I'm glad you came back with that Chris, 'cos that's the sort of idea I was forming - they seem to be saying "oh we do this all the time, and we're a major high street bank, so there's no way that we could be wrong". I actually think this, along with their failure to produce/mention their obligations re cancellation notices, could be the really massive turning points.... LOL - I really doubt it Cheers Michael

Received this supplemental witness statement from SC&M prior to the application hearing this Thursday: Not quite sure what that's supposed to be in aid of??? Anyone any hints as to how I should approach the hearing? Cheers Michael

Now received my AQ (N149) that has to be returned to my local court by 2nd June. I may have to go on a slight variation to the norm with it, as I want the case struck out rather than affording them an opportunity to supply documentation..... any advice? Cheers Michael

I'm back from hols - not quite tanned enough, but very relaxed Nothing waiting in the post from SC&M or the Court, so am presuming the application hearing is going ahead on the 29th. Now need to start thinking about phrasing my objections properly... Cheers Michael

Well, looking at MCOL, the Defence was received & processed by NCC on 23rd April, but I've not heard anything from them since.... Do they only write when the Claimant states they're intending to continue and the case gets transferred? Cheers Michael

Sorry I've not replied for a bit - been sooo busy at work, had a laptop failure at home, and then preparing for my holiday starting today! I've now received the Court's sealed copy of the Application, with a hearing due for 29th May. Ok, thanks for that. Well, mainly these: 1. Their counsel agreed to the "unless" order, saying that there was no problem producing all the docs - whether that was their instruction or not isn't my concern, and they have been in default of a s.78 request for over a year. 2. Their counsel agreed to SCT without problem 3. Their argument about the OFT Test Case holds no water as this is a credit card and the OFT ruled on the charges issue well before they issued the default notice (1st December 2006) 4. They allude to errors made by them - not my problem, that's theirs - they are the supposed "professionals" here... 5. They shouldn't have permission to keep re-amending their PoC when I submit a defence that rips it to pieces 6. I am prejudiced by the whole issue - they have been in default of my s.78 request since Feb 07, and shouldn't have brought the case in the first place. I shouldn't have the threat of a CCJ hanging over me now because they've finally complied under order from a court under a claim they've brought! I'm back on 15th May - now off for some well deserved sun & relaxation Cheers Michael

Aye, have seen it before thanks - that one's tucked away in my armoury for later I'm wondering if I should respond to their application in some way? I've got lots of thoughts going round my head on what I want to say..... Paul, is there a proper procedure for that, or do I have to wait til the Court orders a hearing for their application and do it in person? Cheers Michael

True - a temporary victory Cheers Michael

Hi Paul Thanks - but unfortunately, they've applied to have the claim reinstated - the order's come after their application in response to the order. See the 2 posts prior to this morning (here & here) which I could really do with your help on please Can you change the title back too please? Ta Cheers Michael

Have now received the order from the court that the above application is in response to: Cheers Michael Cheers Michael

Okey dokey, good morning everbody I can't be arsed retyping everything, so I've scanned in the re-amended PoC and the s78 statement....: raPoC p1 raPoC p2 raPoC p3 raPoC p4 raPoC p5 raPoC p6 raPoC p7 s78 statement Cheers Michael

Thanks folks Well, here we go...... Covering letter Application Notice: Witness statement: Draft order: Phew..............after all that typing, I'm done in and off to bed! I'll be back tomorrow with the re-amended PoC and the s.78 statement (if y'all want to see them?) Cheers Michael

Well, well, well - got home tonight and there's a massive pack from SC&M.... the claim must've been thrown out for non-compliance with the DJ's orders as they're making an application for it to be reinstated (I've not received a copy of the order yet though)! They've included a witness statement in support of the application, a further amended PoC, another copy of the "agreement" and the original Ts&Cs (properly this time, I think). It's a hell of a load of typing to do, but I shall get it done a bit later on this evening......think I'll need a lot of help responding to it all (ready Paul? ) Cheers Michael

Am presuming the Defence is ok then, so it's off in the post tomorrow Cheers Michael

And here's a copy of the "agreement" they're relying on: scan0001_blanked.jpg - Image - Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting So, here's what they're getting via post: Cheers Michael

Awww, I've had a reply from my friend A E Locke He/She's so nicely supplied a copy of "Your priority application for the Marbles card" and a few weeks ago I got some statements - no way enforceable, or any attempt at being close to what s78 CCA requires... Such a shame, I expected a much better effort than that (well, no I didn't, 'cos I knew they had nothing else) Oh, and the application form has PPI on too - that'll be interesting if they want to push it Cheers Michael

Ok then folks, I've done a little bit of playing around with the draft Defence, and come up with a version I'm pretty happy to call final: What do you think? Any comments/adjustments/deletions/etc...? I'm getting ready to send this off soon so it's all done & out of the way - some of us have a holiday to go on in a couple of weeks Cheers Michael

Thanks Paul Anyone got any comments on the draft Defence? Cheers Michael

Thinking maybe this thread should go in "legal issues" now? Cheers Michael

Ok, here's the 1st draft of my Defence: What do we reckon? There are a couple of bits I'm not too sure of: ...quoting the breach of Pre-Action Protocols - firstly referencing them, and also I can't see where the P-AP give a period of time between LBA & issuing? ...should I mention more about the NoAs? I'd love to bring them up, but from what I've seen they need to serve a NoA by registered post under s196 Law of Property Act. So, if I admit to receiving them, s196 doesn't come into play - but, if I don't admit to receiving them, I can't rip them a new one over the double assignment (as per previous post) Cheers Michael

Interesting examination of these.... 1st NoA - dated 12th Feb - states assignment on 17th Jan Assigned from BCT to MCE Portfolio Ltd 2nd NoA - dated 21st Feb - states 2 assignments: 1. On 17th Jan - assigned from BCT to Marlin Capital Europe Ltd 2. On 18th Jan - assigned from Marlin Capital Europe Ltd to MCE Portfolio Ltd Not only is this confusing, but is it legal? Does the 2nd NoA supercede the 1st? Is a NoA valid when the date of the Notice is different to the date of assignment? Cheers Michael

Thanks matey - much appreciated Cheers Michael

More than anything on this, I think I'll need some help on the technicalities of Assignment as it's the first time I've dealt with that.... Cheers Michael

The docs sent to the Court are yet to arrive (though are out for delivery), but the Claimant's copy..... Let battle commence Cheers Michael

Hi Paul, fancy seeing you here Er yeah, that's one word for it Yup, Bulk Centre issued it Claimant is MCE Portfolio Ltd Claim issue date is 3rd April. Well I was thinking that they shouldn't have brought the action in the first place, and defending brings certain risks - i.e. if there's a hearing and they manage to satisfy any orders made, it becomes difficult to avoid getting a CCJ. That's of course unless my Defence is along the lines of "strike this out because it's a bag of ****" and I don't agree to them fulfilling orders Nope, all I know is that Fredrickson received the CCA request, acknowledged it and BCT shouldn't even have sold the account as it was obviously in dispute.... LOL - yeah, me too Cheers Michael