Ok, so I managed to find a thread in that search with a set of POCs pretty much exactly in the format of mine. I have amended mine to reflect this:

Particulars of Claim:

1.The Claimant claims the sum of £3395.00 for an outstanding debt owed.

2. On XX/XX/2008 the Defendant entered into an agreement with Lloyds Bank Plc for a Credit Card under reference XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.

3. On XX/XX/2010 the Defendant defaulted on the agreement with an outstanding balance of £3463.

4. On XX/XX/2018 the debt of £3395 was assigned to PRA Group (UK) Ltd.

Notices of assignment were sent to the Defendant in accordance with S136 Law of Property Act 1925.

5.AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS

1.The sum of £3395.

Defence:

1. 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.

2. Paragraph 1 and 2 are denied. I do not recall ever having any financial dealings with Lloyds Bank Plc. I have sought verification from the claimant regarding this matter and they have failed to comply.

3. Paragraph 3 is denied. I am unaware of any service of a Default Notice pursuant to section 87 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. I have sought verification from the claimant regarding this matter and they have been unable to comply.

4. Paragraph 4 is denied. I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notices of Assignment pursuant to the Law and Property Act 1925 Section 136(1), as stated on the claim, by the Claimant or by Lloyds Bank Plc. I have sought verification from the claimant regarding this matter and they have been unable to comply.

5. A request for the relevant documentation referred to by the Claimant, pursuant to CPR 31.14, was made by signed for delivery on 28th December 2018. However the Defendant has received no response or acknowledgment from the Claimant’s legal representative regarding this. The Claimant in their non-compliance to my requests therefore remain in default.

6. It is therefore not accepted with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, and 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.

7. As per Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.

8. On the alternative, as 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 82 A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

9. 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.

What I am still unsure about is if it is ok to deny having had dealings with Lloyds Bank Plc as the OC was Halifax.

Thanks

AM

Lloyds/Halifax one and the same...so to deny is not correct......the agreement number is the same and therefore obviously the same agreement.

Ok, sure, I kind of guessed so much. So, if I change my paragraph 2 to:

"2. Paragraphs 1 & 2 are noted and is accepted that I have in the past had financial dealings with Lloyds Bank Plc/Halifax. I am unable to recall the precise details of the alleged agreement or debt by which the Claimant refers to within this claim. I have sought verification from the claimant regarding this matter and they have been unable to comply."

......then the defence will be good to go?

Thanks

AM

Fine

Thanks so much. I will get that posted up on the MCOL portal in the next couple of days and then see what happens. If in the unlikely event that PRA do drop the documents through my door in the next 3 days, will this defence still be ok to file?

Well no...subject to what they disclose...if they disclose.

I had a rather informal letter through today regarding my SAR to Halifax.

It wasn't even letter-headed, but had Lloyds Bank Plc written in the footer.

I only know it was regarding my SAR as the two supporting documents that I sent with it had also been returned!

It says that they can't help me as they have no record of the account in question.

Just wondering where this leaves me now?!

Thanks

AM

well if the original creditor cant find anything

doesn't bode well for PRA and their claim then!!

write back include a copy of the stuff PRA have sent you.

That's what I was hoping!

Ok, what would be best to include in my response? Should I address it to the same office as my SAR went to? I ask because the response letter has been sent from a different office.

back to the sender

Looking at it again, it looks like it has just been sent from the mail processing centre in Leeds, which I don't imagine to have anyone that looks after the financial side of things. Should it still be sent there?

is there not an actual address on the letter from 'someone' at someplace?

No, it's very informal indeed (and also a little confusing)! I have attached a scan of it here. I was literally just sent this, along with my returned supporting documentation (list of previous addresses since having the account and a water bill at my current address).

do as post 85 use the Gresham address at the bottom

inc their reply and the PRA cca return etc.

Ok thanks dx.

I've not dealt with the SAR issue yet as I wanted to get my defence posted on MCOL. Before posting it there, I ran through it a few more times and have added a couple of things, shown in bold below. Do these look OK? Also, it reads a little strange as it switches from referring to myself in the first person, to referring to myself as "The Defendant". Should I stick to one or the other? If yes, which would be best?

Defence (final edit):

1. 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.

2. Paragraphs 1 & 2 are noted and it is accepted that I have in the past had financial dealings with Lloyds Bank Plc/Halifax. I am unable to recall the precise details of the alleged agreement or debt by which the Claimant refers to within this claim. I have sought verification from the claimant regarding this matter and they have been unable to comply.

3. Paragraph 3 is denied. I am unaware of any service of a Default Notice pursuant to section 87 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. I have sought verification from the claimant regarding this matter and they have been unable to comply.

4. Paragraph 4 is denied. I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notices of Assignment pursuant to the Law and Property Act 1925 Section 136(1), as stated on the claim, by the Claimant or by Lloyds Bank Plc. I have sought verification from the claimant regarding this matter and they have been unable to comply.

5. A request for the relevant documentation referred to by the Claimant, pursuant to CPR 31.14, was made by signed for delivery on 28th December 2018. However, the Defendant has received no response or acknowledgment from the Claimant’s legal representative regarding this. The Claimant in their non-compliance to this request therefore remains in default.

6. It is therefore not accepted with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, and 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 the nature of breach and service of a Default Notice and subsequent Notice of Sums in Arrears in accordance with the Consumer Credit Act 1974; and

(d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.

7. As per Civil Procedureicon Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.

8. On the alternative, as the Claimant claims to be 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 82 A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

9. 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.

Looking at the MCOL site, filing a defence looks pretty self-explanatory.......I'm guessing I just follow the instructions as per the site?

Thanks again guys

AM

to date they have failed to comply.

Ok thanks, amended and submitted!

Now I guess I just have to wait and see!

Hi,

I was just curious as to what I may expect to happen with this claim now that my defence has been filed? Is there a time-frame within which further things need to happen, or could this just sit around for weeks on end?

Thanks

AM

time to use the downtime between stage wisely.

use the search cag box of the top red toolbar

claimform credit card

or alike and get reading up.

mostly any claimform thread in the same forum you are in now has info.

dx

cag is self help too!

Ok thanks. Will get reading those threads.

Just read something in one of those threads that stated that if the 33 day deadline falls on a weekend then you need to have it in by the Friday as it won't get registered til the Monday.

My deadline did indeed fall on the weekend, but I didn't file it until the Saturday.

However, there was also the Christmas Day and Boxing Day which fell within my timeframe.

Do these two bank holidays get added to my allowable time?

Just feeling a little worried now!

Thanks

AM

your due date was the 21st.

one extra day only

don't worry doesn't matter.

you are a LiP [litigant in person] leeway is given if you are late with anything.

Thanks for the reassurance!

So PRA have written to me to say that they have informed the court that they wish to proceed with the claim. They still haven't complied with the CPR though, so I don't understand how they could proceed. They must feel pretty confident that they will win?

Not particularly.....they do not have to respond to a CPR 31.14 request..its a civil request....they must respond to a CCA request before it gets to trial