You have to prove on the balance of probabilities that you weren’t at the address.
Hence, provide whatever evidence you have that you were living elsewhere at the time that the agreement was allegedly signed and refer to that in your defence.
If you give a list of addresses where you have lived in the dates (the and the year is close enough) where you have lived since perhaps 2 years before the agreement was allegedly taken out, and you have the electoral roll printout, that should be sufficient.
It should be sufficient because if they don’t have an address where you ever live, how could they have sent you the agreement?
Under section 87 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 section (1) provides for it to be necessary before the creditor can (b) demand earlier payment of any sum to provide a Default Notice in the stat to format required under section 88. The Claimant has failed to do so and is therefore not entitled to pursue the debt.
So, you actually have 2 defences.
It is the creditor which has to provide the notice. Hence, it would either have to be Lloyds or whoever the debt has been assigned to.
I apologise, you are right, you have a third line of defence which is that they have not produced any assignment of the debt so there is actually no proof that you are indebted to the claimant at all. I didn’t cover that because you had already covered that quite succinctly.
Can I clarify anything for you?
Please don’t forget to rate the service positive. It’s an important part of the process by which experts get paid.
We can still exchange emails if you wish.
If you look at the other threads I have dealt with, you will see that some of them carry on exchanging for some time.
I don’t think that any of your defences is more important to them another.
These would normally be worded
Details of defence
or , in the alternative,
, in the alternative,
Details of defence.
Which are your three defences.
I would have the no cause of action because the claimant has no right because they have evidence to the court or you that have any interest in debt
then you are not the correct defendant anyway because you have never lived even remotely close to this address
finally, the default notice
you can rely on their electoral roll information if it’s accurate. There’s no reason why they should make it up or doctor it.
You are correct that it’s almost impossible to that you did not live somewhere but you can prove that you live somewhere else that time and that would serve the balance of probabilities to prove that you did not live at the address they are claiming.
It may be that the electoral roll information support your version of events rather than theirs and they may have shot themselves in the foot.
There is no absolute need but it does speed things up because it saves the court copying. Hence, I would always do.
Send a copy also to the Claimant and in the covering letter to the court, tell them that you have also served a copy on the Claimant.
If you put another question up, put my name at the top of the thread, “For FES” and I will deal with it for you. Best wishes.
I will look now.
I cannot see one. What is it about?
Thank you. On the other post, can I trouble you to ask the expert to opt out please and then I can pick up that thread on which you pay the fee?
It will then come back onto the board and I can pick it up.
Meanwhile, I will answer you on here.
The relief from sanctions application is basically an apology and asking for their claim not to be struck out for late service of documents.
You can defend the application for relief and ask for the claim to be struck out but in all honesty, it’s probably going to be a waste of time. Judges routinely allow documents to be served late which I must admit I find rather frustrating.
What they should have done of course is ask for an extension because then you also would know where you were working. The annoying thing about the application for relief is that it means that solicitors are routinely late. If more cases were struck out for missing deadlines, they wouldn’t miss the deadlines!
What I would suggest you did however because this is clearly take the considerable amount of time for the claimant’s solicitors to put together and if in the event your defence is not successful for any reason, you don’t want to pay the solicitors costs for putting this together which is going to be several hundred pounds. Hence, agree that you will not defend it on the basis that they agree not to ask for costs in respect of the application if the matter ultimately proceeds to trial.
If it does go to trial, and you are successful, you would also want your costs for considering this because this is through no fault of your own .
Incidentally, the application, on page 2 is what is colloquially known as “snowballing”. This is where they had everything out to hide relevant facts. At the end of clause 2 on the second page, they admit that this is a procedural error on their behalf. The rest of it is just padding.