Did you write to Bournville Lane or Lloyd house? Suggest you respond to that letter along the lines of: Sir Thank you for your prompt response dated 22nd December 2011. I should just clarify that I have always asserted this to be a criminal matter, any assertion that this is a civil matter has not originated from and has at no time been perpetuated by me. Mobile money took my vehicle from my property without my permission, without an order of the Court and without any other lawful claim to title. Despite repeated demands Mobile Money have to date refused to return my vehicle. Mobile Money originally intended to deprive me permanently of my vehicle. I believe this to be a clear definition of theft. That Mobile Money then offered to return my vehicle if I paid them the sum of £7,000 constitutes attempted extortion. Mobile Money have done all this whilst undeniably in the knowledge that a third party was responsible for their loss and that they not only had no merititious claim in law against myself but that they also could not possibly have been passed true title to the vehicle as a result of the fraudulent transaction they entered into with the third party. To prevent sale of my vehicle I have had to seek a civil injunction against mobile money at my own cost, that remains the entire extent of the civil aspect of this matter the rest is quite clearly criminal as described in statute. Mobile Money are of course entitled to seek recompense from the perpetrator of the fraud through the civil courts, they are in no way entitled to seek or more appropriately seize such recompense from an innocent party. I trust this clarifies matters as there still appears to be a slight misunderstanding over my reporting of this crime. Just firmly nudge them in the right direction from the beginning it might save a game of merry go round in a few weeks when the DCI has had a look.

As things stand Capquest cannot lawfully litigate against you as they not only have failed to perfect any assignment but have positively averred that they are acting as agents for NW. If CQ raise a claim prior to informing you of an assignment to themselves it is defeated by Cia Colombiana de Seguros v Pacific Steam Navigation Co [1965]. Natwest can litigate but well one would have to guess they have their reasons for involving CQ. Scottish court procedure is very different to that of England and Wales to begin with the claimant would need to supply a copy of the agreement from the very beginning which is often a stumbling block and IMO Scots Law is less subject to the sytematic abuses enjoyed by certain DCA's and Sols for hire that are often mentioned on this site than the CCBC Northampton setup. You are subject to Scots law in respect of both limitation and litigation. Pro rata, cases in the Scottish Courts are few and far between on this site primarily {again imo} because the sytem does not encourage the %age game the way the E & W county Court default judgment sytem does. If a claim comes in it can probably be defended. Defend it properly and force them to prove it all the way if you discover it isn't SB'ed. It's worth stating that a judgment cannot be obtained if creditor has failed to comply with a lawful CCA request (Harrison v Link Financial Ltd [2011] EWHC B3) so if anything I'd be looking to CCA them early in the New Year at the latest. Costs a £1, PO proof of postage is evidence it was sent, request under sec 77 if fixed loan, sec 78 if credit card. Reconstructions are acceptable but they must be 100% accurate as must any t&c's, interest rates etc. There's nothing stopping you contacting Natwest directly by telephone and asking them when the last transactions were made on this account though NW aren't the most helpful in my experience. CQ have made it clear that Natwest still own the ac so don't stand for any rubbish off Natwest. Yesterday a Capquest rep phoned and spoke to a vulnerable autistic girl about her mothers alleged debt to capquest, telling her that her mother was in serious trouble, deeply upsetting her. I'd think long and hard about negotiating with people who behave like that and trust me if you do set up a payment plan then it will be very shortly after your first missed payment that the Court papers arrive, all you will have done in the interim is provide them with a cash cow to milk and a paper trail to waft in front of the Sheriff proving the a/c "cant be time barred" and proving your acceptance of liability to the sum claimed.

"I have sent a bill with receipts to MM for £3,800.00 up to 14th Dec 2011 for expenses incurred including legal advice and replacement car hire." Sterling work, keep it up!! "I get the impression now Jasper after your querie that when MM are happy that I had no involvement they will have to change their views then I need to start civil action to recoup loses." Not so sure happy is the correct word to use here, more like when it is clearly explained to them by the police that they have stolen your vehicle....... Yes unfortunately it's highly likely that you will need to raise proceedings against MM to recover your provable losses and any compensation you seek, this will be aided considerably if the police ever do get around to deciding that taking someones vehicle without permission or lawful right constitutes the criminal offence of theft. Don't expect any convictions as I'm sure this all just some terrible administrative error but the wording of any police reports could considerably help any civil action you areforced to follow.

Here's a current thread concerning Crapquest taking somebody to Court. (On a SB'ed debt) http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?331730-claim-form-issued-from-capquest&p=3659652&viewfull=1#post3659652 ps in Scotland it's the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 that statute bars action after 5 years it also extinguishes the debt which the limitation act 1980 does not. A correctly worded CCA request will not reset limitation. An averrment that an "alleged debt" would be SB'ed if it existed will not reset limitation.

Cabot are very slowly and reluctantly coming around to understanding that this behaviour means that PPI or unlawful charges which were added to the account can now be reclaimed directly from Cabot not the OC. In my case the charges, PPI and interest thereupon far exceeds the value of the alleged debt, it wont always but this is a very bitter pill for them to swallow, I'm at final demand stage now having issued a formal LBA.

Not for the first time LOL http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features/8/news/19806/brief-encounter-of-the-scary-kind

Whoops clicked the wrong one!! meant to add: It's highly unlikely these docs will be needed but a request will cost you one stamp and if nothing else shows them you mean business and ramps up your hours for an LIP wasted costs claim

Send a copy of this by email to : [email protected] and print out a copy and send it to The Compliance Manager CapQuest Group Fleet 27 Rye Close Fleet Hampshire GU51 2QQ You might also want to file a complaint via consumerdirect in fact you can complain to the OFT, FSA, ICO, police, the CSA too it depends how angry they've made you with this cowardly odious behaviour. As for your defence I suggest if you are not 100% sure what you've done that you send a copy by mail just to be on the safe side. As for relevant documents.... Well you are entitled to a copy of the following under CPR 31.14: the regulated agreement, statutory notice of default, the assignment (proof it was made anyway). Under Part 18 you can ask them anything you want that's relevant eg. 1 What was the date of the last payment made towards this account. 2) Have Capquest at any time since July 2005 received either a payment or written acknowledgment that a debt exists signed by the defendant? 3) Do you have proof that any payments were made to Midland Bank PLC after 1998 and prior to the assignment? If so who made these payments and what account were they drawn from? 4) Did Capquest comply with Pre Action Protocols prior to litigating? 5) Can Capquest supply statements for the entire period 1996-2011 to prove that the amount claimed is lawfully composed? 6) Can Capquest confirm that the regulated agreement mentioned in the POC ever existed? 7) Can Capquest confirm that the regulated agreement mentioned in the POC is enforceable under the CCA 1974? 8) Prior to litigating did Capquest at any time have sight of any of the documents mentioned in the POC namely the regulated agreement and the default notice? 9) What was the date of issue, default sum and remedy date of the default notice issued that is mention in the POC? You get the gist.....

A friend of mine recently employed a builder to build an extension for him. Friend gave the builder £5,000 advance to cover materials and some labour costs etc. A week later builder asked him for £2,500 to pay for the double glazing, friend wrote a cheque out to the third party whose name was supplied by the builder. After another week builder then took a further £800 cash advance for materials. Can you guess whats coming? Builder hasn't been on job for five weeks now, doesn't answer phone only occasional texts in which he has admitted receipt of all monies and just blags for more time for a variety of reasons. Some demolition work has occured which has resulted in the friends c.h. boiler now being exposed on an exterior wall, the garden looks like Berlin 1945 with all the mini digger tracks and earth piles and approx £500 of bricks, blocks and sand have materialised. No sign of double glazing and tbh the person cheque was made out to doesn't seem involved with double glazing anyway. I've made some prelim checks on the builder since my friend told me what had happened and have discovered that he was bankrupted in November of this year, just before he took the first of the payments. He's a sole trader and was bankriupted in the name Joe Bloggs t/a "Some development company UK" and has taken the money as a sole trader without the company name. I'm not at all sure about insolvencies so wonder if anyone could help by answering some of the following questions please? 1) Was the builder acting lawfully by failing to declare his very recent bankruptcy? 2) As the money was advanced after the bankruptcy was finalised am I correct in assuming that it is not part of any bankruptcy arrangement nor should it ever become a part of any arrangement? 3) His formal notice to "sort it out" expires on the 31st Dec to date it has been ignored insofar as no work has been done and no further materials have well materialised and no offer to repay part or all of any deposit has been made. 4) Surprise surprise the shyster lives in a very large very expensive country home which is currently up for sale. In the worst case scenario is it worth my friend rushing him into Court in the hope there's enough equity in the property? What I really mean here is if the house is forced sale because of bankruptcy, can a creditor who is not a party to that bankruptcy still apply for a charging order or does this affect the rights of the original creditors? 5) Should the OR be made aware of any of this behaviour even if it's because the guy is blatantly running up huge debts outside those covered by his bankruptcy?

File a defence and watch them run for the hills!! They will attempt to discontinue one would imagine but if they do discontinue and you've filed a defence then that's it finished as they would be prevented by CPR from bringing any action on the same account (and so would anyone else). If they don't discontinue they have to prove that the ac isn't stat barred this could prove difficult. I'd like to say it's because they're just a bunch of But the sad reality is for every one of you who've sought help there are probably nine others who hide the claim forms under the settee cushions. It's a percentage game for these people, they will lose with you but win 9 by default and that's very profitable as you can see if they got £6,500 off nine people when they had no lawful right to the money what's a few hundred £££'s in costs on the one they lose?

I've added a little extra particularisation to that defence which might help if you were to go after them for wasted costs

The 2005 date is when the account was sold to the claimant. They can't have had much of a christmas bonus if they're this desperate but sadly the way the system is geared in this country they would still have been awarded judgment if you failed to acknowledge or defend the claim. the percentage of people who ignore such a claim makes it a profitable business model unfortunately.

Statute barred and then some !! If you can be sure that no payments have been made towards this account for any period of six years between 1998/99 and the date of issue then the claim is statute barred. Statute Barred is a complete defence, you should also hit them with a few hundred pounds of wasted costs. they also seek sec 69 interest on a regulated loan, this simply highlights what an abuse of process this claim is. You must acknowledge this claim asap youcan do this online if from Northampton CCBC. Be sure to tick "defend all". Acknowledging will give you a further 14 days in which to file your defence. Can you be 100% certain no payments or acknowledgment in writing have been made by you since 1999? If so the defence is very simple.

Welcome Baz. see how you are not only probing them for information and letting them know you're not going to get mugged by a default judgment but you're also effectively going to get them to admit they brought this claim to court without any documentation or proof. the part 31.14 if not ignored will almost certainly result in a "we have to contact the OC" type admission which will become difficult for them if they try and claim they have the docs mentioned in Part 18 (2). btw who exactly is the claimant as Bryan Carter are solicitors (for rent) and a DCA.

I think you need to be more penetrating with your part 18 request. Load the questions and use it to put the claimant on the back foot. eg 1. Are you aware that a CCA 1974 request was made to the TSB on 12/11/2007, and that this request remains unfulfilled ? becomes 1. I can prove that a lawful request was made under sec 77 of the CCA 1974 on 12/11/2007 directly to Lloyds TSB, to date this request remains unfulfilled. (a) Is the claimant in a position to supply the requested documentation and thus fulfil the sec 77 request either now or before this matter reaches hearing stage? (b) Was the claimant aware that this unfulfilled request had been made under sec 77 of the CCA by the defendant at the time of bringing these proceedings? 2) What documentary evidence does the claimant currently possess to prove the following? (a) That the amount claimed is lawfully due. (b) That a valid agreement compliant with the requirements of the CCA 1974 exists/ever existed? © That a valid default notice in the prescribed form has been issued. (d) That the claimant has legal title to the account under which this claim is brought? (e) That the account was lawfully terminated. (f) That the agreement upon which this claim is based is enforceable? 3). With ref to 2(d): The defendant has received a large number of communications about this account from the following companies Sechiari Clarke and Mitchell, Arrow Global, Wescott, Credit Security Ltd. and Bryan Carter all of whom have either claimed to own the account or be collecting for their client, sometimes both. The defendant is embarrassed to admit they do not know who actually owns the account and in the absence of any notice(s) of assignment pursuant to sec 136 of the Law of property 1925 might seek to contest any assignments claimed to have been perfected by the claimant. Can the claimant please do the following: (a) Clarify the history of ownership of this account? (b) Provide evidence to prove that any assignments made under LOP 1925 were perfected in law for each instance an assignment occured? 4. When was the last payment made on the account? 5. Was a valid Default Notice issued pursuant to section 87 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended) and if so what was the date of issue, the date of remedy and the amount for remedy? 6. Can you please confirm by means of a breakdown the total amount of penalty charges, default charges, penalty interest charges, letter charges, management charges, litigation charges, or any other type of charge that was not included in the original figures on the loan agreement that have been added to the account or the amount claimed since 1996 (if any) ? 7. Are you able to confirm that payment protection insurance was not automatically added to the account or missold at inception or if ppi has indeed been added to the account could you confirm the total amount paid towards ppi including interest thereupon and the amount (if any) of alleged outstanding ppi payments which form any part of the amount claimed in this action?　 8) Has the claimant complied with the requirements of the CCA 1974 as amended by the CCA 2006 in respect of the provision of statements?

You will find a complaint form for CSA here Link

They cannot enforce the agreement whilst in default of your CCA request. (There's unambiguous recent case law on this) so the fact you can prove it was made and received will help with your defence. The chain of assignment is always going to be worth making BC prove. Is it possible you made the original CCA request with a view to establishing whether worthless PPI had been forced upon you? Without getting blase about these matters there's a fair chance that the original agreement either never existed, existed and was flawed or existed and has been destroyed. Provision of a reconstruction might well be beyond the scope of BC and highly likely to be inaccurate in some respect. Can you give us an approximate value of the value of the claim please? It's very possible BC will follow their normal MO and fold upon acknowledgment or challenge if it's a low value claim as this is a potential costs nightmare for them if they don't have all the paperwork you'll be forcing them to provide. I can see you making a 31.14 request for docs mentioned supplemented by a part 18 request for information. BC's don't like this behaviour as it means they have to work for their money and tips them off the defendant is no mug. They are kings of the default judgment for a reason ie they issue loads of claims, discontinue those that are defended and the %ages on the no acknowledgments/no defence default judgments makes it very lucrative for them. But let's assume nothing other than they are prepared to see this all the way and fight them on that basis?

Well done but I'd be just a little bit concerned still. Why don't you write to the Court enclosing a copy of Sarahs letter and ask for clarification of the following: 1) How did Wetcloths manage to get "the judgment" cough,cough without you hearing anything back from the Court despite filing your defence on time? 2) How did Wetcloths manage to get "the judgment" cough,cough without even bothering to supply the lawfully requested information you sought from them under CPR? 3) Can the Court please also clarify how Wetcloths have managed to obtaing the ccj and yet now also claim to be discontinuing the action? 4) Can the Court please supply you with full details of the "CCJ" cough, cough as you intend to make an application for setting aside since you don't feel the Court has correctly followed procedure (see points 1 & 2)? This should help clarify the matter for you. Of course it may also put the proverbial cat amongst the pigeons for Wetcloths who might just have been trying to con you a little which in turn might make it just a little easier for you to apply for a decent wasted costs order against them for abusing the system and wasting your time on a speculative attempt at a default judgment.

I wager presenting the facts lucidly to an Inspector at Prof Standards will see the vehicle returned far quicker than any other method. PS are there for handling these type of disputes, you don't phone PS to report a car stolen but they are exactly the people you should speak to if a police officer (or more likely a civilian in this case) makes a decision which is patently incorrect. Nobodys advising complaining just for complainings sake the complaint is neccesary to get PS involved. OP is the owner and registered keeper of the vehicle. MM have taken the vehicle without the OP's permission. MM are trying to extort the sum of £7,000 out of the OP for the return of the vehicle. MM do not and never have owned the vehicle and have no lawful claim against the OP, even if they did have a lawful claim they can't just seize property without a valid order from the Court. This is theft and extortion, how would anyone on this thread feel if I came round your house in the middle of the night, took your car and then demanded £7k for its return or threatened to sell it and keep the proceeds? Can anyone explain the difference in these scenarios? I'm staggered that people still accept this to be a civil offence. And finally a question for the OP. I've always felt something was being held back and suspect the "convicted fraudster" to be a family member, an errant son perhaps or somebody equally close enough that you feel this has affected your legal position. No need to elaborate but rest assured if it was an errant son or a trusted friend or similar who took the key and got the loan this has no effect whatsoever upon the legal status unless it can be proven by MM that you were involved and had knowledge of the fraud. I suspect this would have come out at trial, the fact that it didn't makes it nigh on impossible for MM to prove that anyone other than the person convicted was involved. If MM had followed the procedure correctly they would never have lent money against the vehicle, that they did is their loss although they are entitled to launch CIVIL proceedings against the person responsible for their loss they have no LAWFUL claim against you.

As DoH says you will be waiting a long time to hear back from a Chief Constable. may I suggest that you do the following: Phone your local police forces "Professional Standards" dept. You will speak to an inspector with whom you should firstly lodge a complaint about your treatment by your local "front desk". Tell them that you have reported a theft and have positively identified the thief but the local staff are unable or unwilling to do anything about it. Point out that MM have taken a car they didn't own from private property and are now attempting to extort the sum of £7,000 from you for its return and because the police didn't do anything you've had to pay to obtain a civil court order to stop the car thieves selling your vehicle. I bet you don't have to wait long for a reply on that phonecall, hours possibly, two days at the very most.

Well done and thanks very much for explaining the process for us too. Hope you feel just a little better knowing that your vehicle is protected by a Court order now. I'm still firmly on the side of those who think what MM has done is a criminal offence rather than civil. if somebody stole my car and both I and the police knew who they were I'd be more than a little annoyed if they just shrugged their shoulders and left it to me to do all the legwork. Sounds like a good move getting onto CCTA, be sure to keep the OFT informed as they've already tried to shut down MM and it is I believe at appeal stage now. (And don't forget to keep a record of any and all costs you have incurred as a result of your vehicle being stolen. Time spent chasing up MM, time on legal research, Court time etc. etc. then there might be taxi fares, legal fees etc then go for damages from them too.

Maybe they are guilty of knowing of the existence of this thread?

@Gaston: Theft Act 1968 1 Basic definition of theft (1) A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it There's no "intent" here the crime has already been committed so if we look at the definition of theft there are only two questions to answer: 1) Was the property dishonestly appropriated? 2) Were/Are MM attempting to permanently deprive the owner of th e vehicle? 1) again from the theft act 1968 2 "Dishonestly" (1) A persons appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as dishonest ó (a) if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person; So can MM claim to believe they had the right to deprive the owner? Frankly not a chance since they were made aware of the criminal case, at which they were technically the victim so to claim they didn't know the person they lent money to was not the owner is impossible and having purchased a vehicle from somebody other than the owner, a company in that line of business cannot claim not to know the legal implications. 2) Is there an intent to deprive permanently? Difficult to prove at the moment but if they are stupid enough to sell the vehicle it's a resounding YES.

Mobile Money have taken a vehicle to which they cannot possibly have lawful title and as they were obviously aware of the ID theft aspect of the case this only compounds the unlawfulness of their actions. I think the word most commonly used when somebody takes a car that doesn't belong to them with the intention of depriving the owner permanently is "THEFT". You can get an ex parte injunction to prevent sale of the vehicle it costs around £150 and afaik you simply set out your reasons for the injunction to be made and present yourself at County Court and try to catch hold of a Judge. Your Sols might be the way to go but you need instant action. I suggest you also write directly to Mobile Money, telling them why they don't own the vehicle and forbidding the sale of your vehicle. Send this special delivery so you can prove the disposal (if any) was done fully in the knowledge that they didn't own the vehicle. Keep on at the police it is theft pure and simple!!! Contact your insurers, report the vehicle stolen and get their legal service dept involved. Good luck

You must do the following: Acknowledge the claim - you can do this online. Contact the claimant under CPR 31.14 and ask them for copies of all documents refferred to in the "particulars of claim" eg. agreement, assignment notice etc. Contact the claimant under CPR part 18 and ask them the following: On what date was the last payment made on this account by yourself? On what date was the last acknowledgment in writing made by yourself? On what date did the first monthly payment become due? On what date did the second monthly payment become due? Explanation: acknowledging th claim extends the time available to file a defence to 28 days. making cpr requests will likely involve them ignoring you to begin with at which point you get on their case and demand the docs and an extension for filing the defence. When they fail to provide disclosure or they provide disclosure that states it to be SB'ed you hit them with an SB defence and wasted costs order. Oh and yes they probably were looking for a default judgment, it does open up the possibility of the court papers being "invalidly served" but you shouldn't need to muddy the case with this.