I'd like to run this by everyone - any comments/suggestions would be very gratefully received. I'm going to sue 1st Credit for damages for distress and anxiety, caused by the course of conduct they have pursued against me, which I believe constitutues harrassment under the Protection from Harrassment Act 1997, and I'll be citing the Court of Appeal judgment in Ferguson v British Gas [2009] EWCA Civ 46. 1st Credit and their various stooges/pseudonyms sent me 24 letters between April 2008 and December 2009, made numerous phone calls to my home, and sent text messages to my mobile phone (I have no idea where they got my home or mobile numbers from, but I never provided them or gave them permission to contact me on them). In these communications they repeatedly threatened me with legal proceedings, debt collectors coming to my door, and adverse reports being made about me to credit reference agencies. Some of these letters have been sent to my relatives' addresses, where I have never lived. 1st Credit claim to be collecting money owed by me to HFC Bank. I have always denied ever owing any money to HFC, or the existence of any contract between myself and HFC. I have written to, or spoken on the phone with, 1st Credit at least six times since April 2008, and have repeatedly told them to cease and desist from any further communication with me, and to "put up or shut up" - i.e. to sue me if they think they have a valid claim, upon which I will rigorously defend it and will put them to strict proof that any monies are owed. However 1st Credit always ignored these demands, and continued to bombard me with letters, calls and text messages. Without wishing to bore you with a tale of woe, it is sufficient to say that 1st Credit's behaviour has caused me a great deal of anxiety, stress, embarrassment, and wasted time. Earlier this month I sent a Letter Before Action to 1st Credit, advising them I was to sue them for harrassment. I have now received a reply which is a bit rambling and badly constructed. They "regret and apologise" for making "further contact" with me since my communication with them in October in which, yet again, I denied that any money was owed and told them to "put up or shut up". Crucially they have admitted that, to date, they STILL have no copy of any alleged agreement between myself and HFC (bear in mind that this has now been going on for 20 months!). Bizarrely, however, they seem to be laying some of the blame at my door for my refusal to provide "certain details as part of our security questions" during phone conversations. (What on earth makes them think I have any obligation to provide them with private information over the phone?). Apparently they seem to think this goes some way towards justifying their continued harrassment of me. While they conclude by denying my claim for compensation, I feel their letter actually strengthens my case by making certain admissions (and a partial apology), and can thus be used as evidence to support my claim. I'm now ready to issue the County Court claim, but would of course welcome any advice or ideas beforehand.

Keith Penhalagan has made his wife Julie Penhalagan the director of UPI (UK) Limited and kept his own name off the company records. Something to hide, Keith? Report these people to the police and trading standards. Keith and Julie's home address is available in the public domain. (It's your legal right to know this because they are company directors - their home address belongs in the public domain). (By the way, the "pack" they send out is a straight "copy and paste" of the reclaim your bank charges material written by Martin Lewis and available free of charge to anyone on Moneysavingexpert.com).

Just to add a few more: ALL drinks (excluding milk) - including bottled water and pure fruit juice (both fresh and long life) Tea bags and coffee Pet food Toothpaste and toothbrushes (astonishingly the government regard them as luxuries)

I really don't know where you got your information from! Tesco Extra is most certainly a Tesco garage. It's nothing at all to do with BP or Shell.

Sorry, but the information on their website doesn't tell the full story. The ECJ ruled 2 years ago that only goods transported personally by private individuals are exempt from excise duty - so anything bought online or mail order is subject to excise duty when it arrives in the UK. Court rules against dropping tax on alcohol and tobacco bought online | Business | The Guardian BBC NEWS | World | Europe | EU alcohol ruling cheers traders

P.S. On a separate note, I'd go to the local newspapers about the way the garage have behaved, and make special mention of the way they laughed at you in court. Putting the legalities to one side, it's vindictive and heavy handed for them to set the bailiffs on you, as if you haven't already suffered enough with your duff Ford car. The car-buying public in your local area might like to know what kind of company they are.

ParadiseKidd, I've read this thread and I'm extremely shocked at what's happened to you. I just want to say that you and your partner have got my heartfelt sympathy for your nightmarish situation. I thought that claims under £5k needed to be exceptionally unusual for Judges to allocate to Fast Track, but I once found out that Judges can apparently do it on a whim... A few years ago I had a claim Fast Tracked by a judge for quite a small amount (about £950) and in my opinion it was a really straightforward claim for breach of contract. I still remain bewildered as to why he did it, and when I wrote to the court asking for a reason they said "the judge refuses to give a reason and is not obliged to do so". Luckily the Fast Tracking of the case scared the other party more than it scared me (probably because of the tougher rules on disclosure) and they settled out of court. This is quite scandalous in my opinion; the County Court is supposed to be friendly to the layman for claims under £5k, and when judges make these decisions to allocate to Fast Track there should be far more information given to laymen on what the serious implications are of this. It was only through a stroke of good luck that I found out Fast Tracking meant I'd be liable for the other party's costs - the court didn't warn me by enclosing any leaflets or anything when they told me of the Judge's decision! And the court was unable to give me any information on the bundle of documents I needed to submit under the Fast Track disclosure rules, and just kept telling me to get a solicitor. For claims of under £1k you shouldn't need to - there should be basic information available to litigants in person. I thought the whole point of the County Court was that laymen could act in person without being forced into racking up big solicitors' bills. More disturbingly, I suspect many laymen wouldn't even bat an eyelid at the words "Fast Track" on the paperwork; they wouldn't find out that it means something very different to Small Claims Track until it's too late! Do any of the legal experts on here know if there's any way at all of challenging a Judge's decision to Fast Track, if all your common sense tells you it was the wrong decision? Some once suggested to me that if it ever happens again, simply discontinue the case and start it again at a different court, as a different Judge on a different day is likely to make a different decision (but I don't know if this is good advice or not).

Not sure if these have been seen before, but... £70 Parking Fine in non P&D Car Park - Page 4 - MoneySavingExpert.com Forums Here are the judgements if you can't be bothered wading through the thread: http://www16.redstation.co.uk/relt631608/21010803.PDF http://www16.redstation.co.uk/relt631608/21010804.PDF http://www16.redstation.co.uk/relt631608/21010805.PDF

Update... I sent in a defence which I found on another thread, which pt2537 wrote for someone in an identical position to myself (basically "I am embarrassed in pleading to the Particulars of Claim" as CPR not complied with, etc, I request the case be struck out, etc) Today I received this order from the court: (Note - there were no other papers attached to the order, so I don't know what "schedule" the judge is referring to) Can anyone assist me in translating this into plain English? Are Crapquest really likely to take this matter any further now? I've never heard anything from them since their letter in December demanding £10 for my CPR request.

First of all, many thanks for the responses and encouragement so far. Hope you all had a nice Christmas. OK, I'm a little confused now and hoping you can give me some more advice. I sent the CPR18 request letter to Capquest on 20th Dec (it was the letter in post 3 of tomterm8's Basic Intro to Consumer Credit Litigation thread). Today I received the following letter from Capquest: I don't know what on earth are they blabbering on about in that last sentence! My account is already the subject of "further action" - in the courts!!! Am I right in thinking they haven't actually bothered to read my CPR letter properly? I thought they had to disclose all this info to me for free under the Civil Procedure Rules. What should I do now? Should I write back to Capquest pointing out their mistake, or have I already done everything reasonably expected of me in the eyes of the court?

Round One to me! I had my moment in court this morning and I was successful in getting the judgement set aside. What a huge relief just before Christmas. It was all over in less than 2 minutes! I hardly had to say anything, the judge basically said it all for me. He'd received an e-mail this morning from Capquest's solicitors (HL Legal & Collections) agreeing to have the judgement set aside, provided I enter a defence within 14 days. The judge found this timescale unreasonable and gave me until 14th January to enter a defence. He also made a comment at the end about how these DCAs are well known for being vexatious! I will now fire off the CPR18 request letter to Capquest. Just one small question: Given the Christmas holidays, I am slightly confused as to the timescale in which they are allowed to respond to my request. Is it 14 working days or 14 actual days? If it's 14 actual days from tomorrow I think they might struggle a bit... Many thanks to everyone who's advised me so far, by the way.

Thanks for your support Blossom I've just had a date for the hearing at my local court for judgement to be set aside - it's next Thursday. It's come as quite as a surprise as I was never expecting it so soon! Since I last posted on here I have started receiving letters off Capquest demanding that I pay the judgement, and numerous telephone voicemail messages off them (none of which I have answered). What I now know from their letters is that this alleged debt originated from Capital One, although I have not done a CCA request yet as I am saving that for when they reissue the claim, after I (hopefully) get a set aside. Anyone got any advice on what I should say in court? I don't have any evidence on paper yet; I can only really reiterate that I deny any debt to Capquest or Capital One and I intend to defend the claim. Am I going about this the right way?

Well done Blossomandebony. I'm in a similar position with Capquest at the moment, I just applied for a set aside as I never had a claim form. Your story has been an inspiration I am now looking forward to taking on these nasty parasites myself.

No I haven't asked for anything yet. Will the court supply me with a copy of the claim form and is it regarded as good practice for me to request this prior to making my application for judgement to be set aside? Many thanks.

Hi I have been a 'lurker' on this excellent forum for a long time but I now have a problem which I can't find an answer to anywhere else. I have searched on here and read similar threads but I can't find a situation that exactly matches my own. I would be enormously grateful for some advice. Yesterday I received a 'Judgement for Claimant (in default)' from Northampton County Court ordering me to pay approx. £1500 to Capquest forthwith. Now the first problem is that I never received the summons/claim form for this, otherwise I would obviously have defended it. The second problem is that I genuinely don't know what the alleged debt is supposed to be for - I don't remember getting any letters or calls off Capquest prior to this judgement, and I am unaware of having any unpaid debts in my name, certainly ones on this scale. Obviously my first step will be to apply to get the judgement set aside which I intend to do on Monday morning as I'm worried sick about Capquest starting enforcement proceedings. I have read a number of other threads about this and have a rough idea of what to write on the N244 form. Is it sufficient to say on the N244 basically what I have just said above, i.e. "I didn't get the claim form, and if I had received it I would have entered a defence as I don't acknowledge any debt to Capquest and have no idea what this alleged debt relates to"??? I don't really know what else I can say - how can I prove a negative without knowing any of the facts? My other question relates to the fee of £75 which I have to pay to the court. I was mortified to learn of this fee and it will be a real struggle as my finances are incredibly tight right now, and I will have to pay it out of the money I saved up to buy my family's Xmas presents with. It seems to me quite crazy that potentially innocent people are forced to pay £75 to have any chance of clearing their name because of what may have been a mistake by Royal Mail in not delivering the original summons. If, hypothetically, I succeed in getting the judgement set aside, and then successfully defend the claim (or Capquest simply drop the claim for whatever reason), do I get my £75 back from the court at any stage? Or am I entitled to claim it back from Capquest? I understand from reading other threads that it would be unwise to make any contact with Capquest at this stage, but if I succeed in getting the judgement set aside, then I can start afresh and do a CCA request or S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) etc. Have I understood this correctly? Many thanks in advance for any advice.