Yes Claire sadly there are a number of companies who actually use this as a tactic to get a default judgment. Now, just because someone has issued a Court claim against you doesn't neccesarily mean they will get a judgment if you defend the case. (If you don't do anything then they definitely will get a judgment called a default judgment). There are many people on here who can help you with this if you tell us a little more about it. You must stop worrying yourself sick over this matter it's only money and with the exception of council tax and court fines you can't go to prison for being in debt in this country. Bailiffs can only come round when appointed through a Court which means there has to have been a ccj awarded then a failure to pay before the claimant could even think about sending in Bailiffs and even then there's plenty of action you could take. So don't think someones going to barge into your home and start wheeling possessions out, they're not, not by a long way. You are probably the victim of a series of threatogrammes claiming they will get a ccj, send in bailiffs, make an attachment to earnings, make you bannkrupt etc. etc. These are just threats and most if not all are empty threats at that. Could you please help us to begin helping you by answering the following questions? 1) Are you sure these are Court papers, do they have a court stamp on them eg Northampton CCBC, and what is the date? 2) What type of debt is the claim for? eg credit card, loan, catalogue, car hp etc 3) Roughly how much is the claim for (don't be too specific as the debt purchasers sometimes trawl these forums. 4) Who is the claimant and who is the owner of the debt? There are plenty more question to ask you but these should get things started for now.

"Satirist and Managing Director Chris McGrath and his wife and two children have lost their £300,000 house to Nationwide after failing to keep up with mortgage payments while tackling Amazon, Richard Dawkins & his charity and militant-atheist and fascist sympathiser, Vaughan Jones, in a costly libel case at the High Court in London. The family will be evicted and made homeless on 13 December 2011 while the case continues. " Should the defendants not now be worried that the claimant will be unable to meet any costs which might at any stage be awarded in their favour? Surely it is a matter for the Courts concern when the Plaintiff has seemingly embarked upon litigation without the neccesary funding to conclude proceedings and pay up any costs/damages awarded if they lose?

total cash price of goods 8275 (minus) deposit 1800 (out by 25) (=) amount of credit 6450 (plus) interest charges of 1825 = 8275 8275 plus 1800 deposit = 10075 total amount of agreement £200 fee by any chance I think this is how the sums should have worked but those figures you have supplied don't quite fit. It would be helpful if you could acan the agreement and dn.

X2 They've tried to pull a sneaky one on you TWICE!!

Thought this looked familiar I've commented on this in your other thread. The 2nd CCJ is unlawful but you need to spell out why it is unlawful if you're applying for a setaside. in summary the (2nd) claimant cannot lawfully have held a right to action. I believe litigating without the right to action to be an abuse of process and the county court system.

Yes, Res Judicata will apply and to further extend your Latin vocabulary it can be proven that the second CCJ is inherently unlawful because of a doctrine called Nemo Dat. Nemo Dat Quod non habet - one cannot give what one does not have. A takes B to Court on agreement 123 obtains CCJ and thus A loses the right to take A to Court again for this same agreement 123. A does acquire the right to have the agreement enforced though.* A sells the debt to C and assigns all rights. Now we already know that the right to litigation has been lost by A when they used it obtaining the CCJ. A cannot therefore assign the right to litigate as A no longer has that right and the rights of the assignee cannot exceed the rights of the assignor. C can have no right to litigate since they could not lawfully have been assigned this right as A just didn't have it. Any defence to an action by C should quote "Nemo Dat" because whatever other rights were assigned the right to litigate most definitely was not because the assignor didn't have it at the time of assignment. You may need to spell this out to a Judge. So the primary defence is nemo dat per the assignment, reinforced with res judicata, this is much stronger than simply claiming RJ. * if the sale was done without the involvement of the court the claimant might have trouble pursuing this.

As above. Do not admit all or any part of the debt and the claim will take months to progress. Even if judgment is awarded against you, you will have 28 days in which to pay in full to avoid the ccj register entry being made. Do you have a defence of any sort against the claim?

Suggesting they are using contractual interest therefore the agreement wasn't terminated. have you at any time received any of the following? Valid default notice. Notice of termination of account. And if so do you have them still and who issued them? And were there any default charges or was there PPI on the card?

This link might be helpful. LINK The normal prescription period in Italy is two years but if the fact is seen as a crime (accidental injuries) this extends to 5 years

Was this contact by telephone? Put them to proof: something along the lines of I do not acknowledge any debt to your company. ref xxxxxx Sir. I hereby aver that I have never lawfully owed the amount claimed by yourselves in respect of this alleged debt. If there had been a lawful liability then due to the expiry of the relevant period as prescribed by The Limitation Act 1980 such liability would now be Statute Barred! Notwithstanding that this debt never existed or was ever owed by me I hereby state that I have no intention of making any voluntary payments towards this alleged statute barred debt. Proof of postage of this letter has been retained for my records. Upon service you will be in breach of the OFT guidelines if you continue any debt collection activity upon this statute barred account. I should remind you that any further debt collection activity especially any further threatening behaviour may be construed as harrassment which is a criminal offence (although a civil remedy exists also). If you feel that this account is not statute barred then I invite your written explanation to support this together with sufficient documentary evidence within a reasonable period and certainly within 14 days from date of service of this notice. I also require the default you have falsely registered against me for some years to be removed forthwith as 1) I never owed the amount claimed and 2) If I had owed anything it would have accrued in 2004 not in 2006 when you first registered the default. I am prepared to raise the manipulation of the alleged default date and the way in which you have harrassed me for a debt I never owed with the appropriate authorities. I understand that I must exhaust your internal complaints procedure first so please send me by return a copy of your internal complaints procedure.

Wow that is a rather inappropriate response to give. Equifax aren't doing themselves any favours by getting themselves muddled up and once the evidence pile is large enough I shall certainly be taking this further. Of course if the ICO come back to me with that sort of twaddle I shall be requiring them to explain just how helpful to potential lenders these searches might be if 1) There is no "outstanding debt", not with anyone let alone over a dozen companies and 2) It is beginning to emerge that several of these searches relate to institutions that I have never held accounts with or had any form of relationship with eg I've been a Severn Trent customer for over 20 years no problems but for some reason Anglian Water have employed a third party agency to do an "OD" search on me. I've never had an Orange phone either, 121, BT Cellnet then O2 but never orange. Had the same telecomms provider for fixed services for 20 years too, why one of their competitors might be doing OD searches on me is beyond my comprehension. Unless of course they're just fishing, looking for somebody with the same name..... which makes that ICO reply you received look very poor indeed, very poor.

Under UK law the statute barring only applies to personal injury doesn't it? A civil action for the damage to the bike can be brought up to six years from the date of the accident.

Equifax themselves confirm in their member centre info that these "outstanding debt" searches should appear in table two. I have currently got 14 table one searches recorded against my name only one of which is in relation to an application made by myself. Of the rogue 13 searches made to date only one of the companies involved has written to me, the other 12 have just looked and gone away leaving grubby fingerprints on the file. If I were to apply for credit the lender will see 14 applications with only one success and will surmise I have problems. (My ex wife is still associated with me despite us divorcing in the 1990's. I've waited a month without response on this issue). As Orbital says "Not fit for purpose", I can feel a very large complaint coming on.

I've a number of "outstanding debt" searches visible in table 1 of my equifax files. Now I'm not bothered particularly by such searches as I'm lucky not to have any outstanding debt of any kind that is not already recorded with the CRA's and that is now very little and fast approaching zero so there cannot be any nasty surprises waiting for me. What bothers me is the systematic abuse of my CRA file by Equifax and their (paying) subscribers in recording outstanding debt searches under Table 1. These are not credit applications but DCA traces and searches made without my knowledge or permission and so should be recorded under table 2 afaik. I have complained vociferously to Equifax that these searches are recorded wrongly and are thus visible to potential lenders. Here's the response from Equifax: "'Outstanding debt' searches displayed in the 'Table 1' section of a Credit Report will have been carried out as part of a debtor tracing procedure by the creditor or their appointed agent. These searches aren't visible to any lender performing a credit application enquiry or to any other creditor tracing a debtor or collecting overdue debt. They show in Table 1 because these can in some cases be taken into account by lenders to assess your creditworthiness when using an automated scoring system." So that's cleared it up then they can't be seen by lenders but can be used by lenders to make decisions.......

Link can't "slap a ccj on you or anybody else" only a court can award a ccj and a process has to be followed which will 1) Give you a chance to defend, 2) Likely cause Link all sorts of problems. What information exactly have they provided from 2006? Original account statements or homemade ones and do they show any payments made against the account? Chances are the account is already statute barred so I would suggest that you send them a letter averring it to be statute barred, stating you will not be making any voluntary payments and giving them a short period eg. 14 days in which to prove that the account is not SB'ed before you consider the matter closed and any further debt collection activity to be a breach of OFT guidelines. This puts the burden of proof on Link to prove the debt is not SB'ed and is lawfully enforceable.

They cannot enforce the account whilst in breach of a CCA request but this is a redeemable issue if they have everything neccesary in order. Could you post up the "particulars of claim" please removing any identifying amounts, dates etc. Were any charges applied to the account? if so have you reclaimed them? Was there PPI on the card? Did you receive a valid default notice? You should acknowledge service which extends your time to file a defence by 14 days. If it was served through northampton ccbc you can do this online.

You will not have to go to Northampton as the claim will be transferred to your local court upon filing a defence. Can you please post up the "particulars of claim" removing any identifying amounts dates etc.

Once a debt becomes statute barred it cannot be unbarred by acknowledging, admitting or making partial payment. SB is a complete defence.

However, a joint BBC Newsnight/Guardian newspaper investigation has established that the debt in question, which was originally a loan from Yugoslavia to Zaire 30 years ago, was illegally sold to Mr Grossman's fund, FG Hemisphere. Zufer Dervisevic, who is the chief of the financial police in Bosnia, told journalists: "Of course it was illegal," and said that the man who organised the sale, former Bosnian Prime Minister Nedzad Brankovic, "should go to jail". plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

My 2p's worth agree to accept and they can come back at a later date, as you are accepting it to be "for the time being" so they just say "because we couldn;t find the papers we all agreed to discontinue but it's okay we've found them now so we'll try again, of course the defendant has agreed to this here's the proof" If you really are happy to agree to discontinuance with no costs then at least make sure its on your own terms and re-write their letter of offer removing the phrase "for the time being", tell them you are not happy with the wording of their letter but you would agree to the revised copy you send them.

this is confusing and you need to clarify. You should have obtained the claim form after setaside, how the dickens can you defend a claim when you don't know what the claim is?

7 Days to sign before what!! They have to send the next begging T.O ? have they no dignity?

Good point DB.

OFT Leaflet code OFT147 LINK (page 09) a hard copy in your bundle would help.

Isn't this another case for Donkeys infamous CP2 document? HFO Cayman claim to have assigned the account to HFO Eire on 31/01/2008 having been assigned the account themselves on 14/09/2007. Doesn't CP2 prove that any assignment received by Cayman would have been immediately assigned to HFO services therefore Cayman could not have held title on 31/01/08 as claimed in the court docs? Of course HFO Eire having no licence to deal with consumer debt until March 2008 might also cause them problems.