There's absolutely nothing wrong with them adding interest and charges to an account despite you believing that there is a 'dispute'. Can I ask what makes you think that they can't do this?

If you are going to send in the skeleton argument seperately then I would suggest adding something like this to the grounds of appeal:- The grounds of appeal are given below. More detailed argument supporting the grounds is given in the Skeleton Argument This will make sure that the court doesn't make it's decision on whether to allow the appeal based just on the grounds without also reading your argument

uptoyoureyeballs, What you have done as your grounds of appeal is really a mixture of grounds of appeal and the argument to support them. It is also rather confusing to read and also - this is just my opinion - there are a number of things that are not correct. I would suggest leaving out the parts about the assignment and the amount claimed. They have given you notice of the assignment by sending you the SD. The issue with the amount claimed is only relevant if it brings the amount owed below 750. Also, I would really suggest that you leave out the counterclaim part Here is my suggestion - and please remember it is just a suggestion. Grounds of Appeal 1. The learned judge misdirected himself on the issue of the enforceability of the debt due to s61(1) and s127(3) Consumer Credit Act 1974. 2. The learned judge misdirected himself on the issue of the need for a Default Notice under s87(1) and s88 of the Act before the Respondent could take any action. 3. The learned judge erred in that he failed to have any or sufficient regard to the Insolvency Proceedings Practice Direction 12.4 Skeleton Argument in Support of Grounds of Appeal The Existence of a Written Agreement 1. This debt is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. 2. I applied for credit with the Respondent in xxxxx and an Application Form was completed. However, it is not accepted that the Agreement was reduced to writing and it is submitted that a valid agreement containing all of the prescribed terms required by the Act does not exist. The prescribed terms are given in Schedule 6 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983. 3. The Respondent has been invited on a number of occasions to rebut my assertion that a valid Agreement does not exist by supplying a copy of the alleged Agreement with my signature on it but has failed to do so. 4. As a result, the absence of a signed written agreement containing all of the prescribed terms is fatal to the Respondent's position as the alleged agreement was entered into before the 6th April 2007, being the date when s15 of the Consumer Credit Act 2006 came into effect. By operation of Schedule 3 of the 2006 Act the terms of s127(3) Consumer Credit Act 1974 are not repealed in respect of this alleged agreement and therefore render it unenforceable. 5. The Court’s attention is drawn to the authority of the House of Lords in Wilson & Ors v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2003] UKHL 40 and Dimond v Lovell [2000] UKHL 27; [2000] 2 All ER 897both of which confirm that where a signed document does not contain the required prescribed terms under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) the Agreement cannot be enforced. The Need for a Default Notice 6. It is a statutory condition that prior to taking any steps towards enforcement in respect of a Regulated agreement that a valid default notice complying with the terms of the Act must have been issued. If no Default Notice is issued or the notice is bad then enforcement cannot be attempted (Harrison v Link Financial Ltd [2011] EWHC B3 (Mercantile) ). 7. At no time have I received a default notice and, despite requests to the Respondent, the Respondent has not been able to provide any evidence that a good notice was ever posted to me. Insolvency Practice Direction 12.4 8. It is submitted that there are sufficient arguments to demonstrate that there are genuine triable issues and that, given the authorities quoted above, there is a genuine prospect of success. 9. As a result, it is submitted that the learned judge erred in that he failed to have any or sufficient regard for Insolvency Practice Direction 12.4. It is submitted that there is clearly sufficient evidence that there is a genuine triable issue and that the statutory demand should have been set aside I, xxx the Appellant, believe that the facts stated above are true Signed Dated

You are wrong on this point. It costs nothing to defend a case. You are not paying 75 quid to have the case 'stopped'. The case is over and done with and you have got a CCJ because you did not defend it. Your application is an entirely seperate court action that YOU are starting. If you like, you are the claimant in this case. You are making an application to the court that they do something and there is a fee for doing this. The reason that you do want to do this is that having a CCJ will affect your credit rating for the next 6 years

You will only get this refunded if you are on a very low income or in receipt of certain means tested benefits. I would suggest that if you can afford to take month long holidays abroad then it is probably unlikely that you will qualify - but of course I know nothing about your personal circumstances.

It's difficult to give any meaningful advice without knowing what you put in your application.

42 - or is that the answer to another question?

JRD, Please be very careful with this, you are laying yourself open to potentially some very large costs if you lose. I would suggest that you need to prepare an excellent witness statement and skeleton argument in addition to the particulars of claim that you have done so far. Since you are the Claimant in this case, I would suggest that the burden lies with you to demonstrate that you do not owe any money. Don't forget, in the Ferguson case, the Claimant had closed her account and did not owe British Gas anything. If you are seeking to rely on Ferguson then the other side will attempt to differenciate the two cases by claiming that you owe them money. You really must be able to show that you do not owe them any money I would suggest. Also, don't forget what Jacob LJ said in that case:- So it really is down to you to show that you did not owe them any money. They don't need to reply to you unless you make a request under s77/78 Consumer Credit Act.

Did you plead the illegible agreement in the second case?

I made a couple of posts earlier but I'm not sure if they showed up as I can't see them

Hi Vic, Would you mind if I go over a few of your points. What I am saying is, of course, just my point of view. 1. For an absolute assignment to exist there must be a contract in writing between the assignor and assignee - in this case HBOS and Arrow Global - and the debtor must have been given notice in writing. In this case the debtor has been given notice in writing and there is, I presume, a written agreement between the assignor and the assignee and so there is an absolute assignment. If either of these things were missing then it would be an equitable assignment. 2. Their rights under this contract have been assigned and the right to process personal data can be assigned as well. However, since Arrow now have these rights that means, I would suggest that HBOS no longer have the right to process your data. 3. The written contract needs to be under the hand - that is signed by - the OC but the notice can come from anyone. Regards nicklea

Bingo - you've got it The Act does not specify any particular format and there is also case law that it does not have to come from anybody in particular - it can even come from a third party. The important thing is that if they do not send it by recorded delivery then you can plausibly deny ever receiving it and so they are stuffed if they try to start a court claim against you. However, if you subsequently contact Arrow Global in writing about this you cannot sensibly claim that you haven't received notice - otherwise why would you be writing to them about your debt? The Act actually says that if they send the notice by recorded delivery or leave it at your address in person then it doesn't matter if you get it or not - just as long as they use one of those two routes. However, these companies never do it properly.

Halibutt, If you actually read what the OP said in the very first post you will see that there is no case of 'if' - it is quite clear who the owner of the debt is. Wescott are acting on behalf of their clients. You say that Wescott should reply. Well the whole point of this thread is that they have replied and the OP is after some advice Of course, and you'll get a response much quicker by doing this Please see my comments above to cerberus about why them doing this is actually helpful to the OP

However, as I have said above, this will not help the OP. Supposing they had done this - what would then happen? The OC would write to him and say that he had not enclosed the required payment and ask him for that payment. This would no doubt take several weeks and the OP would be no further ahead than he is now. As I also said, Wescott are actually helping him in this case by pointing out that he has made the payment payable to the wrong party. I really don't understand why people are getting so heated about this. What is wrong with them pointing out the OP's mistake and asking him to make the correct payment?

No, Tingy is not correct on this. All that it needs to say is something along the lines of:- 'We have bought your debt, please start paying us now' As long as it tells you that your debt is now payable to someone else then that is fine. There are some specific situations where they can give incorrect information which invalidates the notice but it is very rare that this happens. From what you wrote in your original post, this situation has not occured. I'm really sorry if this isn't what you hoped to hear.

The Act actually says that a creditor must reply when the creditor receives a request in writing and the creditor also receives a payment of one pound. That seems clear enough to me about mentioning who payment should be made to. Please have a read of subsection 1 of the relevant sections if you are unsure on this point. If the creditor does not receive payment then they do not have to respond. In this case, if Wescott were to pass this request on to the OC then they would not have to reply as they had not received any payment - the payment was made payable to a third party not to the creditor. They have therefore not received any payment and so do not have to respond. From what the OP has said, it is clear that Wescott have never claimed to own the debt but are acting on behalf of their clients. From what you have said it appears that you have never received any letters from these people before - well let me just say, I certainly have in the past. They do say who the client is so it is clear on whose behalf they are attempting to collect.

hammy, As docman said above, what were the actual grounds of the defence? There don't seem to have been any apart from no default notice which they then rectified.

andi, I would suggest that the reason he is doing this is to provide concrete evidence in the case there is any likelihood of disciplinary proceedings, dismissal, redundancy etc. It covers his back if he can show an extended period of poor performance. To be honest, this is a legitimate management tool and is used by managers in a large number of companies. You need to assume that he is watching your every action at work and act accordingly ie don't give him any reason to complain about your behaviour. If, as he says, he is also keeping notes on your other colleagues then you being squeaky clean will mean that he will concentrate on those others that aren't. Believe me, I have worked for a number of very large, household name, companies and this sort of behaviour is not uncommon. To be honest with you I have been on the wrong end of this sort of thing before and it does mean that your manager has an issue with you. However, on the other hand, if all he has on you in a negative light in the last 6 months is this one instance then, I would suggest, that's not very much to worry about. It's very hard to give any meaningful advice without knowing the whole situation but you do need to consider first of all your current relationship with your manager and how this request might affect things if you pursue it. Hope this helps. Giggins, Sorry, but I do have a few issues with your post:- Sorry but have you ever read the Human Rights Acts or the European Convention on Human Rights? From the above quote, I would guess that the answer is no. For the benefit of others reading this, I will include the relevant article here:- After reading the above, I would just like to ask, how does your comment:- bear any relation to the OP's situation. How can his actions in the workplace be described as his 'private and home life'? To give you a couple of examples where Article 8 was successfully used. The prison service used to open letters between prisoners and their lawyers. This was challenged on the grounds of legal privilege and under Artilce 8. It was held that it was a breach of the prisoners' Article 8 rights for the prison service to do this and so it was stopped. There was another group of offenders where the police were trying to get around the necessity of getting a search warrant but, again, the court decided that this was illegal under other laws and also a breach of their article 8 rights. To suggest that keeping a record of an employee's actions in the workplace is a breach of his article 8 rights is clearly absurd. Sorry, but what is capricious about recording things that happened? Also, what power is he delegating and who is he delegating it to? - that is just meaningless Why is he being disingenuous? Keeping notes on employee's behaviour is not disingenuous. If you try doing this then I really would start looking for a new job straight away and you can forget getting a good reference from them. It would help if you actually read what the OP actually said. The manager did NOT the OP quite clearly states that this happened during a 'job review' which, from the terminology he uses, I would suggest is part of the policies and procedures of the company. I would suggest that it would help if you read things properly before posting anything suggesting that he should take such extreme measures. Oh no he's not. Please do be very careful before posting these sorts of suggestions. I would suggest that if the OP followed your suggestions then he would be in a much worse position.

Halibutt, A couple of comments This is what they are waiting for - payment to the creditor They do not require an enforceable agreement to do the above. Collection activity is not enforcement. Also, if you wish to deal with your credit reference file then you will need to do this using the Data Protection Act not the Consumer Credit Act

Bazooka, If you read the original post you will see that the OP did make the postal order payable to Wescott. I have hioghlighted the relevant parts from that post below:- The reason that they don't cash it and then make out another payment to the creditor is exactly as cerberus says above, it's time and money for them. From their point of view, why should they go out of their way to help you? Although it may seem very petty, I would suggest that they are quite within their rights to return the payment and ask that it be made payable to the creditor. A request to a creditor MUST be accompanied by a payment to that creditor. If you choose not to do that then the creditor is under no obligation to respond to you. I would suggest that - strange as this may sound - I believe that Wescott are actually helping in this case as they have pointed out the mistake that has been made. If they hadn't of done this and the OP then later tries to rely on this failure to respond in a court case he would not be able to use it as he hadn't actually made the correct payment.

There is nothing to stop them adding interest or charges to an account even if you feel that it is 'in dispute'. The only thing that they cannot do until they properly comply with your request is to enforce the agreement in court

Cerberus, I would suggest that you are wrong on this point as they have clearly stated that they are not the creditor and so they are not obliged to so this

Despite what the others say above, I would disagree. They have written back to you and informed you that they are not the creditor. As a result of this it is clear that you have not made a valid request under sections 77/78. The reason I say this is that you must pay the creditor a fee of one pound. However, you sent a postal order made payable to somebody else, so you haven't actually made a payment to the creditor. Now, if you had sent in your request and a postal order for one pound made payable to the creditor then Wescott would be under an obligation to pass on your request to the creditor due to section 175. However, since you haven't done this then, I would suggest, they are quite correct when they say that they cannot pass it on to the creditor without a payment made payable to the creditor.

A notice of assignment doesn't have to be in any particular format. As long as it tells you who now owns your debt then that's fine

andrew, As 42man says, I really don't understand why you asked for this adjournment. You say that you received their reply 5 days before the hearing date. That is plenty of time, I would suggest, for you to review it and, if necessary, to come back here and ask questions. Also, you said in post #19 above that you could prove the fact that there was this dispute. If that is the case then I don't really understand what more information do you need? To be honest, it makes sense for the judge to order that the other side's costs be paid as they turned up on the day ready to proceed and it was you that chose not to do so. With regards to them refusing disclosure, I'm afraid that I can't give you any advice on that. However, I still don't know what it is you want disclosed given that you can already prove there is a dispute.