This is unfortunately very true and falls into the realm of the judge lottery, however as my old dad used to say "forewarned is forearmed" as they say, and if you know what's coming your way, you have a much better chance of defending against it

This is a cute effort and would be used to refute any statute barred argument, of course they would fail because the acknowledgement of the debt needs to be either recotrded or in written form, but it's a nice try

I would suggest everyone in this position reads Carey very carefully and understands that a reconstructed agreement can only be used to satisfy a s77/78 request and can not be used in court. There are some DCAs who have presented reconstructions in court and even convinced the judge that it was acceptable even though it isn't and because the LIP hadn't read up on Carey they lost

FS, please turn off your caps lock and try not to go overboard with the rows of........ as it makes the post difficult to read and less likely to get a response. I have taken the liberty of spacing out your thread a little, but you need to clarify what legislation you are referring to with regard to it being retrospective

They are talking rubbish, using the same logic, as I have the queens name and address I can assumer she owes me money? They are obliged to furnish you with the agreement, or even a reproduction (or as they like to call them "representation") for the purposes of s77/78 but either way without any kind of agreement being provided in line with CCA then you have nothing to answer, you are not liable for anything until they prove this and should be telling them so (in writing) this would also be part of building a case, letters telling you lies are admisable as evidence and the whole "you owe us because we say so" claim is an outright lie.

Do we have any further information on the case the OP was preparing?

What evidence is this? you have mentioned no evidence previously It isn't about being an optimist or a pessimist, it's about knowing the rules of the game and building a defence that holds water, and that has a realistic chance, hoping the judge will act in a certain manner, or will believe you over the professional barrister that the other side send is verging on judicial suicide. Don't forget, it was one of these honourable judges that ruled that reproductions of agreements are acceptable for s77/78 requests and many barristers have twisted this to the point that they have managed to pursuade judges that this also applies to trail as well. Judgements have been handed out against people who nevere even had the debt, because of the alleged incompetence of the judiciary which is not only wrong it is entirely against their own rules This is certainly the message that I am failing to get across to you, it isn't enough to build a one dimensional defence based on reliance of their misdeeds, they will simply provide documents which prove that a national company like theirs would never have acted in the manner you claim, then they will provide statements from the OC stating the same and whoops - there goes your defence because it's your word against theirs. You need to place a seed of doubt in the mind of the judge, enough to make them side with the defence.

You need to get all of your ducks in a row so to speak, if they take you to court you need to demonstrate that not only have they "bought" a debt whilst it is under dispute but continue to attempt enforcement whilst they were fully aware of the dispute. Send them the CCA request, repeat your request of DNand any other proof and as soon as (and if) Morgan get involved go straight for the throat with CPR14 and/or 18 to build a clear picture of their behaviours and breaches

The key word in your response is "Suppose" If you are going to build your defence on what you hope, suppose, or assume about the mood and manner of the judge, then good luck to you, as I said I am not going to get into a "it says this here so you are wrong" argument, so please..... I know what the rules say should happen, what everyone is trying to tell you is that relying on the CPR and OFT guidelines as a major part of your defence is not the wisest move, but hey, what do they know "then surely a judge would not just say that doesn't matter.? " Yes they will, they do and they have done exactly this, numerous times, in the face of defences far more solid than your own. But as I said, I was just saying it as I saw it and have no desire to get into a pi$$ing competition, if you believe you're right then obviously you are and anyone who says anything contrary to that must obviously be wrong. If you look closely to line 1 of post 5. Of course the judge is going to insist on the personal represenatation of witnesses and publicly fly in the face of a reasonably desire to reduce costs, why wouldn't they? It is beyond any doubt that the same judge will be at your trail, it is impossible that something could cause them not to be there. And it goes without reason that the judge will obviously go along with your arguments regarding the flaws in their statements. I wish I'd been as sure as you are about what the judge is and isn't going to do

BC has a habit of sending letters to previous addresses, he carries a certain reputation for obtaining judgements by default by using previous addresses, whilst this is deceitful, it is not exactly unlawful and they will quickly claim it is an admin error. send them a simple "prove it" letter advising them of the correct address and requesting prrof that a. they have a right to collect the debt and b. that you are liable for the debt

And if this is refused by the judge then any defence based simply on unfairness fails

I appreciate your point entirely and I am suire that you are 100% correct, and I am certainly not going to become involved in a "this is what it says here so you are wrong" argument, You can have it your way, I'm simply not going to argue with you. I'm merely pointing out the situation as i see it based on my own experiences and observatuions, please feel free to just ignore anything I say As you have quoted above, it is clearly down to the whim of the judge whether written statements are acceptable or whether they will insist on personal representation which in itself is not arguable in law as the law clearly states its discretionary and entirely down to the judge lottery Anyone who has felt the wrong side of the judge lottery will warn you, assume nothing is in your favour and be as well prepared as you can, because there is no guarantee that the judge listed will even be present on the day, but as I have said earlier, it seems evident that they are offering you every opportunity with your case, if you choose not to take such opportunities then it cannot cast any doubts over the court procedings or the judge presiding. Since you are still a distance from the court steps, I would expect some form of witness statements to be produced by the Claimant in an attempt to satisfy the order, the claimant will no doubt state that they are doing so initially to avoid unecessary costs being incurred. it will then be down to the judge to decide whether such statements will indeed be satisfactory or whether he/she will insist on witnisses being physically present. It is not carved in stone or set in statute, it can be applied or not at the discretion of the courts.

But they wont actually appear in court, the claimants will simply provide the court with statements verifying the actions of the claimant and blow your defence away. Relying on a potential oration or cross examination which might never happen in order to win your case IMHO is not a very safe option. Whilst unfairness featured in my defence, my own case was discontinued on the back of a good strong defence which clearly identified breaches and inconsistencies with their claim, a well written Witness Statement and some cold hard documentary evidence in support of the defence and WS which in itself demonstrated and proved the cited unfairness. The judge is giving you ample opportunity to build a defence which they will have to answer and it is that defence and the substance of their claim on which the judgement will be decided. A lot of cases have been resolved on the basis of "You borrowed it, now pay it back" I am not going to attempt to identify any positives or negatives in your defence as you have made it patently clear in your other post that you believe your stance to be strong and correct. I wish you luck with this one

I basically had exactly the same thing happen. Cabot/Morgan brought a claim against me using POC which to be honest was pretty insulting and completely laughable, not even the right account number, no breakdown, nothing to prove ownership and/or liability. I sought and obtained from the court an order for disclosure of all documents that they would be relying on in court. The judge ordered them to replead their claim in full with an amended POC, they went ahead and used my holding defence to completely rewrite their POC, shooting down the salient points of my initial holding defence one by one. I quickly realised what you have stated above, they do not follow the rules and the courts go along with it, complaints of behavioural misdeeds carry no weight with the courts at all. It is about what laws they have breached and where the terms and conditions state that what they have done is not allowed. a defence needs to be based on what they include in their POC and supporting documents, focussing on other matters will only irritate the judge and incline him/her against you. I also learned that the judge doesn't actually know the law inside out and needs to have all breaches in law or statute clearly identified by both parties, I also learned that then comes the witness statement where you get to state your version of events and then (if it goes that far) I realised that you might have to argue your case before the judge and beat someone who argues before judges on a professional basis Equally though, I was also allowed to rewrite my defence and although the main points of my defence were sound I realised the above and that I had to use a firm of solicitors to rewrite my defence otherwise they would have simply used the system against me and bulldozered me in court.

That's right on my doorstep That is not a place with "big" offices, more blocks of offices rented by smallish companies

Do we have anything further on this or did they scuttle off?

They can "demand" higher payments at any time, however the only way they can "make" you pay more is via the courts, this whole business is based on negotiation and threats, it doesn't matter how much you offered to pay, within a very short time they would be back "demanding" more. since the agreement has already been breaced only you are in a position to decide what you can afford to pay and without a court order they cannot force you to pay more

OK so it looks like you have had a judgement made against you which is unfortunate but you need to contact the courts and request a variance on the order to allow you time to pay (installments) without knowing the date that this is refering to it is difficult to know any deadlines, but either way you need time to pay

If you are confident enough to deal with them, answer their calls and simply refuse to go through any security questions, they will (by law) be compelled to terminate the call. otherwise, listen to their opening spiel and simply tell them to put it in writing and then hang up, it really is up to you. They want to get you into a protracted telephone conversation so that they can use their "tactics" lol and get you to make a payment of some kind, avoid this unless you are entirely comfortable with dealing with rude and aggressive people Being something of a part time urologist, I like to take the pee, so ask them your own security questions, confirm their name, dob, address and shoe size, great grandmothers maiden name, you get the gist have a laugh at them because once you realise that they read from scripts and really are pathetic, they aren't scary at all

No you shouldn't. you have made a legal request to which a response is required, this is covered by statute. It doesn't matter if they have used your letter to wallpaper the toilet, the fact is that it was sent and received and you can prove this. They (Moorcroft) are obliged to either fulfil this themselves, or if, as in this case they are unable to fulfill the request, they should pass it on to the people who can. end of. this is the same law that they use every day to batter people into paying so their ignorance is completely feigned Moorcroft are a bunch of amatuers and never have any paperwork

They are Rockwell with a funny hat on :o) Please note the careful use of words such as May in their letter, ie. They may send someone around who has no more authority than the ice cream man, or They may take this debt that they have already conceded cannot be enforced in court, to .....erm court, where they wont be able to enforce it. You can either ignore them Tell them to go forth send them a letter pointing out that the account is subject to a dispute (s77/78 Request) and until that dispute has been resolved they are getting nothing

I wouldn't contact them directly, this is what they want. telephone consumer direct/trading standards, this is what they are paid for

oh, and don't worry, these parasites do this all the time. You're far better off becoming angry

Well the first letter sounds like a fishing trip and you were correct to just ignore it. What these companies do is buy an account, or have one passed to them by the creditor, they then send letters like this to everyone in the area with a similar name, it is completely unlawful and you should complain to Trading Standards/Consumer Direct, because as you state, this is not your debt and they are sending you demands for something which is not yours.

Cabot say a lot of things which IMO are so wrong it's shameful. On the assumption that they haven't yet issued a claim against you Yes you should request a copy of the Default Notice, Yes you should send them a formal CCA request which they are obliged to fulfill. Not having an agreement is simply not an option for them, there must always be some form of agreement, even if they reconstitute it for s77/78 purposes. They have to be able to prove that they have a right to collect and that you are liable for the debt and telling you otherwise is naughty, Make sure you only communicate with them in writing and obtain proofs of posting and delivery for everything you send.