The Saga of the Utility AFV

[nameless]

Well, would you believe it? After our victory viewtopic.php?f=76&t=5426 the same utility bandit has gone to court and made another claim for our latest bill and we have received a Response pack from the Northampton Bulk Clearing Centre. Last time we received a Response pack, the strawman defended the matter whilst we were authorised representative.

This time when a statement/cheque arrived, we made the cheque out for £10b plus so that they could take their money and the balance could go towards helping to pay off the national debt. (I thought this was important, although they don't seem to, and if we all did it, they wouldn't have to put VAT on food and children's clothing).

Anyway, they separated the cheque from the statement and posted them both back to us. Our subsequent Notice quoted The Bills of Exchange Act 1882 - 43 (1)(a) and 43(2).

We wondered if a counterclaim could be used this time and whether this Notice mentioned above could be used. On the form, No. 4 in their Response pack it asks how much £ we are claiming. Obviously we don't want any £ from them, just for the AFV to be appreciated. Obviously, too, we wouldn't want to enclose a counterclaim fee. So this might negate the whole thing. Does anyone have any experience of this?

[Veronica]

This time when a statement/cheque arrived, we made the cheque out for £10b plus so that they could take their money and the balance could go towards helping to pay off the national debt. (I thought this was important, although they don't seem to, and if we all did it, they wouldn't have to put VAT on food and children's clothing)

I like your style.

Sorry but I have to leave the rest to those into A4Vs.

(But this topic gets a 'bump')

[nameless]

Thank you, Veronica, much appreciated.

I have been reading lots, and the following is a start:

http://1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/counterclaimnotes.htm

The following is taken from the above:

"When you do a counterclaim, the primary issue is jurisdiction. By what authority does the inferior court presume to take jurisdiction over the parties? When the counterclaim is filed, all parties in the inferior court, and the inferior court itself, are served with the suit. Because the primary issue is jurisdiction, the proceedings in the inferior court must stop immediately and may not proceed until it proves in the superior court that it has jurisdiction. If it fails to prove its jurisdiction, then the final judgment of the superior court will be that the inferior court had no jurisdiction and all proceedings thereafter are barred."

I have been searching many posts and articles regarding counterclaim, and the above quote explains the jurisdiction aspect of a counterclaim. OneManAndHisDog has written extensively about this; in fact, all his posts are worthy of much study. I hope I can glean sufficient information as needed for my counterclaim.