Better to go for the fraud act and for the malicious communications act and the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations Act 2008

I "before" e "except after "c" (only exception is the word "their"). :D

Tell him after you get 3 they will ask for a DNA swab. :D:D Just joking.

And just to make it clear: Notice of Assignment not properly served = Strike out (or should be) but the DCA may try to take another shot at serving. Debt stays on record. Any default stays on record. Debt can be resold to another DCA. Game starts all over again. Unenforceable agreement = Strike out (or should be) but the DCA may try to take another shot at serving if they find the agreement later on. Debt stays on record. Any default stays on record. Debt can be resold to another DCA. Game starts all over again. Invalid Default Notice = Strike out (or should be). Debt is removed from record. Any default on a credit report has to be removed as now debt does not exist. Can sue Claimant for damage to credit rating. Debt cannot be resold to another DCA as it does not exist. Which one is the best to go for?

Avers means (you should use google if you do not know) to state formally avers - definition of avers by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia. Amount is as shown on the claim form.

Read para 1. Last sentence: "Further and alternatively, it is denied that the agreement was properly executed and/or is now enforceable in whole or in part." It says: "it is denied that the agreement was properly executed and/or is now enforceable in whole or in part". To me, it is already there.

Feel free to amend it.

You have to add the "heading"........ In the Northampton County Court etc etc (Writing is Arial Size 12) 1: The Defendant admits entering into an agreement with the Claimant and which was regulated by The Consumer Credit Act 1974 (The Act). No admissions are made as to the terms, conditions or other provisions of the agreement and the extent to which the Claimant may or may not have complied therewith and the extent to which the Defendant may or may not have complied therewith. Further and alternatively, it is denied that the agreement was properly executed and/or is now enforceable in whole or in part. 2: It is agreed that the Claimant served upon the Defendant a default notice pursuant to section 87(1) of The Act. It is on the other hand argued that the Default Notice is invalid, unenforceable at Law and is not in the prescribed form and compliant with the provisions of section 88 of the Act. 3: The default notice relied upon by the Claimant was a notice dated 1st February 2007. The notice was served upon the Defendant on approximatey the 7th February 2007 as, it was served by normal post. The notice specified the date to comply with the remedy of breach as the 15th February 2007 which was not a date which was 14 days after service of the notice. 4: Without prejudice to the generality of the Defendant’s contentions set out at paragraph 1, the Defendant avers the Claimant terminated the agreement and pursuant to termination that the Claimant has since made demand of the Defendant for the payment of money the subject of this claim. 5: Incorporated within the sum demanded by the Claimant are sums claimed for administration fees, late payment charges and like provisions. It is denied (if it be alleged) that the Claimant has incurred any such fees and charges, alternatively that such fees and charges if incurred accurately represent sums lost by the Claimant by reason of any breach on the part of the Defendant. Alternatively, the Defendant avers the incorporation of such claims is penal and unenforceable at law. 6: Further and in any event, by reason of the matters set out at paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Defence and the requirements of section 87(1) of the Act, the steps taken by the Claimant and identified at paragraph 4 hereof were steps which the Claimant was not entitled to take. 7: In the circumstances neither the Claimant’s default notice nor its termination of the agreement gave rise to an entitlement to claim any of the relief now sought by the Claimant. 8: The Claimant makes reference to a Notice of Assignment having been served on the Defendant. The Defendant avers that no such document was properly served on the Defendant and seeks strict proof of said service. 9: The Claimant’s claim to be entitled to £xxxxxxxxx or any other sum is denied. I believe that the contents of this defence are true. Signed: Defendant Note: Above based on the original defence just edited to take different changes. Subject to acceptance, editing, modifying or as the OP may deem fit. It is subjected "as is" and it is the OP's perogative to decide what to do.

Will have a look at it. From the thread it seems to be ok as it was accepted. In the meantime have a read of posts: 103 106 109 126 129 139 140 146 151

Holding defence From: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/157973-welcome-fianance-court-case-4.html Post 78 So roughly yours would be: IN THE NORTHAMPTON COUNTY COURT Case No: BETWEEN: Welcome Financial Services Limited Claimant and XXXXXXX Defendant DEFENCE 1 The Defendant admits entering into an agreement with the Claimant and which was regulated by The Consumer Credit Act 1974 (The Act). No admissions are made as to the terms, conditions or other provisions of the agreement and the extent to which the Claimant may or may not have complied therewith and the extent to which the Defendant may or may not have complied therewith. Further and alternatively, it is denied that the agreement was properly executed and/or is now enforceable in whole or in part. 2 It is denied that the Claimant served upon the Defendant a default notice pursuant to section 87(1) of The Act and which was in prescribed form and compliant with the provisions of section 88 of the Act. 3 The default notice relied upon by the Claimant was a notice dated 16 July 2008. Save that the notice was served upon the Defendant on a date thereafter and that service was by post, the Defendant is now unable to recall on what precise date and by what precise means the notice was served upon him/her. The notice failed to specify a date being a date 14 days after service of the notice or any date after service by when the Defendant was required to comply with the notice. Alternatively, the date specified in the notice by when the Defendant was required to comply was 16 July 2008 which was not a date which was 14 days after service of the notice. 4 Without prejudice to the generality of the Defendant’s contentions set out at paragraph 1, the Defendant avers the Claimant terminated the agreement and pursuant to termination that the Claimant has since made demand of the Defendant for the payment of money the subject of this claim. 5 Incorporated within the sum demanded by the Claimant are sums claimed for administration fees, late payment charges and like provisions. It is denied (if it be alleged) that the Claimant has incurred any such fees and charges, alternatively that such fees and charges if incurred accurately represent sums lost by the Claimant by reason of any breach on the part of the Defendant. Alternatively, the Defendant avers the incorporation of such claims is penal and unenforceable at law. 6 Further and in any event, by reason of the matters set out at paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Defence and the requirements of section 87(1) of the Act, the steps taken by the Claimant and identified at paragraph 4 hereof were steps which the Claimant was not entitled to take. 7 In the circumstances neither the Claimant’s default notice nor its termination of the agreement gave rise to an entitlement to claim any of the relief now sought by the Claimant. 8 The Claimant’s claim to be entitled to £3,115.79 or any other sum is denied. I BELIEVE THAT THE CONTENTS OF THIS DEFENCE ARE TRUE. Signed: Note: If you want to go for a holding defence will adapt the above to fit your case.

The date the bank told you that you have now defaulted as did not reply in time to the Default Notice. IF they never wrote such a letter then amend to read " The second default notice would therefore contain the fiction that the agreement endured when that cannot be the case." Remove the part " as it was terminated on XX/XX/XX"

Section 3 the word "embarrassed" should tell you what it is.

It was issued via MCOL so cannot have any attachments. Read the particulars of claim. It is particularized. It particulars refer to CCA 1974, Notice of assignment having been served and Notice of assignment having been served. All three legal requirements to file a claim have been referred to. Only thing is no attachments as MCOL claim. Considering comments already made where it was said that (something similar but not exactly) it will most probably be a computerised system and a judge will not get involved at this time, then how is it that in a "Embarassed defence" you are asking for a 3.4.2 strikeout? To me it does not make sense. Note: I have given my opinion. Others have as well. Up to you. IF you want to go for the ED route then MAKE SURE you check it so that it does not contradict the particulars of claim they made. Otherwise a Judge may think "he does not know what he is doing and is just using templates. No chance of success of defence. Claimant wins". Should you wish to enter a simple defence then I would recommend going for a "Holding defence" same as Docman and gh2008 have advised. This will transfer it to your local County Court and then file a Full defence. Remember one thing: win = you do not have to pay, they cannot sell the debt on (so no harassment by other DCAs), they cannot claim in court again and if they have filed a default with CRAs you can then get it removed and and make a claim for compensation lose = well......... I guess you know the score So before you file, think, ask, post, repost and use your common sense. What you have to think is: Will this be in my favour or what are the mistakes in it.

I thought so as well. Which parts are often not relevant to the points at issue? Dont forget it is a full defence. The claim refers to: a: CCA 1974 b: A default notice being served c: Notice of assignment They have all been taken apart, dismissed and relevant law referred to. Fair enough but: a: The defence is on file. If it still gets transferred then the Judge at the local County Court has it on file. b: The claimant will see that they have no chance of success and cancel the claim. That can be a good idea to file a "Short holding statement". But to file an "embarassed defence" I dont really agree with it.

Yes. The County Court staff are not allowed to give legal advise but they have to give advise regarding Court procedure. (Try and get the name of the person you talk to and make a note of it. Also take notes of what you are being told to make sure all is correct).

Wrong: 4 days. Read the Practice of Directions and CPR rules. They are on the draft defence. Court posts unrecorded so can claim 2nd class post.

28 days from 14/12/09 is really today. Check with the County Court. You do not have any time really to "play about". Note: In a claim that I had issued the defendant was supposed to have replied by the 29th December but they replied by the 30th and the Court accepted it. BUT do not take this as a rule. You will notice from the attached it says: The defendant has 28 days from the date of service of the claim form with the particulars of claim, or of the particulars of claim, to file a defence. Check the date it says on your claim form stating when the dates start.

Have you read the draft defence? Is 8000 enough to cover 7 pages? Can you attach exhibits to MCOL?

IMHO I suggest you read what a "strike out" means when it is based on CPR rules. The OC has already hung themselves because they have no chance of success.

He cannot do it through MCOL due to limitation of words count. So if he wants to go straight through Northampton will have to post the three copies (@ the OP although one of the copies is for you, you should still send three copies which is why I suggested to print 4 copies) direct to their postal address (to be posted at least recorded but as it is involves a defence I would say pay a couple of extra quid and post it Registered before 1pm). Go for ED route or a full defence? Up to the OP what he wants to do. Northampton is a Court in itself. (This is evidenced by all the posts claiming "Embarrassed defence" and hence a Judge will read the defence. Note: If one looks at the length of some of the "embarrassed defences" they will also not fit in an MCOL so they have to be sent by post). Northampton is a Court and a Judge will read the defence. Now answer me this question? What is a Judge going to do when he reads a defence basically thrashing the Particulars of Claim and that defence shows that the application is not worth looking at again as it is a waste of Court time? (read for a start item 25 on the defence). Will he get the application transfered to the County Court local to the Defendant? Will he say "Oh what the heck! Judges have nothing better to do? Or will he just "strike out" on the bases of any (or even a combination) of the CPR rules mentioned? Then again, the OP can for a ED defence. Why? What is there to put an ED (take it you mean an "Embarrassed defence")? The claim is "dead". It is unenforceable. So then first file an ED defence and waste Court time himself. Will that look favourable on him with the Court? Let us see: First you file an ED defence. You make the Court transfer the file and send letters. Then you had the full defence ready so you wasted Court valuable time yourself. How will that look? Then again, the Northampton Court can strike out a defenants defence (even if it is ED) if it believes there is no chance for the defendant to contest the claim. So what is the difference? It is still a Judge that decides what is to happen in the next stage. Confirms that the OP can send any type of defence to Northampton. Re following have added no 2. If he pops round I will make him a cup of tea as well. I aint going to go round reading threads to give links. Some people like to do that especially to post "simple posts" to up their post count. IF the OP wants to he can do it himself. Note for the OP: Read what I suggest needs to be done when making contact with your Local County Court for advise. Have added no 2. IF you have already made contact then can phone them again later on today or tomorrow re no 2. Last one, as said, it is a draft defence. What you do, what route you wish to take or whatever else is up to you.

Note: The dates for the s.77/s.78 application seem a bit strange. 2007 to HSBC and then 2008 reply from CL Finance. Have you got the right dates? Does not make that much difference really as you have that letter from CL Finance saying "no copy of the agreement" which is enough but, it is best to have the right dates on a statement.

Have you checked what has been posted in posts 74 and posts 75? I am not going to bluff and say anything that is misleading. From all the credit cards I had, I kept one, have had it for over 10 years and I am not in default. Hence I would not know what to look for. Unfortunately you have to do some asking (like diddydicky said try the Site Team ......... click on the triangle and make a small note asking for any help with your thread). What I can possibly help you with is "how to put the argument forward in a statement". Or as diddydicky calls me "Be your English teacher". :D

Attached draft defence statement. You have to edit everywhere where there is xxxxxxx. There are two exhibits referred to. XX1 you change to Initial Surname 1. So if the name is say John Smith then you change XX1 to JS1 and XX2 to JS2. You have to read it and understand it. As already said it is a draft and it is up to you if you want to accept it "as it is" or if you want to do any amendments. You will have to do 3 copies. (I would actually say do 4 copies so you have a spare one just in case). One for you, one for the claimant and one for the Court. Also 3 copies of the exhibits. Exhibits are: 1: copy of the default notice and 2: copy of the letter from CL finance saying "We cannot get a copy of the agreement". (To prove to the Court that there is no copy of the agreement). The first one by itself should get the claim struck out. The second one by itself should get the claim struck out. The two together in my opinion should 100% get the claim struck out. The third one is to add a bit more. Could have added that they are also in breach of OFT guidelines but think that would be superflous. Have fun. Amended Draft statement.doc

No problem. What I need you to do is to go over my questions again, check your replies to them and recheck that the information is 100% (not doubting but it is best to recheck). Then confirm if 100% correct or if any mistakes found.

Give me till tomorrow and will draft you a defence which should strike it out. ;)