On 05 November 2016, I phoned Vault Computers Limited of Bradford, Yorkshire and agreed a price for the computer I wanted them to assemble for me according to certain component options they offered. We agreed that I could pay by cheque, Vault undertaking to supply the computer “once the cheque had cleared”. On the same date, I sent them a letter referring to the phone call, repeating my assembly options and enclosing a cheque for the agreed amount, crossed and worded “Account Payee” made payable to Vault Computers. By 19 November 2016 I had heard nothing from Vault I phoned both numbers given on their website. Voice recordings said that the numbers were either not available or not accepting calls. By 05 December 2016, Vault had made absolutely no contact with me and the payment to them had not left my bank account. Therefore, on that date, I purchased a similarly priced computer from Amazon.co.uk using my credit card. I received the Amazon computer on 08 December 2016. On 10 December 2016, I found that the cheque to Vault had been paid on 07 December 2016. I immediately phoned Vault to ask them to stop my order, explaining that I had believed my letter to them had been lost and that I had bought a computer from a different supplier. They replied that they would attempt to stop dispatch of my order. They asked me to phone them in a few days for further information. On 19 December 2016, I phoned Vault again. They said that the computer they had assembled for me would be added to “stock” and they undertook to make a full refund of the purchase price by cheque. They said strikes at the Post Office would delay reimbursement until the New Year. By 01 February 2017, I had neither heard from Vault nor received reimbursement. On that day and the next, I made repeated attempts to speak to Vault on the phone but could not get through. One number returned the “Not Available” tone and the other, the same recorded message as on 19 November 2016. I sent letters dated 02 February 2017, 20 February 2017 and 18 March 2017 to Vault’s registered address, seeking a reply and reimbursement from them. However, Vault remained silent, even after receiving my letter-before-action, sent Recorded Delivery. On 12 April 2017, finding that Vault currently has a retail trading unit in Shipley, Yorkshire, I wrote to them additionally at that address. By 01 May 2017, there has still been no further contact with Vault since 19 December 2016 , no computer delivered from them and no return of my purchase money. There are no judgements recorded against Vault Computers Limited, no registered bankruptcies, and nothing to suggest they are in any trading difficulties. Vault’s silence is perplexing. If I format my small court claim according to certain presumptions about how they might defend against it, I might be furnishing them with a defence they had not considered. In particular, I find myself wondering if I should attempt to introduce statutory declarations laying out verbatim the conversations we had on the phone, which I had audio-recorded for the purposes of assisting my memory if I ever needed to to draft such statements. Those declarations , if the original audio recordings were present, might assist the court as evidence that, for example, Vault had agreed to accept payment by cheque, or had undertaken to reimburse me in full in the circumstances I had described to them. However, the same evidence might undermine my claim if those matters are not issue in Vault’s defence. Does anyone have experience of attempting to introduce audio-recordings to support small court claims? Does anyone have experience of swearing statutory declarations? There is a third way, which is to rely on the way things were left by Vault, expressly that they did not supply the goods within the prescribed period of 30 days, freeing me from the contract and entitling me to a full refund. However , not knowing Vault’s position, it might be counter-productive if , for the sake of simplicity , I omit the pertinent fact that I had asked them to stop my order. I may have had no right to cancel, if the goods were “made to the consumer’s specifications or are clearly personalised” per Reg.28 of The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Charges) Regulations. If there was no right to cancel, I am still not bound by the contract since Vault did not inform me of the absence of a right to cancel, as they were required to under Regulation 13 of the same body of regulations. Perhaps I am over-thinking this matter, but Vault’s silence is perplexing. Somebody say something...

Hi guys, I've been pursuing my deposit and rent from an old landlord that was never paid back to me. She hasn't responded to anything I've sent her, so I have won the judgement by default and now have a CCJ against her. Could anyone give me advice as to the best ways of enforcing the judgement in the case of silence? Also on the off chance that she's moved address during the time I've been chasing her up, how would that affect my case? MCOL told me that using the 'Last Known Address' is fine, but it seems as if it'd be easy to say you never received anything. Would it be worth hiring a private Process Server to track her down and resubmitting my claim? Could I add this onto the costs? Thanks EDIT: Just to add I have done some pretty intense googling and found out that she has a company registered in her name. This is still active according to Companies House and has a Company Address as well as the home address to which I sent the court documents. Not sure what I can do with this information but maybe somebody else has some good ideas.

Why do Tory Cabinet ministers who criticised Sir John Chilcot would wish to lessen the impact of his report when it finally sees daylight: after all it would be Blair’s Labour government in the dock. Those who’ve followed Establishment machinations in the run-up to the Iraq War, the death of weapons expert Dr David Kelly and the limp Hutton and Butler inquiries will know the answer. By refusing to support rebel Labour MPs, led by Father of the House Tam Dalyell, for a full debate into the reason for going to war, the Tory Opposition failed to act responsibly and bring the then-Government to task. After the tragic death of Dr Kelly, Iain Duncan Smith, leader of the Opposition (at the time), said he ‘had been appalled that personal vendettas could be allowed to come before decent behaviour; a public servant like Dr Kelly could have been so shamefully treated, an independent institution such as the Civil Service can be so emasculated. ‘The Prime Minister was responsible for the underhand way in which Dr Kelly was named and the systematic attempt to destroy Dr Kelly’s reputation both before and after his death. The Prime Minister was prepared to use Dr Kelly to win a war with the BBC to secure his own political future.’ These words are in a letter from Duncan Smith, an accurate and damning critique of the situation in 2003. Bizarrely his words were followed only by silence in Parliament. Why has the leader of the Opposition and his successors not censured Blair for his blatant misuse of power over Dr Kelly’s death or probed the former PM’s reasons for taking this country to war on the basis of false and manipulated intelligence? Is this not the function of a responsible Opposition in a democracy? It’s because they were complicit in following the Establishment’s UK/U.S. ‘special relationship’ agenda and the need to ‘pay the necessary blood price’ referred to in an earlier speech by Blair. When the Chilcot report sees the light of day, the Tories will be rueing their failure to act as a responsible Opposition.

Dear Caggers The last time I had anything to do with AMEX was in 2009,when in response to a CCA request (for a debt dating back to the early 90s) they sent me an application form with the Prescribed Terms in a separate T&Cs document. I replied setting them straight in their error (sig and prescribed terms in four corners of document etc) and left it that they should no longer pursue me as they cannot prove the debit. They appeared to have taken this advice until last week when I received a letter from AMEX telling me that the account had now been closed, payment in full is due immediately, and that they are referring the debt to a DCA! I assume that they had hoped that if they left it 4 years, that I might forget their CCA failure, or that I might not have the original letter, envelopes and recorded delivery receipts. Wrong! So, do I just ignore them, or do I remind them that the account has been in dispute since 2009. Should I complain to the OFT that they’re harassing me? Cheers MSR