Its been a while since i posted on this blog, the reason for this is not that theres nothing to tell, far from it, its been soo sooo busy and thats why i havent posted much on here.
So whats been happening? Well, over the past couple of weeks theres been a number of claims dismissed against my clients. One was dismissed on the Judges own motion, primarily due to the Claimant failing to plead a valid claim ( thats what happens when you use the bulk centre for a technical Consumer Credit Act claim) and failing to sign the statement of truth correctly, the Firm signed as the “firm” and not as the individual. The Judge held that the failure to plead correctly coupled with the failure to sign the statement of truth was not trivial and was therefore something that the Court could exercise its discretion on.
The Judge also ruled that the Claimants failure to provide copies of documents mentioned in the Claim form left the Claimant in all kinds of difficulties. Accordingly Claim struck out.
A second case much the same as the first took place, this time the Court ordered disclosure by XXX date and in default the Claim was to be struck out. The Claim wasnt small either, it was multi track territory.
The Claimant failed to get its house in order and was struck out.
There are a number of cases on the go at the minute, unlawful repossession of goods under s90 &91 Consumer Credit Act, unless order applications, land banking, Appeals in the Court of Appeal etc. There will be plenty to blog about over the next few weeks.
Consumer Credit Litigation, Banking & Debt Collection 
Hi, I’m interested to know the case details of the case you mentioned, which was thrown out due to the statement of truth not being signed correctly. I just received a claim form from MCOL, the statement of truth being signed by Restons Solicitors. Very interesting blog by the way!
It is always difficult to run procedural arguments, some judges like them, some dont. So it is better to find more than one point to take before the Court so that you have something to fall back on. The incorrect statement of truth was a secondary point, the Claimant did not have a valid claim either, so it fell over on both points.