fantastic, well done Milly, a very good example to others, respect for having the balls to appeal, and rightly so

an envelope arrived from HC yesterday, a few details and copies of the Letter of Claim and the transfer of the debt to them, attached There were some sundry pages of income and help for debtors that I've left out. I assume that there's nothing for me to act on here? I'm still waiting for the court to notify me of the next step? I'm not expecting them to provide me with anything other than the skycard application form they sent me years ago, attached right at the top of this thread. HC 150819.pdf

I'm not sure their version of events is relevant, you have a proveable sequence of events, their version is either mistaken or a lie, why get involved in it?

perhaps someone at Currys web team spotted the error and tidied it up at their end so it looks to them like it never happened, leaving 'only' the evidence that the buyer has. one wonders if anyone there has even looked at what has been sent to them

28 days to proceed or it is stayed? but they can unstay it at anytime can't they? do they have to produce something to do that, ie is there any advantage to me if it is stayed?

Sorry for the delay and my breezy post, will do better from now on, letter attached. HC 090819.pdf

What I assume is a bog standard letter from the Courts arrived today confirming they have my defence and will pass it on to the claimant.

they ignore the 'leaving' as a bluff as so many people do it, I had this with them after my package crept up to £98, I told them I was cancelling and was not interested in anything they had to say, they dropped it to £65 for a year. Else cancel it, they/you'll have a month to come up with a deal, if it's only broadband, you have lots of options

Done, after some minor tidying up of grammar and removing that extra 'icon' in Consumer Credit Act near the end.

bless you and thank-you very much, will submit through MCOL right now and await updates

Particulars of Claim for reference only ..do not submit with defence 1.The Claim is for the sum owing of £ 5xxx in respect of monies owing under an Agreement with the account no.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx pursuant to The Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA). 2.The debt was legally assigned by Barclays Bank plc (EX BARCLAYCARD) to the claimant and notice has been served. 3.The Defendant has failed to make any contractual payments under the terms of the Agreement. A default notice has been served upon the Defendant pursuant to s.87(1) CCA. The Claimant claims 1. The said sum of £ 5xxx 2. Costs 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.

Hi, umm what? Those are their POC from the claim form. ah, thats what I should have at the start of mine, doh, thanks, will edit accordingly sorry about me, slightly weary after a couple of busy days relaxing, thank-you

Hello and yes indeed to getting on with it, here I am, reading a few other threads. So I can upload the below through MCOL ... I've lifted it from here Hoist claimform - Aqua Card debt***Claim Discontinued*** Is point 3 ok? Is there any need to admit to past dealings? As always, thanks for all and any help and advice Micky Particulars of Claim 1.The claim is for the sum of £xxx in respect of monies owing under and agreement with the account 12345678 pursuant to the consumer credit act 1974 (CCA) 2.The debt was legally assigned by Hoist Finance UK Holdings 3 Ltd to the claimant and notice has been served. 3.The defendant has failed to make contractual payments under the terms of the agreement. A default notice has been served upon the Defendant pursuant to s.87(1) CCA The claimant claims 1. The sum of £xxx 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. The Claimants case is denied. Whilst I have had dealings with Barclaycard in the past I cannot recall the specifics of the alleged agreement. 4. Furthermore 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 .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. It is denied that any amounts are due under any agreement. 6. 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 . 7.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; 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, 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.

Apologies for the lack of updates, started a new job involving 30 miles of cycling each day so slightly weary in the evenings. I got the seemingly routine letter from Cohen a week and a bit ago about looking for requested documents and delaying everything for 14 days, attached. The original claim form was dated 12 Jul, am I right to think I need to send in a defence via MCOL within 28 days of that date, along the lines that I have not been send a valid CCA at any time and indeed no CCA of any kind from Hoist/Cohen? It's a fialry template defence? HC.pdf

hello all, the defence is more or less boilerplate isn't it, essentially stating that the original CCA cannot be produced by the claimant?

Hello again Coolio, the manager in the store refused to even look at the boots, said it would make him liable. The oil at the counter looked and said wear and tear but also refused to accept the letter or the boots. Aye aye on the LBA, will get that in the post this week and update accordingly as and when. Thanks Micky

yes, I thought the same, astro as well so not even a grass field, they've plainly simply torn under the exact use they were designed and bought for

Hi,sorry for delay in respnse, just started a new job. LBA here Sports Direct 1st June 2019 Dear Sir/Madam, On 26th January 2019 I bought a pair of Phantom VSN in size 11 from Sports Direct Chingford. Please see my details of purchase below. ..... screen grab from bank statement of card payment .... On the 27th June 2019 I was surprised to see that the sole of the right boot had torn open at one of the rear studs, making the boots unusable. Please see picture below. ..... picture of torn sole of boot .... The Consumer Rights Act makes it an implied term of the contract that goods be as described, fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality. I do not feel that an £85 pair of boots should fail after five months of being used for nothing other than their intended purpose. As you are in breach of contract I am rejecting the boots and request that you refund the sum paid to you of approximately £85 which I trust you will be able confirm from your records. I have bought a replacement pair of the same boots from your website on the 28th June 2019 as my son needed boots almost immediately, for that reason please give me a full refund of the original purchase price. I am today returning the faulty boots along with this letter to the Chingford branch of your store. If I do not receive your satisfactory proposals for settlement of my claim within 7 days of the date of this letter, I intend to issue a claim against you in the county court without further reference to you. Yours faithfully, They replied by email to say this ............. Thank you for send your football boots for a further inspection. I would like to advise you that on inspection it is our belief that the issue is due to wear and tear and not an inherent manufacturing fault. I appears that the stud had been caught on something which has caused it to rip apart from the sole. Sadly, I am afraid for this reason we are on this occasion unable to offer a replacement or refund for your boots. I have now returned your boots to you. Apologies for any disappointment caused. Kind regards, ................ The boots arrived back to me today I assume I now make a small claims claim? Thanks Micky

Yep, I don't pretend to be as expert on this as bankfodder but I wholeheartedly agree with all his advice and your actions, what's the point of all the consumer law if no-one has the gumption to use it. As he says, its made to be suitable for the common man and this appears to be very simple legally.

hello both, just read this from start to the current point with interest and am now agog waiting to see developments, well done both

hello, you and I appear to have been sent a claim form on the same matter on the same day, posted my CCA and CPR this morning, will be following your progress with interest.

CCA plus PO and CPR both just posted second class with proof of posting.

The typos and spelling are irrelevant other than amusing. I've just sent off my CCA and CPR so following this one with interest, good luck.

Visa Debit card, chip and pin

Hello everyone I bought son one a pair of football boots in Sport Direct in late Jan this year, the only ones that fit his rather odd feet were £85, so far so good. After five months one of the moulded studs ripped away from the sole leaving the boots useless. I've bought him boots every year, astro and grass for the last ten years and every single pair lasted a season until he grew out of them, in this case the sole of the boots simply tore under normal use on astroturf and for the money I paid it seems to me that the sole was not strong enough for the purpose, ie unfit. The store I bought them in refused to deal with me but their head office said send them in and have just replied after a couple of weeks to say that their opinion was that it was due to wear and tear and not a manufacturing fault. I said that was not acceptable to me and they had failed in the exact purpose for which they been made and bought for and I would pursue this legally. £85 for me is too much for something to fail after 5 months or normal use. Never ever pursued anything like this before, I wrote a LBA which went with the boots to them, they are going to return the boots, what do I do now, start a claim in Small Claims? Any and all advice appreciated inc a link to a suitable thread. many thanks Micky