I must confess to being rather intrigued I would obviously PM you for a little clarification if this was allowed but c'est la vie perhaps I'll get my answers elsewhere lol

Paul, please do not take my words as being in any way critical, I am fully aware of your position and take on board your comments regarding certain advices being proffered. It is in my nature to use belt and braces in all things and would never take anything at face value. I am just trying to form a defence, I haven't got the money for counsel and the whole no win no fee leaves me cold. I see myself as having a case but just want to cut a few corners via advice from people who know better than I (not too hard methinks) and have "been there" before.

Thanks Paul, at least I know I'm not banging my head unnecessarilly. I do appreciate your position but unfortunately your post raises more questions than it answers :o) I can see that both sides of the termination argument hold merit and both could equally be applied with regards to the use of the T&C on a live account. it is just a case of which way to go. Looking back through my paperwork, I can produce letters from both Moorcroft and Freds, both demanding the full amount (but no DN or TN ever sent) also demonstrates a completely set of lower balances than Morgan have "manufactured" in their DIY Statement of Account in support of the amount of their claim, I am confident that this scuttles their boat, but would appreciate confirmation of the best path to take

I would also add to this that there is no stipulation under the LOP or any other statute for the NOA to be constructed by a DCA so that it looks like it was sent by the OC, this is a practice which IMHO is designed to mislead a consumer into believeing that the OC has communicated in some way with the debtor. I do not fully understand why they would even bother doing this if the only legal requirement was to inform a debtor of the assignment via an NoA, surely the DCAs "welcome letter" would suffice to this end

bump (once again)

I have letters going back to 2006 in which Moorcroft are demanding the full outstanding amount, this would be within the actual loan period. More recently. in order to avoid producing a DN or TN, Cabot in their witness statement are stating that they are only claiming the arrears and that neither they nor Egg needed to produce a DN or TN. Would these demands from Moorcroft be sufficient in themselves to prove that the account has been terminated and that a DN and TN are indeed required and that Cabots WS is incorrect?

bump

so if no dn was issued by the OC and the account was tranferred to chain of DCAs who come chasing one after another insisting that the full amount is due, would this in itself be evidence enough that the agreement has been terminated and that Morgan are blowing smoke? and their Witness Statement is flawed? or would I need more?

The claimant is claiming interest for which they have no valid legal claim. It is stated in S69 County Courts Act (4) that “Interest in respect of a debt shall not be awarded under this section for a period during which, for whatever reason, interest on the debt already runs”. As they have not provided a copy of the agreement(s) and applicable terms and conditions, it cannot be certain that the T&C allow for interest to be applied after the termination of the account, you might want to include the following "The claimant have provided no evidence of any provision within the Terms and Conditions of either account which would allow such interest to be applied after the termination of either account. The claimant has no grounds to claim interest under s69 County Court Act 1984.

Certainly the CO should be set aside, although technically speaking, since the property charged against is not yours, it would be down to the legal owners of the property to have it removed and of course seek compensation from the eejits who didn't do their jobs properly. Perhaps a carefully worded note to the new owners, making them aware of the situation (love to be a fly on the wall when they explain that one) As for a judge asking the question "why didn't you tell them etc" my answer would be, I didn't think I was obliged to inform someone who had never even made the slightest attempt to prove their ownership, nor my liability of any changes in my circumstances. Did you at any time have your post redirected? if yes, then you can show that this happened due to their failing and not your deliberate inaction

since you sold the property before the CO was granted, I would say there was a failure on their part with regard to due diligence. How can they legally apply a CO against a property that you do not own? rediculous and completely untenable - there is no lawful requirement to inform a creditor of a change of address and there never has been. they should never have entered the court without 100% proof that you owned (on the date of the hearing) title to the property. proving the date of sale should be 100% defence - set aside should be a formality

so back to the DN - should I disclose it or not and the reasons please

I'm really just looking to beef out my defence and shoot down every one of their claims. I know the service of the NoA is open to argument, and opinions differ quite wildly, but I think that offering up the question of why they have unecessarilly created a letter in the guise of the bank when all they needed to do to fulfil the LOP with regard to serving a NoA was send me their famous "welcome" letter, everything else is just smoke and mirrors, designed to mislead. Also just been looking a little closer at their "statement of account" and I'm convinced that it's been reverse calculated, starting with the amount they are claiming and simply adding on misc figures until it reaches the initial loan amount I have three letters from Moorcroft stating amounts outstanding which differ by at least £500 from the ones Cabot show on their SoA despite the fact the amounts paid (at that time) were always the same amount and the interest was pre loaded onto the loan, the balance outstanding not only fluctuates but also actually increases completely out of pattern with the amounts paid

The wording of the DN is as follows: IMPORTANT _ YOU SHOULD READ THIS CAREFULLY Default Notice Served under section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Dear Mr Spamheed Loan Agreement Number xxxxxxxxx We refer to the above agreement which you have entered into with us. You are in breach of the terms of the above agreement, which requires you to pay the instalments, specified in the agreement on the dates that they are due. Instalments of £2xx.xx are now due and owing. You may remedy this breach of your agreement by full payment of the arrears to us at the above address before xx/xx/20xx IF THE ACTION REQUIRED BY THIS NOTICE IS TAKEN BEFORE XX/XX/20XX NO FURTHER ENFORCEMENT ACTION WILL BE TAKEN IN RESPECT OF THE BREACH IF YOU DO NOT TAKE THE ACTION REQUIRED BY THIS NOTICE BEFORE XX/XX/20XX THEN THE FURTHER ACTION SET OUT BELOW MAY BE TAKEN AGAINST YOU OR A SURETY Further action On or after xx/xx/20xx we shall: Require payment of the outstanding balance if the arrears are not paid before xx/xx/20xx we shall: Instruct our solicitors to issue proceedings against you, or instruct debt collection agents to recover the debt on our behalf Register the default with Credit Reference Agencies. We hereby give you 28 days notice of our intention to register the default if it has not been remedied. CRA will notify any prospective providers of credit of this default in your payment, resulting in you etc and so on

A bit of a quandry over the DN though. Egg issued a DN when only two payments were overdue. There was no termination notice, they just sold on the debt. When asked to provide a copy of the DN, cabot have stated that neither they nor Egg needed to produce any DN nor a TN and they still dont as they are only after the arrears (which is now the total balance). I am advised that due to no periodic statements being issued that the account has certainly been terminated and that a temination notice should have been issued and that the DN and TN would be re3quired prior to the sale of the account - is there statute or case law which supports this? Would it be in my interests to produce the DN at all, it contradicts what Cabot are saying and casts doubt over the validity of their WS.

Morgan/Cabot will not even try to keep to any deadlines, they use templates for everything, if the template doesn't quite fit, it takes them a while to get their heads around the correct wording so don't stress about it just yet. If they haven't complied with your CPR requests by the time your defence is needed then you can put in a defence which states as much and request a disclosure order from the courts.

My day to day work involves a pedantic approach to often quite convoluted problems - so I just traced through the link provided and found the following: 1. The Actual assignment must be in writing and signed by the Original Creditor - To date nothing provided - only a letter from Cabot themselves - there is a question that I keep meaning to research - I'm pretty sure that there is a Court of Appeal case on point IS does that mean that where the OC is a Company that the Company Seal must be attached to the Assignment and that the assignment need s to be signed by a Director and Company Secretary - whether applicable or not - only a letter from Cabot 2. The Act does not say that the NoA must be signed by the original creditor or indeed by anyone. There is some case law which is open to interpretation - arguably it doesn't - so the LOP doesn't say yeah or Nay - still just a letter then 3. Don't forget that at common law (Court of Appeal Obiter in Van Lyn Developments) you are entitled to inspect the actual assignment to satisfy yourself it is valid. - made my section 18 request but they only sent the redacted DoA and the letter 4. Proof of delivery would include recorded delivery, certificate of service and of course an admission that you had received it. Unfortunately I conceded the receipt of the letter - so they need no further proof 5. Don't forget that if there is a notice that it must be legal... - so the letter on its own means nothing 6. There must be an assignment before there is a notice. A notice does not, in itself, create an assignment. as mentioned - just a letter "This is what the Cabot people came up against because the assignment instruments were copies contained in a book debt transfer" this is what I think they are calling the DoA and even with the letter proves nothing, personally I think it is an agreement to trade, not a trade agreement. ie pre contractual. I agree fully that under the LOP the assignee is allowed to provide a NoA in their own right, but only once the assignment has been completed. They have yet to prove that any assignment has actually taken place. If it had, why are they being so difficult and reluctant to provide this proof. As I stated in the posts above, there is nothing in law which allows them to create a letter pretending to come from a bank, neither using the banks letterhead with the intent to deceive the consumer into the belief that they have just received a letter from the bank as it is fraud, even if it does appear as a term in their contract it doesn't mean that it is lawful outside of that contract, and obviously doesn't bind anyone outside of that contract

To date, Cabot have provided me with a letter purporting to be from Egg but not actually created by them, carrying coding which links it to the creator of the accompanying Cabot "Welcome" letter I accept this letter as exactly that - namely a letter sent by Cabot, created by Cabot but for some reason designed to look like it was created and sent by Egg. That would be akin to my producing invoices for goods on behalf of the suppliers from whom I have bought them. There is nothing in the LOP to say that the asignee must pass off any notice as if it came from the assignor This is (perhaps) something that Egg and Cabot have agreed between themselves as a contractual condition but it holds no validity in English law and is not underpinned by either the LOP or CCA or any other statute. This letter was intended on its face value to prove that Cabot own an account via an assignment. It cannot do this because it has a less than lawful intent - namely to pursuade the recipient that it was sent by the original owner of the account When requested to provide further evidence of ownership, they initially sent nothing, but then they send what they claim to be a DoA but with every single piece of relevant information blacked out (redacted) so as to make it unreadable. They claim that this is due to the sensitivity of the information contained within the document So to summarise, I have received a letter which is at best unreliable in its origins and deceiptful in its intent and also a document which contains not one single reference to link it to either the initial letter, nor to the account which has allegedly been assigned.

I appreciate your comments about the NOA. but I am inclined to disagree. I have read the relevant sections of the LOP very carefully they do allow for the assignee to provide notice of an assignment, however the Notice itself must be created by the hand of the assignor, at no time on either the "forgery" or their welcome letter do they clearly state that this letter is at the request of or on the behalf of Egg, nor do they clearly state that it was produced by Cabot, or that it was a representation of the NOA as produced by Egg. In itself this was taken to be an indication of the behaviour of this company being designed to misinform a consumer and mirepresent themselves They only actually advised that it was a representation after I pointed out the fraudulant use of the letterhead. As a consumer, I felt that the letter was designed to make me believe that the bank had written it, this in itself would seem enough to demonstrate misrepresentation.

So after allowing a couple of days for this to sink in: Cabot/Morgan did their usual thing forged a NOA provided no evidence of ownership or liability – brought a claim with a rubbish POC and still no real evidence Got the DJ to order disclosure and amend POC – they simply resent all of the same rubbish and explained the lack of any DN or TN in their witness statement as no default is required because they are only chasing arrears which due to time elapsed is now the entire balance So opinions on the following if you please Egg issued a default several years ago, this shows two missed payments as the outstanding amount These two payments included PPI premium and interest. I have this DN, Cabot do not Am I correct in believeing that since the PPI has now been refunded, the DN contains incorrect values and is therefore invalid does the existence of a DN affect this in any way affect their claims re arrears – also In their LBA, Morgan state that the Outstanding Balance is now due in full, is this just wordplay or does it carry any weight as it does not mention arrears? The statement of account they have produced has clearly been reverse engineered so as to finish with their claim amount which includes the full amount of PPI and interest. The interest for the loan amount and PPI is preloaded onto the account I have letters and demands from previous DCA which show completely different amounts outstanding at the same dates listed on Cabots SOA. Throughout the SoA it shows payments made and interest applied for the same amount above and beyond the preloaded contractual interest Cabot also show a PPI settlement fig of less than £150 paid against the balance in 2009, Since Egg only settled in full for the PPI this month, does this cast doubt over the figures in the SoA and the legitimacy of the accompanying witness statement? Does it also have any affect on the validity of their claim given that they are claiming the whole balance including PPI and interest applied The document that they claim is a DOA shows nothing, there are dates which contradict their own POC and anything of meaning has been redacted so there is nothing at all linking this document to any account number I have been advised to deal with all of this via a Witness statement of my own. Do I at this point attach documents in support of my defence? Can I request an order for the original documents to be brought to the court within the WS?

I believe you can bring a PPI claim six years from the point you became aware of the misselling, do a search online for PPI interest calculator, there are many out there. get the numbers worked out and send the letters, it will only cost you a couple of quid and could bring in a lot more and add to your forthcoming defence

The thing about forums such as this, is that nothing is black and white, you will often read references to the "judge lottery" despite what the laws say, despite CPR and CCA and OFT guidelines and Unfair terms statutes, it is down to what the judge feels and says on the day. You might well get a judge who feels aggrieved by the behaviour of this claimant and decide to favour your defence, but then equally you might not. I would be interested to see how you get on with this one

Up to now I have claimed PPI x 2 and charges for a credit card, all three were inclusive of interest initially to the date of the claim. In the case of PPI, your claim should be for the total premium amounts that you have paid, plus any interest applied to the PPI, plus stat 8% for each premium for charges it is exactly the same, I would suggest you use an interest calculator to ensure that you have fairly accurate figures. if in three months time this is still going on then you will need to be recalculating the interest applied to the accounts and to the amounts outstanding/owed However, from my experience, if they quickly concede the point and agree to refund, they will want to be seen as being fair and accurate in their actions and so will recalculate the interest themselves. When I reclaimed the charges from Halifax for a credit card, my claim was for about £380, they refunded just short of £500, this wasn't due to a miscalculation on my part, rather they jacked it up to make sure that I had no further recourse to complain and to counter any arguments about interest that they may have applied to the charges

The crux of this is that the court have allowed the claimant to resubmit and the claimant has resubmitted. The court have accepted this despite it being "out of time" therefore it is deemed as acceptable, It is not right and it makes a mockery of the system but this is what the average consumer has to deal with. Claimants in consumer and debt related cases seem to be receiving far more from the system than they are entitled to and there is nothing anyone can do as it falls under the criteria of the "judge using their discretion" I would look a little further into the circumstances surrounding your settling of the loan within their cancellation period, if you can prove that you did this and also that the amounts they are claiming do not form part of the agreement that you entered into or are somehow not covered by the terms and conditions then you have a reasonable defence and can show that they have acted in bad faith.

Morons will not play any part in the PPI process, this you need to address with the OC. I found this very straightforward with Egg and they capitulated after one letter, but I wouldn't expect all banks and financial institutions to roll over so easily The template letter from the library is sufficient in the first instance. Write to MSDW advising them that the PPI was missold and the reasons (they are on the letter) then wait for them to either dispute your claim and prove that the PPI was correctly applied/sold, or else to begin negotiations with a view to settlement. be prepared to follow up on your threats and claims with regards to FOS etc as some of the more stubborn Bankers have been known to hold out til the last minute and beyond Once they have settled this opens another as yet untested argument as to whether it cattles Cabots claim.