What should i put in the witness statements that i have not already said? I think this is the stage where i will start to struggle, its now up to me to try an back up some of the legal arguments.

Thanks for the advice, as you say probably too later now. My intention is to complete the allocation questionnaire and deliver to the court on Monday. Should they continue with the case i will be instructing a solicitor to defend. They have yet to provide a single piece of compliant documentation. I will post the allocation defence later for advice. I have completed the allocation questinnaire and am proposing to add the following to section G. If the Court decides not to use its powers to Strike out the claimants vexatious claim as detailed in the defence; then, if the court is in agreement, the defendant respectfully requests that 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; 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 judgement 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 small claims 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 Also in section E the question is regarding Experts. Is it ok for me to complete this section as yes and comment that i would be looking to instuct a solicitor should the case be heard in court? I would really be grateful for some more advice folks. Posted the allocation questionnaire to the courts and have just received the following back. Should i be looking to contact the claimant or should i just sit and await their next move?

The allocation questionnaire is N149. Regards default notice i have studied this, the answers to your questions are. Posted on 28th August with a remedy date of the 15th September. Balance was £3543.43 and they requested £181.94 I have been away for last two weeks and have only got until the 6th to complete and return to the court. Thanks

Thanks for the info, been away for a couple of days. At the moment i dont intend responding to them, should they take me to court i will instruct a solicitor to defend me as i dont have enough knowledge. Does anyone have any alternative ideas? Thanks Not responding didnt make any difference. Have now received an Allocation questionnaire. Can someone advise what this is and how i respond. There seems to be a deadline of 6th April.

My defence is stated in one of the earlier threads. The reconstituted agreements are different. There is nothing with a signature, and they have admitted no record of a default notice as per the letter. Not sure what happens now, they are suggesting i withdraw but that is not happening. Presumably i will get a court date, if that happens i will instruct a solicitor to defend for me. Anyone suggest that i write back to them or should i just sit and wait?

I have received the following response to my defence from SCS. Also included is a load of payment info and unsigned documentation. Would be grateful for any advice on how to respond.

Ron If you look at paragraph 9 and 10 in my proposed defence, i did the SAR last August. Thats when they sent me the application forms with a set of T and C's which stated this was a copy of my agreement. It had my particulars on but no signatures. It was at that time i noticed that the date on the application form was November 2002, yet my so called agreement was October 2002. The inference is that i had an agreement with them before i even applied. Not only do i believe the documents to be falsified they were completely uncreased which considering they go back to 2002 is unusual to say the least. Thanks to everyone for your suggestions, i will complete and post my defence over the weekend. If Lloyds still want to go to court i will be there with a solicitor.

Would be grateful if you good people would read through what i have prepared and advise any amendments. Thanks in advance. Defence 1. I am the defendant in this action and make the following statement as my defence to the claim made by Lloyds TSB Bank Plc. 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. I am embarrassed at pleading to the particulars as they fail to comply with civil procedure rules, in particular part 16 and practice direction 16, in particular paragraph 7.3 as the claimant has failed to supply a copy of the written document which forms the basis of this claim. 4. The claimant has failed to set out how the figures which they claim are calculated nor do they set out the nature and scope of any charges contained within the figure claimed 5. The claimant has failed to also attach a copy of the default notice which they claim has been served under s87 (1) Consumer credit act 1974 6. The courts powers of enforcement in cases relating to Regulated Credit Agreements under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 are subject to certain qualifications being met with regards to the form and content of the documentation, in particular the Credit agreement and the Default notice. Therefore these Documents must be produced before the court and must comply with the relevant sections of the consumer credit act and the regulations made under the act, I will address these requirements later in this defence 7. Consequently due to the claimants failure to supply the documents required under the Civil procedure rules and the fact that the claimant has failed to sufficiently particularise the claim I deny all allegations in the particulars of claim that I am indebted to the claimant in any way and put the claimant to strict proof thereof 8. I will now look at the important issues relating to this case which must be brought to the courts attention The Request for Disclosure 9. Further to the case. On 3rd August 2009 I requested the disclosure of information pursuant to the civil procedure rules, which is vital to this case from the claimant. The information requested amounted to copies of the Credit Agreement referred to in the particulars of claim. 10. To Date the claimant has ignored my request under the CPR to provide a legible copy of any agreement and I have not received any such documentation requested. The claimant has provided an illegible copy of an application form dated 18th Nov 2002 accompanied by a copy of an unsigned document described as my agreement. The date on this document is 1st October 2002. 11. The claimant is therefore put to strict proof that a document which is legible and Compliant with the Consumer Credit Act and subsequent Regulations made under the Act exists The Credit Agreement 12. The Agreement referred to in the particulars of claim relates to a Credit agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Under the said act there are certain conditions laid down by parliament which must be complied with if such agreement is to be enforced by the courts 13. Firstly, the agreement must contain certain terms under regulations made by the Secretary of State under section 60(1) CCA 1974, the regulations referred to are the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) 14. The prescribed terms referred to are contained in schedule 6 column 2 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) and are inter alia: - A term stating the credit limit or the manner in which it will be determined or that there is no credit limit, A term stating the rate of any interest on the credit to be provided under the agreement and A term stating how the debtor is to discharge his obligations under the agreement to make the repayments, which may be expressed by reference to a combination of any of the following: 1. Number of repayments 2. Amount of repayments 3. Frequency and timing of repayments 4. Dates of repayments 5. The manner in which any of the above may be determined; or in any other way, and any power of the creditor to vary what is payable 15. If the agreement does not contain these terms it does not comply with section 60(1) CCA 1974, the consequences of which means it is improperly executed and only enforceable by court order 16. Notwithstanding point 15, The agreement must be signed in the prescribed manner to comply with s61 (1) CCA 1974, if the agreement is not signed by debtor or creditor it is also improperly executed and again only enforceable by court order 17. The courts powers of enforcement where agreements are improperly executed by way of section 65 CCA 1974 are themselves subject to certain qualifying factors. Under section 127 (3) Consumer Credit Act 1974 the requirements are laid out clearly what is required for the court to be able to enforce the agreement where section 65(1) has not been complied with127(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). 18. The courts attention is also drawn to the authority of the House of Lords in Wilson-v- FCT [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul) which confirms that where a document does not contain the required terms under the consumer credit act 1974 and the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) and Consumer Credit (Agreements) (amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI2004/1482) the agreement cannot be enforced 19. With regards to the Authority cited in point 18, I refer to LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD in the House of Lords Wilson v First County Trust Ltd - [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul) paragraph 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." 20. Therefore it is submitted that without production of the credit agreement no enforcement order should be made as this would be unjust and against the rulings of the House of Lords and also against the Consumer Credit Act 1974 which was enacted clearly to offer a certain level of protection to consumers The Default Notice 21. Notwithstanding the matters pleaded above, the claimant must under section 87(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 serve a default notice before they can demand payment under a regulated credit agreement 22. It is neither admitted or denied that any Default Notice in the prescribed format was ever received and the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that said document in the prescribed format was delivered to the defendant 23. Notwithstanding point 22, I put the claimant to strict proof that any default notice sent to me was valid. I note that to be valid, a default notice needs to be accurate in terms of both the scope and nature of breach and include an accurate figure required to remedy any such breach. The prescribed format for such document is laid down in Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) and amendment regulations the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) (amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/3237) 24. Failure of a default notice to be accurate not only invalidates the default notice (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain and Co - [2001] GCCR 2255) but is a unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the court enforcing any alleged debt, but give me a counter claim for damages Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119 Conclusion 25. I respectfully ask the court to use its case management powers to order the claimant to disclose the information requested within this defence document as it is vital to allow me the opportunity to defend this action properly and would be unjust and totally unfair to allow this action to continue without allowing me the opportunity to view the documents which form the basis of this claim 26. I further ask the court consider striking out the claimants’ case as it fails to comply with part 16 and practice direction 16 insofar that no documents have been supplied and fails to show any consideration to the overriding objective to allow the court to deal with this case justly 27. In addition, if the claimant cannot produce a credit agreement in the prescribed form signed in the prescribed manner by debtor and creditor, the court is precluded from making an enforcement order under s127 (3) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and it is requested that the court use its powers under section 142 Consumer Credit Act 1974 to declare the agreement unenforceable and strike out the claimants case accordingly 28. Alternatively, I respectfully request a stay in proceedings until such time as the claimant complies with the requests outlined in points above or until the court orders its compliance with the same. I will then be in a position to file a fully particularised defence and counterclaim and will seek the courts permission to amend my statement of case accordingly. 29. In addition it is drawn to the courts attention that schedule 3, s11 of the Consumer Credit Act 2006 prevents s15 repealing s127 (3) of the 1974 Act for agreements made before s15 came into effect since the agreement is alleged to have commenced under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 which is the relevant act in this case. Statement of Truth I, believe the above statement to be true and factual

I am busy preparing a defence which i will post on here for comment in next few days. I have a solicitor friend who has said they will represent me in court if it goes that far as they are 99% confidant of a win. (not for free unfortunately) Will keep you posted.

The info is really good and it gives me confidence. I'm worried about copying other peoples defences and trying to adapt. The way i see it is that the agreement is nothing more than an application form and they dont seem to be submitting it as evidence. The so called terms are dated prior to the application form being signed.The default notice is not compliant if i understand the responses on here. Is it worth consulting a solicitor to defend or prepare the defence?

There are actually 2 documents. One states that these are the conditions of an agreement between us. It has 7 pages of terms and a cancellation notice. It has my name and address but no signatures or date. The other document states that this is a copy of your agreement and has 6 pages again with my details but no signatures and effective from 1st October 2002 which is very strange as the date i signed the application form is 11.11.2002.

I dont know as i dont have a clue what schedule 2 para 10a is. Sorry if i sound thick but i'm getting more baffled by the minute.

I dont have the back of the application and the generic terms are over 6 pages. It is very difficult to see if they are the same, it states that these terms apply to all card types.

There is nothing included other than a separate unsigned generic terms and conditions.

There is a second page which basically says if i dont rectify they will pursue through the courts and inform Equifax etc.

The date for remedy is 15th September 2009. Dont know if it was delivered first or second class.

I have now done the acknowledgement of service with intention to defend. Also the relevant documents are now listed. I would be very grateful for advice on how to defend. The so called agreement has a line at the top which states 'if your application is accepted by our signature opposite' There is no signature. I can confirm that all my details were on the form including an entry on the balance transfer section.

I have removed the image in photobucket and re-edited in paint as suggested. When i post it back it still shows the old image even though i deleted it. Any suggestions on how i can post without anyone seeing the details . I'm baffled.

Have tried to remove details but dont know how, will have to leave. What do i do in terms of responding do i do it online and how do i prepare a defence?

I have just received court papers after coming back from holiday for Lloyds TSB and need to respond as they were issued on 2nd Feb. The issue is for a credit card debt which i CCA.d them for last year. I received an application form back which i signed some years ago at an airport and some general unsigned terms and conditions. After posting the docs on here i was advised they were not legally binding and i placed the account in dispute. To date other than a default notice nothing has happened. I have now received the following.

I received a charging order approximately two years ago via Restons. At the time they acted for HFC on a £20k loan and whilst i defended in court i lost and the order was granted. Subsequently after reading these forums, i realised that Restons did not provide any of the paperwork required and through my ignorance i didnt challenge the correct things. I have SAR both Restons and HFC and have received nothing of worth from Restons, but have received documentation from HFC which includes a copy of the agreement. Is it possible for me to challenge the original hearing due to restons failure to provide the required legal documentation? if this is possible would it just mean that they would get the correct documentation from HFC and go through the process again? Any advice would be gratefully received.

No notice of assignment received, think as Shadow says it might just be an attempt to gain more money.

Thanks everyone for the responses. They have started leaving messages on my phone telling me it is most urgent that i call them. Think i will just pass to CCCS and ignore them. Strictly speaking does buying a debt suddenly give them the right to chase for it? I dont have any contract with them, wont i create one if i start paying?

I currently have a debt management program with the CCCS which i pay regularly and do not miss. Seems like ARC have purchased one of the debts from EGG and have sent me the following letter. Any advice on how to respond would be welcome.

Finally HFC responded and have sent me everything they have. Most of it is just payment and telephone converstaion info, but the real killer is the agreement which i have posted below and removed the personal details. Question now is will i still have any grounds to challenge and what would they be? There is no default notice, and as stated earlier Restons advised they didnt have any documentation.