well get reading up then Programmable Search Engine (google.com) clickme^^^^ we are self help too.. you should be blocking and bouncing ALL emails/addresses and blocking their number and reporting the txtx to spam 7726. if you'd read up...you'd have known to do that. dx

you dont seem to have uploaded the cancellation box sheet nor anything with a tickbox/dates name typed in //ie your signup agreeing? did they not supply those? ps ive redacted things too...you left your name on both docs..is the address correct for time of takeout for each set of T&C's/Agreement? (note they are diff updated T&C periods) have a look at PRA barclaycard threads already here, you'll see that (base) agreement return already.... its identical.

i dont think the reason why the defendant lost the case means anything at all in that case. it was a classic judge lottery example.

the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx

wonder what happened? dx

well? dx

post hidden please do not put up docx file all YOUR pers details are in file info/properties - then they'll know you are here. file save as .pdf (turn off properties in options click box) the MEGRE everything to one mass pdf, see the online sites in UPLOAD

just type no need to keep hitting quote. dx

well at least you have a crime ref number to use that to frighten people..

a default cal marker will not remove the debt in 6yrs regardless to whatever you do but as ive said 3 times now the issuance and registering of a default notice does. please get reading up.... dx

the court would never fwd on your email AD to a claimant. the email and their n180 are purely intimidation tactics if you GO READ a few PNC Claimform threads. cause i bet MCOL claim history says nothing about DQ n180's being sent out BY THE COURT to either party yet. dx

must rather see the statements. dx

1. who knows... 2. not the whole A/C vanishes from your file on the DN's 6th b'day ...already carefully explain this. 3.yes 4.already carefully explain this.

if i remember rightly, long ago in one of the first drafts of the old proposed gov't overhauls, there was a listing of recommended 'charges' that inc wrong reg = £20. some PPC's implemented such changes in advance. then later as it looked increasing likely the new code was never going to be implemented after it's 1st review and another set of codes was to be debated they all quietly revert back .......... dx

receiving a default NOTICE (forget simple default cal markers) does not mean it will get sold on... OC's very very rarely do court themselves. if it does you would receive a Notice of Assignment from the debt buyer/DCA. as for reduced payment if it remains with the OC and they issue a DN, no harm in trying but lets get all your ducks inline first. dx