Oh well done sir!!! Do I need to spell out the implications of this with repsect to the default notice, termination notice, the sep 2003 non-agreement, the false registering of the default in 2008.... Don't think so. Have you sent the F&F letter yet it's my opinion that your offer was just a little too generous now you're in a position to prove that not only has this claim been brought upon dodgy docs but for three years they've falsely registered false information about you with the CRA's. Put those docs in a very safe place for now, there's no need to mention they exist for a while yet and you can make these fools jump through hoops before you ever need to disclose them.

yes of course you can but if you write the letter in MS Word or a similar WP programme it's a good idea to paste it into a blanke "notepad" page and then re-copy it to paste here as this removes all the extraneous formatting that these wp progs apply.

At face value no but that is assuming that it's the new owner who is pursuing the claim. What we have here is the "old owner" pursuing the claim after they have already sold the account. having sold the account as part of the £950m buyout deal, the old owner has no title or right to action. now the old owner was TPF and RBS 50/50. RBS sold their 50% share to the new owner TPF making TPF 100% shareholder. This buyout is well documented. Any claim should have been issued by TPF since they are the sole owner of the account. Think BC have dropped one here.

B.O. Box, how Freudian conjures up pictures of red faced sweaty palmed lawyers in the MIB office.... seriously now in this case http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?305065-MIB-County-court-claim-please-help&p=3404360&viewfull=1#post3404360 they took just a few weeks to raise the claim, in one I know of which isn't on this board they took nearer six months but that was last year and they seem to be upping the stakes since about Christmas. You ask whether you should deny or let them file a claim... personally I would write them a very brief averrment that the matter is barred by virtue of the limitation act 1980 incorporating a very brief statement that they failed to even contact you to establish liability and then I'd ignore everything they send. But that's me who would be quite happy to defend myself against a claim from this shower and not everybody would or could. you seem up for the fight if any but I can't advise you not to rebuke their claim and ignore everything as this seems to lead to litigation and might adversely affect any cost award if nothing else. A written averral that any claim is SB'ed on the other hand can be produced at trial or costs as proof the claim was without foundation, kind of a free ace in whatever hand you may be dealt in court. If it is found to be SB'ed and you can show that they were aware of this fact prior to litigating then the claim is helf to be without merit and wasted costs are imo appropriate. An averral that it is SB'ed together with a statement that you have no intention of making any voluntary payment is also a bar to them pursuing debt collection activity under the OFt debt collection guidance and further contact would then become reportable to the OFT.

How far did you get and did NotEast actually go so far as to tell you that your signature did not match that on file? BTW REF The Police You now by virtue of being held culpable for this debt in County Court are provably the victim of this fraud. You need to ramp up your complaint with the Police, if no luck getting anybody local to take an interest then you need to contact Professional Standards at your local police hq.

a lie does not carry priviledge far from it, a lie is contempt of court. Did you put the claimant to proof that the agreement was served in accordance with the court order? I know the judge would probably believe the nice man from the big expensive office every time over the LIp but did you go through the motions? You'll have to wait until you receive the judgment to see if it was a default judgment or not as a set aside may be available to you.

Ania it appears that if you continue to ignore these people then a claim is ultimately issued probably in the belief you'll ignore that too. I would advise that you do write to them now if only to let them know that you aren't going to be mugged by a default judgment. Their claim is statute barred and once again obfuscated within lies the fact that no contact was made to establish your version of events in order to accurately assess liability. Tell them to take a hike and point out that you feel that they have been conned by the victim as no damage was incurred by the victim in the incident, a simple fact you would hav e been happy to point out to them had they ever bothered getting in touch with you before admitting liability on your behalf. (and thanks for the thanks).

Superb thanks for that I knew somebody out there would know the answer. fyi the tenancy is in England, the mortgage preceded the tenancy which was originally a 12 month AST but has since become a periodic tenancy. A S21 notice was served some months ago but never pursued further, (deposit never protected). Thanks once again!!

not half as confused as they will be when they realise the extent of their mistake. They have averred in the dn and tn that a new agreement was drawn up between you and tessera in sep 2003. You need to know if the original agreement ie the one you signed with Halifax was defaulted and/or terminated at any time. If it wasn't defaulted and terminated lawfully they have no right to seek enforcement. Dont lose sight of the fact that you already know that there never was an agreement made between yourself and tessera in sep 2003, (an extremely pertinent fact which both the Court and the claimant are in blissful ignorance at the moment) their CPR response has revealed no documentary evidence that the original agreement was ever defaulted, terminated or superceded by their imaginary agreement. And if it was defaulted and terminated lawfully........... Then what the blazes is this 2003 agreement all about, what's the 2008 default notice all about and why are they recording a default date from late 2008 on this 8 year old debt?

Hi I've been asked by a friend for help but this isn't really my department at all. short story is: Bank have issued proceedings to be held on a date in July for recovery of domestic premises known as "the property". Bank have written to owner/occupier to establish who lives in the property. Bank seem to be unaware that the property was used from the beginning as a buy to let property and the landlord has with the help of Royal Mail diverts purchased a number of high value items on credit (including a Jaguar car) and taken out other forms of credit at the address throughout her tenancy. Tenant has received numerous visits from repo men, bailiffs etc. over the last year or two and understands there to be at least one charging order in the region of £20k against the property. Tenant has tried to establish true state of affairs with unhelpful landlord and believes the best part of a years mortgage payments remain unpaid. tenant is aware the landlord has had at least two other properties repossessed in the last 12 months. The tenant is also aware that the landlord appears to have several personas as the tenants boyfriend knows the landlords brother socially. The tenant suspects that much of the debt has been run up in the name of the landlords late father who shared exactly the same name as the landlord (well one of his names anyway). it is also possible the house was purchased in the late fathers name as his death might not have been registered in the UK. (resident in Pakistan at time of death). We're trying to establish what this persons rights are if any in the very likely event the possession order is granted. In particular what period of notice to vacate might she expect to be given by the bank? cheers!!

Postggj has done nothing unlawful, illegal or fraudulent but has simply made a lawful request for information. Any crime committed against Postggj or any data processing error committed to the detriment of Postggj is outside of his knowledge until the facts can be ascertained and it is to this end the request is made. I'm sure in due course the ICo will indeed find something to say about this situation but a pound to a penny says that it will not be Postggj under scrutiny when that time comes.

Madge if they telephone then simply refuse to answer their security questions and state all correspondence to be in writing. (I've flagged this post for admin and asked them to create a new thread for you where you'll receive help specific to your circumstances)

Shocking!!! Have you actually received the form of judgment yet and if so what does it say? and also what did the previous order (the one for disclosure of the agreement) actually state?

That's what I thought but needed to know thanks.

And one (or two) final questions before I sign off. can you confirm that the claim was NOT submitted via MCOL? What documents exactly were attached to the claim?

no not to the Court. without prejudice means neither party can present it to the Court. save as to costs means you reserve the right to present it after judgment when costs are being argued as a sort of "Look your honour I made them a fair offer to settle for minimal expense but they still tried to bully the case through court, they deserve to pay to the max" statement.

no probs penfold. Maybe it's the six pack that makes me so bullish about the f&f letter maybe it's because their case is the proverbial crock? Does it make sense to you what I've written? The part 18 is a straightforward further information request which will let them know you're no pushover and is designed to cause them some problems. i see a lose/lose here for them based upon you introducing the TWO agreements into your defence but won't elaborate too much for now. there never was an agreement between you and them, they've made that up. You know it, I know it and most importantly they know it. You need to be thinking towards raising a complaint with OFT, FSA and the ICO over their behaviour. the dodgy default is abhorrent behaviour. Because the original default would have been in 2002 they've invented an agreement in 2008 and then defaulted you on this imaginary agreement so they could continue to register a default against you. This is actionable in its own right or as a counterclaim to this action. Stupidly the imaginary agreement of Sep 2003 is mentioned in two legally binding documents entered into evidence as a result of your CPR request, so now you will force them to produce a copy bearing your signature. Muppets!!

That's cool Ash. You can't put a price on a good nights sleep or being able to answer a ringing telephone or a knock at the door. was just a little worried those MIB parasites had bullied you into paying something you werent lawfully liable for like they did a very OAP I know personally. all the best !!

And this: Without Prejudice save as to costs Offer of settlement. Sir. I acknowledge that your client would consider settling this matter for a lesser sum if proceedings can be avoided and enclose herein my offer for settlement which I re-affirm is made without prejudice save as to costs. Offer in full and final settlement of all matters between myself Mr. XXX XXX and Tessera Portfolio Management Ltd. I am prepared to permit your client to withdraw proceedings against me without opposal, application for costs or counterclaim subject to each and every one of conditions below being met by yourselves. 1) The alleged debt is extinguished permanently by your client. 2) The account will never be sold, assigned or permitted to suffer any form of collection activity by any party including your client and/or any unspecified 3rd party. 3) All adverse references to this account be removed permanently from any credit reporting facility. 4) A goodwill payment of £1000 be made to me by your client in full and final settlement of non specified damages incurred by me as a result of your clients damage to my credit rating. 5) All personal data relating to me under the control of your client be destroyed except such as specifically prevented by statute. The above to be agreed in writing and signed by an officer of your client of sufficient stature to become legally binding prior to any settlement action being taken. I understand this is probably not what you expected in terms of a full and final settlement offer but the facts of the case speak for themselves. I have taken advice in this matter and am confident that it will not be difficult to engage professional representation to defend your claim. If your client is churlish enough to proceed with the action in what by the value of the claim is likely to be a costs bearing Court then it shall be stoutly defended. Obviously it is not for me to point out the yawning chasms in your clients case but since this letter has been sent without prejudice I feel I can safely give you a few pointers which you might like to peruse and discuss with your client before agreeing to my generous offer. 1) your client appears to have invented an agreement in 2003, I have no knowledge of this agreement because it never existed. You might like to ask your client if they are prepared to argue and prove this averrment in a court of law. 2) Re 1) the default notice is worthless based as it is on an agreement that never existed. You might like to ask your client if they are prepared to argue and prove this averrment in a court of law. 3) RE 1) and 2) ergo the termination notice is worthless based as it is on an agreement that never existed. You might like to ask your client if they are prepared to argue and prove this averrment in a court of law. 4) RE 3) The right to add interest is highly disputable and open to being put to proof, based as it is on an agreement that never existed. You might like to ask your client if they are prepared to argue and prove this averrment in a court of law. 5) The account was defaulted and terminated in 2002 by the original creditor. This might cause your client some problems. 6) A part 20 counterclaim based on the false registering of a default (5) is worth about £8,000 at todays rates using case law. 7) there are numerous discrepancies and issues with the paperwork supplied, I reiterate it is not for me to point them out other than in my defence. your client might be well advised to receive some guidance on the finer points of the consumer credit act 1974 at this stage. I feel that it is in the best interests of both parties if this matter can be resolved without the need to waste the courts resources. Your clients claim is in my opinion doomed to failure on many points only some of which I have alluded to within this letter. I am confident that I can not only defend the claim in its entirety but also enter a part 20 counterclaim or bring a separate action against your client for offences under the DPA1998. I am also confident that in defending this claim, I shall be able to make your client more than a little uncomfortable in respect of the evidence provided by them, some of which I aver to be bordering on criminal behaviour as defined by the fraud act 2006 and the theft act 1968. I suggest that you re-examine the "evidence" supplied by your client and then honestly assess their likelihood of success and the likely cost of their failure. you have 14 days from the date of this letter in which to accept this offer, failure to accept or reply within 14 days will be taken as a refusal and I shall then actively seek to have the entire farce played out before a judge in a costs bearing track.

The claimant has agreed to an extension (in the cpr response because they haven't got the agreement). You must write to the Court, enclose a copy of that letter and ask for a further 28 days in which to file a defence. then you must send the claimants sols this: Request for information pursuant to Civil Procedure Rules part 18. Sir I acknowledge receipt of your recent CPR 31.14 reply and confirmation that your client is agreeable to an extension, please consider this request as one made in pursuit of further information pertinent to the swift disposal of proceedings and made pursuant to CPR part 18. In order that I may lodge my defence I require clarification of the following matters: 1) with reference to: The agreement between your client Tessera Portfolio management Ltd and myself Mr XXXX XXXX dated 17th September 2003 which is referenced in both the "default notice" and "termination notice" supplied by yourselves in response to my CPR request, please answer the following: a) Does such an agreement exist? b) Did such an agreement ever exist? c) Can you confirm that I am a signatory to this agreement? d) Was this agreement (if any) regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974? e) I have no knowledge of this agreement, please outline the circumstances in which it was drawn up, signed and executed? f) do the terms of this supposed agreement permit your client to charge interest monthly? 2) Do Tessera Portfolia Management Ltd hold the neccesary licences to enable them to lawfully run a banking facility in the United kingdom? 3) Was the account defaulted prior to the assignment from the original creditor? 4) Was the account terminated prior to the assignment from the original creditor? 5) What was the date the account was first defaulted and was this by your client or the original creditor? 6) Have your client ever been known as or have they ever traded as halifax cetalem credit ltd? 7) Do the terms and conditions of the original agreement permit you to add monthly interest to the alleged debt and if so at what specic rate? 8) Why have you added Court fees to the account and also added those same fees to the claim, I understand it is for the Court to decide what costs are payable? 9) In the event I were to succesfully argue that sight of the actual deed of assignment is vital to my defence are you able to provide a copy of the actual deed of assignment for scrutiny? (Please note in respect of this request that I fully understand that you will have purchased this account for pennies in the pound and thus have no interest whatsoever in the sensitive financial information. I do however have grave concerns about the authenticity of your claim that the account was not defaulted and or terminated prior to your clients purchase. Thus I will be satisfied to see a redacted copy for my purposes but would expect the true copy to be made available to the judge at trial). 10) in light of the fact that your client has as mentioned in (1) of this request in late 2008 defaulted and terminated the agreement allegedly made between your client and myself in September 2003 (agmnt1) could you please explain why you refer to another agreement that made in december 2001 between myself and the original creditor (agmnt2) as being the written agreement upon which this action is based in your CPR response? In particular I require clarification of the following: a) has the agmnt2 ever been lawfully terminated? b) if so on what date? c) Does a default notice exist in respect of agmnt2? d) does a termination notice exist in respect of agmnt2? 11) I accept that I have made intermittent payments towards "an agreement", could you clarify whether those payments have been made towards agmnt1 or agmnt2? 12) Please clarify whether your client was in possession, or ever had been in possesion of the written agreement upon which this claim is based at the time the claim was issued Your cooperation in responding to this request in a timely manner will undoubtedly help all parties observe the overriding principles, to this end I would expect to receive a reply within 14 days of the date of this request.

I understood that in your contact of 2006 you had denied liability. Contact in itself does not reset the limitation period, only a partial payment or a written acknowledgment that a debt exists signed by you can do this. I rather doubt that upon true construction your contact of 2006 would constitute acknowledgment of a debt, indeed this contact containing a denial of liability would probably have been used in your favour. Still we'll never know, I just hope your F&F is in writing and properly drawn up.

Well done Penfolds excellent work getting these up so quickly. There is so much wrong with the paperwork I just can't type or think quickly enough to point it out. here are a few thoughts for now I'll go through it in depth a bit later. look on these as ramblings to be addressed rather than explanations. Why are they approaching the OC for a copy of the agreement when they clearly state in the default notice that you defaulted on an agreement between Tessera and yourself dated 17th September 2003? Did you ever enter into this agreement in Sep 2003? is it possible they've invented this agreement to suit themselves? Is it possible that they've kept a nine year old default alive by inventing paperwok to suit? is it possible that Tessera were not formerly called Halifax Cetalem? Would the deed of assignment reveal the account to have been terminated prior to or upon assignment? Are Tessera licenced for banking? Have Tessera falsely reported information to the CRA's? Is that DN valid as it stands? Is the DN valid if say the account was already terminated several years prior to issue? Why have they added court fees to the account and the claim? Are they allowed to add contractual interest? Hopefully these issues will raise some discussion it certainly looks a very interesting if rather confusing state of affairs you find yourself in. From what I can see the claimant has a real battle on their hands but there's a long way to go so we musn't get complacent. Oh there's so much in here for you to work with.

What does your crf say about this loan is it defaulted, if so from what date etc?

4. The Default Notice was sent to you on 26 September 2008. A reconstituted copy is enclosed. 5. The Termination Notice was sent to you on 10 October 2008. A reconstituted copy is enclosed. 30 days hath September ergo if it was sent on the 26th sept and terminated on the 10th Oct they admit the DN to be faulty. have you been prejudiced by this termination? Yes!! Besides being deprived of the statutory period of notice in which to remedy matters you were prejudiced by the account being terminated, the bank refusing to deal with you or accept further payments under the original agreement, the marking of your credit files with the default prevented you from realistically being able to raise finance to settle this commitment from another source yada yada. But what puzzles me is why the dn and tn's were sent in 2008 when you say it defaulted after approx 1 year and the account was purportedly assigned to a debt collector in 2003. What agreement exactly were they defaulting and terminating? methinks this stinks.

Well done now I guess you just sit back and wait for them to discontinue. If they do discontinue then CPR38.7 kicks in now you've filed the defence and you should be looking to enter a wasted costs claim against them for your research and preparation time and expenditure incurred in preparing the defence. If they don't discontinue then they have an even bigger problem IMO. those POC's are fraudulent and could be portarayed as a blatant attempt to disenfranchise the defendant of their statutory rights under the CCA1974 which would have been available to you if they had entered the claim in an honest manner more representative of the true facts.