Hi babybear, equifax, experian

Hi I have recently had a few fishing type letters from various DCA over some debts from 2002 -2003, I have had no contact with the original creditors and from memory i believe a couple of them may of taken out a ccj but never actually followed up with anything further. I do not have any paperwork going back this far. A check on my credit file shows no ccj showing from either the original creditor or the chasing DCA I can see these debts have been brought by the various DCA and I am wondering what is the best way to reply to them as I believe they are statute barred due to length of time and the fact no ccj or if i believe there is a ccj ( although not showing) should i reply a different way advice appreciated

Hi I hope someone can help with this, received a note about a month ago from Rossendales re a parking fine from about a year ago. Thought i had paid it but checked the pcn and it was owing, at that time the figure was 140 approx, I spoke to the bailiff and made a part payment leaving a balance of about £80 to pay. Balance was due at the end of last month and to be honest i completely forgot about it so take the blame there but I now have had a note through the door demanding 370 with the words magistrates distress warrant highlighted in red. I spoke to the bailiff and informed him that i can pay the original amount but not the full new balance, he has told me that if i dont pay it by the end of next week in full then he will gain entry with a locksmith etc etc I just wanted to know what i can do if anything to try and pay the original figure? As a side note when i paid the first amount, the bailiff put my card through at the wrong amount, about £60 more than agreed and when i challenged that i got it refunded about a week later. Any advice appreciated tim

ok update and success The day before the hearing, i got a letter from cquest stating they consider the stat demands a nullity and no need for court hearing, but they would like to discuss a repayment plan with me! i ignored this and went to court, they did not show up and got the set aside with limited costs. DJ hardly said anything and we were out of there in less than 5 mins...........amazing relief and thank you to those that helped me here My last question on this is what to do if cquest keep chasing , should i be doing anything now?

thanks again postggj

yes i think the court is getting a lot of action the these sd's is there any paperwork i should get ready in preperation or shall i just see what happens between now and then?

update just got the confirmation from the court that the case (all 3 together ) is going to be heard in November Just wondered what i need to prepare for the case?

3 sd's all from capquest in regards 3 different accounts

hi Just to keep this post updated, i have had no further papers from capquest so they are now well out of their time i believe? I have spoken to the court and they are writing to all parties this week as the earliest court date in my area is October One other question i have is that do i go for costs on all 3 cases that capquest have issued SD on? The hearing is going to deal with all 3 cases one after the other so i want to make sure i am prepared. Your continued support and thoughts appreciated

just another quick question, my landlord who took the initial SD is prepared to give me a letter as the chap from capquest disclosed personal details about the debt which i believe is in breach of the data protection act is there a template or guide that he should follow with this letter or do i just get it from him in any form and give to the court as additional documents?

thanks postggj i thought and hoped that was the right thing to do, i will keep this post updated

thanks Tedney i dont have a scanner available tonight so i have typed the letter out word for word since the start of this post capquest have now sent me 3 SD for various accounts and are now corresponding about all 3, i have done 3 separate applications for SD to the court to cover this, i hope thats the right thing to do so do i keep the set aside actions going and do i reply to capquest? any advice appreciated letter as received today Dear Re: Statutory Demands Thank you for your letters dated xxxxx. We can confirm that the documentation you require has been requested from the relevant originator. We will endeavour to get these to you as soon as possible and within the time limit of twelve business days, however this will depend on the originators providing them to us. Since these debts were assigned to us we have sent you numerous letters on all of these accounts. You have never questioned your liability for these debts and you were making frequent payments totalling £xxxx towards these three accounts. We have had no reason to believe that you weren’t aware of your liability for these debts and as we have not received any payments from you since xxxxx 2008, the statutory demands were sent to you. Whilst we are awaiting documentation, we can confirm that we will take no further action with the statutory demands and you can consider them as a nullity and we will withdraw the demands. There will now be no need to apply to the court to have these demands set aside. Once we are in receipt of the documents these will be sent to you. If you have any queries on receipt of the documents we will be happy to answer any questions you may have. After you have the documents we will expect an arrangement for payment to be made. If an arrangement can not be made at this time there is a possibility that further statutory demands will be sent to you. Yours sincerely, Legal Support Department

Ok update I served the papers at my local court today for an application to set aside and got home to a letter from capquest-can someone let me know how to paste it into here? thanks

Here is the 6.5, comments appreciated, i have omitted the dates for obvious reasons but i do have them correct, i have also put xxxx for my landlords details The Defendant totally disputes the debt. 1. That on (b) xxxxxxx The statutory demand exhibited hereto and marked “A” came into my hands. 2. That I © Believe that the statutory demand does not comply with the rules of insolvency in that: The defendant has been unable to contact the person named on the demand for the alleged creditor. This is in contravention of rule 6.2 of the insolvency service. The defendant has on no least six occasions tried to contact the named person for the alleged creditor; a MR BARRY DAVIES. On the last attempt to contact him on the telephone number provided in the statutory demand I was told that he does not work at that office and he would not be in a position to deal with anything as he is merely a signature on correspondence. The alleged creditor has failed to serve the statutory demand by personal service, the defendant received the demand via his landlord (xxxxxxxx), who passed the documents to the defendant. The defendant draws the court’s attention to rule 6.3 (2) of the insolvency rules. The alleged creditor, by virtue of the rules, under an obligation to do all that is reasonable for bringing the statutory demand to the debtor’s attention, and if practicable in the particular circumstances to cause personal service of the demand to be effected. Bearing in mind the fact that the alleged creditor did not know that xxxxxx was in fact the defendant’s landlord and would pass any documents to the defendant and therefore this would not fulfil this obligation. The alleged creditor has not entered the court’s details that would deal with this statutory demand. On xxxxxxxx by way of a recorded delivery the defendant made a request under section 77 to section 79 of the consumer credit act for copies of the notice of assignment to comply with the law of property act 1925 also requested: The alleged creditor has not provided a valid notice of assignment The alleged creditor has not provided a legible copy of the agreement that contains the prescribed terms and is executed. The alleged creditor has not provided any compliant default notice as required by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 The alleged creditor has not provided any statements for the duration of the account (it not being uncommon that some debts are made up entirely of excessive charges) The alleged creditor has not provided any proof that the alleged debt has been securitised under English law. I believe there are no properly executed signed Consumer Credit Agreements SECTION 78 (1) CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1974 (1) The creditor under a regulated agreement for running-account credit, within the prescribed period after receiving a request in writing to that effect from the debtor and payment of a fee of £1, shall give the debtor a copy of the executed agreement (if any) and of any other document referred to in it, together with a statement signed by or on behalf of the creditor showing, according to the information to which it is practicable for him to refer,— (a) the state of the account, and (b) the amount, if any, currently payable under the agreement by the debtor to the creditor, and.. © the amounts and due dates of any payments which, if the debtor does not draw further on the account, will later become payable under the agreement by the debtor to the creditor. The Consumer Credit Act in section 78(6) States that (6) If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with subsection (1)— (a) he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement; It must also be noted that the agreement must contain the prescribed terms. Consumer Credit Act 8.2 What if prescribed terms are missing or incorrect? s127(3) provides that the court may not make an enforcement order unless a document containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor If therefore any of the prescribed terms is missing, or incorrect, the agreement is not enforceable against the debtor, and the court is precluded from making an enforcement order. (N.B - For the avoidance of doubt the 2006 Consumer Credit Act does not change the above legislation…… The Consumer Credit Act 2006 (Commencement No. 2 and Transitional Provisions and Savings) Order 2007 (No. 123 (C. 6)) Citation 1. This Order may be cited as the Consumer Credit Act 2006 (Commencement No.2 and Transitional Provisions) Order 2007. Interpretation 2. In this Order “the 2006 Act” means the Consumer Credit Act 2006. Commencement 3. — (1) The provisions of the 2006 Act specified in Schedule 1 shall come into force on 31st January 2007. (2) The provisions of the 2006 Act specified in Schedule 2 shall come into force on 6th April 2007. Transitional Provisions 4. Subject to article 5, section 1 of the 2006 Act shall have no effect for the purposes of the 1974 Act, in relation to agreements made before 6th April 2007. (cont) 5. Section 1 of the 2006 Act shall have effect for the purposes of the definitions of “debtor” and “hirer” in section 189(1) of the 1974 Act wherever those expressions are used in— a) sections 77A, 78(4A), 86A, 86B, 86C, 86D, 86E, 86F, 129(1)(ba) 129A, 130A and 187A of the 1974 Act; (b) section 143(b) of the 1974 Act in respect of an application under section 129(1)(ba) of that Act; and © section 185(2) to (2C) of the 1974 Act insofar as it relates to a dispensing notice from a debtor authorising a creditor not to comply in the debtor's case with section 77A of that Act, in relation to agreements made before 6 April 2007) REFERENCE TO CASE LAW As the creditor has not provided the credit agreement Wilson v First County Trust Ltd [2003] UKHL 40 states that: ‘….the effect of the failure to comply with the requirements of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 was that the entire agreement was unenforceable. The statutory bar on its enforcement extended to First County Trusts's right to recover the total sum payable on redemption, which included the principal as well as interest.’ SUMMARY OF WILSON v FIRST COUNTY TRUST LTD (2003) UKHL 40 THE WILSON CASE MADE IT CLEAR THAT IN THE EVENT OF NO ACCEPTABLE CONSUMER CREDIT AGREEMENT THEN THE CREDITOR COULD NOT RECOVER MONIES OWED UNDER ORDINARY CONTRACT LAW REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY COULD PROVE THE DEBT EXISTED OR NOT – THIS WAS THE DECISION OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS AND SHOULD THEREFORE BE BINDING IN THIS COURT The law states that without a prescribed agreement the courts may not enforce under 127(3) and 1.In the case of Dimond v Lovell [2000] UKHL 27, Lord Hoffmann said , at page 1131:- “Parliament intended that if a consumer credit agreement was improperly executed, then subject to the enforcement powers of the court, the debtor should not have to pay.” 2.Sir Andrew Morritt, Vice Chancellor in Wilson v First County Trust Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 633 said at para 26 that in the case of an unenforceable agreement:- “The creditor must be taken to have made a voluntary disposition, or gift, of the loan monies to the debtor. The creditor had chosen to part with the monies in circumstances in which it was never entitled to have them repaid;” I refer to LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD in the House of Lords Wilson v First County Trust Ltd - [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul) paragraph 29 ” The court's powers under section 127(1) are subject to significant qualification in two types of cases. The first type is where section 61(1)(a), regarding signing of agreements, is not complied with. In such cases the court 'shall not make' an enforcement order unless a document, whether or not in the prescribed form, containing all the prescribed terms, was signed by the debtor: section 127(3). Thus, signature of a document containing all the prescribed terms is an essential prerequisite to the court's power to make an enforcement order.” If the agreements are, as I expect, unenforceable by law or if no written agreement exists, then the respondent was in error when it stated that a liquidated and legally enforceable sum was due to the respondent at the time the bankruptcy demand was issued. DEFAULT NOTICE The Need for a Default notice Notwithstanding the above, it is also drawn to the courts attention that no default notice required by s87 (1) Consumer Credit act 1974 has been attached to the demand. It is denied that any Default Notice in the prescribed format was ever received and the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that said document in the prescribed format was delivered to the defendant Notwithstanding the above points, I put the claimant to strict proof that any default notice sent to me was valid. I note that to be valid, a default notice needs to be accurate in terms of both the scope and nature of breach and include an accurate figure required to remedy any such breach. The prescribed format for such document is laid down in Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) and amendment regulations the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/3237) Service of a default notice is a statutory requirement as laid out in sections 87,88 and 89 Consumer Credit Act 1974. Section 87 makes it clear that a default notice must be served before a creditor can seek to terminate the agreement or demand repayment of sums due to a breach of the agreement. therefore without a valid default notice, I suggest the claimants case falls flat and cannot proceed and to do so is clearly contrary to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 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 The Defendant denies that he is liable to the Claimant as alleged in the demand at all. It is averred that the Claimant has failed to serve a Notice of Assignment in accordance with section 136(1), of the Law of Property Act 1925, in respect of the alleged debt. The amount detailed in the Claimant’s claim, which is likely to include penalty charges, which are unlawful at Common Law, Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company Ltd v New Garage and Motor Company Ltd [1915], under The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Accordingly, the inclusion of penalty charges in the purported Notice of Assignment renders it entirely legally unenforceable. The Claimant has failed to comply with section 136(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925, by furnishing a Notice of Assignment in respect of that which is denied that is inaccurate, W.F.Harrison and Co Ltd v Burke [1956]. The defendant requires sight of the notice of assignment of the debt. In addition the defendant requires proof of service of the Notice of Assignment in accordance with s196 of the Law of Property Act 1925 which is required to give the claimant a legitimate right of action in their own name since it appears this is an assigned debt. the reason the defendant requests this information is inter alia to clarify the dates are correctly stated on all documents, the defendant notes that if there are errors in the assignment it may be rendered in effectual in law per W F Harrison and Co Ltd v Burke and another - [1956] 2 All ER 169 I refer to: Judge Boggis QC - RE AWAN - [2000] BPIR 241 'In my judgment, bankruptcy is one of the most serious forms of execution that can be brought against a debtor. In any bankruptcy proceedings it is, in my view, absolutely clear that the provisions as to service must be followed exactly. - JUDGE BOGGIS QC - SITTING AS A JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT On the above information I request that the demand is set aside and I kindly ask the judge award my costs in this matter as a LITIGANT IN PERSON. As a low income earner with limited finances I approached a solicitor by phone and asked for an estimate on how much it would cost. I was given an estimate of 3 to 6 hours at £170 per hour to prepare the Application (£510-£1020) plus extra for attending the court. I respectfully request that the court give consideration to awarding these costs on the indemnity basis or, in the alternative, on the standard basis as I believe, in any case, that they have been proportionately and reasonably incurred and/or are of a proportionate and reasonable amount. In support of this request, I would also like to refer the court’s attention to the authority of the High Court in the case of:- Hammonds (a firm) v Pro-Fit USA Ltd [2007] EWHC 1998 (Ch) In this case, Mr Justice Warren confirmed that it was usual for an indemnity award to be made:- 27 So far as disputed debts are concerned, the practice of the court is not to allow the insolvency regime to be used as a method of debt collection where there is a bona fide and substantial dispute as to the debt. Save in exceptional cases, the court will dismiss a petition based on such a debt (usually with an indemnity costs order against the petitioner).

hi i have sent all the request forms to capquest and now have the forms 6.4 and 6.5 ready to fill in, can i ask does the fact that i was paying paying £1 a month on these influence this in any way? reading the similar threads the people involved had paid nothing so had not aknowledged the debt in any way I never aknowledged the debt as such but paid this money for a couple of months to stop the 4-5 calls a day that i was receiving, i just wondered how to put this into my reasoning for setting aside All help appreciated