Re-read your post pm, and yes I think we can answer yes to all five questions. Not sure how we prove that the goods only cost £575 - will get BigAl to have another look in his kitchen cupboards:D

Thanks pm, that is my interpretation of the situation as well. I am going to draft up an amended defence using the following, in this order. 1. The notice of assignment came from the DCA not the OC therefore is not valid under the law of property act and they don't have the right to collect the debt. Additionally the agreement is so illegible that it is impossible to say whether the t&cs included the right to assign the devt in the first place. 2. The agreement is multiple, using the information in your post. Also thought that the fact that one of the PPI agreements (for the ex) is a separate one adds weight to the argument that the first one should also have been separate - or at the very least shown separately. As far as I know your understanding of what happened with the money is correct - no doubt BigAl can confirm if it was otherwise. 3. The PPI was sold to him as being conditional to getting the loan. They have not produced any evidence to show otherwise, and we don't even have a copy of the policy. 4. They added charges to the account during the period it was in dispute as they took over a year to find his agreement. 5. The statements he found in the kitchen cupboard do not match the statements produced in court by the DCA - the second lot of statements include both lots of PPI whereas the originals do not. I am going to draft something up shortly and will post it here. I am proposing to fax it to the claimant and the court in the morning. Thanks so much for all your help.

I know what you mean about the commitment, and it is not easy to scale it down - it is more a case of being here or not being here! I have never seen anything you have posted that has been misleading or worthy of the Cagbot, and as stated below we all try our best and we might not always get it right. Hope you do stay - obviously a lot of people feel the same.

DDD - they issued the court claim before they even wrote to you about the assignment. I have posted the defence I used to kick CL/Cohens out - some of if might be relevant to your case, particularly the bits about assignment and about them issuing the claim too quickly: In the xx County Court Claim Number Between C L Finance Ltd and Goldlady I am the defendant in this matter and I would firstly notify the court that I have received no documents whatsoever from the claimant in response to the court’s order dated April 2008. I am therefore preparing this amended defence without any of the further information I requested. I must draw the court’s attention to the fact that I first requested the documents listed in a CPR Part 18 Request for Information dated January 2008 . To date the documents I have received are the application form dated November 2004, a set of terms and conditions dated July 2007, a substantially incomplete set of statements (July 2005 to June 2006, May 2007 and August 2007). I informing me that by an assignment dalso have a Notice of Assignment which has been sent by the claimant’s solicitors dated October 2007, ated October 2007 GE Capital Bank Limited had assigned the debt absolutely to CL Finance Limited. This same letter informs me that a claim had been submitted for the County Court. Additionally I have never received a default notice and the claimant has not furnished me with a copy or any proof that one was ever issued. The first part of my defence concerns the application form. Under ss. 60(1) and 61(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, for a credit agreement to be enforceable it must contain certain prescribed terms. If a credit agreement does not contain the required prescribed terms it is rendered unenforceable by s127 (3) Consumer Credit Act 1974, which states: 127(3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a)(signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner). The prescribed terms are: - A credit limit or a statement as to how this will be determined. - An APR. - A schedule of repayments These are the prescribed terms as required by the Act and subsequent Regulations. There are also many other things, which are called required terms, that should be in an agreement. These include: - Details of default charges. - Statements of protection for customers, including cancellation rights None of these terms are included in the application form, which has additionally not been countersigned by GE Consumer Credit Services Ltd. I would draw the court’s attention to the judgment of Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead in the case of Wilson v First County Trust Ltd - [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul), paragraph 29. 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. The second type of case concerns failure to comply with the duty to supply a copy of an executed or unexecuted agreement pursuant to sections 62 and 63, or failure to comply with the duty to give notice of cancellation rights in accordance with section 64(1). Here again, subject to one exception regarding sections 62 and 63, section 127(4) precludes the court from making an enforcement order. Further case law provides the following: 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;” 3.When this case was appealed to the House of Lords on a matter regarding the Human Rights Act (Wilson & Ors v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2003] UKHL 40), Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead said:- [49] The message to be gleaned from sections 65, 106, 113 and 127 of the Consumer Credit Act is that where a court dismisses an application for an enforcement order under section 65 the lender is intended by Parliament to be left without recourse against the borrower in respect of the loan… when legislation renders the entire agreement inoperative, to use a neutral word, for failure to comply with prescribed formalities the legislation itself is the primary source of guidance on what are the legal consequences. Here the intention of Parliament is clear. Additionally there is no section of the application form which permits the original lender to assign or share details of the defendant with persons other than credit reference agencies. The second limb of my defence is based on the following statement from my original defence: “Further, the claim was issued with no warning, nor any approach to the Claimant at all, which is in breach of the Pre-Action Protocols of the Civil Procedure Rules. The notice of assignment was received on the same day as the Claim form, thereby showing that the Claimant issued these proceedings before the Defendant had been notified of the assignment, and shows beyond any doubt that the Claimant made no attempt whatsoever to contact the Defendant prior to these proceedings being issued.” I have since researched notices of assignment and the provisions of the Law of Property Act 1925. In a letter to the Claimant’s solicitors, copied to the court on 6 April 2008, I stated the following: I now understand that the Law of Property Act 1925 (LPA 1925) sets out specific guidelines for the issue of a notice of assignment. Specific to this case is the fact that s136 of the statute states that the notice of assignment must be written by the assignor personally. The notice of assignment I received was from Howard Cohen & Co. Secondly the assignment only operates under the Act as from the date of the notice, that is, the date on which it is received by or on behalf of the debtor (see Holt v Heatherfield Trust Ltd [1942] 2 KB 1, [1942] 1 All ER 404; Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes [1973] 2 All ER 476, [1973] 1 WLR 757 (affd [1974] 1 All ER 161, [1974] 1 WLR 155, CA. As I received the notice of assignment from the claimant’s solicitors by standard post on 24 October 2007, and not by any form of personal delivery as required by s196 of the LPA 1925, and the court claim was issued on 22 October 2007 I therefore believe that the notice of assignment I received is rendered ineffectual by the aforementioned provisions.” The third aspect of my defence is that at no time have I been sent a default notice. The claimant has been unable to supply any such document or proof that one was ever issued, in spite of my requests and indeed the court’s request of April 2008. A default notice should comply with s87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) as amended. 87. Need for default notice. — (1) Service of a notice on the debtor or hirer in accordance with section 88 (a “default notice ”) is necessary before the creditor or owner can become entitled, by reason of any breach by the debtor or hirer of a regulated agreement, — (a) to terminate the agreement, or (b) to demand earlier payment of any sum, or © to recover possession of any goods or land, or (d) to treat any right conferred on the debtor or hirer by the agreement as terminated, restricted or deferred, or (e) to enforce any security. In conclusion, I would reaffirm my original statement: The Defendant denies that she is liable to the Claimant as alleged in the Particulars of Claim or at all. It is averred that the Claimants have commenced these proceedings unlawfully and vexatiously, for the reasons described in the foregoing.

I know someone on the site who might be able to help. I will send him a link to your thread and see what he thinks. Who did you owe other than the taxman? And were you up to date with them just before you went BR?

Hi Louise, If you can prove that you were not living there after the date he locked you out then you need to write to the council and tell them so. I too am horrified by what has happened to you, but you have done nothing wrong and you need to be strong and fight all of this. Please don't worry too much, as I am sure this can all be sorted out. There are lots of us on here who will help you as I am sure you are beginning to realise.

I am trying to get some friends out of an IVA at the moment, not because they have the funds to repay it, but because we have established that most of the debts are unenforceable and that the terms of the IVA are extremely unfair. I do know someone who managed to negotiate a settlement for his IVA but am not sure if he managed to clean up his credit record, which is obviously what you are hoping to do.

Need to go back further. When did you receive the notice of assignment from CL Finance, the default notice and the Court Claim?

Is it not that three different creditors have marked your credit file that you have an IVA?

And really you should never have gone bankrupt in the first place:mad: What are all these charges that have been added on? And who are these trustees? I would think that if you can prove that you were not actually insolvent at the time that you should be able to get the bankruptcy annulled. New territory here for me but the way I see things anything is possible.

So they have not provided your agreement, even though they say they have. I don't think the most recent t&cs really cut the mustard. I would be tempted to ignore them until (or rather IF with a capital 'I') they do issue proceedings and then ask them again for a copy of the agreement. It seems 99.9% likely that they have nothing or they would have sent you it. They couldn't find mine:D

Hi, and welcome to CAG. When you say the total debts were 18k I presume that is after the alleged tax debt has been removed. You told the OR about your inheritance - what was their reaction? So you have 32k from your Dad and 10k tax rebate, with 18k of debt which has just been written off due to your bankruptcy. How much of the debt is unlawful charges etc? I am not sure how the OR will deal with this but it seems to me that you should be able to negotiate full and final settlements. Or are you hoping to get the bankruptcy removed from your record? I am not sure about this but hope you will get some more help. It is a very unusual situation. I wonder if you have any comeback against the Inland rev for forcing you into bankruptcy in the first place.

PT or Photoman if either of you are around we have very little time left to sort this one. I am hoping to be able to fax something to the claimant and court on Monday - but could do with some help. Thanks guys

DDD, I think the agreement is debatable, would not say outright that is a non starter. But having said that I defeated this bunch three times in court because of breaches of civil procedure rules - ie they sent the court claim before they had notified me the debt had been assigned etc. Can you give a chronological list of what they did when? And what is the hearing on the 17th? And what have you sent to the court so far?

You are talking to someone who would lie on the floor if someone knocked at the door, and who is still a bit nervous about answering the phone. Until about a year ago I would just let it ring unless the OH was here. You will get stronger, believe me. It is only money after all. You have not committed a crime - it sounds as if they have - it is called irresponsible lending. Sleep well:)

St John's Wort - been taking it for three years after I came off sleeping tablets that were prescribed as antidepressant. And red wine of course:D

Without being too specific, can you tell us how the 50k is split? And when you say the Lloyds card is old, how old? I had a Lloyds credit card and when I asked them for a copy of my agreement (which they need to prove the debt in court) they couldn't find anything at all. Same thing may apply to the loan but less likely. MBNA are the biggest problem IMO. They seem to think they are above British law and are horrendous. You will get lots of help on here and this website changes lives - believe me - I was about to go bankrupt when I found it nearly three years ago.

Hi, just subscribing to your thread in the hope that I can help. Have you got a lot of equity in your house? Have you tried to negotiate reduced payments/frozen interest with any of them? And how much do you owe in total?

However you decide to word the appeal there is one sentence you need to include. "I have been advised to contact my MP regarding this matter" And actually do it if they don't help.

He who laughs last laughs longest! I feel exactly the same towards MBNA.

I would wait until they confirm they don't have the agreement, and see what the SAR produces. But if they have a charge on your house you will need something more than the letter below - most probably court action.

OK - have now established that only £575 of the loan was for the roof stuff, the balance of £425 was paid to BigAl's ex as a cheque. So the original agreement is for three different items - the goods, the balance paid by cheque, and the PPI. I need some help here. Court hearing very soon:eek:. We have already defended on the basis that the PPI was added on twice and the other side have produced a document showing that PPI for the ex was taken out a couple of months after the original agreement. The original agreement shows PPI for BigAl but it has been added to the loan balance and payments not shown separately. So, do we go for the multiple agreements argument (in view of recent developments:confused:), or the mis-sold PPI which was added on at the outset. There are charges which were added while the OC was in breach of a CCA request. We also have an original set of statements which contradicts the statements produced by the DCA in court as the second PPI is not shown on those statements. Does that back up the argument that the first PPI should have been run as a separate account?

Bigal, when you say that the goods were only £575, what happened with the rest of the £1000 you borrowed?

:lol: Now I wish I hadn't deleted all my Nigerian emails. Now expect a visit from the Cagbot for being racist:eek:

Amended slightly. In my experience the courts can be a bit tetchy about being told what to do. And yes you could amend your defence IF they ever come up with anything.