Final update....I think so, I was just about to contact the local court for a status report, because today was the deadline for Lowell to pay their court fees and the post arrived...... Lowell has bailed out and filed a Notice of Discontinuance - probably because someone there finally realised there is no proof of claim on their side. I'm surprised it took them this long.....unless its part of their scare tactics to cause fear and intimidation. I am relieved, but in a way disapointed, as I was prepared to walk into court and show on record what a bunch of incompetants they are. I'd like to give a huge thank you to the guys here that helped me draft my defence and offered help, advice and encouragement along the way. I hope anyone else being chased for really old utility bills can use the info given in this thread to ward off cockroach debt collectors. Thanks again people, Winston. ps please excuse the grainy images, my scanner spat its dummy out so i had to use a camera phone to upload

Thanks dx. I meant to ask in last post, as it's now been allocated to my local court does that suggest that mediation is now off the table, or is this just another procedural step?

Hi all, time for an update..... Since my last post here I received a letter saying the claimants agreed to or requested mediation I responded also agreeing to mediation. Then I heard nothing until 2 letters last week telling me that the case has been transferred to my local county court for a hearing in late January. Paperwork is really poor photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy quality, but it seems I have to prepare a witness statement in the next couple of weeks. I'll research this, but I assume right now that it will be broadly similar in style and content to the defence I put in response to the claim ?? Is that right? And is there anything in particular or do's and dont's that I need to pay special attention to?

Hi all...….an update. and some questions My defence was filed and acknowledged by the court. Lowell Solicitors wrote 24/8: they are requesting (or agreeing to) mediation in their directions Questionnaire and asking me to agree to it in mine. I haven't received a Directions Questionnaire - should I have one sent by the court ? in the meantime I've had a few other letters from them, I'll just give the abridged versions - if its better to upload as jpg images let me know. 30/7 the usual blurb about not being regulated by CCA 1984 so agreements, Ts&Cs and default don't apply; please pay us; copies of statement and NoA enclosed (but they weren't). the only interesting part is the following sentence - "the supply of both gas and electricity ended on 18 February and the final payment of £xxx.xx was made on 24 March 2014." this is the exact figure shown on the copy statement they sent before some weird deductions were credited to reduce it to the original figure they were demanding. If they refer to their letters as evidence that throws a bit of a spanner in their works? 02/8 more of the usual blurb about not being CCA1984 regulated so no agreements available: no copy of DoA available, copy of NoA and Eon statement enclosed 12/8 they reject my CPR part18 request: "it is noted that you want to obtain evidence to file a defence to the claim form that has been issued. it is noted that the purpose of part 18 is to provide information on a matter of dispute. you have not provided any evidence that you do not owe the outstanding balance nor you dispute it." In capital letters at the top of my letter to them a month ago stated that I don't owe them anything. also : "your agreement is not an agreement for services so there is no requirement pursuant to the CCA1984 to retain or provide the agreement" not once have I mentioned cca1984 - I want to see proof of an agreement that eon gives me heat & light in return for money, if that's not a service what the hell is?? 23/8 they acknowledge my defence responding to my defence that they failed to comply with Practice Direction 16 of PAC - "please find enclosed letter of claim dated 27/5" (it wasn't enclosed) responding to my defence that they hadn't provided NoA - "please find attached a reconstituted copy of the NoA" (it wasn't attached) responding to my defence that they had failed to provide evidence of debt with the claim form - under CPR16.4 its not required, and under CPR31.11 it doesn't apply to small claims and under PD7C.14 (3A) and para 7.3 of PD16 does not apply to CCBC. responding to my request for a copy of the agreement - again due to not being CCA1984 regulated they don't have it, cant get it, don't need it. Lowell still have not acknowledged the GDPR SAR element of my first letter Eon also have not responded to my GDPR SAR letter - not that I expected them to. So should I write back to Lowell to point out all the missing attachments/enclosures, and remind them about the SAR, and the agreement again not related to CCA1984 ?? Should I accept mediation ?? Whats the procedure regarding my Practice Direction ?? I would also like to ask a question privately by pm if that's possible Thanks in advance for your input

I think that was a reasonable question Jimmy. And as Andy said, once its assigned its no longer their concern. But I did SAR them anyway, when I cpr31-14'd Lowell, just out of curiosity to see if they were holding any jokers....or at least, to see if they'd admit to them. Actually, my first letter to Lowell was a SAR - they've conveniently ignored that

Andy, you are a star !! Thank you very much ! I will file it shortly and update the thread as required.

Right, so eon won't discuss the account (at least not on the phone) as it's been assigned, so still no clue about the last payment to them. Npower say the first payment they can see is from January 2014. So I have to assume that's when the supply was switched, which would rule out the SB defence. Just spoken to the nccbc - there's been no changes there, no info or communication from the claimant. So I still need to cobble together a no paperwork defense. Any pointers here would be useful. The lady at nccbc thought it likely to be stayed, while being careful not to be giving any legal advice or opinion.

ok. thanks again dx still searching a suitable no paperwork defence to adapt but my eyes are going fuzzy now, lol

….just as an aside - the NoA supposedly from Eon: its on Lowell paper - has their code written sideways in the margin and their scannable square thing on it. The Eon logo has been cut-n-pasted on, as has the signature. If I did something like that I'd be accused of fraud, but are Lowell allowed to do this ??

thanks dx

ok, thanks I've been searching for the std holding/no paperwork defence mentioned earlier - not found anything yet that looks right

OK dx100uk. I know I didn't have computer or internet in 2010 when the Eon contrac started - I did everything on paper I'm not sure where that leaves me now - if theyre citing an agreement that never actually exists....does that help me because I cant be bound to a non existant contract, or would the court assume that using and paying for 3(ish) years I agree by default? Am I better to amend the following to suit my case ?? Defence 1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature.The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2.The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC ( Pre Action Protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017.It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC. 3. Paragraph 1 is denied. Whilst I have had dealings with Barclaycard in the past I cannot recall the specifics of the alleged agreement. 4. Paragraph 2 is denied .I have no knowledge of who the claimant is nor have I been provided with any Notice of Assignment pursuant to the Law of Property Act 1925. 5.Paragraph 3 is denied.I am not aware of service of a Default Notice by the original creditor or Legal Assignment the claimant refers to within its particulars of claim . 6. It is denied that any amounts are due under any agreement. 7. On receipt of this claim I requested information pertaining to this claim from Howard Cohen & Co Solicitors by way of a CPR 31:14 request sent via 1st class recorded post on 17/07/2019.Further to the above I sent Hoist Finance UK Holdings 3 LTD a section 78 request via 1st class recorded post on 17/07/2019. To date, neither Howard Cohen nor Hoist Portfolio are yet to furnish me with the requested information . 8.Therefore with the court’s permission the Claimant is put to strict proof to a) show and disclose how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; b) show and disclose how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed for; c) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a Default Notice pursuant to Sec 87 (1) CCA1974. d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 9. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5 (4) it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 10. On the alternative, if the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer crediticon Act 1974.6. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.

I agree, Ive made many mistakes. I get that utilities are completely different to banks etc. Is it not just a basic principle that if they make a claim based on an agreement or contract and they cite that agreement/contract in their POC they should have that document or at least access to it?

Andyorch - Its been a long day, I'm not quite sure I follow you here. I did notice that the POC mentions the Agreement, and that Lowell Solicitors tell me they can't/won't provide it, and can't/won't ask Eon for it because under CCA1974 the OC isn't required to keep it. Which I thik is a fairly good defence in itself. But I'm not following the bit about point 13.

Thanks. Do you have a link for a template of this defence ^ makes sense now that it would either be SB defence or not