re: Arrow Global LLC v Yourself XXXX County Court Claim No XXXXX Please find attached for your information, a copy of the Notice of Discontinuence forwarded to XXXX county court. Your sincerly, BC " Then enclosed there is N279- Notice of Discontiuence HORRRRRAHHHH!!! Many, Many thanks for all of your hard work in assisting me in this matter!! beers/wine/orange juice all round!

Hi DonkeyB Yes- it's great news! and a massive thank you to all of you who helped me with my battle! Just to be clear- do i still need to submit docs to the court? or is this all over and I don't need to do anything?? Many thanks :-0

Hello All, Some news.... Posted the CCA request and £1 PO on Monday morning, today recieved a letter from BC, returning the £1 PO and letter saying: "Dear Sir, RE: AC XXXXXXXXX We thank you for your recent letter and return your payment for £1.00 as we are no longer instructed in relation to this matter. We confirm that our file has now been closed and the account returned to our clients. Yours Faithfully BC " Does this mean that the court case will not be proceeding? Do I still need to continue with submitting any documents to the court??? Many thanks

Hi all, The defence was submitted last week. I have today recieved the AQ, which I need to return by 18th March!! EEk!

Hi Postggj - REALLY nice to see you back! I have scanne in the DN... take a peek and let me know what you think. http://i630.photobucket.com/albums/uu22/m2000_album/WelcomeDefaultNotice.jpg Where does this leave me? Have you had any joy knocking together that letter regarding cancellation notcie periods etc? i really need some help on this as it's putting so much strain on us at the moment. They are upping their game and I dont have the finances to clear the DN or the debt... sos!

Is there anyone who can help with this... I am really worried about the consequences of the Default Notice and worry what they are going to do next. They are heaping on the pressure again..

I have sent by recorded post this morning, a CCA request wiht £1 postal order. On the walk back from the PO, I thought I would be on the safe side so I have also faxed a prove-it letter (and have the fax acknowledgment from the machine.) Need to start putting together the WS over the coming days to ensure i meet the deadline.

Many thanks!! I will get the CCA sent tomorrow by recorded. I will have to make the request in a fairly open way, as I know nothing about the account in question. i.e. dont know if its a loan, CC, catalogue etc. So will have to say "This letter is a formal request pursuant to s.77 (1) / s.78 / s.79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974"

Thanks DonkeyB On the CCA request - do I send this to BC or Arrowe? Also, *blush* - bit cheeky, but is there any chance you can help me knock together my WS - you clearly know how to put a good case forward!!!

If I get the CCA request sent tomorrow by recorded delivery, can I then use a copy of this in the documents I submit to the court? Can I also include copies of the letters sent in relation to CPR requests or would that be pointless given that the judge has said they do not apply?

Hi DonkeyB, Thanks for the reply again. BC did not place any directions on the AQ. BC ticked NO to mediation. I ticked YES. I think I may have dropped a clanger here.... I did not send off for the CCA in a seperate letter. The two requests I sent were both CPR requests and not CCA requests, if that makes sense? I have in any event, not had any clarification of what the alleged debt is for, nor has any paperwork/agreement etc been provided.

Oh, and if they do not provide documents by 10th March, will the court automatically stop the process i,.e. no hearing?

I am confused now (doesn't take much!) So although CPR18 and 31 no longer apply, BC still need to provide documents from the request? OR, are you referring to the fact that BC will need to provide some documents relating to the debt, i.e. application form etc etc.?

bumpety bump

Hi All, More snotty letters from welcome. Is there any news on what is happening to them?

Ok guys.... more news! The county court have sent a "Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims Track (hearing)" The details on it are: "District Judge XXX has considered the statements of case and allocation questionaires filed and allocate the claim to the small claims track. AND ORDERED THAT: 1. The claim is allocated to the Small Claims Track. 2. The parties shall file and service the following by no later than 4.00pm on the 10th March 2010 a. The written statements of evidence of any witness whose evidence is relied on or in support of or in defence of the claim. b. Copies of any documents which a part proposes to reply on. 3. the hearing of the claim will take place at 10.00am on 7th May 2010 at XXXXX county court. 4. It is important to comply with these directions. Failiure to do so may result in the hearing being adjourned or the claim or defence being struck out. 5. Some but not all parties have indicated that they wish to engage in mediation and they should therefore contact the Court Mediator without delay. 6. It is noted that the Defendant makes reference to CPR 18 and 31, neither of which apply to Small Claims (CPR 27.2 (1) . " Please help!! what now? The CPR issue- where does that leave me? thanks

Hi Postggj Hope you are feeling better, sounds like you have been through the mill lately! Sorry to pester matey, but Welcome have issued me with a Default Notice, I am worried and dont know what I should send them next. Can you please help? Thanks again M2000

Right, I think I am going to print out the defence and get it sent off on Monday!! Any other opinions on any changes etc welcome! Thanks for all your help guys!

Cheers TheGodmother - much appreciated I think it reads ok.. but if anyone spots anything out of place please yell at me!!

Ok Guys, I have updated the defence to the one below. Could you please read through and check it reads ok? The last two points are the ones I am most uncertain about... In the Birmingham County Court Claim number XXXXXXXXX Between XXXXXXXXXXX - Claimant and Mr M2000 – Defendant 1) The defendant was an employee of XXXXX Society from xxxxx until xxxxx 2) The details in the POC outlined by the Claimant surrounding the notice period given, as well as the details within the contract of employment are not disputed 3) The Defendant is unable to either admit or deny the claim whether in full or in any part since the Defendant is embarrassed by the lack of documentary evidence supplied to him by the Claimant despite requests. 4) The Defendant avers that without sight of the original lease agreement he is unable to establish whether the perceived loss claimed against him might have been mitigated by the claimant returning the vehicle under the terms of any early redemption clause attached to this agreement, the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that the amount claimed against him could not have been mitigated by an early termination of the vehicle lease. 5) The Defendant avers that without sight of the original lease agreement he is unable to establish whether the perceived loss claimed against him might have been mitigated by the claimant downgrading the vehicle under any relevant term of that contract which may or may not exist. The Defendant puts the claimant to strict proof that the amount claimed against him could not have been mitigated by replacing the vehicle with the standard model at the appropriate time. 6) The Defendant avers that without sight of the original lease agreement he is unable to establish whether the interest claimed upon the perceived loss is lawfully due in the amount claimed. The Defendant avers that the claimant is not entitled to the interest in the amount claimed unless the Claimant is able to prove that the payment in respect of the upgrade was made as a lump sum at the inception of the lease rather than as an additional sum above the value of the standard vehicle on a monthly payment basis. 7) The Defendant avers that by failing to charge the current driver of the vehicle in question the claimant is in breach of the very same part of their own terms and conditions that they seek enforcement under by virtue of this action and this breach is a gross failing on behalf of the claimant to mitigate their perceived loss. The defendant puts the claimant to strict proof that they have failed to charge the current driver of this vehicle for the upgrade. 8) In the event that the Claimant can prove that the current driver receives the benefit of this vehicle at no cost to themselves, the defendant intends to enter a counterclaim to this action under CPR part 20 in the whole amount claimed against him and will apply to have this third party benefactor made party to such a counterclaim, it appears that the Claimant is happy to seek enforcement of their contract of employment and Car Policy through the Courts against specific but not all ex-employees yet strangely reluctant to enforce exactly the same term against this current employee. 9) The Defendant avers that the failure of the claimant to apply the same term of the same contract to the current employee is the action which has directly led to the loss claimed in this action. No loss would have occurred had the claimant been consistent in their application of this contract for any shortfall would have been met by the current employee who does after all enjoy the benefit of the upgraded vehicle at no cost to themselves contrary to the terms of the Claimants contract. 10) The Claimant had the opportunity to completely mitigate their perceived loss by charging the new driver of this vehicle. That the claimant failed for whatever reason to charge this owner should not be a matter for the defendant to be held culpable or compensate. 11) The defendant avers that any loss perceived by the claimant has arisen because the claimant has failed to charge the current user and the current user has failed to pay the balancing payment in question for a large number of months, both failings being contrary to the terms of the contract which the claimant seeks to enforce. 12) In the event the Court finds the term enforceable in Court against the defendant, the defendant will seek by way of the counterclaim to have the same term enforced upon the claimant and the current employee in order to mitigate his liability under this claim. 13) In the event that the claimant cannot prove that the current driver receives the benefit of this vehicle at no cost to themselves, the defendant avers that the claimant is attempting to enrich themselves unjustly by double claiming the upgrade amount from both owners of the vehicle. 14) The Claimant has indicated that they are unprepared to furnish the defendant with the information required to ascertain his standing in this case, this unwillingness to co-operate being a breach of the CPR rules on the duty of disclosure. 15) The Defendant wishes to be permitted to serve a correctly pleaded defence to this claim once the claimant has either voluntarily or under an enforcement order of this Court complied with their responsibilities under CPR and furnished the defendant with the documentation which will enable the defendant to accurately assess what liability if any he has in this matter. 16) It is known that at least two previous Employees of the Society who had taken upgraded company cars and have left the employment of the Society have not been requested to repay the upgrade liability due. The fact that they have not requested payment from these persons results in the Society not imposing the Company Car Policy in a fair and universal manner. 17) The Defendant has, on numerous occasions, expressed his desire to resolve the issue amicably and without the necessity of any court process. In this regard, the Defendant has, as a matter of goodwill offered to make payments in the region of £50-75 per month. The Claimant has refused this offer and has continued to pursue the matter to the stage we now find ourselves at.

Hello again All, Has anyone had any thoughts on the use of the extra points above? Also... do you think it would be a good idea to add a further point basically raising the fact that two previous members of staff who also both had upgraded vehicles and left employment of the company were 'let off' paying their alleged liability. This flies in the fact of the company car policy which clearly states "ANY employee leaving" will have to pay back... Thanks again all

Not sure what you all think, but should I add an extra point expressing the fact i have made previous offers? i.e.... 16) The Defendant has, on numerous occasions, expressed his desire to resolve the issue amicably and, as a matter of goodwill offered to make token payments in the region of £30-£50 per month. The Claimant has refused this offer and has continued to pursue the matter to the stage we now find ourselves in Also, is it worth adding something in about my now limited financial means or would that go against what I am trying to do here?? I basically took a lower paid position outside of the industry and that justifies the goodwill gesture i was looking to pay?

Cheers MrShed! I still have a week or so before it needs to be submitted, ill leave sending it until the last minute, may be able to think of some more ammunition!!

Ok - here is the new draft defence. Does it flow correctly? have I broken the points up too much? In the Birmingham County Court Claim number XXXXXXXXX Between XXXXXXXXXXX - Claimant and Mr M2000 – Defendant 1) The Defendant was an employee of XXXXXX from xxxxx until xxxxx 2) The details in the POC outlined by the Claimant surrounding the notice period given, as well as the details within the contract of employment are not disputed. 3) The Defendant is unable to either admit or deny the claim whether in full or in any part since the Defendant is embarrassed by the lack of documentary evidence supplied to him by the Claimant despite request. 4) The Defendant avers that without sight of the original lease agreement he is unable to establish whether the perceived loss claimed against him might have been mitigated by the Claimant returning the vehicle under the terms of any early redemption clause attached to this agreement, the defendant puts the claimant to strict proof that the amount claimed against him could not have been mitigated by an early termination of the vehicle lease. 5) The Defendant avers that without sight of the original lease agreement he is unable to establish whether the perceived loss claimed against him might have been mitigated by the claimant downgrading the vehicle under any relevant term of that contract which may or may not exist, the defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that the amount claimed against him could not have been mitigated by replacing the vehicle with the standard model at the appropriate time. 6) The Defendant avers that without sight of the original lease agreement he is unable to establish whether the interest claimed upon the perceived loss is lawfully due in the amount claimed. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is not entitled to the interest in the amount claimed unless the Claimant is able to prove that the payment in respect of the upgrade was made as a lump sum at the inception of the lease rather than as an additional sum above the value of the standard vehicle on a monthly payment basis. 7) The Defendant avers that by failing to charge the current driver of the vehicle in question the claimant is in breach of the very same part of their own terms and conditions that they seek enforcement under by virtue of this action and this breach is a gross failing on behalf of the claimant to mitigate their perceived loss. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that they have failed to charge the current driver of this vehicle for the upgrade. 8.)In the event that the Claimant can prove that the current driver receives the benefit of this vehicle at no cost to themselves, the Defendant intends to enter a counterclaim to this action under CPR part 20 in the whole amount claimed against him and will apply to have this third party benefactor made party to such a counterclaim. It appears that the Claimant is happy to seek enforcement of their contract of employment and Car Policy through the Courts against specific but not all ex-employees yet strangely reluctant to enforce exactly the same term against this current employee. 9) The Defendant avers that the failure of the Claimant to apply the same term of the same contract to the current employee is the action which has directly led to the loss claimed in this action. No loss would have occurred had the claimant been consistent in their application of this contract for any shortfall would have been met by the current employee who does after all enjoy the benefit of the upgraded vehicle at no cost to themselves contrary to the terms of the claimants contract. 10) The Claimant had the opportunity to completely mitigate their perceived loss by charging the new driver of this vehicle. That the Claimant failed for whatever reason to charge this owner should not be a matter for the Defendant to be held culpable or compensate. 11) The Defendant avers that any loss perceived by the Claimant has arisen because the Claimant has failed to charge the current user and the current user has failed to pay the balancing payment in question for a large number of months, both failings being contrary to the terms of the contract which the Claimant seeks to enforce. 12) In the event the Court finds the term enforceable in Court against the defendant, the Defendant will seek by way of the counterclaim to have the same term enforced upon the Claimant and the current employee in order to mitigate his liability under this claim. 13) In the event that the claimant cannot prove that the current driver receives the benefit of this vehicle at no cost to themselves, the defendant avers that the Claimant is attempting to enrich themselves unjustly by double claiming the upgrade amount from both owners of the vehicle. 14) The claimant has indicated that they are unprepared to furnish the defendant with the information required to ascertain his standing in this case, this unwillingness to co-operate being a breach of the CPR rules on the duty of disclosure. 15) The Defendant wishes to be permitted to serve a correctly pleaded defence to this claim once the claimant has either voluntarily or under an enforcement order of this Court complied with their responsibilities under CPR and furnished the defendant with the documentation which will enable the Defendant to accurately assess what liability if any he has in this matter.

Good Morning All, Jasper1965 - you are a star!!! I like it.... So, to ensure I am on the same track as you and MrShed, we will use the embaressed defence, along the lines of what is above? Shall I leave the fact that I offered a "gesture of goodwill" payment plan out of this stage of defence, I can then play this card if needed at a later date??? Once again, MANY thanks to both Jasper1965 and MrShed, and all those who are helping! Keep any views/ideas coming! Many thanks you all!