Hey everyone, Defence has been confirmed it has been received by court, and will be passed to claimants. In the Southend County Court Claim No. Danger mouse 999 Tessera Portfolio Management - Claimant And Mr Penfold - Defendant DEFENCE 1) The defendant is at all times a private individual and is thus entitled to the rights and remedies afforded by statute in respect of regulated agreements. For the avoidance of doubt this claim is based upon a regulated agreement originally made between the defendant and Halifax Cetelem Credit Ltd in 2001. 2) The claimant is at all times a debt purchaser, the claimant does not offer banking or loan facilities and to the best of my knowledge is not nor ever has been licensed by the relevant authorities for such activities. 3) The claim as pleaded fails to identify a cause of action, no averment is made as to why the claimant feels the amount claimed is due. 4) The claim was submitted in breach of CPR PD 16(7.3) in so far as the claim is alleged to be based upon a written agreement and no such document was attached to the claim. 5) The claimant has failed to supply annual statements of the account in breach of Section 77A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA1974) as amended by section 6 Para 24 of the Consumer Credit Act 2006 during the entire period to date and is thus prevented by statute from adding interest and enforcing the agreement. Despite claiming the entire balance to be outstanding as of Sep 2008 the defendant has at no time received any periodic notice of arrears as prescribed by Section 86B of the CCA1974. 6) The default notice produced by the claimant in response to the defendants CPR request refers to an agreement made between the claimant and the defendant on 17th September 2003. The defendant avers that they never entered in this agreement and puts the claimant to strict proof that this agreement exists and that the defendant is a party to this agreement. 7) The default notice is invalid for the following reasons: ( i ) It does not allow the defendant the statutory 14 days for remedy as no time for service was allowed. ( ii ) The termination letter serves as proof that with an immediate termination of the account upon arrival date specified in the default notice, the usage of the word “before” inserted before the date of 10th October 2008 would at best only give the defendant 13 days notwithstanding the lack of service time. ( iii ) For the reason given in (6) of this defence, the default notice refers to an agreement that never existed and thus the default notice cannot be valid. ( iv ) The account had already been defaulted and terminated by the original creditor. 8) The termination letter supplied by the claimant makes reference to the default notice issued on the 26th September 2008. For the reasons set out in (6) & (7) of this defence it follows that this termination notice must be invalid. 9) With reference to (6) & (7), the claimant was prevented by clause 87(1) (a) of the CCA1974 from terminating the account, notwithstanding the averment in 7(iv). 10) In the absence of any written agreement setting out the claimant’s entitlement to charge interest, the defendant avers that the interest charged upon this account has been charged unlawfully and puts the claimant to strict proof of their entitlement to all interest sums claimed. 11) The defendant believes that this account was defaulted and terminated by the original creditor in the year 2002 or 2003 prior to sale to the claimant. The claimant has refused the defendant permission to see documentary evidence requested under CPR to establish the truth of this averment. The defendant puts the claimant to strict proof that the agreement had not been terminated prior to or upon sale to the claimant. 12) The claimant has charged their own unestablished rate of interest on top of the original compounded interest charged by the original creditor throughout what would have been the natural life of the fixed sum loan therefore double charging interest for the first two or three years they held the account. 13) The claimant has added the litigation fees and court fees to both the account and the claim, another example of double charging. 14) If this matter reaches allocation stage, the defendant avers that it would be equitable for a judicial decision to be reached on the status of this account upon assignment to the claimant. The claimant avers that they have been assigned this account by the original creditor Halifax Cetelem Credit Ltd and thus assume their rights and remedies. The claimant has however proceeded to default and terminate an entirely different account (6) and remains in default of the defendant’s requests for clarification and proof of entitlement to the sum claimed. What exists in evidence are some documents drawn up by the claimant and some statements from the claimants own computer system. That these contain errors is beyond doubt that these errors could prove fatal to the claimants case is a matter of great concern to all parties and the court. The defendant is in the absence of proof and is unable to fully defend their position in this matter and the defendant respectfully requests that the claimant be forced to submit a fully compliant and particularised Particulars Of Claim and the defendant be entitled to file an amended defence to address any issues arising from this amended claim. 15) If as the defendant avers there never was an agreement dated 17th September 2003 between the claimant and the defendant then it follows that the defaulting of the agreement in September 2008 was unlawful. The defendant avers that the claimant has been registering a default with the credit reference agencies since this date, and that the registering of this default is in breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 and the guidance from the Information Commissioner. The claimant has effectively falsely brought back the date of the default from 2002 to 2008 and continues to register damaging and defamatory information about the defendant, despite having no lawful authority. 16) If as the defendant avers the account was defaulted and terminated back in 2002/3 by the original creditor then any registering of defaults with the credit reference agencies should have ceased six years from the date of default. 17) The defendant has been frustrated in their attempt to establish the truth of this matter (15) & (16) and is therefore unable without further disclosure to make an informed decision on the likelihood of success of a Part 20 counterclaim for these transgressions, such counterclaim would of course not have needed permission from the Court if disclosure had occurred prior to the defence filing date. The defendant respectfully seeks permission from the Court to enter a Part 20 counterclaim in respect of the unlawful publishing of damaging information by the claimant causing damage to the defendant’s reputation and credit worthiness once initial disclosure has been completed. 18) The defendant is unable to admit or deny whether a debt still exists due to the colourful and creative way the claimant has handled the account. All sums claimed are subject to query and the claimant is put to strict proof that all sums claimed have been calculated lawfully and within the terms and conditions of the original agreement entered into between the defendant and Halifax Cetelem Credit Ltd. 19) The claimant does not have nor appears to have ever held a copy of the original agreement, the defendant is therefore unable to accept or argue the merits of this agreement nor is the defendant able to establish what liability to interest if any they have as the terms and conditions of this agreement have also not been made available to the defendant despite request. 20) With reference to (18) & (19), the defendant accepts that they did have a loan and that they experienced trouble repaying this loan and that the account was subsequently sold. The defendant has provably made payments in excess of £2500 towards the outstanding balance which originally stood at £4000 according to the claimant. 21) The defendant is unable to admit or deny whether the original creditor applied unlawful charges to the account prior to assignment and the claimant is put to strict proof that they did not and that the initial balance transferred to them was lawfully composed. 22 ) With reference to (20) & (21), the claimant is put to strict proof that in the event any balance can be determined to be lawfully outstanding that the agreement upon which the claim is based and terminated lawfully and is enforceable by the court. I believe this defence to be factually correct and all statements contained herein to be true to the best of my knowledge.

Hey everyone, Any ideas on what to respond to the above letter, they giving me the run around with their answers the only straight forward response was... 6) Have your client ever been known as or have they ever traded as Halifax Cetalem Credit Ltd? No. The rest is a load of cobblers even their F & F. I have filed my defence, with much appreciation to Jasper1965. - ( I will post up tomorrow ) Should i just wait to hear from the court, how long would that normally be?

Today i received CPR 18 response from Tessera's Sol's. Thank you of your letters of 26 May 2011. In response to your further request please note the follwoing: 1. The agreement referred to in the Default and Termination Notices was the sale from Halifax Cetelem to Tessera Portfolio Management Ltd where Halifax Cetelem sold the account to our client subject to all terms and conditions of the original Agreement betwenn you and Halifax Cetelem. a. Yes, as described above. b. Yes, as described above. c. No, you were a signatory to the original Agreement with Halifax Cetelem. d. Please refer to the origina; Agreement with Halifax Cetelem. e. Please refer to item 3 of our letter dated 20 May 2011. f. Please refer to the original Agreement with Halifax Cetelem. These terms were unaffected by the sale to Tessera Portfolio Management Ltd. 2. Tessera Portfolio Management Ltd did not lend you any money: they purchased the account from the original lender, Halifax Cetelem. 3. As far as Tessera Portfolio Management Ltd are aware the account was not in default at the time of sale but fell into arrears after the sale, hence the default and termination notices were issued by Tessera Portfolio Management Ltd instead of Halifax Cetelem. 4. As 3 above. 5. The default notice was issued by Tessera Portfolio Management Ltd on 26 September 2008 and the termination notice on 10 October 2008. 6. No. 7. Please refer to your original agreement with Halifax Cetelem. All the terms and conditions of the original Agreement between you and Halifax Cetelem were unchanged following the sale. 8. The court fees are added on issue of the summons. However if judgement os not granted in due course these will be removed. 9. The deed of assignment is a private and confidential document between the vendor, Halifax Cetelem, the purchaser, Tessera Portfolio Management Ltd and any financiers that may have been involved. The terms of your original agreement with Halifax Cetelem were unaffected by this sale. Therefore the Notice of Assignment sent to you is all that is required under UK law. At the time of sale the vendor indicated that this account had not been defaulted or terminated by them hence our client issued there own notices via their agents, Rockwell. However if the account had been defaulted and terminated prior to sale this would not affect the validity of the debt as the notices served by the original lender would remain valid; with the notices srved by our client's agents, Rockwell being superfluous. 10. As explained above the client purchased your account from Halifax Cetelem, the original lender. 11. Your payments have been applied in reduction of your debt originally with Halifax Cetelem and later sold to Tessera Portfolio Management Ltd. 12. By this we mean the original agreement with Halifax Cetelem. You will have been provided with a copy of this agreement when you initially took the loan out. If you now require a further copy we can request this from the vendor, however given the age of the debt this may no longer be available. That being the case it may be necessary to provide a reconstituted copy. Turning now to your second "without prejudice" letter of the same date we have noted your offer and have discussed this with our clients who have advised us that they would wish to bring this matter to an early and mutually acceptable conclusion. Therefore they are prepared to accept the sum £1,430.16 in full and final settlement of their claim (effectively refunding all the interest applied since the date of sale and deducting the court fees and costs). This offer is open to you for a period of 14 days from the date of this letter. We look forward to receiving your response.

Sent this via email Further to our telephone conversation of this afternoon in regards to correspondence sent to your selves delivered via royal mail special delivery. I can confirm this has been tracked and it has been received and signed for by your company. It is with much frustration that i find the need to resend this to your selves electronically, i will be informing the court about your inadequate handling of my correspondence. Please respond to this email to confirm acknowledgement, and to confirm the attached letters format is readable by yourselves. Yours faithfully Penfold

It sounds like she only wanted help to put it under her mattress , the only illegal activity here would be attempted rape, or maybe she just got a thing about doing it in a bath of cash.

oooo im shaking.........not Just got off phone to Tessera's Sols ELS............ and they claim not to have received my letter although i sent it via special delivery on 26/05/11, and it was signed for, take a look for yourselves http://track.royalmail.com/portal/rm/trackresults?catId=22700601&pageId=trt_rmresultspage&keyname=ePOD4_track&_requestid=170069 i putting this here too for safe keeping zw044802411gb Yes they are a bunch of lying *****. They played ping pong with me passing me to 3 different people, i wanted to ask what there intended actions would be re my F and F.But i did ask if they have successfully found the OC's CCA,there response was "oh im sorry you have to speak to a MR Hall"....... I offered to send it via email... should i or just let the judge see that there being uncooperative as well. I also phoned the court they have not processed my time extension and they need few days to do, how ever i did ask for due date for defence and they confirmed it 6th June 2011.

Why do i have the feeling that my request for a extension will be denied as i did not specify a date, nor did Tessera's Sols specify a date or length of time they will put the matter on hold. The issue date was 03 MAY 2011 + 28 Days makes a defence due tomorrow, can any one help please putting a defence and counter claim together please just in case i messed up with extension request. Will the court accept an emailed or faxed defence, or do i have valid excuse for a road trip to Southend ?

maybe i should of put this figure plus interest.....

Ok so everything sent to court and ELS. I will post there response as soon as i get one. I have been looking into writing to ICO, OFT ans FSA getting there details, i need to put a cover letter to support my complaint and highlighting there bad practice but not sure where to start, any ideas? and what do i send them, how deep do i go... i really want this complaint to stand out

Hey Jasper, I have found some old correspondence collecting dust in the loft from the OC Halifax Cetelem, seems that they did default and terminate the account back in 2002. Now the noose is getting tighter! I have sent off the letter to the court today requesting an extension please find below, ( to late to change but thought it might be useful to other caggers, i have been trying to make it easy for their next easy pickings ) Mr Penfold V Tessera Portfolio Management In the Southend County Court Claim No. XXXXXXX Dear Sir / Madam, On 16/05/11 a letter was sent to Tessera Portfolio Management Ltd Solicitors ELS(please find enclosed), requesting under CPR 31.14 for the disclosure of documents. On 25/05/11 I received a response (please find enclosed), dated 20/05/11. In this response they mention their client is content to place this matter on hold, whilst they wait for documents to fulfil my CPR 31.14 Request. The claimant has agreed to an extension (in the cpr response because they haven't got the agreement). I therefore ask for an extension of 28 days for the requested documentation to arrive, and submit my defence. Yours faithfully Penfold Enc CPR 31.14 Request Enc CPR 31.14 Partial response I have also sent the cpr 18 and F & F by special delivery to ELS.

Hi Jasper, Im just typing up cpr 18, only the more i read the above quote more confused i am should we be seeking answers regarding agmnt 1 and not 2? Thanks

I had to respond the AOS via post i had no password to access MCOL. From court i received the following N1CPC Claim Form N9CPC Response Pack N9A (CPC) Form of admission N9B (CPC) Defence and counterclaim Nothing else came with the above to support there POC

With the harrasment, threats, poor credit rating, worry and stress, and all the above you have so expertly pointed out yes they do deserve to pay..... and pay they will I really cant wait to hear there response.

tomorrow i will look into complaining to OFT, FSA and the ICO im on par now, just not sure if i send the court a copy of my generous offer of settlement 8)

OMG just read the extra bit...... i really do love your choice of words. im still taken this in

WOW... thats a big response, gonna draft up letter to court and to ELS in morning. CAG needs to add a buy me a beer tab, a six pack is well deserved, thank you so much

Thanks Jasper / DX, my head is spinning with that list of nails to hit there coffin with, i am sure i never signed any agreement with tessera.... so i can assume no cca will ever come then. I dont think Halifax Cetelem has ever defaulted my crf but i guess ill never know. I have to file a defense i think by 31/05/11 the issue date is 03/05/11, so plan to send this in Saturdays post, and allow 2 days for posting. Its a great relief to have found this site and people like yourselves willing to help others being taking advantage of...I am truly grateful for your responses they are reassuring to me, and only hope i see a positive outcome.

ok try again http://s1184.photobucket.com/albums/z332/penfold2010/Tessera%20Portfolio/

Ok here is all the scanned docs Lets see if got it right first time round? - Please let me know if anything should be removed from album. Thanks Again!

Hey Jasper many thanks for your response, i have cut and pasted minus the crendentials from equifax. could it be a default from an arrangement to pay? Name xxxxxxxx Date of Birth xxxxxx Terms 0 @ £ 0 (Monthly) Status Defaulted Current Balance £ 6,015 Start Balance £ 0 Credit Limit £ 0 Default / Delinquent Balance £ 6,065 Start Date 13/12/2001 Date Updated 07/12/2009 Date Last Delinquent Date Satisfied Default Date 10/10/2008 Payment History This table shows how you have kept your account over time, for infomation about individual months pass your mouse cursor over the coloured block J F M A M J J A S O N D 2008 D -------------END-------------- Ok there should be a D mark in oct 2008 which wouldnt copy...... no other dates present or past updates on my crf except the Oct 08 Default mark. im in the process of scanning there reply as i type..... watch this space

And this was there response- Thank you for your letter of 16 May 2011. In response to your request please note the following. 1. This will have to be ordered from the original lender, Halifax Cetelem. It will take some time for our client to obtain this additional information from the vendor. we have therefore discussed this case with our client who has confirmed that they are content for us to place this matter "on hold" for the time being whilst the document is awaited. 2. The deed of assignment is a private and confidential document between the vendor, purchaser and any financiers who may have been involved. It contains confidentiality clauses and consequently we are unable to provide you with a copy. This is not necessary under UK legislation. 3. The notice of assignment was sent to you on 22nd September 2003. This complies with the current UK legislation. We enclose a print of the precedent Notice of Assignment letter. The claimant has written its own computer case management system which has been operational since 1995. The computer system has within its database numerous precedent letters, including the Notice of Assignment. Your details and amount due and owing etc are extracted and populated into relevant precedent letters. From reference to the claimants computer system please find enclosed a printout of the in-fills used to populate this letter. It is possible to cross reference the in fills from the letter to the printout, (e.g. "StandardField03" on the letter relates to your title, in this case "Mr"). A copy of the printout containing the in fills is also enclosed. We are unable to provide with a full reconstituted copy as neither this firm nor our clients have a stock of Halifax Cetelem paper. 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. We Trust that the above information will be sufficient for you to recognise the debt in question. Furthermore you have previously acknowledged the existence of the debt, as evidenced by the payments received via our clients previous agents, as shown on the enclosed statement. Our client has to date received £2,320.25 from you, with the last payment being received on 16 November 2009. We therefore invite you to put forward your firm and realistic repayment proposals for commencing repayment of the remaining debt and await your response within the next 14 days. We have also taken this opportunity to discuss the case with our clients who have indicated that they may be willing to accept a sum less that the full balance due if this will enable the case to be concluded in the short term also avoiding the need for further legal proceeding. We therefore look forward to receiving your proposals for dealing with the outstanding balance. -----------------------END----------------------- Ok so i will scan up the enclosed documents later this is evening ..... watch this space! so i think i now need to submit my defense? - although they do mention this has been put on hold . Thanks for reading, i am keen to hear caggers input. Kind Regards Penfolds

Ok so i sent the CPR 31.14 below.. template removed - dx]

Thanks Slick OK cpr 31.14 sent ..... will post there response when received. :/

Hey Silverfox, thank you for your input and the link, the POC is exactly as above very vague..... it is in Southend CC, so i sent the AOS by post today hopefully for them to receive before the 14 day lapse - court papers issued on 3rd, but i will ring the court on monday to confirm they received them. i have ready a CCA and SAR to Tessera's solictiors ELS , i will reprint and send both to halifax instead, i have also printed a CPR ready to be fired off to ELS copied from this link ( cant post link dont have 20 posts, cut and paste please) consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?297203-County-court-summons-for-16-year-old-debt-**Claim-discontinued**/page2[/url] Please can you confirm this is the best way to do this Thanks

Hey Dx, been digging some more here and found this very recent thread consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?297203-County-court-summons-for-16-year-old-debt-**Claim-discontinued**/page2[/url] would a cpr be any different, really am sorry i wanna get this right and about about to lick the envelope ......... and now i went to respond to AOS online and theres no password (as it in Southampton CC ) so now i got 4 days for them to receive by post, should i send recorded delivery? Thanks again