SCM are also the orrible little bunch of oiks that HBOS use if they go to court (which can be fun watching a spotty little intern cock it up in front of a not to pleased County Court Judge .... )

After a few quite months the case has finally been transfered to my local county court anyway below is my first stab at a skeletal defense to supply to the court. IN THE CLAIM NO: DARTFORD COUNTY COURT On Transfer from the NORTHAMPTON COUNTY COURT BETWEEN BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC THE MOUND CLAIMANT And EJLeigh68 DEFENDANT Skeleton Argument in Regard to the Defendants Application to Strike Out the General Directions Order Dated 13 May 2010 1. The original Defence was filed on the basis that the defendant did not have sufficient information to form a proper view as to whether the Defendant was indebted to the claimant as alleged or at all. 2. The Defendant therefore put the Claimant to strict proof of the claim by way of providing copies of the alleged Credit Agreement and Default Notice as stated in the Particulars of Claim, requesting the documentation pertained to in the Particulars of Claim using CPR 31.14 action on the 09 February 2010. This letter was signed for by the Claimant on 15 February 2010 an acknowledgement of service of said CPR request dated 23 February 2010 was received on 27 February 2010 by the Defendant. 3. The Claimant provided the Defendant with the documentation as listed below a. A photocopy application form for a credit card which is clearly marked as such with the wording “Your Priority Application”. (Exhibit JML1) b. A blank template of a default notice which contains no evidence of pertaining to the alleged claim. (Exhibit JML2) c. Statements of account 4. The Claimant appears to believe that these documents establish an unanswerable claim and that consequently that the test in CPR 3.4(2)(a) is satisfied. 5. The Defendant feels that as the CPR 31.14 request is outstanding and that as this case involves complex matters of Consumer Credit Law was not appropriate for Summary Judgment. The clearly labeled “Application Form” does not comply with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553). 6. The agreement must be signed in the prescribed manner to comply with s61 (1) CCA 1974, if the agreement is not signed by debtor or creditor it is also improperly executed and again only enforceable by court order. 7. The agreement must contain certain terms under regulations made by the Secretary of State under section 60(1) CCA 1974, the regulations referred to are the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) amended by Consumer Credit (Agreements)(amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI2004/1482). It cannot therefore be enforced by a court by virtue of S127 (3) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 under which this agreement would have been regulated. 8. The prescribed terms referred to are contained in schedule 6 column 2 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) and are inter alia: - A term stating the credit limit or the manner in which it will be determined or that there is no credit limit, A term stating the rate of any interest on the credit to be provided under the agreement and A term stating how the debtor is to discharge his obligations under the agreement to make the repayments, which may be expressed by reference to a combination of any of the following-- 1. Number of repayments; 2. Amount of repayments; 3. Frequency and timing of repayments; 4. Dates of repayments; 5. The manner in which any of the above may be determined; or in any other way, and any power of the creditor to vary what is payable 8. It is submitted that if the supposed credit agreement supplied falls foul of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) in so far that the prescribed terms are not contained within the agreement then the court is precluded from enforcing the agreement. The prescribed terms must be with the agreement for it to be compliant with section 60(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974. I refer to the judgment of TUCKEY LJ in the case of Wilson and another v Hurstanger Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 299, and also to LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD in the House of Lords Wilson v First County Trust Ltd - [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul) in regard to having a credit agreement for a course of action to succeed. 9. The supposed agreement is also clearly labeled as an “Application Form” and as such does not have the correct headed title (example Credit Card Agreement Regulated By the Consumer Credit Act 1974), nor does it the give the name and address of the Creditor and the Debitor within the title of the agreement. 10. The supposed agreement refers to free gifts “If you apply within 7 days”. It cannot both be an application and an agreement. Under the terms of the contra proferentum rule any ambiguity should be construed against the party that seeks to rely upon it. Consequently it is submitted that the document should be construed as not being an agreement. 11. In addition to the supposed credit agreement being irredeemably flawed, the default notice served under s87 (1) Consumer credit act 1974 failed to comply with the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) in as such as it is blank. 12. The Claimant is also put to strict proof of the date of mailing of any Default Notice that they claim was sent and that its content was valid. To be valid, a default notice needs to be accurate in terms of both the scope and nature of breach and include an accurate figure required to remedy any such breach. The prescribed format for such a document is laid down in Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) and Amendment regulations the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/3237). Failure of a default notice to be accurate not only invalidates the default notice (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain and Co - (2001) GCCR 2255) but is an unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the court enforcing any alleged debt. But would also give rise to a potential counterclaim for damages where damage occurs to my credit rating (Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society - (1996 4 All ER 119). 13. It should be noted at this point that original copies of the documents relied upon in the Particulars of Claim should be retained for 5 years under the Money Laundering Regulations 2003 not to do so could be considered an offence under the aforementioned regulations. 14.In view of the matters pleaded, I respectfully request the court give consideration to striking out the claimants case pursuant to part 3.4 (2) The court may strike out a statement of case if it appears to the court - (a) That the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending. (b) That the statement of case is an abuse of the court's process or is otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings: or © That there has been a failure to comply with a rule. Practice direction or court order. 15. If the court considers such action inappropriate, it is requested that the court order the claimant to produce the following documents at a hearing: a) An original credit agreement, which complies with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the Consumer Credit Agreements Regulations 1983. b) Proof of the time of mailing of any default notice sent by the Claimant in respect of the account. Without the production of the requested documents the case cannot be dealt with justly and fairly, and will severely prejudice my rights to a fair trial. 15. In the event that the Court determines that there is an agreement in existence the Defendant seeks a declaration pursuant to S142 (1)(b) Consumer Credit Act 1974 that, in accordance with SS127 (3) and 61(1) that the aforesaid agreement is unenforceable I believe that the facts stated in this skeleton argument are true Signed: Defendant Date I apolagise in advance if anyone recognises some of their own work in here I freely admit to plagerising some excellent points from other threads on here. OK guys and girls fire away if you see anything way too bad to include....

Quick point from little old me keep in touch with the court as Halitax tried to sneakily get my embarrased defence thrown out have just had to mess around with a set aside at the moment due to this. The case was still at the Bulk Centre Northampton when this was going on hadnt even gone to AQ yet... not trying to worry you just suggesting a phone call every 4 or 5 days to check what is happening.

Right CAGGERS if Halifax decide to go with what they have I need a bit of advice, I am pretty confident with dealing with the lack of agreement etc in a Skeletal Defence but I am a little unsure on DN's I have tried looking around but have not found any threads where there is a total lack of DN or a blank one has been supplied. Any comments or links would be greatly appreciated as I have previously stated am getting to work on my Defece proper now so that I have plenty of time to ammend and tweak it .....

Ammended Witness Statement for everyones reference. Filed on behalf of: Defendant Witness: ejleigh68 Date: 20th May 2010 IN THE NORTHAMPTON COUNTY COURT Claim No: 6666666 BETWEEN: BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC THE MOUND Claimant And ejleigh68 Defendant WITNESS STATEMENT OF ejleigh68 I, ejleigh68am the defendant in this case and a Litigant in person. The matters referred to in this statement are within my own knowledge, except where I have indicated otherwise. 1. Due to lack of information from the Claimant, the Defendant submitted an embarrassed defence on 9 February 2010, in response to the claim brought by the Claimant. 2. On receipt of the claim form, the Defendant made a request to the Claimant for information by way of CPR31.14. This request was received by the Claimant on 15 February 2010. 3. Information requested were those items mentioned in the Particulars of Claim, but not attached to the claim, due to the limitations of the Northampton Bulk Processing Centre. 4. Documents requested were necessary for the Defendant to submit a fully particularised defence and were; 4a. A copy of the credit agreement on which the Claimant bases their claim. 4b. a copy of the default notice 5. The Claimant acknowledged this request in their letter dated 23rd February 2010 which the Defendant received on 27th February 2010. 6. A further letter was received on 30th March 2010 dated 25 March 2010 the documents enclosed with this letter were; 6a. A photocopy of a document which is clearly head "Your Priority Application" which does not contain prescribed terms under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. 6b. A blank templated copy of a default notice which contains no information to support the Claimant's claim. 6c. Statements of account 7. On 15 April 2010, the Defendant wrote to the Claimant again advising that the documents provided were not those requested. Those being, a copy of the fully executed agreement containing the prescribed terms and compliant with the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Plus a copy of the Default Notice that the Claimant advised they had sent. A blank template does not show the date of issue of the Default Notice, the clause the Defendant is supposed to have breached, the amount of the default, or the date by which the default could be remedied. The Claimant signed for this letter on 20 April 2010. 8. The Claimant's response dated 27 April 2010 and received on 30 April 2010, was that in their opinion they had complied with the request in full. The Claimant further advised that they had requested the Court strike out the Defendant's defence. 9. Due to the May Bank Holiday weekend the Defendant was unable to contact the Court until the morning of 04 May 2010 at which time the Defendant was told that the case had been placed before the Judge. 10. The General Direction order for Defence Strike Out and Application to lift the stay and enter judgement was posted from the Court on 14 May 2010 and delivered to the Defendant on the 18 May 2010. 11. The Defendant feels that as the CPR 31.14 request is outstanding and that as this case involves complex matters of Consumer Credit Law it is not appropriate for Summary Judgment and that further more the Claimant should be compelled by the court to provide the copy documentation referred to within the particulars of Claim. Further more the Defendant feels that the manner in which a Strike Out of Defence was applied for by the Claimant whilst knowing they had not fully complied with a request for documents mentioned in their Particulars of Claim and not served with claim has seriously disadvantaged the Defendant, who is a Litigant in Person. STATEMENT OF TRUTH I believe the facts in this witness statement are true. Signed……………. ejleigh68 Dated 20 May 2010 Thought I would post it up as this is much better laid out than my original many thanks to Citizen B for his invaluable input .....

Many thanks for your propmt reply Citezen B the documents from Halifax did not arrive until the end of March (I know should have moved for strike out myself but I had been under an immense amount of pressure at the time due to working away for days at a time) so have now included that date as well. Anyhow have slightly ammended my Witness statement along the lines you suggested and am dispatching today would have loved to wait for more comments but unfortunatley unless I send it off today I will have run out of time...

Right after last nights little flap (yea very tired from work and paniced a bit) I will be sending off the paperwork to have set aside the Strike Out of my Holding Defence please see the witness statement below that I am supplying along with my N244. If you have any comments I would be appreciated as I intend to post this tomorrow moring. Claim number 6666666 Northampton (CCBC) County Court Between Bank of Scotland PLC the Mound (Claimant) And ejleigh68 (Defendant) Witness Statement Of ejleigh68 1. The original Holding Defence was filed on the basis that the Defendant did not have sufficient information to form a proper view as to whether the Defendant was indebted to the claimant as alleged and the enforceability of said alleged claim. This Holding Defence was submitted on 09th February 2010. 2. The Defendant therefore put the Claimant to strict proof of the claim by way of providing copies of the alleged Credit Agreement and Default Notice as stated in the Particulars of Claim, requesting the documentation pertained to in the Particulars of Claim using CPR 31.14 action on the 09 February 2010. This letter was signed for by the Claimant on 15 February 2010 an acknowledgement of service of said CPR request dated 23 February 2010 was received on 27 February 2010 by the Defendant. 2. The Claimant provided the Defendant with the documentation as listed below a. A photocopy application form for a credit card which is clearly marked as such with the wording “Your Priority Application”. b. A blank template of a default notice which contains no evidence of pertaining to the alleged claim. c. Statements of account 3. On 15 April 2010 the Defendant wrote to the Claimant advising that CPR 31.14 had not been complied with. And again requested copies of the documents referred to within the Particulars of Claim (a Credit Agreement and a Default Notice); so that a Full Defence could be supplied to the Court. The Claimant signed for this letter on 20 April 2010. 4. The Defendant received a letter from the Claimant on 30 April 2010 on returning from work at 1830 hrs. This letter was dated 27 April 2010 and stated that in the Claimants Claim number 66666666 Northampton (CCBC) County Court opinion they had complied with the Defendants CPR request fully and that they had upon the 23 Aril 2010 written to the court requesting that the Defendants Defence be Struck Out. 5. Due to the May Bank Holiday weekend the Defendant was unable to contact the Court until the morning of 04 May 2010 at which time the Defendant was told that the case had been placed before the Judge. 6. The General Direction order for Defence Strike Out and Application to lift the stay and enter judgement was posted from the Court on 14 May 2010 and delivered to the Defendant on the 18 May 2010. 7. The Defendant feels that as the CPR 31.14 request is outstanding and that as this case involves complex matters of Consumer Credit Law it is not appropriate for Summary Judgement and that further more the Claimant should be compelled by the court to provide the copy documentation referred to within the particulars of Claim. Further more the Defendant feels that the manner in which a Strike Out of Defence was applied for by the Claimant whilst knowing full well that the Defendant did not feel his CPR request had been satisfied as well as the fact that the Defendant was not served with the Application has seriously disadvantaged the Defendant a Litigant in Person in his ability to provide a Full Defence in respect to this claim. STATEMENT OF TRUTH I believe the facts in this witness statement are true. Signed……………. ejleigh68 Dated 19 May 2010

Right it appears that I have a fly in the ointment came home tonight from work to find a direction order from NCC on my door mat stating that my defence had been struck out and the application to lift the stay and enter judgement is granted. HELP I am unsure of where to go from here, to make matters worse the letter that I wrote to the court with regard to Halifax not supplying the correct information under CPR regs has not got there checked with the wife who posted it and she only used a stamp not registered....(deep breath try not to get too annoyed) .... I have a feeling that I am totally stuffed here which is a shame as if we had gone to court they wouldnt have had a chance with what they had. Looks like they will win by default. Forgot to say that the order was granted last Thurs the 13th posted out on Friday 14th and has only just arrived todat Tues 18th it only gives 7 days to have this order varied stayed or set aside and I havent a clue how to proceed now?

Citizen B re your question I have placed a holding defence in place initially as no documentation was supplied with the claim even though on their POC's they state and I quote "full particulars of which have been supplied hitherto". As for the claim itself it was the usual bumf stating that it would rely on a CREDIT AGREEMENT, none adhereance to the terms of the DEFAULT NOTICE, well so far I have recieved an application form and a blank default notice along with statements of account. As they intend to rely on these documents it seemed only fair to get them to state in a letter that they had fulfilled my CPR request which I got as posted above, my next move was to write to the court stating that they had not fulfilled the CPR request looks like they beat me to the sucker punch.

Well it looks like they have been very sneaky the nice young lady I have just spoken to at the Bulk Centre said that they have recieved a letter from the claimant but quite rightly did not divulge what it contained. Time for me to send a letter to the court I think stating that I do not believe they have carried out my request under CPR for disclosure of documents. Has anyone got a template letter for this I didnt see one anywhere also do I address it to the clerk of the court after all I want to sound reasonable and respectful even though Halitax are trying to mug me by default.

Update Halitax are trying to be sneaky, I wrote back to them asking them tio confirm what they had supplied me was what they intended to use in court pointing out that it is a blank default notice etc etc (always looks good I have heard to be seen as reasonable in these matters in the courts eyes) Anyhow no reply to my letter that they signed for on the 20th of April, then lo and behold this letter arrived today Imageshack - halifaxletterdated27apr.jpg - Uploaded by Imageshack user Has anyone any idea how to respond to this as it appears to be a blatant attempt to have my holding defence struck out to try and win by default, I was thinking of writing to the clerk of the court expressing some concern that they are trying to rail road things through behind everyones back whilst I was attempting to obtain the correct documentation from them?

You need to post up the alledged credit agreement they sent you minus any personal information, use a site such as image shack. Then people can have a proper look if the accounts from 2004 there is a fair chance that the agreement (if it is an agreement and not just an application form) is flawed anyway. I am sure someone more knowledgable than I can then help you.

Sorry also forgot to say that I have a "reconstitued" agreement to plant in front of the judge imagine their solicitor explaining away how they managed to make up 14 pages of an alledged agreement from what they have insinuated they will use in court, oppps that almost sounds like I am accusing them of deception so instead I will ask the hypothetical question instead .... PS apolagies for my poor spelling lol but I can find my dictionary at present ....

Many thanks for backing up what I already thought and thanks for the useful info on the differences between the forms of credit you learn something new every day. Quick update I chatted to the court this morning apparently the case has been placed on stay anyway due to Halitaxs lack of response to them, so I think what they sent me and the accompanying letter is just a bit of mind games and bluster on their part. I intend to write back to them stating such and see if they have the "cahonnas" to rely on this junk in court. I personally feel the next people I shall hear from are another bunch of bottom feeders and off we go again, still at least if I keep the DCAs busy they wont be chasing someone else who may not have heart to fight them or is easily intimidated by them.........

Many thanks ....

Have been having an on off battle with Halitax for a while now about a credit card, the usual story CCA request sent, total pile of drivel sent back laughingly called a reconstituted version of an agreement. Anyway just after Xmas I received a claim form from Northampton Bulk Centre (minus any supporting documents such as default notice CA and statements that they intended to reley on in court), I quickly fired back a defence of "as they havent supplied documnets etc how can I possibly mount an effective defence bo ho go away", stated the same in a CPR 31.14 request to Halitax on 09 Feb 10. I got a reply back on the 25th of Feb saying that they would respond etc etc (this is when I expected them to go away and sell this lemon off to some other greedy sods .. ) Well nothing heard from anyone checked with the courts no documents delivered to them so off I trotted for a nice break over Easter. Anyway yesterday I came home to a nice thick envelope in a plastic bag ripped open with my contents on show (yea many thanks Royal Mail bet you enjoyed reading it all ... ) It is the usual bunch of junk you expect, and contained the following 1. Statements of account 2. A BLANK (YES BLANK) default notice template, lol should be intresting in court if they use that... 3. A credit card application form. I am phoning the courts in the morning to explain that I have been away just in case Halitax try and slip this through under the radar as the letter covering the package was dated March 25th 10 and gave me 14 WORKING days to respond (thank god for the back holidays) PS ignore the phone numbers etc they are long ago dead, and buried, so I didnt bother to blank them out. Imageshack - halitaxjokeammended.jpg - Uploaded by johnleigh02 Imageshack - halitaxjokeammended2.jpg - Uploaded by johnleigh02 Right now down to what I am fishing for here, as you can imagine from the above I am going with a defence based upon this being a credit card application and not an agreement, however I have noticed that there are some of the prescibed terms within the four corners, as in APR, repayment terms. However there is no principle borrowed mentioned. I am not sure of my footing here and would appreciate a bit of advice as many of the applications that some companies have tried to use in the past have none of these in them (just dont want some lobotamised judge being hodwinked by them), has there be any presidence that anyone can think of to this or is it just unlucky they should have an agreement and not an application? Also in Halitaxs original particulars of claims they stated that they intended to rely on a defualt notice in court however they have only supplied a blank template and NOT a copy of the original. I am not very clued up on default notices and would appreciate some guidance on this as I think they will use the old trick below; "But your Honour this is a correctly formated default notice type that WOULD have been sent to Mr ejleigh68and as it is recorded on our records and we always tell the truth there is no contesting it" flutters eye lashes at judge "so we dont have to produce the original"... Anyhow just thought I would pop on and ask as I am starting to write my defence to send of registered next day delivery to the court tonight ... many thanks in advance for any insight.

I would send it to both that way they cant play the old we sent it to the OC routine .... Dont worry even if they send you court paperwork they did the same to me however they ommitted to attach any documentation to Northampton Bulk Centre, I just requested as you have been advised to under CPR any documentation they intended to use in court. That was a month ago and still no answer. All this we will take you to court lark is just a scare tactic, even if they do serve you from Northampton Bulk Centre its a fair bet they wont follow through, Halifax are really trying to step up the pressure with these "reconstructed" agreements and are getting somewhat put out that a lot of people are totally ignoring them and just repeating requests for the original....me thinks they are trying not to write down anymore debt as the spot lights really on the banks at the moment ....

Tried the same rubbish with me with their reconstituted agreement, they even had a nerve to start court action funnily enough they had till a week ago to submit all the paperwork which for some reason they failed to do wouldnt be because the so called agreement is actually less factual than a Harry Potter book by any chance .... :lol:

First impression of this is that its an application form and not a credit agreement, I can hardly read the bottom section but that appears to be guff about the Consumer Credit Act,. A few points for you: There are no terms and agreements included. No details on repayments. If it hasnt got these its unenforcable, just realised its even got an application finish date in big letters across the top left of the form. I would send a letter back placing the account into dispute Do you also have the default notice to hand and if so can you post it up as they normally shoot themselves in the foot with these as well I have quickly written something for you below Your details Xxxxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx Xxxxx xxxxxx **** Bags Details Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx xxxxx Date Sirs/ Madam Account no ACCOUNT IN DISPUTE Re: my request under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 No debt is acknowledged to your company. Further to my request under the above act, your attention is drawn to the fact that this account is now subject to a serious dispute. On date, by recorded delivery, I requested that you supply me a copy of the executed credit agreement covering this account pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 section 77 - 79, a copy of this request is enclosed, allowing you 12 days + 2 to comply. To date you have failed to comply with my request, instead sending me a copy of an Application Form, which as I am sure that you are aware, contains none of the prescribed terms required by the Act, or indeed is not laid out as prescribed by the Act. Without production of the alleged agreement I am unable to assess if I am indeed liable for any alleged debt to you, nor does it give me any chance to evaluate whether any original agreement was ‘properly executed’ as required by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. For the avoidance of any doubt I have included section 78(1) and 78(6) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, which states… 78 Duty to give information to debtor under running-account credit agreement (1) The creditor under a regulated agreement for running-account credit, within the prescribed period after receiving a request in writing ( 12 working days + 2 ) to that effect from the debtor and payment of a fee of £1, shall give the debtor a copy of the executed agreement (if any) and of any other document referred to in it, together with a statement signed by or on behalf of the creditor showing, according to the information to which it is practicable for him to refer,— (a) the state of the account, and (b) the amount, if any, currently payable under the agreement by the debtor to the creditor, and © the amounts and due dates of any payments which, if the debtor does not draw further on the account, will later become payable under the agreement by the debtor to the creditor. (6) If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with subsection (1)— (a) he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement; What I Require. I require that you send me a true signed copy of the executed agreement as required by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. If you are unable to supply the requested documentation because no such agreement is in existence I require written clarification as such. I require that you comply with my request within 7 days of the date of this letter. I will not correspond any further with you until I either receive a copy of the requested documents as laid down in section 78(1) CCA 74 or clarification that such agreement doesn’t exist. I am advised that should you persist in pursuing this debt ignoring the above information you will be in breach of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 section 40 as well No other correspondence will be accepted Should you attempt litigation it will be vigorously defended and the failure to supply documentation under the CCA 1974 is a complete defence to any legal action and your actions will be vexatious and unlawful. I trust this out lines the situation Yours sincerely Hacked Off With Banks

Seeing as BOS are "Halitaxs" in house DCA if they have sold it on to "Robbers Away" it probably proves its a real lemon and they might not have the paperwork to even enforce it

Keep calm is the best advice they have tried the same tactics with me (Halitax and BOS) they just send out jibberish letters and try to scare you. They even started court proceedings against me but once they got my defence and requests for documents under CPR regs its gone quiet again, I think that at the moment all the DCAs and creditors are shaking the trees to see if anyone loses their bottle and lets go ....

I would personaly give them nothing until the CCA request is complied with why should you provide evidence of disputes and or accounts which is how I interpret what they are requesting if they havent got this why are they chasing you for money in the first place!

Subbing with intrest have just sent off my acknowledgement to Northampton for a vitually identical CC agreement to this, Citizen B many thanks in adavnce have plagerised your excellent letter we will see if they crawl back from under their rock. Speaking to the bulk centre in Northampton apparently there are lots of cases ongoing so it looks like Halifax has a cash flow problem...

Salient point for all to note here a write of will depend upon the amount owed and how clever OR not the employee is who deals with this, be prepared for a battle I have just had a claim from Northampton Bulk Centre through this morning and will be updating my thread, however I am not too worried as I am still awaiting a response from a SAR from Sept 09. Halifax really know how to help make your case for you dont they. I will await seeing "the copy" agreement in court and see how far they get or not as the case may be. I am wondering however if the "Manchester" ruling has made the Credit Card companies a little more brave and I have a nasty feeling that this may be raised by them if and when we end up in court.

Just write to them requesting that they prove the debt is yours (NEVER EVER PHONE THEM!), If it is proven to be yours it will probably be Statue Barred by the time it is proven anyway Make sure any correspondance has I DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THIS DEBT written on it. Statute Baring comes into force if no payment of acknowledgement has been recieved in the past 6 years (hence the I Acknowledge no debt on the letters) so you are right in your assumption, some one else here may be more up to knowledgable than I am on statute barring if you need furture advice.