Hi marshmallows seems like a great silence has emerged from Sigma/HL over all this as we thought it would. Most of their claims appear to have been stayed. Personally I had a bit more of a result as they discontinued my claim at the end of August- my thread is here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?365255-HL-Sigma-Claim-Discontinued-Wasted-Costs-Order-Skem-s-Story&p=3979967#post3979967 It was largely unexpected and I had been prepared to have to go for a strike out, but now I'm going for costs instead Persoanlly I think a strike out is the way to go- if you've received nothing from your CPR requests and with the claim being on such dodgy ground to start with, I reckon if you can't achieve a strike out under them circumstances, you never can. And of course if you get costs it reduces HL's profit margin which cannot be a bad thing Hope someone else is along with their take soon.

Finally got round to doing a round-up thread on my experience: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?365255-HL-Sigma-Claim-Discontinued-Wasted-Costs-Order-Skem-s-Story-(4-Viewing)-nbsp See y'all there for a virtual glass of Asti lol:)))

Just thought I'd get this going to update things. Background: along with a good number of other people on here, back in July I received a claim form from HL/Sigma for £299 + costs- an arbitary claim for interest only since their purchase of the debt in Dec 11. The account was an old M&S personal Reserve which entered dispute Dec 08, about £3k outstanding. I have now received an N279 Notice of Discontinuance from HL informing me the client no longer wishes to proceed with the claim and the court will be duly notified. With the usual exemplary help of the site team and fellow community on here I personally pursued the following strategy: 1] sent a CCA request straight away to HL. They eventually responded with an illegible app form and nothing else of any standing. This put the account into dispute again with HL. I then sent in a CPUTR request- no response at all to that. 2] Acknowledged the claim and submitted CPR 31.14 and 18 requests. Received no response from them at all regarding these either. 3] Submitted a succinct defence based on the excellent one Andy provided on here. 4] Offered HL the opportunity to discontinue in a letter, pointing out the lack of any kosher paperwork to back up their claim, the fact that their claim is an abuse of process anyway under s35 of County courts Act 1984 Division of courses of action and, to boot, in all likelihood an invailid claim anyway under the County Courts [interest on judgments] Order 1991 rule 2[3][a]. 5] Submitted a complaint to the SRA regarding above and a letter to the Court Manager outlining similar. The upshot has been, eventually, a Notice of Discontinuance which is a good result, as I was fully expecting a drift into a stay and then the palaver of applying for a strike out etc. My personal circumstances may have helped- I'm on a low income and don't have much in the way of assets which I repeatedly made clear to them- but nonetheless hopefully encouragement for others dealing with this batch of claims The whole exercise is clearly a fishing trip to see what they can shake out of the system- the trick is for us who are empowered enough to see this exercise for what it is, to wind it all up as expediently as possible in our favour. Now I've got to get together a wasted costs order. Does any one have any idea what the best strategy for this is please? Is it best to first approach the claimant directly with a Bill of Costs and see what thier response is, before going through the Court? New territory for me this... [estimated costs about £450 at the mo' plus postage and printing etc]

Hi all been meaning to get on here the past couple of days-I have just received a N279 Notice of Discontinuance from HL. Got a wasted costs application to think about now...

oopsjust answered my question by going back to post #1 lol Still, if you haven't received anything yet, it's not likely you will in any shape or form. I'd put my money on them letting it drift into a stay during early September now...

You can contact them at any time and offer them the opportunity to discontinue... give them a limited time offer of you waiving any wasted time costs if they do so [or the chance to take up a reduced cost application on your part of say only a £100 or so if they discontinue, depending on how cheeky you feel ]. Stay in the driving seat. Out of interest Cosalt, have you now gone past the 33 days since you submitted a defence, or are HL still technically in the period they can respond?

Yep absolutely agree, particularly as I'm now pretty sure these claims for interest only are invalid in the first place under the County Courts Order 1991 rule 2[3][a], which outlaws such claims where the claim refers to a CCA regulated agreement. Hope to be up to speed on that soon so we can tackle round 2

Hi Abby not a great deal happening all round it seems, although an interesting development in bh2362's case that some others may experience soon- HL trying to be clever but being not the brightest bulb in a box of dud fairy lights may well put them in even further mess- can be absorbed here [if ofcourse you're not already up to speed on this thread ]: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?353605-Sigma-SPV-1-(HSBC)-v-myself&p=3949432#post3949432 The only real weapons dca's like HL have in situations like this, are threats and goobledegook to try and confuse and cajole but they are basically empty words/threats at the end of the day. All I've received back is an illegible app form, a reconstituted assignment notice and a balance amount by way of a CCA request. I'm increasingly sure all that will happen now for most of us with defences in, is that this will drift into stays for the majority of us all in early September. What interests me most of all now, is how to deal with that situation when we reach it

I agree completely Hammy. They can't just 'amend' the claim figure in this type of claim; it would need to be a whole new claim with a complertely revised POC which opens up a whole procedural [and costs] can of worms for HL. Basically, if HL had been confident from the outset of getting the full balance, they would have gone for it from the outset. If an 'amended' claim got out of cyberspace and anywhere near an official human assessment of the case, the first question asked would be why did they not do so. HL knows this, hence the bluffing. As you say, for us, the best strategy is to just sit back and keep it simple at the moment. Let HL complicate it and get themselves in a mess if they wish to do so. But the fact that the aq stage has not been reached by anyone yet, speaks volumes. Despite all the bluster and threats [which after all are the only real weapons dcas like HL have in these situations], defences won't be responded to and cases will drift into stays. It's where we go from there that most interests me now

Hmm been thinking about this today, it's an interesting leftfield development. HL are obviously trying to be clever here, but I strongly suspect they may get themselves in an almighty mess over it if they're not careful As I said last night though, I'm increasingly convinced its a case of brinkmanship here. This business about applying to the court for an adjustment of the amount due. That is not as easy as it sounds, because it would entail not just a 'minor' adjustment to the POC, but a complete re-writing of it [remember at the moment it is only for some plucked out of the air interest amount with no reference at all to a primary balance]. It means more than just changing a number on a form. To my mind, that means a completely new claim has to be submitted. To do this, the original would have to withdrawn so far as I can tell [allowing for you to apply for costs from them seeing as you have submitted a defence]. So this new claim amount 'reduced by £364.99 to reflect the claim that has been stayed' is a real anomaly. They can't have two claims in for the same account at the same time as this falls foul of s35 of County Courts Act 1984 ['it shall not be lawful for any plaintiff to divide any cause of action for the purpose of bring two or more actions in one or more of the county courts']. Courts also seem to take a very dim view of secondary actions on a claim, if they had to submit a new claim with a whole new POC for the same account [which IMO I can't see them being able to avoid]. CPR parts 1 and 7.3 requires the parties 'to bring before the court all issues that could be dealt with in one action.' The only grey area is whether this refers to a previous claim already adjucated on- which I assume means a judgement- but I would think to already have a stayed claim in, that at least is enough to cast a shadow over any new claim. So again, I would have thought it would be in their interests to discontinue the present one, and if they are really serious about pursuing you for the full amount, putting a new claim in for that. Which then beggars the question of course...well why didn't they do that in the first place? So plenty to think about there and non of its gospel though because all of this is a new area for me too Considering all of this though, and it's [self-inflicted on HL's part] complexity, I'm more sure than ever that this is all bluff. The bottom line to me, is that this current claim is pretty much invalid anyway. Not only does it fall foul of the County Courts Act 1984 s35 [Division of causes of action] but more importantly, the County Courts Order 1991 rule 2[3][a] which outlaws interest claims on any CCA regulated agreement. So I think HL may well be getting themselves in a mess here, which on their performance to date isn't really a surprise.

Sounds like they have less on you than many of the rest of us, which is saying something. I have a hunch this is getting into serious bluff territory, its going to be a test of who blinks first:) I'm going to sleep on this, prob speak tomorrow and hopefully someone with a bit more experience of this tactic will have dropped in by then.

Nice to see a few guests dropping in, wonder if the lovely Rhona is one of them lol:clap2: You know the more I think about this bh, the more I think it is one big bluff... I reckon you are entering the next round of brinkmanship. To pursue a whole claim is going to start costing them real money in fees... the process they have to go through to 'apply for an adjusted claim amount' would be interesting to find out more about. I suspect it's not that straightforward, serious research time methinks. PS have you recieved any paperwork/documents from them at all yet?

Interesting. As far as I know, they can't just 'apply' to the court for an adjustment of the claim amount, and the process to do so amounts to it having to go before a judge to sanction the change, which also costs a fee. I would have thought they'd realistically have to discontinue this claim and start with a new one which throws up all sorts of other procedual questions which I do not have the answers to at the moment:)) This is a new area for me,hopefully someone with more experience of this will be along shortly....

Don't think anybody is going to get anything back Abs, simply because all they have is a name, address and balance amount and I would bet its highly unlikely they will be able to get hold of much more. They've already admitted to me that they don't have a copy of the agreement and are having to refer back to the OC for it. As they've now defaulted on my CCA request to them, they are effectively in a position where they are unable to bring legal action against me, or add interest to the account etc., which I have reminded them in a letter, and telling them as such they are obliged to discontinue the claim. They are essentially kippered on a number of fronts, so its now a war of attrition until they eventually discontinue to my mind

Email systems vary and some have time limits on when its possible to 'unsend' an email, have a look in your email account and try things like right clicking the message to see if there's an unsend option, or looking in your Outbox to see if its still sitting there- if it is, delete/unsend it. If you can't do it, no big worries though. Just send an updated email telling them to disregard the former one and to use the latest as the bona fide one, and tell them a hard copy is in the post to back it up. Ask them to email you back to confirm they understand and have acted on your request

oh and flag up at the top of the defence that you as the defendant are a litigant in person- not sure whether I've mentioned that in this thread

Bit late catching up with this as things have moved on! Whatever there's nothing wrong using a similar defence to identical POCs- why re-invent the wheel? HL will have sent out thousands of identical POCs, there's no reason claimants have to go to the effort of tailoring individually different defences to them [apart from your personal details of course ] Point 3 has been answered above- sending in by post gives you a chance to attach copies of your CPR requests and proof of service so they go onto the court file. Belts and braces stuff really. Myself I didn't bother mentioning the CPR non-compliance in my defence- as it was sent recorded it is officially on record, and can be referred to later in proceedings if need be[in the unlikely event it ever gets that far].

No harm done in sending a back up Layla by recorded delivery ; it also gives you a chance to tack copies of your non-complied with CPR requests so that they get onto the court file. Just one small thing- when emailing or sending by post, make sure the document is headed up and finished with a statement of truth, similar to below. These details are covered by an online submission [or filling in the claim form], but not if doing so outside of these two methods.. Also don't sign with your proper signature! Use your 'new' one or just 'mark' it. Apologies if you already knew this, covering all bases. If your email didn't cover these points don't worry, just cancel it and send another [it won't of been opened today] or failing that, send another that replaces the first. In the ......... county court Claim No. ... Dated ……… 20… Claimant XXXXXXXXXX and Defendant XXXXXXXXXX Then Defence Then finish with: Statement of Truth I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. signature [not real one!!] PRINTED NAME Dated

To my mind that defence is spot on and pretty much what I used as there's little point in re-inventing the wheel Because it's snappy and to the point there's plenty of room when submitting online, so I copied the POC first with each para numbered, so that there was ease of cross-reference when reading the defence, which I added underneath with the title My Defence. I didn't bother myself mentioning any CPR non-compliance though its of course a matter of choice. If sent recorded they are a matter of record and can be referred to in the [unlikely] event it ever gets near a hearing.

Hmmm sounds like you are already in the system as far as the website is concerned, your claim page is already open. There's just no link betwen your new login and that area. I think you're going to have to call their helpline and try to get your new Gateway id/login etc linked to your now active claim page. I've never contacted them myself, but I've heard many others say they are very helpful [once you get through to them lol].

Looks good to me:) Send recorded as with all correspondence to them from hereonin. As an aside, I always tag on a last para about my personal circumstances, if they are relevant to the process. For example if you are on a low income and/or reliant on benefits, tell them. If you have a disability or care for a disabled person, tell them, the same if you have little in the way of assets [i'd discount any savings under 16k as an asset, as that's the benchmark the DWP uses for establishing an asset of any significant value]. Essentially, if you are suffering hardship in any way, let them know as soon in the process as possible. In this way if it does go further down the line, you can a] state you have from the outset made clear your personal circumstances [only your difficult ones of course lol] and b] make it clear to the dca that they aren't going to get much back by pursuing the case...for example in the highly unlikely event they got a judgement against you, they'd probably only get a repayment a £1 a month which would cost them more to adminster than anything else, particularly if you demanded a receipt every month you paid it This isn't just playing to the gallery [which has its own advantages later of course] but, practically, helps the claimant factor in yet more information that makes their case look more trouble than its worth. Just my persoanl approach of course

Sorry to hear about your condition Leyla. Just one thing with MCOL- are you saying you've lost your Gateway access login to first get into MCOL? Or are you able to get in MCOL,but can't find how to get to your claim? Just a thought, but the screen is laid out a bit strangely; if you scroll down a bit, you see your case number which you can click on and get straight into your claim info and links. Just a thought. But if you have lost your Gateway login info, maybe it's possible to set up a new one...don't know the process to be honest but I can't see why not...

Hi Leyla it sounds like you have exactly the same timescale as me [11th Aug defence deadline] so I would get the defence in sharpish and don't leave it too late. This is a link to Andy's simple defence: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?353605-Sigma-SPV-1-(HSBC)-v-myself/page2 Put at the top 'I am xxxx a litigant in person.' As there's plenty of space to do so, I also copied out the Particulars of Claim with the paragraphs numbered, so that the defence that follows can be easily referenced back to it [start your defence section with the heading 'My Defence']. In the meantime write to HL and tell them they have failed to meet your CPR requests. Offer them the opportunity to now tell you they do not have the adequate paperwork to continue this claim, and point out to them it is on balance sensible to now discontinue the action. Remember this is like shadow boxing with the dca at the moment. It is unlikely for example, whatever defence you put in will be seen by anyone for some time, and the court system won't be bothered with its content until a couple of weeks before any hearing, when the judge first picks up the file. This is of course a long way down the line and the dca has a lot of work to do before it gets that far. It's also difficult to think in these terms when to you it is a very personal process, but to a dca it isn't personal and you are -quite literally in this case- just a name and number on a debt purchase sheet. If the going gets rough and, in particular, a case is starting to cost them time and money with little chance of anything back at the end of it, they will quite simply drop it and move on. Some are a thicker at realising this sooner rather than later and I suspect HL is one of them, but it does eventually dawn on all of them. You just have to hang in there and push them to that point, as quickly as possible. HL and all dca's in this situation, base their strategy on people's fear and ignorance. They bank on people being petrified by an official court claim and either doing nothing or capitulating straight away with a pay up. A lot of people [although increasingly fewer fortunately] don't realise how easy with a little research and group support, it is to defend claims like this. This is of course, the financial industry's worst nightmare. We are however empowered with knowledge and although many people work hard at keeping it a secret, as defendants WE, as ordinary people who are can't pays rather than won't pays, have the advantage. The key is to hold onto that advantage at all times

Yep that's what I've done Hammy [although I've had more success with MCOL:)] Personally I see no point in faffing around allowing HL extra time to respond to the CPR requests, because a] they should have this information at their fingertips seeing as they have initiated court action and b] I see no reason giving up an ounce of my initiative as a defendant to the claimant, effectively allowing them to stall things while I wait for what are very, very likely documents they do not have nor probably have access to any more. So a defence is in, and one can be drafted easily that addresses the lack of information forthcoming from the cpr requests [Andy's is a good example]. As I've said on another thread, these particular claims will be faced down with procedure and pressure from us, as defendants, on a claimant we must aim to at all times to keep on the backfoot. A submitted defence for example focuses a claimant's mind- they have a period of time to decide whether to fork out more cash to continue, or throw in their hand. And pressure will work because they are a paper tiger, and once the resistance gets too much, they will give up the ghost and move on to [unfortunately] easier prey.

Hi Layla, I and I warrant many hundreds of others, will have not recieved anything back either. Why? Because HL haven't a scrap of kosher paperwork to back their claims up. Personally I see no point once the CPR request period is up, offering HL more time to send this info before submitting a defence as some other people suggest. Why surrender the initiative and allow the claimant time to stall things, particularly as they have brought this action against you and should, therefore, have all of the correct paperwork at their fingertips? So I have written to HL this week and told them due to a lack of any proper information I am submitting a defence immediately, which I have now done [Andy's done a good one that is short and to the point]. This focuses the claimants mind, as they effectively have a month to decide whether to fork out more money to continue. This keeps YOU in control, and them on the backfoot. I also sent in a CCA request as soon as I got the claim, which in a couple of days they will default on. They've also told me they will do so, as they have to refer back to the OC for a copy of the agreement and won't meet the time limit. Well as I strongly suspect whatever paperwork M&S had went straight into the incinerator when they sold these lost-cause accounts, I wish them luck with that. The simple fact to my mind, is that this sort of claim is beaten by procedure and pressure on the claimant, and not giving them an inch of your power over them away. As a defendant you are in contol and THEY have to do the running, not you. I reckon now, it will play out this way. We will either get the letter offering a stay on condition of enterng a repayment plan for the full balance [which still remains magically unmentioned], or nothing at all. The case will limp on for a few weeks to eventually be stayed by the court through HL's non-response to the defence. That's when I, personally, will be springing into action again and applying for a strike out with costs, as I have already warned them I will do, and will repeat in a couple of letters to them over the next few weeks, offering them the opportunity to admit they have no proper documentation and as such, to discontinue the claim