Next round. Mediation on Tuesday. Take it play a straight bat, don't give away too much about their errors/omissions so they can correct prior to court hearing?

Transfer to High Court Sheriffs?

Thanks once again. be in touch for the next exciting instalment!!

Ok, But it will give them my phone details which they don't have....

Right, next round! Received the N180 which is simple enough, the Notice letter with it says return to county court, and serve copies on all other parties? The N180 itself says return to county court. Do I have to send a copy of the N180 to Lowlifes as well? Cheers

And a referral to the ICO in the case of the other persons details??

Many thanks Andy. I'll wait until the last minute then post.

The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. Paragraph 1 is denied. The defendant has had an account with Provident Personal Credit, but cannot reconcile the account number quoted. I have sought clarity from the claimant by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request. Paragraph 2 is denied. I do not recall ever being served a Default Notice however from memory I do recall a collector ceased to collect payments in the past. Paragraph 3 is noted.The defendant was unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served 3 years ago. Paragraph 4. is denied I do not recall any requests from this claimant requesting payment and had never heard of them until receipt of this claim It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of assignment/balance/breach requested by CPR 31. 14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and (b) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and © show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. On the alternative, if the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief. Attempt 3. Vague as possible. Ok now?

Particulars of Claim for reference only 1. Defendant entered into a cca 1974 regulated agreement with Provident Personal Credit under the a/c ref no ******** (the agreement) 2. The defendant failed to maintain the required payments and a default notice was served and not complied with. 3. The agreement was later assigned to the claimant on 29/8/2014 and notice given to the defendant. 4. Despite repeated requests for payment, the sum of £465 remains due and outstanding. 5.And the claimant claims a) The said sum of £465 b.) Interest pursuant to s69 county courts act 1984 at the rate of 8% pa from the date of assignment to the date of issue, accruing at a daily rate of £0.102, but limited to one year, being £37.20. c.) Costs. defence The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. Paragraph 1 is denied.The defendant has had an account with Provident Personal Credit, but cannot reconcile the account number quoted. The Claimant/Solicitor has furnished a photocopy of an agreement with no attached terms and conditions, and an A4 unheaded spreadsheet purporting to be a statement of account. Paragraph 2 is denied. Doorstep collection ceased. Original creditor aware. No default notice received. Paragraph 3 is noted.The defendant was unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served 3 years ago. The claimant and their solicitor have now furnished me with an unheaded document purporting to be from Provident advising that the account was sold to Lowell Portfolio on 29th August 2014. Also enclosed was an unheaded document from Lowell Group introducing themselves.It is noteworthy that both these documents, purporting to be from different parties, are both dated 18th September 2014. Paragraph 4.It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of assignment/balance/breach requested by CPR 31. 14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement with the Claimant; and (b) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and © show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. On the alternative, if the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief. Amended as suggested. This ok to submit now?

Many thanks. Will amend. Then submit at last minute. And I can do that online when I am away?

Any chance of an advice comment on the defence I prepared.? Working and holiday looming ( I have to file when I am away) so want to sort in good time. Many thanks.

Particulars of Claim for reference only 1. Defendant entered into a cca 1974 regulated agreement with Provident Personal Credit under the a/c ref no ******** (the agreement) 2. The defendant failed to maintain the required payments and a default notice was served and not complied with. 3. The agreement was later assigned to the claimant on 29/8/2014 and notice given to the defendant. 4. Despite repeated requests for payment, the sum of £465 remains due and outstanding. 5.And the claimant claims a) The said sum of £465 b.) Interest pursuant to s69 county courts act 1984 at the rate of 8% pa from the date of assignment to the date of issue, accruing at a daily rate of £0.102, but limited to one year, being £37.20. c.) Costs. Defence The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. Paragraph 1 is denied.The defendant has had an account with Provident Personal Credit, but cannot reconcile the account number quoted. The Claimant/Solicitor has furnished a photocopy of an agreement with no attached terms and conditions, and an A4 unheaded spreadsheet purporting to be a statement of account. It is not a copy of the collectors pocket book. If this correct, the original agreement appears unenforceable as the first collection was made only 8 days after the agreement was allegedly signed. Paragraph 2 is denied. The original creditor was advised on more than one occasion that the collector was not calling. They failed to remedy this or advise the defendant further. With the passage of time, the matter was forgotten. Paragraph 3 is noted.The defendant was unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served 3 years ago. The claimant and their solicitor have now furnished me with an unheaded document purporting to be from Provident advising that the account was sold to Lowell Portfolio on 29th August 2014. Also enclosed was an unheaded document from Lowell Group introducing themselves.It is noteworthy that both these documents, purporting to be from different parties, are both dated 18th September 2014. Paragraph 4.It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of assignment/balance/breach requested by CPR 31. 14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement with the Claimant; and (b) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and © show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. On the alternative, if the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief. My first attempt. Any good?

I have until the beginning of September, but turning my attention to drafting a response to the claim this week. Am I correct to say: 1. In this response/defence I keep it succinct and stick only to addressing the 4 points on the claim? 2. This is a shorter exercise and the longer witness statement is separate and comes later? 3. I don't file it on MCOL until the time is nearly up? Many thanks

Thanks for that Andy. Your politeness is appreciated too.

Thank you both. Read the link that you have posted, which I have many times, point 3, by Andy, and tell me where I've gone wrong. I've actually followed the instructions this forum suggests!!!