Lowell/shoe's Claimform - EGG Pers Loan

[balina2]

Thank you for your advice and I will also put in the SAR

 

In the meantime, I confirmed back to S-miths that, as they stated, I have responded to their requests for further information (those that are relevant and pertain directly to the matter). I have also provided sufficient evidence of this debt being statute barred, as per my defence (dated Jan 2017) and its accompanying Exhibits. I said their organisation asked me for further information via email and I responded in kind. I said that their statement that this is insufficient as per Part 18 is denied as a result and I would expect that the matter falls actually not under Part 18 but Part 27.

Their response

 

As set out in my email below, your response to my client’s Part 18 request for further information is spread out over a number of emails. It is incoherent and insufficient for the purposes of Part 18.

 

 

For your convenience, I provided you with a copy of my client’s request with space for you to detail your reply. I attach a further copy and ask that the document is completed and returned to me, by no later than 4pm on 24 January 2018. In default, I will have no alternative but to seek an Order from the Court, compelling you to provide a sufficient response.

 

You suggest that the matter falls under Part 27 and not Part 18. The matter has been allocated to the small claims track, the procedure for which is set out in Part 27. Part 18 covers requests for further information.

 

 

Should I ignore them at this point?

 

And is there anything else I should be preparing for the hearing (SAR evidence if received in time)? My defence from Jan 2017 has already been received by the Court and S-smiths.

 

Thank you again.

[AndyOrch]

Already covered in my last post...#198...CPR 18 is not applicable to Small Claims Track...Fast Track only.

 

Already advised what you need to prepare and submit and serve in preparation for the hearing...your WS and Disclosures as per the Notice of Allocation.

[Guest]

eh! they know/confirm its been allocated small claims yet they still want part 18! and you even pointed them to part 27 which confirms 18 doesn't apply in smalls. or am i missing something (was it court ordered?). are you up against a new paralegal/trainee

did you see andy's post re 18.

[balina2]

Hi, I wanted to update on the result of the hearing today at small claims.

The Judge ruled in Shoosmiths/Arrows favour and awarded full claim plus costs.

 

The focus of the hearing was actually not on my defence but was a quite personal line of questioning about why I had defaulted, why I had spent certain monies on the bank statements I had provided.

 

The bank statements showed that I had not made the payments that Arrows had claimed I had but this seemed to be of no interest to the Judge who instead asked me about why I had spent money in Morrisons and John Lewis but had failed to keep up payments on my loan.

 

Her summary was that my defence was not unreasonable but that she was making a judgement on the balance of probability which has a threshold of 51%.

No parts of my defence were discussed.

All in all it was very much a huge verbal and financial slap round the chops for having defaulted on a loan, disregarding the fact it is statute barred.

 

I am minded to appeal the decision but I have no idea whether this is possible/advisable.

 

I am also unaware of the best approach to negotiating an installment plan with them so any advice here appreciated.

 

The Judge rather unhelpfully advised that if she were to do this today it would be recommended as £400 a month, even though she had no knowledge of my current financial status/earnings/outgoings etc

You can see I find the Judge somewhat prejudiced......

Edited March 19, 2018 by dx100uk
spacing

[dx100uk]

opps you hit judge lottery.