I get the distinct impression that everything advised is falling on very deaf ears. This is becoming circular and quite pointless Since I have never been to court and had huge amounts of debt written off, I would have to concede whatever point it is that you are trying to make. Also, since you have made it abundantly clear that you know better than everyone else and that your way is the only way a defence should be compiled I shall take no farther part in this.

Nobody is doubting your intelligence, or your integrity, or your level of knowledge, or your experience. it is all about the defence, at the start of this thread you had pinpointed one area to the enth degree on which you were going to defend your case. this IMHO was a mistake which can be quite simply remedied (with an open mind), you need to try to utilise every available option and create enough doubt in their argument to sway the judge Would you really want to gamble on this?

IMHO you still need a lot more I would suggest looking a lot more closely into the assignment, get copies of the Noa and Doa - check any dates - a mismatching of dates and their case fails and it is entirely possible that they will do as they did with me and, in all probability they'll send you by way of a Deed nothing more than a heavilly redacted document which proves nothing by way of assignment. it's not a case winner on its own but in undermines their claim Check closely both agreements, point out which terms they have broken, or better still see if either has a T&C which directly conflicts with the other. do either (both) agreements include any element of PPI - did you request it? have you claimed for it and been refused? were you self employed? if the PPI was missold it won't necessarily win the case outright, but it would rubbish the amount stated in their claim Are the % rates the same on both agreements? No? then how can they be sure that the % applied to the amount claimed is correct as above, possibly not enough on its own but it proves they are making it up as they go along The amount claimed on the POC? - have they provided you with a breakdown of the amount, with agreements, terms and conditions and full statements of account for each account and also for the amount claimed on their POC? if the amount is proven to be incorrect their claim is dead The answers to all these (and probably a lot more need to be found way before you get anywhere near a court and certainly before a judge sees your defence. and more importantly you will have documentary proof which will be supported by statute and law (which they have also breached) They can and should be made to disclose all of this information to you before the trail to allow you to build a defence.

In response to the above statement, since the fact that you owe the money is the crux of their claim, why does it not come into your defence? Have you even looked into the assignment? without an assignment how can you owe Cabot anything? have you looked into charges and interest? being an Egg claim, is there PPI showing on the agreement, is the amount on the claim form correct? This appears to be going around in circles - Once again you focus on only the termination and maintain that the stance you are taking with your defence is 100% correct and then ask for advice/confirmation that you are correct. when an opposite opinion is posted you then argue the merits of your pre-stated defence.

I hate to say it, but IMHO a dodgy or defective or non existent TN, and/or DN will not be enough, no matter how many breaches it/they contain. I know what you are saying, that they had no right to just terminate and should have gone through the correct process, but what if it boils down to the judge asking you if you borrowed the money? The fact that they have broken guidelines will not sway a judge in the slightest as they are only there to give judgement under the law. It has happened all too often that a judge has asked that very question and when you answer truthfully and say "Yes" that's it - you've lost On this forum and on many others, there are scores of cases where the judge has given judgement for the claimant where the defendant had a much stronger defence based on no agreement or even where the debt didn't actually belong to the defendant, judges are now regularly accepting recreated and manufactured agreements in the court and I think unless you had a an incredible stroke of luck with the judge on the day then you would lose. It is only my opinion and I always stand to be corrected, but even if you do rely on the default and termination arguments as a part of your defence - You should still look at the wider picture and not focus on this single area - it is always better to completely destroy every aspect of their claim rather than rely on one area where there is even the slightest doubt - I really believe that you should look at other areas to strengthen your defence.

The document you are looking for is the "Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983", a copy of which can be found here opens as a pdf file - you might want to look at schedule 1 for clarification on non default cases 2004 amendment here opens a pdf file

I fail to see any relevance in this argument, or any merit in its continued and quite protracted discussion. If we are here to assist in the compilation of a defence based on all evidence available then fair enough, however, if we are here to bang heads in an attempt to get everyone to agree to a defence hinged solely on an individuals interpretation of s98 which would fall apart under even the vaguest of scrutiny then I will take my leave of this thread without further comment

My pleasure They are a little convoluted and sometimes difficult to get ones head around - but the best legal arguments and biggest wins on here seem to come from those who understand and use the system to their greatest advantage. and given that the phrase "judge lottery" is becoming more and more prevalent, it is becoming very obvious that if you can't persuade the judge who isn't aware of consumer law that your arguments are correct, then the other side will and judgement will go to the claimant (again) Try not to let it take over and enjoy the rest of the holidays

No you do not need to involve the court with regard to CPR 31.14 or CPR 18 at this stage these are just letters you would send to the claimant or their representatives in order to get them to disclose the information you require to build your defence. There are template letters, but they really aren't one size fits all, I would generally use them only as a guide and heavily edit them to your own words and to fit your own circumstances. The following thread provides an excellent guide of the court process, it is quite lengthy but with good reason, I would suggest you have a look at it, just to gain an insight into the process and what you need to do. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?241827-Legal-Action-how-to-start-off.-IMPORTANT-IF-YOURE-BEING-SUED In the following thread there is a discussion on the difference between CPR31.14 and CPR18 and provides explanations on both, as well as links to the relevant statute(s) http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?184213 Ask any questions on any thread you feel is appropriate. Please be patient as a lot of the regulars will be unavailable due to the current festivities, you should have a look at as many of the threads as you can and you will quickly see that there are a huge number of people in exactly the same boat as yourself and also that the Debt Collectors appear to sail through the rules and regulations with apparent impunity, These people are not stupid and when it comes to the court room they have shown that they are not above bending the facts to influence a judge. You really need to do your homework and gain a clear understanding of how your defence is to be/has been constructed.

You need to make them prove that they had a right to do what they have done, from there you will be able to see if you have a defence or not. I would suggest in the first instance utilising CPR31.14 for the documents mentioned in the POC and CPR18 for those which are not

Without seeming overly glib or dismissive of your arguments, if this is the crux of your defence, then I wish you good luck with it. My opinion, such as it's worth, is that you are pi$$ing in the wind by arguing that "they should have done this, or that they should have done that" I do however wonder why you ask questions on a forum and then argue with those who would offer you advice.

If the Original Creditor "sells" a debt - any involvement with the debt or the creditor ceases as far as they are concerned and most of the financial institutes do this to distance themselves from the nastier side of the collection business, they are concerned with their reputation much more than a (relatively) small amount. They cannot be held liable for the actions of a DCA or Debt buyer when the debt has been "sold". although there is a limited argument about selling on a debt whilst there is a dispute. they normally just deny the existence of a dispute and then it's your word against theirs. Whilst you have a semi-valid point about the collection process not being ceased, the law see's it differently and as stated earlier they are "only" Guidelines. There have been a lot (far too many) of cases where a judge has simply said, you borrowed it, now pay it back - judgement for the claimant. You could argue yourself black and white, but they will still be taking you to court and if you do not defend correctly, you will still end up with a judgement against you. Nickleas post should be considered a little further. The defence starts with the POC, the CPRs are there to govern the whole county court process, you need to see the documents they are relying on, Disclosure will enable you to start to build a defence Below are two stickied links which cover the first steps in defending yourself http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?108467-Basic-Introduction-to-Consumer-Credit-litigation http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?241827-Legal-Action-how-to-start-off.-IMPORTANT-IF-YOURE-BEING-SUED

The OFT guidelines are not binding, they are "only" Guidelines and compliance is not mandatory and neither does their non compliance carry any penalties in law. it may affect their licence application but when it comes to the big companies, it never seems to have any adverse effect. However, when building a defence against a claim, demonstrating a total disregard for the OFT guidelines by a creditor or Debt Collector/buyer can demonstrate the manner in which a company carries out their business and can sway a judge

I understand where you are coming from but this is less to do with what they have done and more to do with what they are claiming. There have been cases where multiple accounts have been consolidated and brought before the courts and judgements have been given because the case wasn't defended correctly or the defendant was unprepared. The initial defence is merely with regards to matters within the POC, hence the line of questioning. You need to use the legal processes and relevant CPR against them

Have you ever requested copies of the agreements for these "accounts"? Have they sent you a breakdown of how the amount claimed has been arrived at? You can use CPR31.14 to request copies of any documents referred to or mentioned in the POC For those that aren't mentioned in the POC, you can use CPR 18 to request further information on them

Can you type up the Particulars of claim (POC) as stated on the claim form, this is what you will initially need to defend against

My god is this still going on? Some dogs just don't know when they're done. I would send copies of this letter to support each of your complaints and then ignore them, they can do nothing

If the contract does not bear the name of one or other party, then it would be difficult to enforce as both parties need to be clearly identified for the contract to be binding, can you confirm, where the document has been signed, is the other party named underneath the signature?

They always tend to advise the defendant that their costs will be an unreasonably high figure even when they have no chance of being anywhere near that figure, this is a tactic they use to influence your decision making in the hope you will become scared and settle

All requests for information (CPR 31.14 or CPR18) should go to the claimants solicitors named on the summons CPR 18 should be sent to request information not specifically mentioned or referred to in the POC

As with everything with Cabot, they need to be made to disclose in full, without disclosure how can onyone possibly defend anything, or indeed decide whether they are entitled to "claim" for anything including interest

no what was stated was, They have not provided any terms or conditions and as such, it hasn't been proven that interest is applicable under the terms of the agreement and equally the opposite is also true as it hasn't been disproven that interest is applicable under the terms of the agreement. until this is clarified s69 cannot be claimed

I know that when I posted online, I had to phone up afterwards and found that there had been a hiccup with their system. there are two systems and they sometimes go out of sync - nice to know when you're dealing with something like this. did you print out the acknowledgement? I was told that this on its own would be sufficient to prevent a judgement by default

so as stated in post #7 then.

Ford, I would be interested in seeing the case law on this, as my understanding (and I readilly stand to be corrected) is as follows The claimant is attempting to bring a claim based specifically on the terms and conditions applicable to the account, if there is no specific term in the agreement which allows the application of interest after sale or termination then interest cannot be applied as part of the agreement. if they are reliant on the County Court Act itself which has already been quoted in post #7 if interest is already being applied to an account then s69 is not applicable.