Quick question

[seriously fed up]

I have these nice people at ARC chasing me on behalf of the even nicer Eggy people. Anything that Egg have produced in reply to a CCA request is defective (for instance - and just ONE example - usual "Approved limit" thing) and I have advised them that I consider the account is not enforceable. However, that doesnt seem to have deterred them as I have had the Trevor Munn "we are taking you to court in 10 days unless you cough up" letter. I am planning to respond to this by pointing out in detail to them (yet again) the problems with their paperwork that make the account unenforceable. However, the threat is to raise the action at Northampton county court (I believe because this will allow them to raise the action online), BUT I live in Scotland (and always have done). Does Norhampton CC have jurisdiction, or can I point out to them that as well as abusing legal process, the court they are threatening me with lacks jurisdiction to hear the case?
Even a yes or a no would be appreciated. Thanks

[maroondevo52]

Hi,

I'm not sure about that one, I used the same argument when Cope's raised an action agains me, from Northampton, I live in Edinburgh.

The case was thrown out.

Regards.

Scott.

[IdaInFife]

BUT I live in Scotland (and always have done). Does Norhampton CC have jurisdiction NO
, or can I point out to them that as well as abusing legal process, the court they are threatening me with lacks jurisdiction to hear the case? YES


ida x

[seriously fed up]

Thank you Maroondevo and also Ida in Fife.
You have no idea how much pleasure I will take in advising them of this - in addition to reminding them of the other problems with their "claim"

[maroondevo52]

Hi,

Here's the defence I used..................... ..

Denied that this court has jurisdiction. I reside at [insert your full postal address]. This is my principal or main home and I am domiciled here for the purpose of section 41 of the Civil Jurisdiction & Judgments Act 1982 ('the 1982 Act').
It is alleged that a contractual agreement was entered into dated 14th June 2001 with the plaintiff. The defendant would have entered into any such contractual agreement as a consumer. Paragraph 3(4) to schedule 8 of the 1982 Act provides as follows: "(4) Proceedings may be brought against a consumer by the other party to the contract only in the courts for the place where the consumer is domiciled or any court having jurisdiction under rule 2(i)". Rule 2(i) concerns moveable property which has been arrested and is not applicable. Paragraph 3(6) does not apply. Accordingly, this action is incompetent for want of jurisdiction and should be dismissed with expenses in favour of the defendant.


Regards.

Scott.

[seriously fed up]

Thanks for that and I will use that IF they do actually bring the action threatened - for this saga see http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...nforcable.html