PART 3 - The Third Claim

Three weeks later,  another demand from the same resurrected  defunct contract,  with another threat of a hearing from a Debt Collector.


Back to Hamilton Small Claims Court (HSCC)  with a letter explaining that I was going for the jugular to get the harassment of this disreputable Company of  my back,


In their defence statement Bell &Scott  claimed.   Mr Watt's credit rating has not suffered in any way,  this matter has now been remedied , and he has not been inconvenienced. 
 In fact I was denied a phone from another source  and it was only remedied  some months later   then three weeks after I received the latest cheque and apology plus a letter explaining how all the staff had now been instructed on the proper method of dealing with complaints,  I received the latest threat of  the risk of a call from another Debt Agent.


The statement ended by saying,  " The averments of the pursuer are irrelevant in specification and insofar as material do not disclose a case state-able in law, and the defenders should be assoilzied    ( no,  I don't know what that means either)   with expenses in their favour.".


My answer to that was Bell Scott lost  the defence, but due to a performance in Court  that must have raised many an eyebrow among the Legal Eagles,  they escaped what should have been a very real monitory penalty


Rhona M. Wark of Bell& Scott made  deliberate statements which she  did not verify to be true in her defence of my action


(1)  She claimed .  The Defender's   Office instructed the Pursuer's debt be removed from the system with immediate effect, and that the Pursuer's credit rating be restored.
      In fact it was some time before  they even replied to my letter, to the Head Office and,  in the meantime I found out I had been blacklisted by CPW and refused a new phone from another Company, for non payment of debt, and had received two letters from Roxbourghe's  Debt Agency..      I never got a letter in reply from that Low Life Company .neither did Roxbourgh. who intimated, he would no longer act for them.
     IF  Bell &Scott didn't know this , they had not done their homework or had been lied to by whoever instructed them.    BUT if Bell & Scott  DID know ,    What does that say about them?


(2)   She said , as is his wont,  Mr Watt did not contact Catherine Norris, with whom he had been in correspondence on the 26th March but  instead wrote to the Manager of the section, who had no knowledge of the previous proceedings.
   Another deliberate attempt to gain advantage by lying innuendo.
I did write to  the Manager,  it was a reply to his letter,   why the hell was he interfering if he had no knowledge of the previous.
    Catherine Norris,?   Would that be the same Catherine Norris who wasn't senior enough to agree to £ 550  ,  sat on the files for six weeks after her first sight of them, offered me £300 then told me " if you don't accept our offer of £550 , we can go back to the Court to ask it to make what they consider a proper decision ?."  Don't you feel that, just maybe  I had spent enough time trying to prise a modicum  of common sense out of the afore-mentioned Catherine Norris, without seeking her out when it wasn't her that contacted me.


  This was sent to Court as CPWs defence but was not put to me to deny.


(3)  Council had claimed ,  as I stated earlier that I had been offered £300 , and got away with not producing the evidence as ordered at the previous sitting earlier by claiming " that office is a shambles"  That's all I can say,   a pure shambles.    The  Judge nodded sympathetically to her,   I was surprised he didn't add   I understand pet.  don't worry 
  "  I offer this as fair comment and honest opinion* con.sidering his whole woeful performance
 While Bell&Scott says in another letter  " their letter renews their offer of  ONE HUNDRED POUNDS in full and final settlement..
  so who is lying this time. Council claimed I was offered £300 .  obviously it was  Council from Bell & Scott.


CarPhone Warehouse  Lied when they instructed Council I was offered £300
AND Rhona M Wark  had proof positive that they lied before her Council  claimed that in Court.


Don't make any mistake  Bell & Scott had the letter saying £100  and it was   Council from Bell & Scott who claimed I had been offered  £300  and then failed to produce.  


Another example   of the way Rhona M Wark  has of  using innuendo to suggest  I was at fault in the same letter   " Please note, that in the event you do receive further correspondence from Carephone Warehouse,  that regardless of who the letter is signed  by or from,whom,  these letters should be sent either to myself or to Miss Norris at CPW".  A  third, and probably, better option, could have been, the village idiot.


Rhona M. Wark   would have made more sense if she had warned the fools at CPW who appear to  write  such letters about which, even the Legal Company acting for them say they know next to zilch about,     should shut up. 
Then again  Miss Wark  would probably have made a lot more sense if she herself had said less.      Although,  if Miss Norris is her only option,  I can't say  she has a lot going for her .    Because she finishes with this wonderful observation   "Had you contacted Miss Norris direct this matter would have been resolved instantly.


  Such innocent  faith in a client's abilities and integrity, would bring a tear to a glass eye.


This  looks like Hobson's choice     The Devil or the deep blue sea    else    A Nitwit   or a Halfwit  


I can't speak for all viewers, but, as for me,  there is more chance of hell freezing over, than I would listen to anything in future,  that came from Catherine Norris and her fellow suspects in CPW ,   or Rhona M. Wark and co from  Bell & Scott


 Of course, if  Council can tell deliberate lies in Court , simply to save a mega rich client a few bob,   I shouldn't think slavouring rubbish advice like this, is going to test her conscience  .


I still find it hard to believe,   or take,   that any court in U.K. would not demand that Council produce that tape under severe penalty for failure 


  BUT HAMILTON SMALL CLAIMS COURT DID






   Meantime,   I rest my case.         B.W.