No problem. But I recommend that in any statement/affidavit you never say that you were in default. You claim the other party is in default. e.g. (compare what you had originally with what i changed it to say in the following. You will notice that I have changed it to the claimant being in default, and while being in default contrary to the Consumer Credit Act regulations they continued by breaking the regulation by issuing a default notice. Now who is really in default? You or them? ;) ). That may swing matters more to your side in getting a strike out. The account had been conducted satisfactorily by the defendant since its inception in 2003 and the arrears were solely as a result of the claimants continued failure to comply with a s78 request made in April 2009 for a copy of the an executed credit card agreement. Section X states that failure to comply with a s.78 application the debtor can cease making payment until said default is rectified. Furthermore, the Act states that as of the time past the 12+2 working days that the creditor is in default then the agreement falls into dispute. In June 2009 while the creditor was in default for having failed to comply with a s.78 application and, the account was in dispute and unenforceable, contrary to the Act served a default notice on the defendant. Not only was the default notice served contrary to the regulations in the Act but it was also defective in three respects:-

I have not read the part about the agreement. First note: As it is an Act, made by parlament I (personally) believe it should be in each word should start in a capital letter. (Kind of showing respect). Have made some amendments (mostly English) and added some information which you may wish to add, refer to, modify or ignore. All amendments and/or additions are marked in bold.

Also: 9,934.2l in order to remedy the alleged breach I suggest that an overstatement of the amount to remedy the alleged default by 9,200 pounds As you say "approximately 700 pounds" then it should read "approximately 9,200 pounds". p.s. Also (my personal opinion) I would not use words like "In simple terms". He is a Judge. Might be an idea to word it "The Act states"

Might want to add: 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

LOL. I was only joking. As far as I know it is up to anybody to make donations.

IF you default i.e. you stop paying then it is a matter as to whether the agreement is enforceable or not. There is NO negotiation i.e. you cannot tell the bank something like "I owe you 5k. You are right it was enforceable. I offer you 2k and let me off the hook" (although you can be a fool and try it with a DCA). Unless somebody can correct me I have not seen anybody who has done that with a bank (although have seen about full and final figures being discussed with DCAs and it was also not recommended). Really what you need is a magic crystal ball. If you cannot find one (and an expert who can really predict the future) then it is a matter of learning and not making mistakes and giving a good argument. IF you get defaulted and the agreement is enforceable then yes you will get a ccj. If you get defaulted and the agreement is not enforceable then you will not get a ccj. (Read p.s. note underneath). And I dont want to go around driving a fiesta but prefer a bmw or a mercedes but................ p.s. so that is why you need to make contact back with diddydicky and get these agreements thrashed to bits so you will have a good defense that is solid, unchallegeable and concrete

Thought the judgement was made on the 23rd December.

Touting for donations here. Donate button at the top of the forum. (Hint Hint). :D And congratulations on your "win".

Watch your mistakes in how you say things: The bold part should have been "An alleged but, definetely not a true reconstituted version of the executed agreement" Also it is clear they have sent me the replies to mt s78 request means they have answered to your s.78 application and have done what you asked them. Whereas "It is clear that they have avoided answering my request for a true copy of the executed agreement as per my CPR application they instead.............." Simply words like that can sway from a judgement in your favour to "what the heck is he on about".

IMPORTANT: Work with diddydicky first and get all the information. Answer all his questions and do NOT ASSUME you have got it right. Disect everything. Ask him questions and read the answers. DO NOT RUSH cos you may make mistakes. Mistakes can be costly if you make any. When that part is in (and I MEAN about both banks) we will move on to how to prove it in court. (At the moment I am backing out so that diddydicky can have "premium post" and so you do not have too much info all at once). You should NOT enforce. You should BE defendant. It has been recommended by everybody. And......... to be honest, sometimes from what you post please make sure you tell all the story (done, did, intend etc). At the moment I am working on some other information and will show you how a solicitor will disect everything you say so you will know that sometimes being "cocky" does not help either. (No offence intended but to show you by proof). And make a note. Monday pop round to the county court and ask to either see or a photocopy of your original CPR so any defence can be based on that and not what "you assume you had submitted".

For easy reference basic letter info is on post 35 and the explanation of how it works is in post 51. Thanks. Like I said it has always worked and simply because if they then continue, as also said, a simple letter to the OFT saying something like: Hoi You! You made the Guidelines. You gave this tw@t a license to operate. They are breaking your guidelines. Tell the $od to move on and stop contacting me unless they can prove I gave consent. And while ya are at it, explain what the words "in dispute" means coz this plonker seems to not know how to speak English. It is bad enough phoning some company and getting some call centre in India who work only on scripts now we have them also working on behalf of DCA's. Ta' very much and if I meet you I will buy you a cuppa. Oh and I am sending ya copies of the letters I posted. As ya can C I kna how 2 rite in England. Signed: p.s. Above draft letter is posted in humour. Whatever you do dont use that wording but something that basically says the same but more polite. :D

One of the main problems, in my opinion, with the idea were the "crazy" alleged charges mentioned. As properly stated, a litigiant in person is allowed to claim £9.25 an hour plus reasonable disbursements. (I said this and Bookworm confirmed it). Secondly, as has also be rightly said, when somebody gets something like the letter which can be based as "ranting and raving" one tends to actually smile, have a laugh and bin it especially if one knows it is unenforceable. Indeed, it can actually backfire as it can be taken that the person is a simple "cut and paste template" user (well............. their "monkeys" are the same really arent they?) and hence can lead to more "attacks" by the DCA. I have expressed what I use to get a DCA to "move on" and leave alone. One page letter, quote to them the OFT Guidelines. Ask them to prove the debtor gave consent (as per the Guidelines). Failure that it basically says "Move on before I report you to the OFT for breaking the Guidelines". Every time I have used it (I dont personally have any debt or any DCA after me but my son seems to have made it a privilege :rolleyes: ) they just move on and the file gets sent back to the OC. (And if you want, add to the letter that the account is in dispute and you have two OFT Guidelines at least being breached). Add a section 10 Data Protection Act service and "Bob's your uncle". Will I do a template? No. Simple reason, it is an easy letter to draft in your own words. IF you want the DCA to leave you alone there are easier ways to do it.

Brilliant! Genius! Discredit the evidence. Prove why they sent barristers instead of even solicitors. Prove why evidence given at last minute. Discredit them. Judge should go in your favour. (@diddydicky........... correct????) IF need be even just have a set of questions ready for the court to put to the other side and bring them down. (IF this is the action then advise so can get ready for you some "tactical questions"........... "tactical questions means questions that you know the answer in advance and know that once they are answered you can manouver the other party to show if they have lied" @ITS WAR once again suggest you scan and upload (obviously after covering sensitive information). The more info you give the more help you can get. And remember, we do not know who you are and neither are we after anything of gain. Most of all, we can only advise BUT IF you hold information back (especially what can be used by the other side against you) that information can change the course "of how the river flows".

Once again, regarding what I posted check first. Might be best if somebody with some legal knowledge checks it. Also been thinking (but once again would prefer if somebody advises on this), might just be able to do it with a Statement of the Claimant. (In previous post I said make a CPR request on a N244 but dont know. Maybe a statement is the proper procedure)......... And last one, you have two banks/credit card companies. Start with one. Answer diddydicky what he needs (again if need be make uploads if need be). Tell him which bank/credit card it is. THEN when that is finished start on the second one. Split the problem so not to get confused.

From my side no problem BUT ONCE AGAIN seek to make sure that I am not posting something wrong. I have worked it on logic sense but I am no expert and definetely not legally trained. Try and find what you had written on the original CPR application (maybe ask the Court for a copy. For all you know you might get one). My logic is to try and get the Judge to consider that if they had complied with the CPR application then, there was no need for even a hearing let alone additional costs and a second hearing. Also to consider that the way they operated is not appropriate. Hopefully, you might get a Court order ordering the defendant to comply. IF you do then you can either ask for a stay or depending on what order the Judge may make (if say the costs are cancelled) cancel your application after you get the proper documentation. In respect of diddydickie try and answer him. He is (in my opinion) very knowledgeable and will guide you. If you do not know exactly what he wants why not scan and upload a copy?????? (google imageshack and make sure you change the settings to 17in or 19in monitor so they are not massive uploads which can hardly be read). Might help diddydicky see what you have and possibly guide you better. Ohhhhhhh and (let us say people on here confirm my theory) then do NOT just put in a CPR application. Post on here first so can evaluate it and amend to make sure there is no problems in how it is interpreted. Some of the things you write can be rather confusing to understand.

I think I know where diddydicky is going with this. ;)

First of all, when you are asked something try and answer it and most of all try and understand what is being asked. Otherwise, you may either get the wrong advise, the person who is trying to help you may move on as you have not answered or people cannot understand what you are on about. The following is what I would think as being logic but see what others have to say first as it is only based on my opinion and hence I wait for others to advise on it. I would make an N244 application to the Judge basically on the following: 1: On xx/xx/2009 you made a CPR application to the Court. 2: In the CPR application you asked specific questions. 3: At the last hearing XXX bank sent me some information xxxx time before the hearing. This did not give me sufficient time to go through what I had been given/sent (delete as applicable). Such manner of operation is not in compliance with Court Procedures. 4: At the hearing the Hon. Judge advised me to adjourn which I noticed was very good advise and this is what I did. 5: Having gone through the documentation I note that what I have been sent is not exactly as per the CPR request. 6: A CPR is a specific request and the contents of it must be adhered to 7: In one part of the CPR request I requested a true copy of the executed agreement. What they have given/sent is not as stated and documented on the CPR but a different document. 8: From here see which parts did you really ask for in the CPR and what is missing and make reference to it using the system as above..In your CPR you have asked them to: a: Confirm which of the documents are still in their possession and you have listed the documents referred to. b: Confirm that if any of the mentioned documents are missing then to advise why they are missing and give an explanation. c: Send a copy of the executed agreement as stated in 1 above. 15: (15 is an example figure as do not know what number you will finish with) And that a Court order is sought to instruct the defendant to comply with the original requested information as per the CPR application and they have xyz days to comply fully with the CPR and send the proper documentation and not substitutes/reconstructed copies. 16: That the defendant, having failed to comply with the requests as made in the original CPR and having failed to conduct themselves properly by making documents available at the last minute you seek the Court to consider and make an order that: a: The defendant acted improperly. b: The defendant failed to execute the request as per the original CPR application. c: The defendant thereby lengthened the process needed and is at fault. d: The defendant by means of its manner of operation delayed matters and if the defendant had complied with the CPR correctly in the first place then an agreement could have been reached out of Court. e: That considering the manner the defendant has operated, the defendant has indeed wasted the Courts valuable time and hence to find the defendant responsible for all costs. Then statement of truth ................................. Above open to suggestions/amendments. Might get an order without having to go to Court this way. (Well that is my idea anyway).

Copied to your other thread as really this matter has got nothing to do with the original topic.

Somewhat ambigious to me to be honest. You cannot really ask for a copy of the document as listed in para 1 if you are asking them that, if they do not have them to give an explanation as to what happened to them. Personally (my personal opinion and anybody is free to correct me) reading that I would understand they are trying to frighten you with high costs. i.e. Back off otherwise this is what you are looking at paying. 1: It is not "The Credit agreement which is signed by the claimant and in its original form." but it is "The Credit agreement which was executed by the claimant in its original form". 2: "Any terms and conditions associated with the credit agreement being those which were relevant at the time the agreement was signed" is wrongly worded. I would have written "Any terms and conditions associated with the credit agreement (as referred to 1 above) being those which were relevant at the time the agreement was executed. 3: Notice of any variations........ 4: The defendant shall by .....date supply the claimant copies of the executed agreement listed in para 1 above. And if any of the above are not in the possession of the Defendant......an explanation as to what has happened to them. *************************************************** In whichever case, you have asked for a copy of "The Credit agreement which is signed by the claimant and in its original form". I would write to them and tell them that a CPR is a specific request and that they are to adhere to the contents of it. What they have sent is not as stated and documented on the CPR but a different document. In your CPR you have asked them to: a: Confirm which of the documents are still in their possession and you have listed the documents referred to. b: Confirm that if any of the mentioned documents are missing then to advise why they are missing and give an explanation. c: Send a copy of the executed agreement as stated in 1 above. Hence sending you a copy of a reconstructed agreement is not in compliance of the CPR and they are indeed in breach of the Court. Furthermore, you are giving them xyz days to comply fully with the CPR. Last but not least to confirm as to why they deviated from the contents of the CPR, which is specific and having been issued by the Court has to be executed otherwise you will have no alternative but to request the Court to issue an order against the defendants for failure to execute what it specifically states on the CPR. Before you do anything, (well it is the weekend anyway), wait to see if somebody corrects me first.

I will take a shot but anybody is free to correct me. IF on the CPR you asked for a copy of the true executed agreement then that is what they have to send you and nothing else. A CPR is specific in its contents and must be executed as per what it states. IF you asked for a copy of the agreement then they are correct in what they are saying. It depends on how you worded your CPR. In short, if you go to a fishmongers and ask for trout can he give you a mackarel claiming it is still a fish? But IF you went to the fishmongers and asked for some fish, then he can give you practically anything he wants.

Incidentally, the information I gave is NOT for a Court BUT it is basically to tell the DCA that they have no right whatsoever to make contact with you. OFT is a goverment appointed body to make the guidelines. The OC and the DCA to obtain their license to trade have to promise to the OFT they will act as per the guidelines. By making such a request to the DCA (i.e. to provide copies of a: letter from OC asking for consent and b: the debtor giving the consent) then both the OC and the DCA are in breach of OFT guidelines and in breach of their license rules and hence the DCA can get lost. Then as correctly advised, can also send the DCA a s.10 data protection act letter. IF the DCA continues then a simple letter to the OFT with a copy of your letters can be sent asking the OFT to instruct both the OC and the DCA to comply with the guidelines. (At the end of the day, it is the OFT who made those guidelines in the first place hence, the OFT cannot say anything except enforce its own guidelines).

LOL. Here is one part. From Willes J line 18: The more important letter is that of the nephew, of the 27th of February, which is relied on as shewing that he intended to accept and did accept the terms offered by his uncle's letter of the 2nd of January.

And you should not be quoting old English law either. Having read that judgement, which YES I concur with you that "silence does not mean a contract" I have just learnt that in the old days the word "show" was written as "shew"!!!!! :eek: (First time I read the word I was saying to myself "What the heck does that mean!!!!!. Then in the context I understood ROFL).

Defo agree with you on that one. They shoot each other over there as well. :D:D:D

Way I understand it anyway.