Sometimes silence speaks a lot louder than words. Trading Standards are behaving disgracefully, however. They are not paid to lick the backsides of thugs, they are paid to serve the council tax payer. If they do not even have the decency to acknowledge a perfectly valid consumer complaint then the Local Government Ombudsman will need to become involved. I'm not surprised they've got shot of the alleged account. They're hoping you'll just scuttle off and leave them alone now you've got another bunch of vermin to deal with. Bottom line - if you don't get a reasonable standard of service from one idiot, take it to their superior. SH

When was that agreement taken out? I'll be back tomorrow - got to get some kip because I've got a busy couple of days, but I don't think you are dead with this one yet. I do wish Jogs would say what he thinks of the default notice, though. I can never understand people who aren't forthright in their opinions. SH

You can attach a PDF file to your post. When you make a post, you should see an icon like a black paper clip below the title field. Click that and add your attachment. SH

This is one seriously strange case. If this agreement is not yours, then someone has been very naughty indeed. If it is yours, but there has been a period of six years during which time you have neither acknowledged the alleged debt in writing nor made any payment, the alleged debt will be barred under the Limitations Act. It looks very much from the picture you have shown me that this is a pre-contractual application form devoid of the prescribed terms, which would be unenforceable at law. The most interesting part is "your" signature. You say it is similar to yours? Did anyone at Crapbot ever have any access to a signature? Did you ever sign any letters? SH

I can't get into arguments over the enforceability or otherwise of the agreement because I simply can't read it. I think the DN is going to be vital in this case, especially if the agreement is enforceable. stupot59, do you have a copy of any default notice you may have received? If not, I would suggest sending a SAR to the original creditor. You have sent a CPR 18 letter. Crapbot will just ignore that. You can request disclosure at the AQ stage, but that is at the court's discretion. Although the OC will have 40 days to comply, I think it is still worth sending. You never know how many delays and adjournments there might be. SH

Thank you foolishgirl and lilly white for this extremely useful input. Foolishgirl, As far as I know the only request made was under CPR 18. I have been thinking for a long time that x20's CPR 31.14 letter is pretty much an essential. The problem is that it only covers documents mentioned in the statement of case, and this is presumably why Cabot and their like keep issuing claim forms which mention virtually nothing. The CPR don't even seem to be clear on what "mentioned" actually means. Does it mean a specific mention, or mention by implication? Even the agreement is not directly mentioned in these ridiculous PoC, although it mentioned by implication due to the allegation that the defendant had a credit card account with XXXX XXXX bank. There is clearly no hope of getting the default notice using CPR 31.14, and couldn't Cabot (or whoever) even allege that the agreement isn't even mentioned in the statement of case? Lilly White, That is a very interesting defence, and quite different from most I have seen on here. Is it your own composition? I can see that it directly refutes the Particulars of Claim. Is it not important to mention the need for a valid default notice somewhere in the initial defence, just in case you don't get the chance to submit an amended one? Should you not also mention the fact that the interest being claimed under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 is not applicable in cases regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974, and that therefore the claimant's entitlement to this relief is denied? Now that the CCA 1974 has been updated, are we on dodgy ground with point No.3 - there is nothing to suggest that the agreement is not post-2006, and therefore regulated by the CCA 2006? Shouldn't the word "original" in point 3 be "origin"? Just playing devil's advocate, you understand - not trying to undermine your extremely valuable contribution. SH

How do you defend against pitiful Particulars of Claim? Vitally important question. When you receive a claim form with Particulars of Claim such as these - The Claimant is part of the Cabot Financial Group and has purchased the debt scheduled below. Despite requests for payment the defendant has failed to pay the sum of (4 figures) in relation to the defendants XXXXXX XXXX Ltd credit card account number ********** and the claimant claims the sum of **** together with interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 and costs. - how on Earth do you defend against them? I have seen it advised that we should be submitting a short "embarrassed" defence which does nothing more than refute what is in the PoC. An example is here - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/188838-gktp-embarassed-5.html#post2356056 This type of defence has been successful in getting the PoC struck out in one recent case I have seen, but in another the results are quite different. The defendant sent requests for information under the Civil Procedure Rules, but was totally ignored. When it came to the Allocation Questionnaire stage, he then used the Draft Order for Directions contained here - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/131499-directions-n150-n149-allocation.html#post1382499 - but the judge took no notice. Now, he has to deal with a situation where there has been no disclosure of documents, and no opportunity to submit an amended defence. He will now have to face the hearing without the opportunity to submit a proper particularised defence. Questions - 1) How should someone defend against such pitiful PoC? and 2) IF the answer is to submit an embarrassed defence, what do you do when the court doesn't back up your request for disclosure? We are being flooded with cases featuring these same PoC, so these questions need to be answered. All input is welcome. SH

Mis-sold PPI will invalidate the default notice. Have you got the default notice to see if there are any other flaws in it? SH

Hi Beachy and thanks for joining the thread. You've got a good start here, in that you have got a blatantly unenforceable pre-contractual application form. Did you receive a default notice? If so, was it compliant? If you don't have the DN, I would SAR (Al) Capone and see if it comes up. There is every chance they will have fouled up this as well. You can't have too many layers of defence against Cabot. How much of the balance is made up of unfair charges? Was there any mis-sold PPI? In my case, I clearly ticked "no" to PPI, but the buggers added it on anyway. If the amount on the default notice is inaccurate by more than a de minimis issue, the default notice is invalid. If the account is then terminated, as yours clearly has been, the creditor loses the right to the balance, and is only entitled to claim the arrears. Of course, the fact that the "agreement" is unenforceable means that they have no legal claim to anything anyway. SH

If they were, would they be offering you a 50% discount to settle? Chancers. Report them. SH

I can't read that first link, so I can't see whether or not the prescribed terms are there. Crapbot have been coming out with this bilge about the prescribed terms and another document for a long time now. There is a post on it here - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/223570-cabot-financial-dealing-cabot-2.html#post2479594 The TRUTH is contained in this post - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/223570-cabot-financial-dealing-cabot-2.html#post2488448 It is absolutely essential that you not only know the truth, which you do now, but are able to argue it very convincingly in court. Crapbot will try every trick in the book to deceive a judge just as they try to deceive everyone else. The law itself, the High Court precedents, and the opinions of the foremost experts on the Act, including the draftsman himself, are our best weapons. Make sure you use them to full effect. Mods - this needs moving to Legal Issues. SH

How recent is the CCJ? It may be possible to apply to have it set aside. Is it the court which has set payments at £1 a month? Did your husband ever receive an N1 claim form? SH

Halloween, If court papers are involved you MUST act within the timescales otherwise the problem will get worse. You need to tell us exactly what situation you are in here. Have you just received a claim form sent through Northampton, or have you already received Judgment in Default and now they have applied for a charging order? We can only give advice if we know what your situation is. Whatever the situation, you will only have a limited time to act, so please let us know. We don't need anything which would identify you personally, and it is much better if that is kept off the forum. We just need to know the situation so we can give you the correct advice. Postggj is an Authoritative poster with nearly 10,000 posts, and experience of dealing with Coward Hohen. You are in good hands here, and have a great opportunity to get some really useful help and advice. Please don't waste it. SH

You will NOT lose the house. The absolute worst case scenario is that Coward Hohen will get awarded a forthwith judgment, and then may apply for a charging order. In that event, an unsecured debt becomes secured on the property, but a forced sale is extremely rare. It will certainly not happen in the circumstances you describe. That is the absolute worst case scenario, and we are a very long way from that yet. What you will need to do is acknowledge service of the claim, to buy yourself a bit more time, and then send out requests for vital information under the Civil Procedure Rules. We have letters on the CAG which can do this for you. We will need some information from you to make sure we get the letters exactly right. Please answer postggj's questions first, and then we can take it from there. Whatever the circumstances, acknowledging service will be the first step. We're here to help. Any questions, just ask. SH

Here is the link to the Egg thread - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/188093-egg-credit-agreements-what.html SH

It is the judge who will decide whether to order disclosure of the documents, so sending a copy of the AQ to the claimant really isn't necessary at all. It is only ever done as a courtesy. Sadly, judges do tend to be incredibly lenient in allowing institutional claimants more time. All you can do is make sure you get your part right. The judge lottery is impossible to predict. All you can do is make sure your knowledge of the relevant law is better than theirs, and better than that of the institutional claimant. Then, you can argue your case as forcefully as possible. Only too happy to help. SH

I would. You could centre it so it is a clear heading. By the way, I've just spotted a typo in my own directions. Point 3 should of course say "an amended" and not "and amended". Time to edit my library. Ah, now there's a question! Let's just say that opinions differ strongly here. I know two members of the Site Team who have completely opposing views. It is often done out of courtesy, and as long as you are not flagging anything useful to the enemy there really is no reason not to. Don't waste money on Special Delivery, though, only use that for the copy you send to the court. Also, make the claimant's copy before you sign anything, for obvious reasons. The only stupid people are the ones who don't ask when they are unsure of something. Yes, I would use a date two calendar weeks from tomorrow. SH

Hi Giddy Kipper, I have looked over your AQ, and most of it seems good to go. The only things I would personally change are - Witnesses to which facts - All (This is because the section relates to the trial, and not what is happening now. You are your only witness so you need to be witness to all facts.) In Other Information, the last sentence "Therefore it stands to reason that this document must be disclosed before this case can progress any further.", needs to be changed to "Therefore it stands to reason that this documentATION must be disclosed before this case can progress any further." This is because the essential documentation consists of more than one document. I'm not crazy about those directions, because they don't ask for everything you need, for example proof of postage for the DN. They don't request that the originals be brought to the hearing, and they also create an unnecessary self-imposed deadline for the amended defence. I would use these - 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) file and serve a verified true copy of each of the following documents mentioned in the Particulars of Claim (a) Copies of the Credit Agreement, and any documents referred to within it, which complies with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and all subsequent regulations, which the claimant seeks to rely upon, together with any terms and conditions that applied to it. The original document must be brought to the hearing. (b) Default Notice compliant with s87 (1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) as amended, together with proof of service. The original document must be brought to the hearing. © 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, needed to establish a balance on the alleged account. 2 If the Claimant fails to comply with this order, the claim will be struck out without further order. 3 The defendant thereafter shall file and serve and amended defence sufficiently particularised in response to the documents supplied by the claimant. Please note this is only my personal opinion, and I am not legally qualified. SH

Yes, I've read through that thread. I don't think the AQ will need to vary much from the one andyorch posted, if at all. It is best to post anything up on the other thread so that all information is kept together. I'll subscribe to it so I get email notifications. SH

Have you got a thread in the Legal Issues section with the AQ in it? I can take a look at it for you. SH

There is not a snowball's chance in hell that Clownell will petition for your bankruptcy - they would lose money on the deal. Still, a Statutory Demand could still be issued. If it was, it would be a clear abuse of court process. Sending off the CCA request now is definitely the right move. It is extremely unlikely that Clownell will be able to find any paperwork before the alleged debt goes SB. If they did manage to do this, it is highly likely to be unenforceable. Have you seen the thread by pt2537 covering old Egg agreements? http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/188093-egg-credit-agreements-what.html If Clownell did issue a frivolous Statutory Demand, which is still possible, you would have a complete defence if they were in default of your CCA request. If it happens, apply to have it set aside, and apply for your costs. Any half-decent judge would be angry at Clownell's blatant abuse of the insolvency court process and would award you costs. It probably won't happen anyway, but if I was in your shoes I would want to be prepared. I would have my set aside application ready and waiting just in case a SD came through the door. There are plenty of good threads where people have had Statutory Demands set aside. I would read a few and work out how you would fill out the forms. It is not complicated once you understand the principle. SH

What I think is happening here is that Clownell are probably aware that the alleged debt is fast approaching the statute barred stage, and that they have to pull out something pretty frightening before that happens. A Statutory Demand is issued with the intention of following through with a petition to make someone bankrupt, and in doing so, recover the balance of the alleged debt. Or, at least that is the theory. Let's apply this theory to the current situation and see if it makes sense. In the first place, it costs nearly £1,000 to petition for someone's bankruptcy. For this to be worthwhile, the alleged creditor has to be sure of getting a return. They have to be sure that the alleged debtor is in a position to pay. This means, in at least 90% of cases, that the alleged debtor will need to own property. Even then, the alleged creditor will need to ensure that there are no other priority debts for a much higher sum which would take away their benefit from forcing a sale. In this case, you own no property. You mention a vehicle, which is needed for work. An Official Receiver will not usually take a vehicle which is needed for work. In cases where the vehicle was worth a lot of money, the Receiver could force its sale and order the purchase of a cheaper one. Only you know whether you have been riding to work in a Rolls-Royce or Derek Trotter's Reliant Robin, but I would suspect there is unlikely to be enough value to justify Clownell paying to make you bankrupt. So, if the facts don't add up, what is going on? Put simply, what is going on is an abuse of court process. Any Statutory Demand issued in this situation would have the sincerity of an aging Don Juan and the genuineness of a Wedgwood toilet bowl. They have no more intention of petitioning for your bankruptcy than Irn-Broon had of making the banks responsible for their own profligacy. They are merely using the Insolvency Rules as a convenience, and we all know what people do in those. It is nothing more than an attempt to frighten you into parting with your money. You also have to ask the question of why they would spend £1,000 to make you bankrupt, when they could just issue a much cheaper claim in the County Court, get judgment, and bind you to the alleged debt for ever. If the latter option was available to them, would it not make a lot more sense? The problem for them, of course, is that to get Judgment, you need to have paperwork. Ah! I suspect we have just found their Achilles heel. No paperwork, would you believe? I would very strongly suggest making a CCA request if you have not already done so. This will serve two functions. Firstly, if Clownell were silly enough to issue a Statutory Demand, their default would be a complete defence against it. Secondly, it will almost certainly be all you need to tie this alleged debt up until it is safely over the SB line. If you aren't familiar with Statutory Demands, I would read up on them, and how to get them set aside. I would have my defence ready in advance just in case the attack came. Not only to see it off, but also to give myself the greatest chance of hitting them for costs to make them pay for their abuse of the Insolvency Rules. Judges, as a whole, hate this abuse of process, so you've always got a good chance of getting costs awarded. Let us know if you need links to some useful threads. Of course, if they do issue a Statutory Demand, you should report their pathetic backsides to the OFT as mr. ton so eloquently suggests. The OFT don't like this abuse either. One suspects this is Clownell's last desperate attempt to make you quake in your boots before the white flag is raised. Be prepared, though, just in case. SH

DonkeyB is absolutely right. Don't worry about "polluting" the forum (only DCA trolls do that) - start a new thread for each case. It saves everyone time who is trying to help you, and makes it easier for us to put together the relevant facts. If you have sent one CCA request to Robbingscum NoWay, it is their responsibility to fulfil it. If they have to ask for the agreement from the Hellifax, that is their problem, not yours. Until they satisfy your request, they are in default. Send them an Account in Dispute letter if you want. With Carter, he is just predictable. The CPR letters were sent in the certain knowledge that he wouldn't reply to them. Hopefully, you included this fact in your embarrased defence. Now, have a read of this thread to see what you need to do next - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/131499-directions-n150-n149-allocation.html You will see that if Carter pays the money to continue with the claim, you then have another free chance to request the information. At this stage, the court should order disclosure. Eventually, Carter will have to produce some paperwork. Or, do what he usually does and bottle out as soon as anyone stands up to him. Just make sure you keep doing everything right and sticking to the timescales. If Carter is ignoring procedure, he is the one who stands to lose from that. SH

That looks as though it will need very few amendments to be good to go. I would include the following paragraph in position 11 - The Assignment The defendant requires sight of the deed of assignment of the debt. In addition the defendant requires proof of service of the Notice of Assignment in accordance with s196 of the Law of Property Act 1925 which is required to give the claimant a legitimate right of action in their own name since it appears this is an assigned debt. the reason the defendant requests this information is inter alia to clarify the dates are correctly stated on all documents, the defendant notes that if there are errors in the assignment it may be rendered ineffectual in law per W F Harrison and Co Ltd v Burke and another - 1956 2 All ER 169 Also, I have to question this - The letter you have posted in Post #19 says "Mr. R Ashley", yet point #9 of the Defence says ".....allow the Defendant to prepare her Defence". Something doesn't quite ring true there. SH

Do you have your own thread on this case? Are you sure the CCA is enforceable? Has it been checked out? Did you ever receive a default notice before the account was terminated? Is there a significant amount of the balance made up of unfair charges? Was this a loan or credit card? If so, was there any mis-sold PPI? Without knowing more of the circumstances, it is impossible to give specific advice. If you haven't yet started a thread, that is the first step. SH