Thank you for all the advice on here. I just wanted to update you following the Court Hearing this morning: The District Judge accepted both of my arguments and the claim by Lowell Portfolio 1 Ltd was dismissed. It was held that: 1. On the balance of probabilities I was not the debtor and the Claimant could not provide any evidence to support that their claim was against the right person. AND 2. The Default Notice was on the balance of probabilities not provided. AND 3. The documents that the Claimant sought to put forward in lieu of a Default Notice did not constitute such as they were not in the prescribed format. All in all WIN WIN WIN! Thanks again for all the help and advice - just goes to show you can beat faceless companies when armed with the right information and support! Cheers!

The alleged original debt is a Lloyds TSB Credit Card originating September 2005. From the post above do I therefore understand correctly that as it falls before 6 April 2007 the the fact that 127(3) has not been complied with the breach of that term renders the whole agreement unenforceable? Thanks Chris

I filed a three part defence: 1. That the debt is not mine to start with - evidenced with electoral roll information and a contemporaneous signature that differs from that on the agreement. Notwithstanding the above; 2. That the debt had not been assigned - this was later countered with a supposed letter of assignation. 3. That a Default Notice was not issued - this to date has not been countered and in the claimants statement they say, "Although the Claimant has not yet received a copy of the Default Notice (thereby admitting there isn't one!) in relation to this matter from the Originating Creditor, the Claimant again refers to the letter adduced (the alleged notice of assignation and a further introduction letter from the DCA) which clearly sets out the sums due under the Defendant's Agreement with the Originating Creditor." They go on to say further in their statement that despite no Default Notice being served, "The Claimant will submit that the Notice of Assignment served on the Defendant constitutes as a valid demand for payment." This statement suggests that they can waive the need for a Default Notice by having a Notice of Assignment. Is this right does anyone know?! Thanks for the help guys - very much appreciated, Chris

That's great - thanks for that, very much appreciated!

It's a DCA. I have defended the matter all the way and the court hearing is tomorrow. I was initially confident that without a Default Notice they couldn't get a judgment but they have continued to pursue it which is why I am looking for clarification!

At present they don't even have that!

I have read a lot about court action failing because the Default Notice has not been served in the prescribed format. But in my instance, the alleged creditor cannot provide ANY Default Notice in any format, prescribed or otherwise. Does this mean that court action will fail, and if so, which section of the Consumer Credit Act applies? Any help much appreciated! Chris