I think I am right with the following (but I am sure someone will correct me if wrong!!): If you pay the amount you suggest and defend all the claim you would avoid a CCJ until judgement and then it depends on the judgement and your subsequent action as to what happens in respect of a CCJ. If you defend part of the claim only, you will get a CCJ If you admit you will get a CCJ If you do nothing you will get a summary judgement against you and a CCJ

If I have this right, the debt is for more than £900, but you will pay £900 which was the balance some time ago and argue over the rest of the claim value because it is interest and charges?

Do you have a lot of other debts? The Courts will identify the council as a priority debtor as opposed to a credit card company or other un-secured personal loan. They also won't take personal loans and credit cards into consideration in assessing your AoE because they only take into account relevant priority and essential outgoings such as mortgage, electric, gas, etc. A

As well as the above question in #23 I have been reading Carey- particularly para 27... I have been provided with an application that the creditor has not signed. Judge Waksman states the agreement is not executed until the agreement is signed by the creditor. Your opinions would be most welcome A

Quick question- On the application I signed, in 2004, there is a section under the signature box that states "Once you have signed this agreement, you will have a short time to cancel it. Exact details of how to cancel this agreement will be sent to you by post." The cancellation details came separately and were part of a document that has all the prescribed T&C's on. As this was sent out by post once they received the signed application, the debtor could not have had the prescribed T&C's at the time of signing. Further Cancellation Details are for the protection of the consumer as described in section 60 (1) c of the CCA74 and as these were not part of the application form at the time of signing, did not conform to the s60 regs adn must be subject to s127 (3). Does that make sense? and more importantly in your humble opinions, could it be seen as de minimis or highly relevant. Thanks A

Thanks Andy A

In response to my 31.14 I have received a delay letter from claimant stating they will refer to OC a nd now from OC I have received several sets of T&C.. . No agreement and no DN. Do I base my WS (when asked to submit one) around these docs only, given I have asked them to provide the docs referred to in their POC and this is all I have received? Think I just answered my own question??

Cheers Andy I will keep those points low key but use it to show a general disregard for the over all aim of the regs. I will keep the DN the main theme along with no proof of how the T&C's were provided (quoting Carey) as per my previous WS. Thanks again A

Just getting ahead of the game here and starting my WS. I am happy with the detail I need for the invalid DN (did a similar one for MBNA with the help of Andy), but a bit of advice required if you have time please:- Is it worth mentioning the OC did not sign the original agreement (thought it may be contrary to Consumer Credit (agreement) regulations- reg 2 and schedule 5, paragraph 1 'the creditor’s signature did not appear in the form of a signature box prescribed by that paragraph'. Also is it pertinent to mention the application is headed 'Sign Up Today' contrary to the Consumer (Credit Agreements) regulation 1983 (‘the Regulations) regulation 2 and schedule 1, Paragraph 1, the document should have contained the heading 'Credit Card Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974'. Thanks A

Thanks Ford I will look at this again

Still learning!!

I am sure someone will advise how best to proceed better than me. Basically you need to Acknowledge Service of the claim, then decide if you are to defend of admit, then you submit your defence (if defending as you state), then the court will send instructions on how to proceed. Make sure you stick to the timescales advised on the paperwork received. In my opinion the claimant has ignored Pre-Action Conduct Practice Direction. This is the expected conduct a claimant should follow prior to making a claim. Pay particular attention to 1.2 (1) & (2), all of 4.4, 6.1 (1) & (2), all of 7 and all of 8. I can not comment on the merits of the case as i am not qualified and you may need to provide more info to the qualified ones on here. A

In your defence was in not meant to say CPR16.4 as opposed to 16.5? Thanks A

Extra paragraph added to defence:- It is denied the claimant has complied with pre action conduct practice direction. The claimant is put to strict proof they have explored alternative dispute resolution with the defendant prior to issuing a claim, in compliance with section 8. The claimant is put to strict proof the documents mentioned in their particulars of claim were included with the letter before action, in compliance with section 7.

Brill thanks Andy

I am considering writing to the claimant and making an offer to mediate (CPR 1.4e). May be able to put it to bed quickly at a very reduced amount. If they don't play ball, recently ignoring a request to mediate (i.e. not responding one way or another) was seen as ‘an unreasonable refusal’ to mediate and incurred costs implications for the offending party plus a very uncomfortable time in court (PGF ii SA – v – OMFS Company Limited [2013] EWCA CIV 1288 2nd October Court of Appeal.) Jackson review etc

You are not wrong there dx, thanks for dropping in.... Yes my old Barclaycard Hi Andy Point 5, would you suggest I mention there has been no attempt explore ADR (PD- Pre Action Conduct s8) prior to a claim issue, non disclosure of documents mentioned in POC in a LBA (PD- Pre Action Conduct s7) etc?

Morning First draft of my proposed defence- Could someone cast their eye over this and let me know how it seems? Many thanks (andyorch- adapted from one you suggested in one of my previously successful cases- so thanks) Reminder of Particulars of Claim: 1. The defendant claims the sum of £2xxx being monies due from the defendant to the claimant under a regulated agreement originally between the defendant and BC. 2. The defendants account number was xxx and was assigned to the claimant on xx notice of this has been provided to the defendant. 3. The defendant has failed to make payments in accordance with the terms of the agreement and a default notice has been served pursuant to the CCA74. 4. The claimant claims the sum of £2xxx and costs. 5. The claimant has complied, as far as is necessary, with the pre-action conduct practice direction. Defence It is admitted the defendant entered into an agreement with BC. It is denied the agreement met the conditions of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The claimant is put to strict proof a notice of assignment was served, with proof of delivery. It is denied that a Default Notice pursuant to the CCA1974 was served. The claimant also failed to serve any Notice of Sums Arrears since assignment pursuant to the CCA2006 amendments (sec 86C ) and precluded from adding any interest or seeking enforcement or relief until such time it is served. The Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show service of a Default Notice pursuant to the CCA1974 and proof of delivery (b) show how the Claimant has legal right by way of the Credit Consumer Agreement and Terms and Conditions applicable © show service of a Notice of Assignment and proof of delivery (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.

Okay, of to read up on the significance of 'contravention of statute'... Your a star Mould, thanks A

CPR 31.14 request sent today, recorded, for agreement, assignment and default notice

Mould Thank you for that, I will read up on the relevant cases which should then help me develop a defence with substance. If anyone has time, could you comment on if the fact the agreement is not signed by the OC is of any pertinence. It is the original agreement with my signature but they have omitted to sign the agreement. 61(1)(a) states the agreement must contain all the prescribed terms and be signed by both the debtor and on behalf of the creditor. Thank you again Alloyz

Hi Claim form received dated 16th May: The defendant claims the sum of £2xxx being monies due from the defendant to the claimant under a regulated agreement originally between the defendant and BC. The defendants acc no was xxx and was assigned to the claimant on xx notice of this has been provided to the defendant. The defendant has failed to make payments in accordance with the terms of the agreement and a default notice has been served pursuant to the CCA74. The claimant claims the sum of £2xxx and costs. The claimant has complied , as far as is necessary, with the pre-action conduct practice direction. I have received the NOA The default notice is deficient in time (slightly) and wording (greatly) The agreement is the original (not reconstituted) and is not signed by the creditor I have not read the terms provided as yet but will be doing so tonight and correspond them with the agreement and statements Their POC do not claim statutory interest They do not mention termination notice The account is not SB They do not mention statements provided Any advice on the above would be greatly appreciated Many thanks Alloyz

It may be prudent to check the original terms and conditions under which you engaged I-Smart and under which they would provide you with the proceeds. Does it say they will credit you with the full amount and after which you will pay them (doubtful). Or does it say they will deduct their fee and transfer you the rest (probable). If it is the first one, you need to pay them, as agreed. If it is the second one, you have a better standing to consider the bankruptcy threat unreasonable and negotiate a payment plan. Either way you owe it so correspond with them.

Hi Quick question:- Had a credit card account, turned out to be executed not in line with the CCA and other relevant Acts etc. Subsequently fell into dispute and sold on by the OC. I have gone back to claim unfair charges. They have disagreed but made an offer. The terms of the offer are that the offer value is deducted from the balance by the new owner. I will be writing to disagree with this and wondered, whilst I am reading up on this, are there any points I should definitely mention. Many thanks for your time Alloyz

Cheers Andy! Always sweat a bit when offering advice!!