You talk as though you talk with authority, but actually by your own confession now you have no expertise and all you express is an opinion. I also have an opinion but don’t necessarily believe I am right or that I know everything, I therefore ask for assistance, which I am happy and grateful to receive. If I give my opinion to others in an area in which I am not an expert or have little experience then I also make sure that they know my level of expertise in that area so they can judge my opinion and compare it to others. You talked as if you KNEW you were right and that you were talking from experience and personal expertise, hence I thought you might work for Three, I neither “liked” nor “disliked” your comments, I just wanted to establish whether you were who you sounded like you were or whether this was just an “unqualified” opinion. Now that you have made it clear that it is merely the opinion of an unqualified person I know how much weight to give your opinion. If a qualified solicitor chooses to respond I will obviously take more notice of their opinion than I will of yours or my own. I hope I didn’t offend you (as it sounds like I did), that wasn’t my intention.

Sorry? Your reply doesn’t make any sense? What do you mean? Please explain?

BazzaS, You sound like you work for Three! Do you?

They can have the handset back! I don’t need it!

I will look into the contract in detail; I am also doing a Subject Access Request to obtain all their records on my account, which should also provide evidence supporting my claims, but common sense says that if you enter into a contract with a company who is supposed to be a phone service provider, for a phone service, then they should be expected to provide that service! Furthermore, if after several years that service has not improved, despite their promises that it would, then I think I have shown sufficient tolerance and have not been unreasonable.

Ok. That’s interesting. Thanks. I do not intend to pay them a penny. I will fight it in court if I have to. if they do default me I shall start a claim against them for publishing inaccurate data as I shall show that they breached the contract and if the amount they are trying to claim is not fair or in line with OfCom guidelines then I will use that too.

I have been a Three customer for a few years recently ended our relationship on the basis that I consider that they have breached our latest contract by not providing the service as expected. Since the first year I have been with Three I had to constantly complain about the quality of the service, in particular the fact that I had no phone signal at home and little signal everywhere I went in the UK, from Cornwall all the way up to Scotland. I had at most three bars, but more often one or two, with the result that I was unable to make calls or calls were dropped in the middle; this even happened regularly when phoning Three support. They would also often complain that they couldn’t hear me properly when I called them. Each time I complained and also when they were trying to get me to sign an update contract they promised that the network was being improved and promised that within the term of the contract it would get better and to compensate me for the poor service at the time they gave me a 50% reduction on my monthly payment they also sent me a device to connect to my internet router which gave me a three bar signal at home some of the time. This pattern was repeated each year until this year. I renewed the contact and upgraded my phone in March this year, but found instead of improving the signal got worst. I complained to them again, they said there was nothing they could do about it and refused to provide any sensible discount in lieu of the poor service. I decided I had had enough. I therefore told them that as far as I was concerned they were in breach of the agreement as they had not provided the service they had been contracted to provide. I then went to O2 instead and now have a fantastic full strength signal almost everywhere I go! Of course Three don’t acknowledge the breach and have sent a bill for over £900 which they claim is due for cancelling the contract. I don’t intend to pay this bill and will defend my position in court if necessary. However, my main concern is that they will probably mark a default on my credit file which I do not want. my first question is this; can they legally issue a default, or mark a file over an account which is in dispute? If not, is there anything else I need to do to ensure the account is legally recognised as in dispute? Thanks.

Perhaps more like this...? 1. The Defendant denies that he is liable to the Claimant either as alleged in the Particulars of Claim or at all. Save where otherwise admitted, each and every allegation in the Particulars of Claim is denied. 2. The Defendant admits that in or about 2005 they entered into an agreement with HSBC Bank plc (Herein after referred to as HSBC or the Creditor) and which was an agreement regulated by The Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA). The Defendant has no recollection of and makes no admissions regarding the precise purpose of the agreement or of its specific terms, conditions and other provisions or what would constitute a breach thereof other than those provided by The Consumer Credit Act 1974 which apply to all regulated agreements. The Defendant denies that the agreement was a properly executed agreement in accordance with the terms of The Consumer Credit Act 1974 and therefore denies committing a breach thereof. 3. The Defendant denies entering into any agreement with the Claimant MKDP LLP. 4. According to the particulars of claim the Claimant claims the amount of £XXXX plus court costs of £XX, giving a total of £XXXX. However only an account number has been offered in the particulars of claim in relation to the agreement referred to, the method by which the Claimant calculated any outstanding sums due, the details of any Default Notices issued, Notices of Assignment effectively served on the Defendant, or any other matters necessary to substantiate the Claimant’s claim have not been provided. Importantly no copy of any executed agreement was filed with the claim nor were any notices of any kind as they should have been according to the Civil Procedure Rules, the Claimant is therefore put to strict proof to produce such evidence and the case should be struck out or stayed until such time as the evidence has been produced. 5. The Claimant has no legal right to bring this action on all of the following grounds: The Creditor failed to issue a Notice of Assignment to the Defendant as required under The Property Act 1925 if an assignment of the account to the Claimant was made and therefore the Claimant is not legally entitled to bring this claim. No valid properly executed regulated credit card agreement exists on which to base the claim. The Creditor previously provided a photocopy of an application form, purporting to be a true copy of the agreement. The form supplied by the Creditor could not represent a properly executed agreement under CCA 1974 s61 , so the claimant will therefore require an enforcement order, but CCA 1974 s127(3) states that an enforcement order cannot be granted unless the requirements of CCA 1974 s61 , "signing of agreements" are met. Prescribed terms must be contained within the document, being the interest rates, a statement relating to the credit available and the method and intervals of repayment, etc., as stated in the regulations, these are given in Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553)/SCHEDULE 6 Prescribed Terms for the Purposes of Sections 61(1)(a) and 127(3) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Claimant remains in default of a request for information made under Section 78 of The Consumer Credit Act 1974 in a recorded delivery letter sent to the Creditor on 01/08/09 . 6. Any agreement which could be proved by the Claimant to exist was in any case terminated illegally in breach of the terms of The Consumer Credit Act 1974, as no valid Default Notice, as required under CCA s87, was in force at the time that the Creditor terminated the account on 21/07/10. 7. On 18/12/13 the Claimant was sent a CPR 31.14 request by recorded delivery (which was delivered on 20/12/13) for copies of documents therefore relied on in their claim, such documents should consist of at least: An original properly executed credit card agreement. A valid Default Notice with proof of issue of such. A Notice of Assignment between the HSBC Bank plc and the Claimant, together with proof of effective service and a Deed of Assignment between the Claimant and HSBC. 8. No response was received by the Defendant from the Claimant to their CPR 31.14 request dated 18/12/13. A further letter was sent on 31/12/13 indicating to them that they had failed to provide the required documents. Still no documents have been received and the Defendant therefore asks that the Court issue a Court Order for the Claimant to produce these documents.

Hi Mike, Good point. Thanks, I will amend those parts. Regards, Colin.

Hi Everyone, I have compiled the following defence and would welcome any comments or suggestion with regard to it before I submit. Thanks. Regards, Colin. 1. The Defendant denies that he is liable to the Claimant either as alleged in the Particulars of Claim or at all. Save where otherwise admitted, each and every allegation in the Particulars of Claim is denied. 2. The Defendant admits that in or about 2005 they entered into an agreement with HSBC Bank plc (Herein after referred to as HSBC or the Creditor) and which was an agreement regulated by The Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA). The Defendant has no recollection of and makes no admissions regarding the precise purpose of the agreement or of its specific terms, conditions and other provisions or what would constitute a breach thereof other than those provided by The Consumer Credit Act 1974 which apply to all regulated agreements. The Defendant denies that the agreement was a properly executed agreement in accordance with the terms of The Consumer Credit Act 1974 and therefore denies committing a breach thereof. 3. The Defendant denies entering into any agreement with the Claimant MKDP LLP. 4. According to the particulars of claim the Claimant claims the amount of £XXXX plus court costs of £XX, giving a total of £XXXX. However only an account number has been offered in the particulars of claim in relation to the agreement referred to, the method by which the Claimant calculated any outstanding sums due, the details of any Default Notices issued, Notices of Assignment effectively served on the Defendant, or any other matters necessary to substantiate the Claimant’s claim have not been provided. Importantly no copy of any executed agreement was filed with the claim nor were any notices of any kind as they should have been according to the Civil Procedure Rules, the Claimant is therefore put to strict proof to produce such evidence and the case should be struck out or stayed until such time as the evidence has been produced. 5. The Defendant will produce documentary evidence to show that the Claimant has no legal right to bring this action on all of the following grounds: The Creditor failed to issue a Notice of Assignment to the Defendant as required under The Property Act 1925 if an assignment of the account to the Claimant was made and therefore the Claimant is not legally entitled to bring this claim. The Defendant will demonstrate that no valid properly executed regulated credit card agreement exists with the Creditor on which to base the claim. The Creditor previously provided a photocopy of an application form, purporting to be a true copy of the agreement. The form supplied by the Creditor could not represent a properly executed agreement under CCA 1974 s61 , so the claimant will therefore require an enforcement order, but CCA 1974 s127(3) states that an enforcement order cannot be granted unless the requirements of CCA 1974 s61 , "signing of agreements" are met. Prescribed terms must be contained within the document, being the interest rates, a statement relating to the credit available and the method and intervals of repayment, etc., as stated in the regulations, these are given in Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553)/SCHEDULE 6 Prescribed Terms for the Purposes of Sections 61(1)(a) and 127(3) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Defendant will demonstrate that the Claimant remains in default of a request for information made under Section 78 of The Consumer Credit Act 1974 in a recorded delivery letter sent to the Creditor on 01/08/09 . 6. The Defendant will produce documentary evidence which will show that any agreement, either proved, demonstrated or assumed, to have existed, which was valid or otherwise and which would have had to have been a regulated agreement compliant with The Consumer Credit Act 1974, was in any case terminated illegally in breach of the terms of The Consumer Credit Act 1974, as no valid Default Notice, as required under CCA s87, was in force at the time that the Creditor terminated the account on 21/07/10. 7. On 18/12/13 the Claimant was sent a CPR 31.14 request by recorded delivery (which was delivered on 20/12/13) for copies of documents therefore relied on in their claim, such documents should consist of at least: An original properly executed credit card agreement. A valid Default Notice with proof of issue of such. A Notice of Assignment between the HSBC Bank plc and the Claimant, together with proof of effective service and a Deed of Assignment between the Claimant and HSBC. 8. No response was received by the Defendant from the Claimant to their CPR 31.14 request dated 18/12/13. A further letter was sent on 31/12/13 indicating to them that they had failed to provide the required documents. Still no documents have been received and the Defendant therefore asks that the Court issue a Court Order for the Claimant to produce these documents.

Thanks, yes, I had already made that one of my arguments too...

Yes, that's quite true, thanks for pointing that out...

Yes, thanks, I understand...

OK. That's what I will do then, I was going to include this argument anyway, but I thought the DN issue was stronger than the no agreement, as I have seen so many cases on here where the court enforced even without an agreement at all...

Here is page two of the statement, nothing on it at all: http://i1047.photobucket.com/albums/b471/colin21958/MKDP%20LLP/statement2.jpg