Thanks toymaker1. Any help I can get on this is truly appreciated.

I have following simongee's posts which are similar. The bundle I have received from Morgans contains templated documents. Is anyone able to respond to my last post please before time runs out.

Simon, when is your case due to be heard? I am following your progress vetr closely because I am facing a very similar case with this mob except mine is more difficult even than yours as they have lumped two separate accounts together as one case.

Well said consumeredge. We are all at the mercy of the courts and it appears where DCA's and their tame solicitors are concerned they can flaunt the law willy nilly and the DJs just ignore it. The County Court system, as I understand it, was meant to be there so that the layman could present or defend his case without feeling disadvantaged but this simply is far from the case. It seems to me that when we are up against a DCA we win or lose at the whim of the judge and as so often is the case ... the legal bods stick together like **** on a shovel. This has got to be changed but how do we do it. We could protest to the Dept of Justice but they are unlikely to do anything. It all a sham really.

I would appreciate some advice on how to make my next move. The bundle sent to me by Morgans does not seem to provide any concrete proof that they either own the debt or any information on how they have arrived at the figures they are claiming. They still have provided no copies of the CCA. I believe this is a deliberate attempt to deceive both the court and myself. They still haven't forwarded any CPR31.14 information I have requested despite claiming to have done so previously. Should I write to them again or should I report the matter to the Court by informing them that Morgans are refusing to cooperate with my CPR demands? Should I write to them again seeking this information or report their lack of disclosures to the Court

Okay, thanks for that.

Sorry toymaker1 maybe I am being a bit thick but what does the OC stand for? Thanks again for the kind input. So, if the judge never challenges the validity of their evidence I guess that leaves it to me to put the questions and try and tear this apart? Hmm. Should I also contact the Claimant again and state that they still have not sent me documents I rely upon such as the CCA? The District judges in the main do not sppear to have much experience or knowledge in these matters more especially as many of them are promoted solicitors rather thsn former barristers. Thanks again.

Blimey toymasker1, so many thanks to you for this ... it is brilliant and doesn't sound that far removed from what they are doing to me. There are probably 30 pages of relentless telephone calls to listed, most of them automated and, as I recall many were siltent calls. So, surely, that in itself could be constued as criminal harassment especially as I told them over and over again that I would only respond to personal letters? The trouble with these matters is that we are largely in the hands of the judges and their interpretation of the laws. If they aren't having a good day then they seem to be on the side of the Claimants regardless which makes the whole system a real sham. It should not be like pot luck but it is. I still haven't been provided with a true copy of the Consumer Credit Agreement in this claim for either of the credit cards they allege I owe and my guess is that they haven't got them. As your post states ... the documents they have sent do not contain my details and the retracted sections ... many pages of it ... makes no sense to me at all. It will take me several days to read through the content to try and deduce what they are trying to claim. I think they are trying to take advantage of the fact that I am a layman, It is time to make a stand to fight these henchmen..

I have now received a large bundle of documents from Morgans, by ordinary post, that arrived in a torn envelope with a sharp metal clip holding them together that cut my finger. I am having great trouble making head-nor-tail of most of these but will study them in more detail over the next few days when my wife is not about - as this will worry her to death. Much of this appears to be a log of telephone calls (page after page) and there are letters (undated) perporting to be letters of assignment that are NOT on a letterheading and as far as I am concerned do not look at all genuine. These are marked 'representative of a letter sent to customer' and have a date written next to this! What is this meant to mean - that they aren't true copies but merely something they have conjured up? Despite Morgans stating that this bundle now satisfies my CPR 31.14 request, I can see nothing here that complies, although Morgans claim to have sent me credit agreements and other documents I requested previously. Why am I not surprised that I have never received that information nor in fact some of the letters they claim to have sent that are copied in the bundle. There are no statements of the accounts so I cannot verify any payments etc and there seems to be nothing to substantiate the claim they have made in their POC. There is also scores of pages that looks like an assignment where most of the information has been blacked out (redacted). Again, these are typed copies and are not printed on an identifiable letterhead. I am extremely suspicious of the items they have sent me and before I consider my next move I desperately need to request the help of other members who may have been in this position or know how I should react please.

The PPI must have been mis-sold because I was self-employed at the time and it only evolved later that self employed people sre not covered but this did not stop them from it being applied to some of my accounts.

Thanks andyorch ... much appreciated. I'll post any responses that I get but for the moment I have tried to place the ball firmly back in their court (excuse the pun) and I think it is now up to the Claimant to substantiate his claims - remembering that they are also trying to group two separate entities together. Do you happen to know if anything can be done at this stage to recover any PPI that may have been charged on accounts? Presumably, if I had been paying this and wish to attempt to claim it back then this would put their claim further into dispute?

I have not written to the court to agree to mediation but have pointed out that this will be difficult because the Claimant refuses to provide evidence required under CPR 31.14 and I consider this to be prejudicing my defence. I have also expressed my concern that Orders have been made without any prior notification being given and that following the order to strike out I was never aware that another order had been issued at the Claimant's request to stay the action.I added that in my opinion the Claimant fails to follow County Court Procedure. I don't hold much hope that they will act on this but it seems to me that the courts always tend to faviur the solicitors working for the DCAs. I have also written to the Claimant to agree in principal to mediation but have reminded them that without the CPR documentation I do not know whether they have any legal claim against me.

Thanks a lot toymaker1 I will take yout advice by not objecting to mediation. The allocation hearing for the transfer to Fast Track has already taken place without me having any prior notice and has been scheduled for trial during June although for a week of that period I am unavailable. I had drafted a letter today, but not yet sent it, to Morgans advising them that they are prejudicing me by failing to supply the documents requested under the Civil Procedure Rules last November. They still have provided no evidence to support their POC.

Has anyone got any ideas how I should proceed with this please? Should I write to the court to say i am not able to agree or disagree to mediation because the Claimant refuses to supply information requiired under CPR 31.14 OR to complain to the court that the Claimant has not followed correct procedures? Thanks.

Thanks Andy for your kind assistance. 1. Original PoC issued November 2010 by CC Clearing Centre - No details appertaining to the PoC but two different credit cards lumped together in an accumulated claim. Claimant merely gave reference numbers for these accounts & stating that I had been sent Notices of Assignments to Cabot which was not true. Claimant claiming £xxxxx and interest under S69 of County Court Act 2. I applied to have the action moved to my local court which was granted, 3. I wrote to Morgans to state that I had received two (undated) letters relating to the same one of the two accounts they had included on the PoC each containing two different alleged balances. These stated they were Notices of Assignment but NEITHER were dated so it appeared they had been produced by Cabot. My letter acknowledged receipt of the summons but I pointed out that I had never received any formal demand for a payments on the accounts they claimed to own nor had I had any previous dealings with Cabot to my knowledge. 4. I followed this letter with a CPR 31.14 request a week later sent by Recorded Delivery requesting copies of the Agreements, The Notices of Assignment and the Demands for Payment they claimed they had made. 5. I returned the court questionnaire N159 in January stating that the Claimant had combined two separate cc accounts on one claim and that I had requested disclosures under CPR 31.14 from the Claimant. Similarly the Claimant sent me a copy of their completed Questionnaire. 6. In February a stay was granted ordering parties to reach an agreement; make a request for an extension to the stay or complete the allocation questionnaire (which had been done). Later that month I wrote to the court for a further stay period and notified the Claimant and informed them that I had received no response to my previous request for CPR 31.14 evidence. 7. In March 2011 the case was struck out (Despite the court sending me a letter received today claiming this wasn't the case - although I sent a copy of the Order with my letter) We are now back to the situation stated in my last posts. Morgans have still not responded to my CPR 31.14 requests and last week sent me two separate letters; the first stating they are prepared to consider Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and recommending a company that they have used before (sic) The second letter marked 'Without prejudice save as to Costs' made a slight reduction if I am prepared to settle with instalments of £250 a month that I cannot afford and phishing by sending me a Cabot information and budget report. A bit lengthy, as these things tend to be, but I think it puts everything in a nutshell.

The court has responded informing me that the Claimant had requested for the clain NOT to be struck out last year despite the court advising me otherwise as no retraction was sent to me following the Order to strike out. Similarly, the Claimant has also been responsible for requesting mediation. It is odd that I have been kept in the dark over all of this but it seems the Claimant, who the court has said should have kept me informed, has failed to do so which appears to be a deliberate attempt to gain an advantage. I'd like know why the Courts are so lenient with DCAs and their tame solicitors when they infringe the rules yet the same consideration is never given to the defendant.

I agree Andy and those referred to in this claim are two entirely different lenders.

Thanks Andy. I've written to the Court for the information regarding how/who applied to re-instate this case and have stated that I cannot agree/disagree to mediation without the information I requested under CPR more than a year ago as I have no way of determining whether this action has any chance of success. It could be the Claimant is asking for mediation because they have a weak case as they have also written with a 'without prejudice' letter with a settlement figure. Nevertheless, there is still this issue over lumping two different accounts together in a single claim. What do you think please?

Thanks, this is useful. But, should I have been informed by the court that it had been re-instated by Cabot before they sent me the transfer Order? It still raises the point that Cabot/Morgans have not complied with my CPR requests therefore I cannot agree to mediation if I have no proof whether their claim is malicious or genuine. Have I got grounds to apply to for a renewed strike out as they are refusing to supply any information?

The case was struck out because 'no party had informed the court of the outcome of any settlement and it was assumed the case had been settled and unless any party informed the court to the contrary the claim and any counterclaim will be struck out'. A date was given of almost a year ago for either party to inform the court that the action was still live. I had heard nothing from the Claimant or the court to suggest it was live therefore I felt the action remained struck out more especially as none of my requests under CPR had ever been complied with.

What you say toymaker1 is interesting and I have raised this with the court. The problem is that the court seldom seems to want to respond so I guess my only other option would be to complaint to the Dept of Justice of whoever. What do you think the appropriate course of action could be? With regards to this matter; I have now lodged a letter with the court to suggest that the second judge has made an order to transfer to Fast Track on an action that was struck out almost a year ago and I consider this to be an error more especially as the Claimant has constantly failed to provide evidence to justify their claim. The situation is exactly as it was when the previous judge struck it out; notihng has changed apart from Morgans I guess trying to get the case re-opened. The way the claim is written is so dodgy that if the court allows this to proceed, the way I see it would leave a door open to anyone to start a bogus action to claim they have bought a debt and are legally entitle to enforce it. Without offering proof when issuing the Claim I am astounded that the court has allowed this action to be looked at all in its present state. The entire DCA situation, as I understood it, was meant to be investigated by an all party Parliamentary committee to improve the laws realting to the way DCAs operate because they continue to disregard the law and the judges don't oppose it. It is time I think for us as a group to lobby Parliament for better rights.

Having read the latest order from the court several times, to transfer the matter to Fast Track after it had previously been struck out a year ago; nothing has changed and Morgans/Cabot still have not provided any of the requested documentation applied for under CPR31.14. With this in mind, I cannot understand how another judge can suddenly pick up the case and reverse the strike out? Now, it seems to me is that a mistake has occurred (or in some way Morgans have been devious) so I intend writing to the court to request that the original 'strike out' order should be reinstated on the grounds that the situation has not changed since a previous judge made the order. I will also point out Morgans non-compliance with CPR31.14 and in view of this and the lack of supporting evidence in their POC I can neither agree/disagree to mediation as suggested without having any evidence in my possession. Any views on this please anyone?

Dare I suggest that the company they have 'recommended ... that they use regularly' would always rule in their favour or is this being synical? How mad do they think we are? Does anyone know of any mediation cases that have worked in favour of the debtor that I can look at on here?

The parties have to decide by next Friday (10 Feb) whether the claim is capable of being resolved by Alternative Dispute Resolution and give standard discloure by 2 March. I guess it has been referred to Fast Track because it is considerably over the £5000 limit that I gather is the County Court maximum but this method is likely to incur an additional cvourt charge of over £1,000 according to the Court website. It is likely to be assigned a full day for some reason probably because Morgans are attempting to bring two actions in one?

Great advice... much olbiged DonkeyB. How then, in your opinion, should I acknowledge the Court Order to Transfer to Fast Track? I have already told the court that the action had previously been struck out and enclosed a copy of that order with my letter ... should I now put on record to the court that as far as I am concerned this action is not 'live' and that no evidence has ever been produced, despite previous requests via CPR 31.14, to support the Claimant's claim?