Hi Andyorch, according to the n180 that has been received (attached), it is "essential" that the defendant complete the personal details, even if the answer to A1 is "no". Perhaps because this n180 was updated last month, it now does set up mediation?

Hi NC, sorry if I gave you a "bum-steer" with the procedure for directions. AndyO is quite right. There is no need to have a draft order for directions on the SCT, as these should be automatically requested by the court. Please see Practice direction 27, appendix B. This wont help "me" much though, as WH "forgot" to include relevant information in the POC, so hopefully when the claim finally lands in front of somebody that has some authority/experience, documents or facts not mentioned but nevertheless required will be ordered up. Cheers, Bill.

Hi, dealing with a N180 at the moment and decided to ask if anybody redacted the contact details of the defendant when serving a copy of the N180 on the claimant? There is also (in the claim I am involved with) a matter of the claim being issued with the wrong name of the defendant. I ask because these details are supposed to be used by the mediation service to enable them to arrange/mediate a telephone conference between the parties, and I would be concerned that the claimant would use the telephone number to harass the defendant. So, better to leave these boxes blank on the claimants copy, or ? Thanks for replies, Bill.

Hi, much better (IMHO) to deny ownership of the debt completely until the claimant provides unassailable proof. The time to ensure these charges are deducted is after genuine, enforceable docs are presented. Otherwise, a defendant could have pleaded a part-admission in the first place, if a defence is purely based on charges/levies. If the draft order for directions/further information have been drafted correctly (and accepted), the defendant will have a further period of time to amend the defence upon receipt of the docs. This is what I would do, it may be unsuitable/risky for others.

Exactly. Your replies from WH seen in isolation, would convince you that they have a superior knowledge and that you have no chance of defending the claim. The chances are their offer to reduce the alleged debt by 10% would be appealing enough to accept, and make the whole thing go away. But, because of sites like this you can find out just how unattentive firms like WH are, and then you realise that they cant even respond to you on an individual basis. Because they don't have the capacity to engage with knowledgeable/intelligent defendants. The bullies always get their comeuppance. Its just a shame we can't usually recoup our losses from their pockets too.

Indeed, litigating nearly statute barred "debts" is the lowest form of debt recovery. Many of the recipients have long forgotten crucial details about the claim, and bottom feeders like these mop-up the dregs.

Hi, NC, I don't think you'll have much luck with the reply though! I suspect the "defended team" is a one man band without many templates on his word 2000. Best of luck with the rest of the process, I will pop in (if thats ok) and update. Cheers, Bill.

Hi NC, sorry, didn't mean to be secretive! At allocation, the parties are invited to file directions so that the court can deal with the case. DOFD = draft order for directions. FI = further information. As well as the "D" (defendant) informing the court that they want the case transferred to their local court, because they are Litigant in person. Further information should "steer/help" the judge, to ensure that the documents requested are necessary for the claim to continue. As without them there is no case to answer, etc. DLTBGYD = Dont let the b******s grind you down. You have recieved identical "generic" replies to your requests, as has my acquaintance, this indicates to me that these claims are launched on "a wing and a prayer" that they would not be contested. Unfortunately for AK, they underestimated the resolve of informed defendants. Surely, a bona-fide law firm would've sought confirmation of a water-tight claim (ie docs) against the defendant before issuing the claim, in my view that would be the diligent approach. The fact that claimants can launch claims against people without sight of, or immediate access to pivotal documents, is a great oversight of MCOL. Or is it? I think the MCOL system should require claimants to attest the legitimacy of the docs relied upon, and to prepare copies before even starting a claim. Of course, this is just as likely as the finance industry genuinely paying the full court fees (as stated on the claim form). IMHO, I am convinced my acquaintances claim will be either discontinued or struck out due to a non-compliance issue after allocation. This is because if the claimant discontinues before allocation (to the small claims track), they are liable for the defendants costs. Discontinuance/strike out after allocation to the SCT is a freebie. Shame on them.

Hi NC, I have an acquaintance who has received the same non-specific and obfuscatory POC from this "firm". With some help from myself (and this excellent site) my friend also sent a CPR 31.14 letter. Unsurprisingly, receiving an identical response. I ensured that the request included a paragraph requesting an extension to the time for filing a defence, and that period should be specified and agreed in their response. Did they agree an extension - no. They did however "kindly" state that they would not enter judgment before a defence was filed! (They don't enter judgment, the court does if you don't file a defence on time). Defence filed on time anyway. IMHO- So, on we go to allocation where a DOFD will be filed, along with convincing/strong FI that will ensure the J will allow our DOFD. I fully envisage it will be shortly after this point where the C "decides" that the claim is not in the C's financial interest to continue, and they will seek the D's permission to discontinue (but it will be with conditions!) or simply "forget" to pay the fee and have the claim struck out. Similar in fact, to a certain H-cohen whom employed these tactics some time ago. The main difference (I think) between my acquaintances circumstances and your own, is that my friend knows (without doubt) that there has never been an agreement. These "debts" are very near SB, and this is a desperate attempt to make good on poor/old/unenforceable portfolios by aktive. Good luck with the rest of the process (DLTBGYD), Bill.

Thanks for your response TM. Regrettably, the claimant discontinued almost immediately after I defended, so no court order. I consented to the discontinuance knowing that the claimant would have an up-hill struggle to resurrect another claim on the same matters. In hindsight, I could have specified a "had your chance, be gone" clause before consenting. ATB, Bill.

Hi, I recall that a creditor can pursue a borrower for sums allegedly due under an agreement that has been lost/destroyed, as a judge decided that was acceptable. My question is, if an agreement has not been lost/destroyed but has been clearly and concisely shown to be an unenforceable document. And a claim has been issued, defended and then discontinued, can the claimant (legally or lawfully) continue to demand payment? If so, then I shall file said demands in the appropriate place, if not then would these demands constitute harassment? Thanks for your responses, Bill.

Hi MiniM, as it was a joint claim both of you have a signing day and an individual JSAG. Your partner should continue to sign and comply with their JSAG. They will continue to receive their individual rate of JSA, but they will need to arrange to have the payments made to them. As far as I am aware, they should also receive the full amount of SMI as you will be jointly and severally liable for the payments. The SMI payments should not halve because one of you is sanctioned. Confirm with JCP asap. If you are in a vulnerable group you should apply for the hardship payments. If you are in that group, and are successful, the hardship period starts from the first day after the JSA is stopped (payments not recoverable). If you are not in a vulnerable group you have to wait 14 days and the payments are recoverable. If you have a "good reason" for missing your signing, you should appeal. The "info" above is from researching a similar situation, but there are much more experienced caggers who will correct any errors with the above. Bill.

Hi, I think that as CT and HB are controlled by the council and not DWP, those benefits continue. I understand that the council may stop those benefits if the DWP mis-informs them that your claim has ended/been suspended. If this happens you should contact the council and inform them that your claim for JSA has not ended, you are subject to a sanction, and wish to continue the claim for CT/HB because you have no income. Do appeal the sanction in any event. Bill.

Hi MiniM, if your claim is for IB JSA, so far as I know- S.M.I. is paid for 2 years max on IB JSA. If you have a sanction then the SMI is also stopped, unless you are entitled to (and claim) hardship payments. Housing benefit is for rent. If you are on IB JSA you should get CT benefit, which shouldn't stop when you are sanctioned. If they stop CT benefit, call the council and tell them you are still claiming JSA but you are not in receipt of a benefit payment due to a sanction. Why were you sanctioned? I hope you are considering appealing the "decision". Was it a joint claim, couple claim or single claim? Bill.

Another similar article; http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/feb/02/banks.consumeraffairs

The silver standard survived for around 400 years. The weight of resistance to any change would be immense, after all who/what would be the losers? The banks/bankers. There is no appetite for change from the powers that be anyway and there never will be. An mp's career is short and most aspire to join the "club" after "serving their communities". The ability to create "money" as debt without creating the "money" to repay the interest, keeps us and our descendants in perpetual debt slavery. I would like to ask; what is being used as the collateral/security for these debts? Is it me, my future labour, my property, possessions or just a promise to pay?

Neither do I. It appears that in many peoples minds any mention of FOTL automatically invokes negative views. I appreciate these views are based on the experiences of the person making the comment, but actual FOTL philosophy/ideals have nothing to do with "debt evasion". The posters quoting novel/nutty case law to evade debt are not real FOTL followers. I suspect, they are desperate people clutching at straws trying to deal with overwhelming pressure from creditors, and landed on the wrong website first. I would like to know where they are getting these "ideas" in the first place. They are really in need of help, by directing them to case law/legislation and considered advice. Bill.

I believe that the true ideology of FOTL was never about debt avoidance, it was more about not being enslaved to a "society" that cares not for its citizens. "FOTL" has been somewhat hijacked by the desperate to avoid their legitimate and enforceable contracts, when their true remedy (if any) lies in the contracts and the associated legislation that governs them. Cheers, Bill.

So if a lawyer presents an old case in support of his clients claim and wins, despite there being a more recent judgment/law that superceedes the original, the loser can appeal (if he chooses). Nevertheless, the old/superceeded law was victorious, despite a newer law. If an apparent FOTL follower presents an old law here (on cag) is there always a newer law? Has there ever been an instance of an apparent FOTL follower having a legitimate argument, when quoting an old law?

Yes, and that lawyer would be victorious even if the law had been superceeded, if his opponent was of lesser knowledge. I don't think many judges would try too hard to find a newer law on behalf his opponent.

Hi, I have watched a few vids of rob menard/dean c and a few others, and found them to be interesting and thought provoking. I have also heard those "gurus" specifically state that there should be "honesty in contracts" and "legislation is not law". So I'm a little confused why a true FOTL follower would try to use far fetched and baseless reasons to get out of honouring a debt. The many legitimate statutory failures would normally be enough to see off many a claim anyway. I would also just like to touch on the subject of using "old" laws to circumvent current legislation, in my experience a good/clever/modern lawyer will reference "old" laws to support his case in court. I suspect this is an everyday occurrence. The oldest case brought to the attention of a judge (in a claim against me) was 1838 and in relation to promissary notes. It didn't work that time! I believe there is an "element" of truth in what these "gurus" preach. If that element of truth is the "hook" to reel-in the vulnerable, then I see no real difference between a "guru" and our morally superior and upstanding politicians and their manifestos!. (All generalisations are false, including this one) All the best, Bill.

Thanks Andy, I will attempt to negotiate my costs, and then consent to their nod. Bill

Hi all, sent (holding) defence stating no cause of action specified, claim should be struck out or re-pleaded etc. Now I have received a letter asking if I would be kind enough to allow the claim to be withdrawn, and sign a consent order to that effect. As this is before allocation, I could dig in my heels and demand my costs are paid first, but I would like to ask if there is a downside to signing a consent order agreeing to the withdrawal of the claim and defence? I think if I consent to the withdrawal the claimant "should" file a notice of discontinuance with the court, but I dont trust solicitors! Any advice appreciated. Cheers, Bill

Hi Ford, Is there any authority on challenging the time period? Cheers, Bill.

Hi, just to clear up my previous post; The case I referred to was Armstrong v amex [2009] EWHC 3556 (QB) I know there a differences in the sums claimed (different tracks). The agreement I have been sent does not directly mention compounded interest either. Thanks for your replies, any ideas on where to go with the failure to specify a cause of action? Bill