Update: Absolute nightmare this morning with a major accident on the M1 and my car breaking down on the way to Guildford. Despite getting straight on to the phone to the Court to explain what had happened, things just went downhill from there. I wasn't able to get to the Court until 12.30, where toto003 met me. He had already been in to the original scheduled hearing at 10.00. I'm still in a bit of confusion about what happened there, but apparently NR are resubmitting the POC. I was somewhat shocked to be taken into a full-blown Court Room, complete with District Judge sitting up high in full robes, rather than the office I had expected. His first comment was "two and a half hours late Mr xxxxxxxx"; I did apologise to the Court. He said that he had my Application and having read it could not see why it had been submitted. He said as well that NR had agreed to my other Application for transfer to my local court and asked if I wanted it dealt with there and then or transferred. Like a fool (hindsight is wonderful) I said I would prefer it to be transferred, not realising that I was just about to be hit with an Order for Costs for the day "in any event". That was it. I am now back home and feeling as though I've been put twice through a mangle, and have had to go to the Doctor and get signed off for a month due to my depression starting to put in a reappearance. That's it in a nutshell. Thanks once again to toto for being there.

I am in Court on Thursday with a Loan Agreement over £25000 that was signed up on Regulated paperwork that Northern Rock are attempting to get a CCJ (and, according to what appears to be their MO, a Charging Order straight away) - I am fighting on the basis of fraudulent misrepresentation. See my thread at http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/153462-eversheds-nr-cc-claim-new-post.html Can't say too much until we've been in front of the Judge on Thursday but will update that thread then.

Andy - see further back up the thread from mid February - they sent the Application for Summary Judgement in with their AQ and sent me a copy of the Application at the same time - their witness statement got pulled to pieces over the fact that they are now saying that the loan agreement wasn't regulated; we wrote a letter in to the DJ and then put in our own application for Striking Out and Summary Judgement following consultation with the Forum and with Trading Standards and the Community Legal Service. Both Applications are being heard on Thursday morning at 10am at Guildford.

2 days to go and the ex has been sent a copy of their Witness Statement and a sheet with a breakdown of their costs. They seem oblivious to my Application for Striking Out and Judgement which will be heard at the same time as theirs! As somebody said a while back, mind games!

I have now had a letter from the Court stating that both NR's and my applications for striking out will be heard at the same time, 10AM on Thursday 23rd April ....... At Guildford ..... The Circuit Judge who was handed the file to review has decided that the case should stay there for the time being and can be transferred to my local Court should it be necessary after the applications have been dealt with. So: Do I need to attend Court next Thursday? What happens if NR's solicitors don't turn up? And basically, I've never been in front of a County Court Judge before, what can I expect to happen? Thanks

It moves on ..... just received a notice from the Court stating that NR's Application to trash the defences has been listed for 23/04/09 at 1000; phoned the Court to find out what has happened to my two applications (as above plus one to have it all transferred to my local Court) - apparently the file has been sent to a Circuit Judge for review. Anybody know what the implications of that might be?

Very brief update without giving too much away: Lengthy telephone conversation with my local TS on Tuesday morning. They are not prepared to put anything in writing but I can make an FOI request for their notes of the telephone conversation. They were very helpful and over the phone confirmed that the agreement is not regulated and more than likely unenforcable. Passed on via the FOS to Community Legal Advice Service. CLAS agree that the agreement isn't regulated and suggested putting in an application for Judgement for the Defence. This I have done and have hand delivered that Application to the Court. We are asking for the agreement to be declared unlawful and unenforcable on the grounds of a fraudulent misrepresntation contrary to the Misrepresentation Act 1967 - the statement on the agreement that it is regulated - with that misrepresentation being compounded by issue of a "Default Notice" and then issue of Proceedings stating in the POC that the agreement is regulated. Having re-read my witness statement this morning I now understand why it is that I have always been so keen on the Rumpole books by John Mortimer! I've also wiped the floor with them over only partial compliance with the CPR18 requests, driven a tank through their reasoning for their Application for Defences to be struck out and taken them to task over submitting somebody else's statement of account and claiming it to be ours. This has all gone in as part of an Application to have: * agreement declared unlawful and unenforcable * Claim struck out under CPR3.4(1)(a) no prospect of success, (b) vexatious and an abuse of process and © non compliance with a Civil Procedure Rule or Practice Direction * Judgement for the Defendants * NR ordered to supply a true and correct statement of account within 5 days of judgement * NR ordered to repay all sums paid to it by us under the mistaken obligation of an unlawful contract * Costs If toto003 or any other contributors to this thread want to see a copy of what I have put in please PM me. I'm not going to post it on here, for obvious reasons.

This is now reaching the point where we don't want to be giving any more away to Eversheds who are undoubtedly following this thread so I am going into Purdah for a while. Thanks to all so far, will post further when appropriate to do so.

Not yet, but given what toto has told me it is looking more and more likely. I am still waiting for my local TS to get back to me. I called them this morning and they don't appear to have received the complaint from Consumer Direct yet!

Thanks toto, have replied to your PM. You are going down exactly the same track as me. I think its now got to the point of being irrelevant whether or not Eversheds are monitoring this thread, they have already shot themselves in the foot big time and instead of trying any desperate and futile attempts to win my particular case they should really be thinking in terms of damage limitation!

Just had a call back from the OFT who have advised: 1. The Agreement is not regulated, regardless of what it might say on the form. Therefore as Eversheds say in their witness statement, no need to supply DN or anything like that. 2. Due to the wording on the form that has been signed, it may be unenforcable or unlawful on the basis of NR making an untrue statement in on the form, ie that it is Regulated when in fact it is not. HOWEVER, (and this is now my view rather than what the OFT have said) Northern Rock have persistently stated - not only on the Agreement, but on the DN and on the POC that it IS a Regulated Agreement and therefore have been making misleading statements - whether deliberately or accidentally, they should have been more careful!! They are passing me over to my local Trading Standards who will be in touch with me in the next 48 hours.

Thanks Atwozee, just waiting on a callback from the OFT. If the Judge does rule that it is a Regulated Agreement even though the financial limit has been exceeded, the Application they've made should fail - they are asking for Judgement on the basis that it isn't a Regulated Agreement and therefore our Defences have no foundation, if it IS in fact a Regulated Agreement therefore the Defences should be allowed to stand, in my humble view. Prescribed term "Repayment" they might argue is covered by the statement "Monthly payments: (a) Amount: During the Fixed Rate Peroid and otherwise such equal (or as nearly equal as possible) amount calculated by us and notified to you in writing from time to time ......." An instalment amount is not shown on the agreement.

Letter has gone to the Court, I am also preparing an N244 Application to have: The Claimant's Application Struck Out The Claim Struck Out on the grounds that the Contract is unlawful Repayment of any and all monies paid by the Defendant to the Claimant under a mistaken obligation of an unlawful contract, plus statutory interest. How should I word all of this? Thanks

The "Default Notice" is actually dated 21/11/07, not 27/11, the 14th day after that is the 5/12/07. Is that 14 clear days? Allowing 2 days for posting each side? However they have not provided any proof that it was served, only a copy of what they say they've sent ..... leaving aside the fact that they appear to be making a complete balls-up of the rest of it all .... but lets not allow ourselves to get side-tracked here, the DN appears on the face of it to be as irrelevant as the original agreement. So, Unlawful Contract leading to a mistaken obligation? Restitution of payments made under a mistaken obligation? Harrassment in trying to enforce an unlawful contract? Anybody know of a previous case that could be quoted? Before I go in with the final broadside I want to be sure I don't end up looking as silly as Eversheds and NR. I'll put a call in to the OFT in the morning, see what they say.

Can anybody suggest where I can get chapter and verse on this, they need to be hit with it hard, preferably in front of a Judge! Hopefully our letter will help, would it be worth making an Application for the thing to be struck out on the grounds that NR are trying to enforce an unlawful contract? As for a complaint to the OFT, how does this stand with it still being a "live" case? How would I go about making a complaint to them and what would I need to send? My understanding is that the 14 days didn't come in until the 2006 Act was phased in, as this purports to be regulated (or not!) under the original 1974 Act, I thought it was 7 days?

Thanks CCM, will get the Ex to sign it tonight and then SD'd tomorrow.

I have spoken to a very helpful gentleman in the Court Office this afternoon who advises that the bundle from Eversheds hasn't arrived yet. He suggested writing to the Judge to raise any points that we would wish to ask him to consider when looking at the Application, and I have come up with the following: BY SPECIAL DELIVERY In the Guildford County Court Northern Rock -v- xxxxxx and yyyyyy Claim Number: 0000000000 Dear Sir On Saturday 14th February, we received a bundle from Eversheds, Solicitors to the Claimants above enclosing their Allocation Questionnaire, various items comprising a Witness Statement and Exhibits and an N224 Application for our Defences to be Struck Out and Summary Judgement entered for the Claimants without a Hearing. As we are litigants in person, we are extremely concerned by this tactic on the part of the Claimant and having spoken to the staff at the Court Office, we have been advised to write this letter to ask that you might kindly give consideration to a number of points which we would like to draw to your attention whilst considering the Application. First of all, the Claimants are suggesting that any Loan Agreement was not an Agreement Regulated by the Consumer Credit Act, due to its being for a sum in excess of £25,000, the limit for regulated loans at the time the Claimants claim the agreement was signed. We would like to draw your attention to the Exhibit “LCM1”, where it states in bold, capital letters at the top “CREDIT AGREEMENT REGULATED BY THE CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1974”, and further states in the signature box at the bottom “This is a Credit Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Sign it only if you want to be legally bound by its terms.” The Claimant’s Solicitor, in her Witness Statement has stated that “the Claimant’s computer systems are one of the same for all agreements and it does not therefore have the ability to provide a different Credit Agreement template for agreements that are over £25,000”. We would with the greatest respect to the Court suggest that this comprises a serious failure on the part of the Claimant, in that an agreement apparently falling outside the scope of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 could be drawn up using a template that states in quite clear and unambiguous terms that it is a Regulated Agreement. Advice offered to us informally by friends connected with the legal profession has suggested that this in itself may amount to serious misrepresentation. At no time until their letter of 2nd September responding to our request under Sections 77/78 of the Consumer Credit Act for a properly executed agreement have the Claimants given any indication whatsoever that the agreement might not be what it seems to be on paper. We would also kindly ask that you give some consideration to the fact that the original Particulars of Claim state that the claim is for the amount due on an account “being a credit agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974”. We would ask you to consider whether the Claimants have therefore deliberately made a false statement in their Particulars of Claim, or whether the Claim has been issued without being checked properly, hoping that we would either fail to respond or admit the Claim. We would ask you to kindly consider whether either of these actions could constitute either a Contempt of Court or an Abuse of Process. Furthermore, we would like to draw your attention to the Exhibit “LCM2”, a transaction report showing payments into an account. If you would be so kind as to look at the Account Number quoted in the Particulars of Claim and hand written on the top of the Exhibit “LCM1”, you will see that it is different to the Account Number stated on the Exhibit “LCM2”. This is clearly for a different account. Perhaps the Claimants Solicitors are hoping that you will not look too closely, or won’t notice, however we do feel that for them to submit what is clearly the wrong Exhibit, and then attempt to rely on it as Evidence in the making of an Application is nothing less than an insult to the integrity of the Court. Considering all of these matters, we would therefore respectfully ask that you give consideration to whether our Defences should be allowed to stand and to strike out the Application made by the Claimants. Yours faithfully, Comments please? I want to get this sent off SD ASAP. Thanks

Whilst having another sleepless - yet strangely productive - night, I have come across this thread: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-1924821.html Is anybody else thinking what I'm thinking?

subscribing as i'm fighting one of these atm!

Well I would hope that the Court might be able to consider that .... I don't know what the procedure now is that they have made the Application, do we get given an opportunity to respond to it? They are asking for the Defences to be Struck Out (but only refer to the "First Defendant's Defence") and Judgement without a Hearing. How do we get to respond or object to the Application or indeed to Judgement if there is to be no Hearing? Maybe this is now opening up a whole new can of worms? As I said, one begins to wonder now if there is not an entirely separate issue here. "The Claimant's computer systems are one of the same for all agreements and it does not therefore have the ability to provide a different Credit Agreement template for agreements that are over £25,000". That strikes me as being either lazy or incompetent at best, deceitful or dishonest at worst or any combination of the foregoing that one might care to string together. Could this, in fact, make any such "agreement" invalid? I know that there is the saying "Caveat Emptor" and also the principle that ignorance of the Law is no defence before the Law, but surely the Courts cannot reasonably expect anybody signing a "Credit Agreement" which they are given to quite reasonably believe is Regulated by the Act to know the minutiae of said Act and its various amendments over the years unless they have specific legal training and detailed knowledge of the Act? One sees those words "Regulated by the Consumer Credit Act" and one is led to believe that both parties are protected by Law. Has this all suddenly stepped up a gear? Anybody aware of any precedent?

Been going back through the bundle they have sent: The purported CCA states the words "Regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974" The purported DN states the word "Regulated" How are they now able to claim that it isn't? Or have they been misleading people, deliberately or otherwise?

I spoke to the Court on Tuesday and they said that they had received our AQs on the previous Thursday,they were unable to find whether NR had filed theirs by the due date, if they hadn't been received then an Unless Order would be sent out ..... so given that they do refer to things in our AQ I'd say at a guess that they're following this thread ....... I would hope that we would get the chance to object to their Application, will wait to see what comes in the next few days.

The bundle received this morning. I have not posted the statements she refers to (which I can do if necessary) - however the copies bear a completely different account number to that shown on everything else! I have also omitted the header pages stating "Witness Statement of ....." Is it important that the AQs were due back by Monday 9th, yet none of the bundle is dated until Thursday 12th Feb? Where to from here? I note that they have used the same tactic elsewhere. NR AQ Bundle without statements.pdf

Pack received in the post this morning from Eversheds enclosing a tatty photocopy of the signature page of application form, several pages of statement showing a completely different Account Number, also copies of Default Notices and an application for the Defences to be struck out and Summary Judgement entered. Am scanning and will post copies ASAP.

Thanks for that CCM, will get signed and sent SD ASAP (snow permitting!) What about their failure to respond to the CCA Request, which is still in default?