If you needed to speak to your business partner why did you then send an email agreeing to their terms and conditions apparently without having done so?

1) Yes. You do have to pay as there is a CCJ in place. You may want to consider applying to the court to vary the judgment so that it is payable in affordable instalments. 2) If you don't pay, as Ganymede has said, the creditor will look to enforce the judgment. 3) If you consider that you have anything to say, such as an offer of payment, then by all means respond to the letter but you are not legally obliged to. 4) The creditor could apply for an attachment of earnings order which your employer would be notified of. I don't believe the creditor can just contact your employer to put pressure on you. 5) No. Although, again as Ganymede says, an application to court would be necessary to enforce the judgment save for an application for a charging order. 6) Yes.

No, unfortunately that is the point of without prejudice correspondence.

Oh, never mind; the important thing is that you won

Costs?

I can't understand why you made an application to strike out the claim but didn't trouble yourself to enter a defence? Perhaps the OP could write a longer, more comprehensive post detailing the sequence of events and the actual wording of each court order received so far. Posting that you received a notice of hearing and a default judgment confuses more than clarifies I'm afraid.

Absolutely, whether you wait now or not whatever you do make sure you file something in time!

Of course you're entitled to an opinion but if you post it up for discussion and dissection by those who know and want to apply the law then you can't really be surprised if you find that your opinion isn't given very much weight.

They can if no actual defence is filed.

That's what I was asking, without details of the case we won't really know where to attack the bill of costs.

What did Albert Einstein say about the definition of insanity?

It *does* seem strange that the OP has gone from being "confused" about a single case on 6th April to becoming more learned than a High Court judge by the 11th!

You say the judge granted a time order (not a time out order ) was any provision made for costs? Is a hearing scheduled to assess the costs? It sounds like they have gone to detailed assessment but that is quite unusual in what appears to be a simple return of goods case. What does their bill of costs actually state?

Yes, the logistics of it would be rather tricky. I assume there would need to be some sort of referral system whereby the panel would tell Mr. Smith that they have paid £x to whatever solicitors firm is willing to help and the money should cover the costs of the appeal. Clearly though, as you say, it would be rife with opportunities to take the money and run. I imagine some would consider it altogether easier, and probably cheaper, to just use the fund to pay off the actual debt!

I agree entirely. The only problem I think is that, if one starts funding appeals, the panel would really need to be legally trained rather than well intentioned layman. You then have to find people with the right qualifications who are prepared to work for free or you spend some of the precious fund money on paying the panel. This is increasingly seeming like a moot point though as the OP has not taken further part in this thread, a shame.

Now then, stop changing the terms of the question. The above was what you asked, not whether the default could be registered, and I answered it. Having said that, dbabylon has answered the supplemental point in any event.

It's very easy to default on a debt where the contract does not comply with the CCA. If I enter into a contract with you whereby you agree to repay me £500 by monthly instalments of £100 and you don't bother then you have defaulted, whether or not we drew up a CCA compliant agreement.

I don't think it's possible to have a discussion with you if you keep accusing people of disseminating "propaganda" every time they post something you don't agree with while you make blanket statements about what is and is not the law without any regard to the correct legal position. Would you like to have a discussion and possibly learn more about the law or do you want someone to just tell you how right you are?

By why should the enforceability or lack thereof affect whether a default is registered? Should Person A with an exemplary credit history have the same credit score as Person B who has defaulted on all of his credit cards but, through chance, they have all been unenforceable? Also, as discussed in McGuffick, there is a power for a debtor to apply to the CRA for rectification of his file so if some insane crook has taken it upon himself to ruin your score you can deal with it that way.

So, to clarify, were you aware the creditor was taking you to court all those years ago? Do you feel that you have any grounds for saying that the money is not owed? Do you want to/can you pay the sum due by instalments?

I think we need to clarify, in the consumer credit context, what right we are talking about. The creditor's right *to enforce the agreement* is not enforceable against a debtor whilst the creditor is in default of a section 77 or 78 request. That has nothing to do with reporting to CRAs because that does not constitute enforcement in any event.

I think there already are 'professional' McKenzie friends who charge a fee so that could be worth looking at. As for representation on an appeal, I think that produces it's own problem because I assume that the initial intention of the fund was to help defendants who are responding to a claim, if a defendant then loses and wants to appeal I think it would be hard without having qualified assessors to root out the worthy appeals from the bad losers. It would be a shame if a proportion of the money raised was spent on hopeless appeals, particularly as appeals cost more than first instance hearings. I actually think a blanket 'no appeals' rule would be better as it would make the terms of the fund clear and would ensure that people get a fair share of the resources.

If the claim was stayed there's no problem in having the stay lifted after such a period. I assume that is what happened here?

I think you're arguing semantics now; I would say the right continues to exist but is unenforceable whereas you would say the right has been temporarily extinguished. Linguistically 'extinguishing' suggests finality but I don't think it matters really. As for your view that the court was wrong, it really doesn't matter what you or I think about a decision; what's important is understanding the decision. You would get nowhere in court by just saying you think the decision is wrong, the doctrine of stare decisis is a fundamental feature of our common law legal system.

It may help to do a quick summary of your case so far as a starting point for newcomers to the thread. As for the immediate situation, you should receive a notice of hearing, application for summary judgment and supporting witness statement in due course. Post up the details when you get them. You may want to do a bit of preparation by reading Part 24 of the CPR.