I've been asked through PM to take a look at this thread and give whatever advice I can. Really, this has gone beyond the stage where well-meaning amateurs of limited knowledge, myself included, can help to any meaningful degree. Some of the most knowledgeable posters on the entire site have posted to this thread, and the advice they have given is consistent. I notice a poster above me has invited you to PM him if you need a recommendation. I would take him up on that offer. Focus ALL of your attention on the hearing in May, and get the best professional help you possibly can. SH

The CPR 31.14 letter you have printed here requests sight of the agreement but not the notice of assignment. You can include that as well as it is mentioned in the statement of case. SH

Hi, I've been asked to look in on this one because it involves Cabot. So far, the advice which has been given is exactly right, but make sure you word the CPR 31.14 letter correctly. Cabot POCs tend to be incredibly vague, and CPR 31.14 only allows you to request sight of a document mentioned in the statement of case. Try if you can to formulate your own defence, as you are the one who will have to argue its points in court. Read threads and try to find the answers yourself because it will put you in a better position, but if you have any questions please ask away. I will get email notifications whenever anyone posts to this thread. SH

Before anyone asks "Why were you stupid enough to sign up with these cretins in the first place?", the answer is simple. I had no choice if I was to stay in business. British Telecon had engaged in some rather sharp practices (which I won't go into here), and the line was cut out of spite. After the case went to Otelo, I got compensation. Now, I am in the usual situation for a Virgin Bleedia victim. The telephone line is not working, and has not been for weeks. This is not a serious problem as I hardly ever use the thing but that is not the point. The point is that they should come and deal with the fault and put it right. The broadband, miraculously, is still working. However, that is not enough to justify keeping this wretched "service". How long will it be working for, and what happens when the whole lot packs up? The good news is that I have been with these goons for over twelve months, so I am out of minimum contract hell. The only sane course of action is to get out and go elsewhere, so the question is, how to go about it? Firstly, does anyone have any email or snail mail addresses for any managers, customer complaints departments, or anyone within Virgin Bleedia who might just have an IQ creeping into double figures? Anyone who might actually be able to wake an engineer up and get them to do something? If it could be done I would sooner leave changing suppliers for a few months as there is no financial incentive to change, and my future living arrangements are still very uncertain. Failing this, what is the correct procedure for leaving Virgin Bleedia in a way which is least likely to cause further trouble in the future? I have, of course, read countless horror stories about this cowboy outfit and how they operate. Any input is welcome. SH

It is simply routine. The court needs to allocate the case to a track, so it sends out a questionnaire to both parties. The receipt of the AQ is automatic. There will only be a sign that Carter intends to continue the case if and when he submits his AQ and pays the fee (the claimant has to pay a fee to continue, you, as the defendant, don't). SH

Yes, DEFINITELY include Carter's non-compliance. Have a read of this thread by pt2537 which covers this situation - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/131499-directions-n150-n149-allocation.html and then this one, which is a live case featuring Carter where he bottled out at the AQ stage. Your AQ will not be identical, but it will be similar, and this thread will show you how to complete it. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/170673-bryan-carter-ccj-can.html Any questions, just shout. SH

In the post yesterday morning were two envelopes from Cabot Financial. The first one contained a letter from a certain Mr. Maynard, indignantly explaining why Cabot Financial were NOT obliged to send me a copy of their complaints procedure. The other envelope contained a copy of their complaints procedure. I guess its just "business" as usual. SH

Right, what we have here seems simple enough, provided this is an “agreement” which was signed before 6th April 2007. We have an application form purporting to be an agreement, which contains none of the prescribed terms. That in itself is a complete defence in law. CCA 1974 Section 61 61.—(1) A regulated agreement is not properly executed unless (a) a document in the prescribed form itself containing all the prescribed terms and conforming to regulations under section 60(1) is signed in the prescribed manner both by the debtor or hirer and by or on behalf of the creditor or owner, and (b)the document embodies all the terms of the agreement, other than implied terms, and © the document is, when presented or sent to the debtor or hirer for signature, in such a state that all its terms are readily legible. (2) In addition, where the agreement is one to which section 58(1) applies, it is not properly executed unless (a) the requirements of section 58(1) were complied with, and (b) the unexecuted agreement was sent, for his signature. to the debtor or hirer by post not less than seven days after a copy of it was given to him under section 58(1), and © during the consideration period, the creditor or owner refrained from approaching the debtor or hirer (whether in person, by telephone or letter, or in any other way) except in response to a specific request made by the debtor or hirer after the beginning of the consideration period, and (d) no notice of withdrawal by 'the debtor or hirer was received by the creditor or owner before the sending of the unexecuted agreement. (3) In subsection (2)©, " the consideration period " means the period beginning with the giving of the copy under section 58(1) and ending— (a) at the expiry of seven days after the day on which the unexecuted agreement is sent, for his signature, to the debtor or hirer, or (b) on its return by the debtor or hirer after signature by hum, whichever first occurs. (4) Where the debtor or hirer is a partnership or an unincorporated body of persons, subsection (l)(a) shall apply with the substitution for " by the debtor or hirer " of " by or on behalf of the debtor or hirer ". CCA 1974 Section 127 127.—(1) In the case of an application for an enforcement order under— (a) section 65(1) (improperly executed agreements), or (b) section 105(7)(a) or (b) (improperly executed security instruments), or © section 111(2) (failure to serve copy of notice on surety), or (d) section 124(1) or (2) (taking of negotiable instrument in contravention of section 123), the court shall dismiss the application if, but (subject to subsections (3) and (4)) only if, it considers it just to do so having regard to— (i) prejudice caused to any person by the contravention in question, and the degree of culpability for it; and (ii) the powers conferred on the court by subsection (2) and sections 135 and 136. (2) If it appears to the court just to do so, it may in an enforcement order reduce or discharge any sum payable by the debtor or hirer, or any surety, so as to compensate him for prejudice suffered as a result of the contravention in question. (3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a) (signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner). (4) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) in the case of a cancellable agreement if— (a) a provision of section 62 or 63 was not complied with, and the creditor or owner did not give a copy of the executed agreement, and of any other document referred to in it, to the debtor or hirer before the commencement of the proceedings in which the order is sought. or (b) section 64(1) was not complied with. (5) Where an enforcement order is made in a case to which subsection (3) applies, the order may direct that the regulated agreement is to have effect as if it did not include a term omitted from the document signed by the debtor or hirer. We also have a case where any default notice is bound to have been inaccurate, as PPI was blatantly mis-sold, but would have been included in the amounts on the DN. Point these facts out to Crapbot, but don't expect them to take any notice. Read the relevant parts of the Act, Section 87 and 88 as well as the ones printed above, and read the cases of Wilson v Hurstanger and Woodchester v Swayne. You will then know what to include in your defence should Crapbot go to court. I am in a very similar position with this rabble. Appo form completely devoid of prescribed terms, PPI added despite the fact that I declined it on the appo form, and I wouldn't have qualified for it anyway. My defence is already written, I am just waiting for Crapbot to pull the trigger. SH

Chez63, Hi and welcome to the CAG. You will get the help you need on this forum, but please start your own thread as this one needs to be kept clear for the needs of the original poster, who is the subject of court action. SH

Sorry, yes, just in case there is any confusion - I would add the paragraph I have numbered as 5 before the one numbered 5 in the original defence, and definitely not instead of it. Totally agree. SH

I was all set to help out with this defence when I got home today, but I see that the excellent vjohn82 has already supplied what will be a satisfactory and complete defence in itself. I will just make a couple of suggestions, which you are free to take or leave as you see fit. Firstly, I would split the paragraph containing the reference to CPR 31.14 and CPR 18, because non-compliance with each has different potential consequences. CPR 18, the wider-reaching rule, is at the discretion of the court, whereas CPR 31.14 is defined as an absolute right under the CPR (see CPR 31.15). I would put something like this - 4. On xx/xx/2009 the Defendant made a request to the Claimant for the necessary documentation to support the Particulars of Claim, pursuant to Part 31.14 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The Defendant notes that Part 31.15© of the Civil Procedure Rules states that a party may request a copy of the document and, if he also undertakes to pay reasonable copying costs, the party who disclosed the document must supply him with a copy not more than 7 days after the date on which he received the request. This legitimate request has been ignored. 5. Also on xx/xx/2009, the Defendant made a request to the Claimant for further necessary documentation pursuant to Part 18 of the Civil Procedure Rules. This legitimate request has also been ignored. 6. The Claimant's failure to comply with the Civil Procedure Rules Parts 31.14 and 18 leaves the Defendant at a disadvantage and unable to plead effectively or at all. The Defendant is embarrassed in pleading to the Claim as it stands. Secondly, you seem to be saying that the account number quoted in the Particulars of Claim is not one you even recognise. If that is true, then I would deny ever having such an account number, instead of just denying that you owe £282.64. So, before the paragraph numbered 5 in post #22, I would add another paragraph - 5. The Defendant denies ever holding any account with the number xxxxxx, and puts the Claimant to strict proof of this. SH

Have you got anything drafted yet, or are we starting from scratch? SH

Even better - send them some second hand ones. SH

That must be the first step. It gives you 33 days from the date on the form. Give yourself as much time as possible because this is not going to be the simplest of defences to compile. You will need to send off at least one request for information under the Civil Procedure Rules. Let me have a think about exactly what you need to send, and come back tomorrow. The one thing which would be helpful is if you could type out (or scan in) the exact Particulars of Claim. Leave out any amounts as they can be used to identify you. All we need to know is a very rough range, to see which track the case is likely to be allocated to. Knowing exactly which documents are mentioned in the PoC is important, because it dictates what can be included in CPR requests. To get the defence right, we will need to see the default notice, and also get some information on how much of the balance is derived from penal charges and interest levied without any contractual stipulation, but that can wait for another day. SH

First obvious question - Have you acknowledged service yet? SH

Thanks everybody for their contribution. By doing a bit more research, it looks as though I may have found something. If your sole aim is to get a bit of peace, and you are not looking for the ability to record incoming calls, it seems as though a cheap phone called the Samsung E250 may do the job. According to the retailers, it works with every network on contract or pay-as-you-go, except the Three network. I have seen it available for £20 on one website, with a choice of Virgin or Orange PAYG. Significantly, it seems to offer the ability to block nuisance calls. According to WikiHow, at least - How to Reject Calls on the Samsung E250: 5 steps - wikiHow If anybody has any experience of this phone, it would be useful to hear it. It is certainly not a trueCall-style complete solution, but it appears to be a cheap answer if you just want to live in peace. SH

For years, debt collectors and other commercial, religious and political irritants have been abusing the telephone system as a way of causing nuisance. In the case of debt collectors and banks at least, this abuse has been blatantly malicious. Not only do they insist on making multiple nuisance calls every day, the worst offenders (Crap One and MBNA) even use more than ten different numbers to defeat BT Choose To Refuse. Of course, the regulatory authorities should be taking action. A person who pays for a telephone line to be installed in their home should have the right to dictate who can and who cannot use that line. The regulatory authorities, as ever, are as effective as a cotton wool knife. Now, at last, technology has come to the aid of the beleaguered telephone owner in the shape of the trueCall. No, it is not cheap, but it does signal the technological breakthrough which we have needed for so long. The writing is at last on the wall for the serial abusers of the telephone system. The trueCall, however, is only usable with landline telephones. It cannot be used with cellular telephones, and even if it could, it would probably be too bulky to carry around. I have seen several threads recently where debt collectors were abusing the original poster's cell phone, and not their home landline. Cell phones are advanced technology, and are capable of so much. I have seen models which are capable of recording nuisance calls, but as of now I have not seen any cell phone, or software which can be downloaded onto a cell phone, which can replicate the blocking features of the trueCall. As the abuse of cell phone numbers seems to be becoming an increasing problem, I am wondering if any users out there have found the solution. If you have any ideas, please post them here on this thread. In a way, it is strange that I should be the one starting this thread, as I don't use cell phones. I scarcely use landlines either, so I don't even own a trueCall. Nearly all of my communication is done through Skype. I can communicate while on the move using my laptop, also through Skype. My Skype is set up to only accept calls from my contacts, so no idiots can disturb me. Anyone else can send a written message, and then if I decide I want to go to voice I can add them to my contacts. If they are idiots, I can just block their user ID so I don't even get their written messages. That is the solution which works for me. Nevertheless, there are plenty of cell phone users out there. If you've got any tips, please share them. It MUST be possible, at least in theory, to turn a cell phone into a portable version of a landline armed with a trueCall. SH

trueCall only works with landlines and not cell phones. We, or at least the people who use cell phones, need another solution. SH

Ken Maynard was an actor in Western films. Ken Maynard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Despite being in films, he died broke. He probably didn't deserve such a fate. Unlike....... You work it out! SH

Carter will never reply to anyone's CPR requests. They are submitted solely to allow you to report his non-compliance to the court. It should be 33 days from the date on the form, because there are days allowed for postage and delivery. You can submit a defence online provided it is short enough. In this case, it certainly will be. Next Tuesday is the 1st and the one after is the 8th. I would prepare a defence to submit on the 8th when the time runs out. You can assume that Carter will not comply with your CPR requests, because I have yet to see one single instance where he has. You have plenty of time to craft your defence, but you may as well get it ready now. SH

If you have already sent the CCA request and they are in default of it you don't need to do anything. Hopefully, they will still be in default of it when the alleged debt goes statute barred. If they aren't, it is almost certain that a Sharklycard agreement will be defective. As for the telephone calls, get a trueCall if you can. If not, just pull the plug out of the wall or ride out a few weeks of giving them the silent treatment. They are the ones in the desperate position, not you. SH

What is the timescale on this? If you don't know when the defence has to be in by, make sure you find out. You want to allow plenty of time, but it would be helpful if Carter was in default of both CPR requests before defence was filed. SH

If you are absolutely sure that you last made a payment in 2003 then I would personally not spend £10 on a Subject Access Request. The reasons are twofold - 1) It is only just over a month before you reach a point where the issue of when you made a payment in 2003 will be irrelevant, just as long as you are sure that it was 2003. 2) Sharklycard, in fact any part of the Sharklys organization, is not renowned for complying with Subject Access Requests. You will almost certainly have to waste more money beyond the £10 to get anything you need. As for Crapbot, I strongly advise saying absolutely nothing to them on the telephone. Just follow the advice given in the BT Phone Book for dealing with nuisance calls. If the telephone is an important part of your life, consider getting a trueCall. Not just for Crapbot, but for every other serial abuser of the telephone system. As NailPost says, ask Crapbot for evidence of the alleged debt and details of any payments made towards it. I would definitely do this in writing. Crapbot have been known to invent phantom payments and go to court even on statute barred debts. Have a read of this instructive thread - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/dca-legal-successes/152289-cabot-say-debt-not.html In your case, you have another layer of defence. You could send a request for your CCA under 78(1) of the CCA 1974, because a Sharklycard agreement from that era will not be enforceable. At least, I have never seen one that is. What I would do is write to Crapbot demanding evidence of the alleged debt and payments made. If they only try to fiddle the books a little bit, by claiming you made a payment in 2004, I would send them the CCA request. Crapbot hardly ever respond to a CCA request within months, and this is a very old account with a provider which is notoriously bad at keeping records. The chances are very strong that they will be over the six year limit, even of the time they allege a payment was made, before they come up with any paperwork. Whatever they do come up with is likely to be unenforceable even if it wasn't statute barred. If they create a fictional payment out of nowhere in a more recent year, I would still send the CCA request. You would then have a situation where they would have to prove the fictional payment just to have a chance in court, and that chance would be severely diminished by the unenforceable CCA. Add on the fact that the penal charges will render the default notice inaccurate, and you would have a cast-iron case even if Crapbot could somehow CONvince the judge of your fictional payment. Sometime in 2010, you will be able to hit them with the statute barred letter. Unless Crapbot are completely insane, that will be the end of the matter. By the way, make sure that any letter which is sent to Crapbot is headed "I acknowledge no debt to your company, nor any company you purport to represent", or similar wording. Don't even give them a sniff of hope of a written acknowledgement. SH

Here you go, Section 127 in its entirety - 127.—(1) In the case of an application for an enforcement order under— (a) section 65(1) (improperly executed agreements), or (b) section 105(7)(a) or (b) (improperly executed security instruments), or © section 111(2) (failure to serve copy of notice on surety), or (d) section 124(1) or (2) (taking of negotiable instrument in contravention of section 123), the court shall dismiss the application if, but (subject to subsections (3) and (4)) only if, it considers it just to do so having regard to— (i) prejudice caused to any person by the contravention in question, and the degree of culpability for it; and (ii) the powers conferred on the court by subsection (2) and sections 135 and 136. (2) If it appears to the court just to do so, it may in an enforcement order reduce or discharge any sum payable by the debtor or hirer, or any surety, so as to compensate him for prejudice suffered as a result of the contravention in question. (3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a) (signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner) (4) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) in the case of a cancellable agreement if— (a) a provision of section 62 or 63 was not complied with, and the creditor or owner did not give a copy of the executed agreement, and of any other document referred to in it, to the debtor or hirer before the commencement of the proceedings in which the order is sought. or (b) section 64(1) was not complied with. (5) Where an enforcement order is made in a case to which subsection (3) applies, the order may direct that the regulated agreement is to have effect as if it did not include a term omitted from the document signed by the debtor or hirer. SH

Has the account definitely been terminated? If so, would the mis-sold PPI not mean that the amounts on the DN are wrong by more than a de minimis issue? SH