Three Mobile / Lowell / Dryden court claim

[thunderballs]

Court will allocate based on DQ filing if no objection from either party, in reality it has already made that decision due to quantum. Yes, include copy admission with w/s and reference to it as attached exhibit.

 

If it's OK, I'll forward you a copy of my draft WS via PM (just I'm not keen on the idea of any Dryden 'moles' trying to ascertain who I am), but I have already done a written statement as you've suggested.

[Mike_hawk]

I'll send a written statement via PM, but could you expand on what you mean by the bold/italics part (apart from the original creditor).

 

The claimants cause hasn't changed, it avers an assignment of a defaulted contract/agreement of a specified value..... Its the statutory instrument and defence/s applicable which have changed.

 

Assuming its case rests on early termination charge, utccr is a qualified defence... something which (charges exempt) wouldn't be a sensible defence to a CCA regulated agreement.

[Mike_hawk]

Got your pm, I'd be inclined to drop anything which could indicate that you may be aware of its true cause and slip in references to the rules it has avoided.

[thunderballs]

Got your pm, I'd be inclined to drop anything which could indicate that you may be aware of its true cause and slip in references to the rules it has avoided.

 

Would you be able to expand on that within a PM reply (possibly suggest any additions/removals that you'd recommend)?

 

If rules have been broken, then I'd like to be able to elaborate on those.

[thunderballs]

In relation to the Particulars themselves, aren't dates supposed to be specified on such documents, and does it constitute a breach if they are not?

[DonkeyB]

You have defended on the PoC – that’s all you can do.

 

What you really should concentrate on is what happens if they do amend the PoC.

[thunderballs]

You have defended on the PoC – that’s all you can do.

 

What you really should concentrate on is what happens if they do amend the PoC.

 

I agree - I've sent a PM reply about that. However, it has been almost four months since they sent that letter I mentioned and they've said nothing since (I'm actually due to pay an informational visit to the court this week, in relation to asking a few questions and finding out from them where this case is at presently, and what happens next).

[thunderballs]

Hi guest.

[thunderballs]

Oh, I should also mention that I've found previous correspondence from Lowlives offering a 'reduced settlement', but this was before the Dryden's claim went in.This tells me that Lowell's were not confident of a court win, were hoping to get judgement by default, and weren't expecting a defence to be filed.

[Mike_hawk]

Oh, I should also mention that I've found previous correspondence from Lowlives offering a 'reduced settlement', but this was before the Dryden's claim went in.This tells me that Lowell's were not confident of a court win, were hoping to get judgement by default, and weren't expecting a defence to be filed.

 

Really depends on what its true cause is I guess... for an unpaid service I'd think its case would be fairly strong and without much difficulty. If its for an early termination [breach] they tend to shy away from litigation [assuming they know the basis of the 'debt'] as it asks too many questions of how it calculates its loss where no service has been provided.

[thunderballs]

Really depends on what its true cause is I guess... for an unpaid service I'd think its case would be fairly strong and without much difficulty. If its for an early termination [breach] they tend to shy away from litigation [assuming they know the basis of the 'debt'] as it asks too many questions of how it calculates its loss where no service has been provided.

 

From what little I've had from them so far, I'm not sure they even know what they're doing.

 

However, all the while prior to Drydens' involvement, Lowell have been asserting that it's a CCA regulated agreement.

[Mike_hawk]

Tb

 

My inbox keeps filling up, I'd prefer to keep all on your thread.

 

I've attached a rough draft w/s to file.....

 

[ATTACH]45969[/ATTACH]

 

Not got a lot of time today, will have a think about the letter you intend sending the other side and let you know.

 

Try attaching on here as a word doc so others can provide some input

[thunderballs]

Tb

 

My inbox keeps filling up, I'd prefer to keep all on your thread.

 

I've attached a rough draft w/s to file.....

 

[ATTACH]45969[/ATTACH]

 

Not got a lot of time today, will have a think about the letter you intend sending the other side and let you know.

 

Try attaching on here as a word doc so others can provide some input

 

Appreciate your response, and that's an excellent statement to use - which perfectly encapsulates what I was trying to say.

 

Anyway, taking your advice, I've presented an attachment as you've kindly suggested.

 

However, I've re-worded it slightly, so that the crucial points remain - again, I'm aware that the board does have 'guests', so I don't want to give the other side any ammunition to use against me (paranoid as this may sound).

[Mike_hawk]

I probably wouldn't give it any additional time, there really isn't any necessity. The court may disregard your w/s at this stage [as may the claimant disregard the correspondence], this is purely to add some substance to your defence to the original pleading if the case continues in its current form.......

 

'Absent any response I have brought the matter to the attention of the court, this agreeing with the actions I previously.............'

[thunderballs]

I probably wouldn't give it any additional time, there really isn't any necessity. The court may disregard your w/s at this stage [as may the claimant disregard the correspondence], this is purely to add some substance to your defence to the original pleading if the case continues in its current form.......

 

'Absent any response I have brought the matter to the attention of the court, this agreeing with the actions I previously.............'

 

 

That could be right - this is why I'm a little pensive about sending the 'Letter Before Action'.

 

The only two responses I ever got from DF both refer to my request, so it's not as if they haven't been aware of it all along or can claim ignorance.

 

The first one's their initial acknowledgement, which actually contains the line 'We confirm that no further legal action will be taken whilst we await our client's response', and their second response actually does state that I'll be contacted again when they get further documentation.

[Mike_hawk]

Tb

 

Wondering why you refer to it as a letter before action? The action is already progressing, the correspondence is just to put it on notice that you believe it to have no case.

 

The first letter you mention.... was this receipted after filing your defence, not sure you've referred to it before? You need to look at both letters in context, if the first stated no further action, did the second revoke that statement?

 

Assuming there's nothing within either that could prejudice you it may be prudent to include reference to both within the w/s you file with the court........ if the intent of its statements were clear it really shouldn't have proceeded to dq prior to service of data. It's a bit of a loose argument but you could go down the line that it is currently estopped from progression of the case.

[thunderballs]

Tb

 

Wondering why you refer to it as a letter before action? The action is already progressing, the correspondence is just to put it on notice that you believe it to have no case.

 

That's a thought - I'll dispense with the headline.

 

 

The first letter you mention.... was this receipted after filing your defence, not sure you've referred to it before? You need to look at both letters in context, if the first stated no further action, did the second revoke that statement?

 

On the contrary - if anything, the second one re-iterates it.

 

 

Assuming there's nothing within either that could prejudice you it may be prudent to include reference to both within the w/s you file with the court........ if the intent of its statements were clear it really shouldn't have proceeded to dq prior to service of data. It's a bit of a loose argument but you could go down the line that it is currently estopped from progression of the case.

 

Well, they've asserted that themselves.

Edited August 23, 2013 by thunderballs
typo

[thunderballs]

Tb

 

My inbox keeps filling up, I'd prefer to keep all on your thread.

 

I've attached a rough draft w/s to file.....

 

[ATTACH]45969[/ATTACH]

 

Not got a lot of time today, will have a think about the letter you intend sending the other side and let you know.

 

Try attaching on here as a word doc so others can provide some input

 

The court did state that I could include attachments, so I'll be including the two DF letters - and I do agree with the point that it shouldn't even have gone to DQ stage in light of the content of their correspondence.

[thunderballs]

It is too late now to ask the court for an extension. Dryden's will be notified and they have 28 days in which to say if they wish to proceed or not. If they do, an Allocation Questionnaire will be sent out to you, this is for case management and allocation to your local court.

 

Lets see if Dryden's provide anything within the next 28 days - you can then consider your next moves and use the AQ to ask for directions.

 

As you can see, it's well past 28 days now and still no AQ as yet (I did get DQs, and the thread has continued on from those).

[citizenB]

Sorry, just seen S.O.S.. just reading back to have a catch up.

 

Ok, have caught up with things since my last contribution and I am not quite sure what exactly you are asking of me.

 

You have contributions from Mike and DonkeyB, who have a great deal of knowledge and experience between them (far more than I do).

 

Be guided by them, I would suggest

Edited August 25, 2013 by citizenB

[thunderballs]

Sorry, just seen S.O.S.. just reading back to have a catch up.

 

Ok, have caught up with things since my last contribution and I am not quite sure what exactly you are asking of me.

 

You have contributions from Mike and DonkeyB, who have a great deal of knowledge and experience between them (far more than I do).

 

Be guided by them, I would suggest

 

No problem at all - they've given me excellent advice for which I'm eternally grateful. I was just looking to get other opinions on board as well.

[thunderballs]

Hi guest.

[Mike_hawk]

The court did state that I could include attachments, so I'll be including the two DF letters - and I do agree with the point that it shouldn't even have gone to DQ stage in light of the content of their correspondence.

 

Remember to update the w/s to include reference to both. It may do the trick but the court may respond with a fee request and view it as an app to strike out. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

 

As you can see, it's well past 28 days now and still no AQ as yet (I did get DQs, and the thread has continued on from those).

 

CPR 26 applies, the court (court officer) will have provisionally decided on small claim track allocation based on the known issues and quantum. Assuming there were no objections from either party at filing of dq's the case will follow the procedure outlined in CPR27 for the small claims track.

[thunderballs]

Remember to update the w/s to include reference to both. It may do the trick but the court may respond with a fee request and view it as an app to strike out. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

 

Done that, and phoned the court as well. They couldn't confirm for sure whether the judge has read my w/s or not - there's more info about that in the PM I sent (in response to one you sent to me).

 

 

CPR 26 applies, the court (court officer) will have provisionally decided on small claim track allocation based on the known issues and quantum. Assuming there were no objections from either party at filing of dq's the case will follow the procedure outlined in CPR27 for the small claims track.

 

I do have auto-confirmation that the emails I sent were received by the court. Whether they've been read is another matter - I do need to ensure that they are, since the information in them does contain relevant evidence that may resolve the case in my favour.

[Mike_hawk]

Ideally the w/s should have been filed with the dq for the judge to consider, at least its now on file.

 

Got your PM......... did 3 decline to comply with the SAR or just certain questions their disclosures raised?

 

Any word on mediation or did the claimant reject the possibility out of hand?