Here's the file. I hope it's worked as it was not easy to collate. BCard Link Kearns Oct23.pdf

Hi All, Hope everyone is well. It's been a while, but just had an A4 envelope thud on the doormat today. Looks like the game's up and I will have to sort out a repayment of some sort. Kearns have considered my defence which I 'filled' (and they spelled that wrong twice!) and their client "does sympathise with my situation", but they have kindly "offered me the opportunity to settle the matter without the need for further court action" In response to me requesting copies of the original documentation, they have also sent those. I don't seem to have the original Notice of Assignment which is unusual as I am careful with filing my documents. So, short of paying the full amount owed, plus costs accrued so far, is there any other avenue I can explore?

Today, after 4 wasted lunch-hours (Why does HMCTS only open normal office hours when we are all trying to earn money at the same time to pay off the debts?!!!) I finally got through. They confirmed no such action has been entered against me, no CCJ and all I have done so far is above board and recorded. Kearns have yet to respond to my defence. So, scammers/fleecers they seem to be then.

I’ll call Northants Bulk to see what they’ve recorded. Then best to add a thread on my MCOL records? I know if I did pay it off within a month the CCJ is taken off the record so how do I play it from here?

This is my MCOL history so far: Recent Transactions for Defendant Claim Status A claim was issued against you on 18/04/2023 Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 04/05/2023 at 19:38:50 Your acknowledgment of service was received on 05/05/2023 at 08:05:19 Your defence was submitted on 19/05/2023 at 06:35:57 Your defence was received on 19/05/2023 at 08:05:31 Could it be down to the fact it wasn't served to Kearns in time? I'm assuming it goes by the above receipts date and time.

I filed the defence on Friday the 19th May early in the morning. I received a letter from HM Courts and Tribunal Service dated the 19th saying they had received my defence and it was being served on the claimant. Will post a copy later and check MCOL.

Hi again, An update on the above, not good unfortunately. I received a letter back from Link around 2 weeks after sending my defence. It reads as follows: "Dear Mr Newdogg06, Thank you for taking the time to contact us regarding your previous Section 77/78 request, as part of the Consumer Credit Act (CCA) 1974. Following a further review of the account in question, I can confirm that a County Court Judgement (CCJ) has been obtained in May 2023 and therefore the account is considered enforceable. As such we are not required to comply with your more recent request. If you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact us. Yours Sincerely, Brinda Mauree Complaint & Dispute Resolution Team" I assume this means I now have to pay up in full? Regards, ND

Thanks for that. Very much appreciated. I have updated on the MCOL page and will send it tomorrow.

OK, sorry, not with it this morning! Just keep seeing £ signs haunting me!

OK. Many thanks for your help! I will update as things progress.

Ok, I did mention that on the first posting of the defence. If that is taken out and the rest altered, is it ready to send? Or will taking that out make the defence ultimately weak? They were posted recorded today.

Is this any closer? Particular's of claim for easy reference 1. The Claimant ('C') claims the whole of the outstanding balance due and payable under an agreement referenced **************** and opened effective from 18/07/2006. 2. The agreement is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ('CCA"), was signed by the Defendant ('D') and from which credit was extended to D. 3. D failed to comply with a Default Notice served pursuant to s87 (1) CCA and by 29/10/2018 a default was recorded. As at 29/11/2021 the Defendant owed Barclaycard the sum of 8,900.00 4. By an agreement in writing the benefit of the debt has been legally assigned to C effective 29/11/2021 and made regular upon C serving a Notice of Assignment upon D shortly thereafter. 5. And C claims- 1. 8,900.00 2. Interest pursuant to Section 69 County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8 % per annum from 29/11/2021 to 18/04/2023 of 920.00 and thereafter at a daily rate of 1.89 to date of judgment or sooner payment. Date 18/04/2023 Defence 1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are 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. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have had in the past a contractual relationship with Barclaycard. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars . I do not recall the precise details or agreement and have sought verification from the claimant. 3. Paragraph 2 is noted. I have requested by way of a section 78 CCA request for a copy of the agreement from the claimant 4. Paragraph 3 is noted. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by Barclays Bank. 5. Paragraph 4 is denied. I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or Barclays Bank. 6. On the 17/05/2023 I requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CPR 31.14 request and CCA1974 Section 78 request. 7. It is therefore denied until such time complies with my requests with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, and therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 8. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 9. On the alternative, as 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 credit Act 1974. 10. 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. .

Ok. Just found it. My partner opened it and must have put it in with a pile of bank statements etc. So numbers 2 and 4 of the defence are now irrelevant if I received a Letter of Claim?

With regards to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC I don't honestly remember whether I did or not. Not the best period in my life at the time and I was pretty disorganised paperwork wise as I was concentrating on getting my business built up. What would be the best answer to give to generate a positive outcome? Sorry, but I fit bathrooms and kitchens, this is all alien to me!

As a defence, is this OK? I have to post the CCA and CPR31 letters today, so have changed the dates in the defence, although it is obvious they would not have replied by now. Please let me know if this is all relevant as a solid defence reply as I am going away on business tomorrow and need to file it ASAP. Thanks in advance. Defence 1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are 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 noted. I have had in the past a contractual relationship with Barclaycard. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars . I do not recall the precise details or agreement and have sought verification from the claimant who has not complied with my requests for further information. 4. Paragraph 2 is noted. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by Barclays Bank and received by the Defendant. 5. Paragraph 3 is denied. I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or Barclays Bank. 6. On the 17/05/2023 I requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CPR 31.14 request and CCA1974 Section 78 request. The claimant as yet to respond to this request. Kearns as yet to respond in relation to the CPR 31.14 request. To date, 17/05/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 7. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 8. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 9. On the alternative, as 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 credit Act 1974. 10. 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.