Hi Patterns, the system tells me you have referred to one of my threads. Just for clarity, later in the thread I say that even though the 28 days has passed it turns out it wasn't stayed as I have since received an N180 from the court. Looks like we are at a similar stage. I haven't had a N180 from the solicitors yet? Have you?

doh 10/1/2020 i've had nothing other than the n180 from the courts, which I'm ready to return over the weekend.

yes the N180 came from the court issued 10/10/2020, so it wasnt stayed even though it was over the 28 days. is that of note in my defence? or just the effect of the xmas holidays?

Now Im home I can see my paperwork as I've been away looking after family, so they had till the 5th of January to do something and i can see it should have been stayed on the 5th of January? The court acknowledgement of my defence says after that date the only action the claimaint can then take will be to apply to a judge for an order lifting the stay. Would I know if it had been stayed or not? I haven't received any notification of any kind to that effect and there is no notification on MCOL. IS that of note in my defence or just because of the holidays? I'll crack on with the N180 now I have it in front of me and have the threads to follow Thanks again

a letter from Cohens to say they have advised the court to proceed with the claim. also a notice of proposed allocation to the Small Claims Track and N180 for me to complete so I just need to agree to mediation by the date on the form

You're right for me not to get too happy clappy. I have just received notification that they have applied to the court to proceed.

Great thank you.

Got it thanks Andy. So nothing for me to do. Will I get notification of the stay? if that's the end of it for now does the title of this thread need to be changed? Thanks for all you help

Time's up. Apart from a standard letter nothing has been done and they have not presented any documents. Do I now apply for a stay? Can you point me in the right direction please? Thanks

Happy new year all. A quick update - CCA request: R Way returned the £1 PO I sent to Hoist and said that the account is with Cohens solicitors .... all documents will be requested by them as part of the process. CPR 31.14 request: Cohens wrote separately that they are in the process of retrieving the information and to accept this letter as their "agreement to a general extension of time" etc Nothing else has been received and MCOL hasn''t been updated. Defence was filed 5/12/2019... so the 28 days are nearly up.

thanks Dx, is that 28 working days?

update - nothing special to report I've received what I should think is a standard letter from the Court today, stating that I have filed my defence and that has been sent on to the claimant. The other letter was from Cohen saying they were in receipt of my 31.14 request and are in the process of retrieving the documents requested. They have agreed for an extension of time and when i receive the documents i'll get a further 14 days to respond. As this letter was dated 30.11 but didnt arrive at my door until the 11th Dec my defence has already been submitted. Not that I would have agreed

Thanks Andyorch .

Awesome. thanks for your very quick reply Dx!

Could someone review the defence I have prepared please? please note I dont have got a copy of an old default notice from 2007, but have asked them to provide me with a copy, does this need to be taken into account on my defence statement? I don't have a copy of an assignment notice from Cap One to HPH2, just one from HPH2 to HFUH2L, but was HPH2 Cap One? If I have these 2 documents, but no original agreement can I still use this as a defence? 1. This claim is for the sum of £294 arising from the Defendants breach of a regulated consumer credit agreement referenced Under no XXXXX. 2. The defendant has failed to remedy the breach in accordance with a default notice issued pursuant to ss. 87(1) and 88 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. 3. The Claimant claims the sums due from the Defendant following the legal assignment of the agreement from Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Ltd (EX CAPITAL ONE). 4. Written notice of the assignment has been given. 5. The Claimant claims 1. The sum of 294 2. Costs 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 is noted and it is accepted insofar that I have had financial dealings with Capital One Bank (Europe) Plc in the past, but I do not recollect the details nor am I aware of any outstanding balance that the claimant refers to and have therefore sought clarity from the claimant. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied I am unaware of any service of a valid Default Notice pursuant to the consumer credit Act 1974 4. Paragraph 3 I am unaware of any alleged legal assignment or Notice of Assignment from the Claimant. 5. On the 27th November 2019 (both sent by recorded delivery) I requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CPR 31.14 request to Howard Cohen and Co. Solicitors and a Section 78 request to the Claimant Hoist Finance UK Holdings 2 Ltd to gain further details. Both have been signed for as received but the claimant has yet to comply. 6. It is therefore denied the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant must provide 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 and evidence the nature of the breach and service of a valid default notice; (c) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure 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 82A 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. Thanks, Molly,