Anymore opinions on the AQ and draft order? I need to get this in this week.

thanks for the clarification mate

Sorry Suppasnooper I am feeling a bit dim this morning and am not sure from your post which track you are recomending? Any thoughts anyone?

Filling in the Form N150 now. So far I have A no B yes (already been transferred to my local court) . C yes D all and none ticked track box fast E Have estimated 3 hours F have ticked yes and no I I have ticked the box for attaching douments to the questionaire and have attached as below Other Information Section F If the court is in agreement, the defendant respectfully requests that special directions may be given as per the attached draft order. The defendant proposes these directions in mind of the Overriding Objectives, and in particular the duty of the parties to help the court further them. The issues outlined below are the crux upon which this claim rests, and the proposed directions identify these issues and will allow them to be assessed in advance of the hearing so that this claim may proceed justly and expeditiously; The defendant wrote to the claimant’s solicitors on 23 September 2009 with a request under CPR31.14 for the documents mentioned in the claimants Particulars of Claim. As of this date no information or documents have been supplied by the claimant. Without production of the requested documents, I am at a disadvantage and am unable to serve a proper defence. Failure of the claimant to supply the requested documentation will make the case much harder for the court to deal with as without production of the requested documentation will inhibit the courts ability to deal with the case. The House of Lords in the case of Wilson v First County Trust Ltd - [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul) made it clear in paragraph 29 of LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD judgment 29. The court's powers under section 127(1) are subject to significant qualification in two types of cases. The first type is where section 61(1)(a), regarding signing of agreements, is not complied with. In such cases the court 'shall not make' an enforcement order unless a document, whether or not in the prescribed form, containing all the prescribed terms, was signed by the debtor: section 127(3). Thus, signature of a document containing all the prescribed terms is an essential prerequisite to the court's power to make an enforcement order. The second type of case concerns failure to comply with the duty to supply a copy of an executed or unexecuted agreement pursuant to sections 62 and 63, or failure to comply with the duty to give notice of cancellation rights in accordance with section 64(1). Here again, subject to one exception regarding sections 62 and63, section 127(4) precludes the court from making an enforcement order. Its is respectfully requested this case be allocated to the fast track, it is a straight forward case and is easily resolved on production of the required documentation by the claimant, should the claimant not have the documentation required to progress this case I suggest that there will be no case to answer Therefore it stands to reason that these documents must be disclosed before this case can progress any further Draft Order for Directions 1 The Claimant shall not later than 4:00pm on (date) (being a date 2 weeks from the date of the making of the case management directions) deliver to the Defendant a certified true copy of each of the following documents mentioned in the Particulars of Claim (a) the executed regulated consumer credit agreement made between the defendant and xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx under reference xxxxxxxxxxxxx together with any terms and conditions that applied to it, the original document must be brought to the hearing. (b) the default notice together with proof of service the original document must be brought to the hearing © notices of assignment together with proofs of service (d) the deeds of assignment, the original document must be brought to the hearing (e) a full and complete statement of account including all payments made and charges applied covering the period beginning with the day of the making of the agreement and ending on the date of the commencement of this case. f) A statement from Egg, being the assignor of account number xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx confirming that said account had not been securitised prior to that account being assigned to CL Finance Ltd. 2 In the event that the Claimant shall fail to comply with paragraph 1 of this order the claim shall stand struck out and the Defendant shall be at liberty without further order to apply to this court for judgment and for costs on the standard basis to be subject to detailed assessment proceedings if not agreed. 3 In the event of compliance with paragraph 1 of this order this case shall be allocated to the fast track and 4 The Defendant shall be at liberty to file and serve a consequentially Amended Defence by 4:00pm on (date) (being a date 6 weeks from the date of the making of the case management directions). The only bit that I am really unsure of is whether I could actually try and get this into the small claims track as although the amount is higher than the usual limit this doesn't involve any complex areas of law. Any thoughts anyone?

Guess what two days later and an AQ arrives. Going to have to take my time and fill it out. I intend to really go to town on this idiots as I still have no paperwork from them.

Nope the court do that for you

Well HC didn't bother to respond to my defence and this case is now stayed as from 24th November. Not entirely sure what this means as I think that they can simply apply to have the stay lifted at any time and the case would then continue. Seems a bit unreasonable to me as had I not entered a defence in time I have no doubt I would now have a CCJ against me. Anyone know if there is anything I can do as I don't like to just leave things in limbo like this.

Defence filed with thanks to all. Just have to wait now for the AQ and see if HC run true to form.

Sorry to bump again but could really do with some help here.

Manc Is this what you are referring to? Judge closes 'cynical' debt loophole knock-backing 100,000 borrowers | Mail Online

Any opinions on my defence anyone. I need to get this in but would really like someone else's view before I submit it. I am especially unsure about asking for a CPR18 order already byt cannot see the harm in doing so.

I need to enter in my defence this week and, as expected, HC have not bothered to respond to my CPR request. Would someone mind looking this over for me and letting me know what they think. Thanks Defence 1. I XXXXXXXXXXXX am the Defendant in this action and make the following statement as my defence to the claim made by Howard Cohen & Co on behalf of C L Finance Ltd. 2. Except where otherwise mentioned in this defence, I neither admit nor deny any allegation made in the Claimants Particulars of Claim and put the Claimant to strict proof thereof. 3. The Defendant is embarrassed in pleading to the Particulars of Claim as it stands at present, inter alia: - 4. The Claimants' particulars of claims disclose no legal cause of action and they are embarrassing to the Defendant as the Claimant's statement of case is insufficiently particularised and does not comply with CPR part 16. In this regard I wish to draw the courts attention to the following matters; a) The Particulars of Claim are vague and insufficient and do not disclose an adequate statement of facts relating to or proceeding the alleged cause of action. b) The Claimant refers to a regulated credit agreement within the Particulars of Claim but does not substantiate the type of regulated agreement or the date upon which this agreement was executed. c) A copy of any evidence in relation to any amount outstanding under the agreement has not been served attached to the claim form nor has any attempt been made by the Claimant to substantiate how the amount claimed has been reached. d) A copy of the purported written agreement referred to in the Particulars of Claim has not been served attached to the claim form, or served under separate cover. In accordance with the provisions of CPR PD 16 paragraph 7.3: ‘where a claim is based upon a written agreement, a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement should be attached to, or served with, the particulars of claim and the original(s) should be available at the hearing. Further, that any general conditions incorporated in the contract should also be attached.’ 5. In a letter dated 23/09/2009, sent by both fax and recorded delivery, and received by the Claimants solicitors on 23/09/2009 (in respect of the fax copy) and 24/09/2009 (in respect of the copy by recorded delivery) the Claimant was asked to provide information, in accordance with CPR 31, and that which is necessary before the Defendant is able to submit a fully particularised defence or counter claim. 6. The Claimant has thus far failed to comply with the request made and I am unable to submit an adequate defence or counter claim. It is requested by the Defendant that the court, in accordance with CPR part 18, orders the Claimant to comply with the following request for information. a) Inspection of the original written agreement upon which the Claimant’s claim is based and/or for the original agreement to be made available in court. b) A copy of the written agreement. c) A copy of the default notice. d) A copy of all statements/transactions showing how the claim of £xxxxxx has been reached. e) A copy of the notice of assignment sent by the assignee to the defendant in compliance with s136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 together with proof of delivery. f) A copy of the assignment, referred to in the notice of assignment, giving the claimant entitlement to the make the claim. 7. Consequently, I neither admit nor deny all allegations on the Particulars of Claim and request that, upon receipt of the documents requested in [6], sufficient time is allowed for me to submit an amended defence. 8. The Claimant’s claim to be entitled to £xxxx.xx or any other sum is denied. Statement of Truth I xxxxxxxxxxx, believe that the facts stated in this defence are true. Signed ..................... Date

CPR already sent, not really expecting a response but one can always hope:rolleyes:

Thanks Lillywhite but I am not sure that I can claim in 3 that the Defendant asserts that in particular, given that the original of the liability is said to be a credit card given by " egg (which is a person / entity / company not known to the Defendant) When I have been in communication with Egg over this matter in the past. Wouldn't that predjudice any letters that I then produce from Egg in relation to things like the DN? Anyone else got any views on the agreement?

My understanding, based on reading other posts re Egg agreements, is that there are a number of issues with their agreements. Not least the approved limit point. No DN or NOA from CL. Egg wrote to me and told me they had assigned the debt, but sent by ordinary post which I dont think qualifies as they are required to send it either by registered or hand deliver. Fully prepared for Cohens not to respond to my CPR request but I have to show any judge that I have acted reasonably, and it makes Cohens look even more incompetent.

opinions anyone?

Please see below for the POC and a copy of the agreement that Egg sent me in 2006. Another thought that has occured to me is that Egg never sent me a valid default notice. They sent me one but when I pointed out the account was in dispute they sent a further letter apologising and confirming that they should not have sent a DN. More ammunition me thinks POC and agreement.pdf

Well it seems like Howard Cohen/CL have finally tried to get me in their sights. Fortunately they are such awful shots that they have undoubtedly shot themselves in the foot. I received yesterday a claim from Northampton in regard to an Egg credit card account which is around £15K. There is a long sequence of events so please bear with me. 1. Account opened in 1999 2. I was in financial difficulty in August 2006 and fell behind with my payments. capquest were appointed to chase the debt and I sent them, as agents for Egg, the usual s.78 letter requesting a true copy of the agreement. 3. In October 2006 they sent me what they stated was a copy in accordance with the CCA 1974. I begged to differ with them as it was illegible and lacked copies of the T & C’s, normal story with Egg. 4. At that time I became aware that they had been charging me for PPI, which I hadn’t requested and so made a compliant to the FOS who decided in my favour. 5. In the meantime Egg and their minions continued to chase for payment despite being told on each occasion that they hadn’t complied with my s.78 request and were therefore unable to do so. Each time I told them this it was passed onto a different debt collection agency. The last contact from anyone in connection with Egg was January 2007. 6. Fast Forward to November 2008 when I am told that my “debt” has been sold to Lewis Debt Recovery who I immediately write to and point out that the assignment of this debt is in breach of both the OFT guidelines and Consumer Credit law as the matter was still in dispute as above. 7. No further contact from then until yesterday when the court papers arrived. Please see below for both a copy of the POC that they have filed and a copy of the papers they sent me in October 2006.(Will post them up tonight) I have acknowledged service and told them that I intend to defend the whole amount. I have sent Howard Cohen the usual CPR 31.14 letter without much expectation of them complying and am drafting up my defence. I am unsure at this stage whether to point out to the court that Egg/CL have failed since 2006 to comply with my s.78 request, and of course there is the whole issue of “approved limit” to consider. Would anyone be able to help me out with this?

bumped as I would be very interested to find out if post 16 is correct

Thanks for the advice so far guys but really need an assist as to which of the two paths I should follow. These people made my life a living hell for months phoning up to five times a day and to find out now that they have never had the right to take any money off me just makes me fume. Time for some payback.

Wow that is great news Empire, I am in exactly the same position with Egg and have the feeling mine to may end up in court. Unless of course they consider that you may have set some form of precedent (yes I know its not binding unless in the high court) and just pay me out. In that case thanks for all your hard work.

Ok I could do with some advice on this matter as I really don’t want to let this rest. Its slightly complicated so please forgive my not putting this into the store cards forum. I had an account with the Burton Group which was administered by GE Money and have had this account for nearly 20 years. It was the type of account where I paid them the sum of £25 per month by D/D regardless of the balance. Unfortunately I managed to get myself into a bit of a mess and missed a number of payments and ended up being chased by a DCA. To buy myself some time to sort things out I requested a copy of the original agreement under s.78 of the CCA 1974. They wrote back to me and said that they were unable to provide me with a copy as they had not been provided with one when they took over my account in 1990. I queried this as, it appeared to me, that they were not the legal owner of this account. I was told that they had purchased the whole of the business of the previous account holders and as such were therefore the legal owners. I challenged this and asked for a copy of the deed of assignment, I also asked for a copy of my original T & C to check whether this account could be assigned to or bought by a third party. They could not provide the T & C and stated that the deed of assignment formed part of the purchase agreement and as such they would not provide it to me. My request for a copy of the notice of assignment from 1990 was also denied on the basis that they couldn’t find it. I should point out that I have used the card for a number of purchases from 1990 to date. My question however is this. If I accept that an equitable contract exists between GE Money and myself, despite their inability to provide any documentation, am I correct in thinking that they are unable to charge interest on the account? If that is the case am I able to reclaim any interest that they have charged me (at 30.3%!!)? This would amount to in excess of £15,000. Or as I honestly do not think that they have ever been entitled to request money from me and have never been the legal owners of the account do I request 17 years worth of £25 per month back from them as well as the interest? So far all attempts at discussing the matter with them have been met with a resounding silence. Any opinions greatly received, and any help with drafting the POC as well as I feel that is now the only way forward.

Hi All Am in exactly the same boat with Egg. I thought I would try the FO route for a change as I would still have the court option should I need it. Two and a half months later I am still waiting for the FO to START their investigation as they are inundated with PPI complaints. Starting to wish I had just gone to court after all.

I wouldn't worry to much. I think Barclays will be even more eager than normal NOT to see the inside of a court room anytime soon. Just imagine if the Judge saw the programme and then Barclays stand up and say yes our charges are fair and reflect our true costs.

I imagine there are a few brown trousers at Barclays right now. I'd love to know how many accounts they loose over the next week or so. Would be very interested to know who the whistleblower from Yorkshire bank was who had proof how much each transaction cost. I think she must have been from here somewhere.