Sheeesh, you never stop do you? Hooking yet more people into your vile & sordid web of addiction Hmmph, trying to shift the blame I see - you know that just doesn't cut it with me Caro (Seems like a long time ago since the A&L claims!!) Gotta say that I'm loving the banks' "defences" to this test case, just hoping the judge is enlightened & sensible... Cheers Michael

I knew it - it's all CAG's fault - and you, Booky, you're the main instigator of my brainwashing & addiction! () There must be a claim to be made there somewhere...... :D Cheers Michael

Hi SG Since I've heard absolutely nothing from SC&M on my case either, you just prompted me to call the court & see what's happening. Apparently both AQs were received on 3rd January, but they haven't been put before the DJ for review as yet. That's going to be done today, so I should get an update from the court in the next week or so.... at least they're not trying the same trick in applying for judgement! Meanwhile, I asked if I could have a copy of SC&M's AQ and that's now winging it's way to me Cheers Michael

Yeah, might have to do that if/when I get a response, thanks. Reason I've got a bit of a bee in my bonnet about TS is that my contact at my local TS (that I'd previously logged the complaint against HFC with) is on maternity leave and in her absence they forwarded my complaint to the FSA - the FSA then wrote (getting loads of details wrong) and advised me to complain to the OFT or the FOS! Cheers Michael

BTW, you might want to remove your surname and the HFC reference number from the letter you've posted.... Cheers Michael

I received a very similar (if not the same) letter from HFC after I told them they'd sent unenforceable application forms (Marbles & Beneficial cards) in response to my CCA request - I wrote to them afterwards and heard absolutely nothing back. HFC have since sold the accounts to Hillesden/DLC, and you can see my current stuff here.... http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt/123087-dlc-hillesden-assignment.html Cheers Michael

Hi SG Yeah, I'd actually subbed to your thread this weekend meself, and am just waiting for SC&M to try that one on Good luck to you too - am sure we'll 'ave 'em Cheers Michael

Happy birthday But blimey - that means that in a month's time I'll have been hanging around here for 2 years Cheers Michael

I like it too - for your reasons, and the fact that they're going to comply with s.77 (fixed sum) when the request is under s.78 (running account) because the accounts are for 2 credit cards! Well I'm sure I have more arguing to go - they'll probably supply a copy of the application form, like HFC did, and claim that's the agreement.... ho hum And don't get me started on TS - that's a whole other thread.....! Cheers Michael

And Hillesden's reply is in...... So they've ignored pretty much everything I've told them, again - not that I expected them to understand that they've not got a leg to stand on Now I just need to decide whether I can be arsed putting my creative skills to use and writing a really nice letter, or let them dig themselves further into a hole.... Since I've actually explained everything to them in plain English, I'm tempted to leave them alone to do the latter Cheers Michael

Thanks I'm putting it down to just another form of process abuse by the banks - at least his HSBC cases have had Defences filed and AQs issued & completed, this one's NatWest (so I guess we could've expected it from Cobbetts!) Cheers Michael

Not a lot: Whoopeee-bleeding-do Cheers Michael

Yeah I know - shocking isn't it? In a weird way though, I love companies like this - gives me an opportunity to dust off my scathing letter writing skills (which have gone a bit rusty since all my charge claims got settled ) Cheers Michael

Ok then - I received letters dated 7th December from Ms Revens & Ms Bloxham regarding these accounts. The letters are basically the same as the above, but stating that the original creditor is HFC and there's an additional line about starting to report againts my credit file in 30 days. I sent the following response on 12th December: Eventually received a response last night, dated 2nd January and from A E Locke: Hmmm, someone can't read and/or understand.....so my reply to A E Locke is: Set of muppets they are :rolleyes: Cheers Michael

Scratch that - the 2 at AQ stage have now been stayed on the court's own "initiative" *sigh* Cheers Michael

Ok then, have made a decision about SCT and this is what I'm submitting: Section A No Section B Yes "The Defendant respectfully requests that the case is heard at his local County Court (Swindon County Court) as he is a Litigant in Person." Section C Part 2 - No Additional page to Section C "The Defendant has not exchanged information and/or documents (evidence) with the Claimant, because: The Claimant has been in default of a formal & legitimate request made under s.78(1) Consumer Credit Act (1974) since 23rd March 2007; The Defendant has no information to supply; The burden of proof is on the Claimant to supply documents supporting their claim as per CPR part 16, which to date the Claimant has not done." Section D Whole claim (£6162.74) Applications - No Witnesses - Me, "All facts" Experts - No, No, No, No Track - Small Claims Track "Whilst the value of this claim exceeds the traditional value limits, it is respectfully requested that this case be allocated to the Small Claims Track - it is a straight forward case and should be easily resolved on production of the required documentation by the Claimant. " Section E Time estimate: 1hr Unavailable dates: Yes (listed) Section F Attached directions - Yes Agreed - No Section G Left blank Section H No, No, No "If the Court is in agreement, the Defendant respectfully requests that special directions may be given as per the attached Draft Order. The Defendant proposes these directions in mind of the Overriding Objectives, and in particular the duty of the parties to help the court further them. The issues outlined below are the crux upon which this claim rests, and the proposed directions identify these issues and will allow them to be assessed in advance of the hearing so that this claim may proceed justly and expeditiously; Without production of the requested documents, the Defendant is at a disadvantage and is unable to serve a complete Defence in response to the documents requested (further to that filed on 5th December 2007). Failure of the Claimant to supply the requested documentation will inhibit the Court's ability to deal with the case. The House of Lords in the case of Wilson v First County Trust Ltd - [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul) made it clear in paragraph 29 of LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD judgment: 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 and63, section 127(4) precludes the court from making an enforcement order. Should the Claimant not have the documentation required to progress this case, the Defendant would respectfully suggest that there is no case to answer. Therefore, it stands to reason that this documentation must be disclosed before the case can progress any further." Plus, the Draft Order: Thanks for your help guys - let's see what happens next Cheers Michael

And here it is: Cheers Michael

Oh yeah - I'm thinking much along the lines of the "wasted costs" order that we use for bank charges claims :D Cheers Michael

Wasn't taking it as a jab - just making sure that I'm not taking credit for something I'm not entitled to Aye, point taken - I might just go for SCT and see what happens Cheers Michael

Thanks Chris & Paul Yeah as I acknowledged, the AQ & Draft have been gotten from other posts around the forums, it's not all my own work, though I have tweaked them a tiny bit Just wanted to make sure I'd got it right and it all looks proper Ok, know what both of you mean about going for the SCT - and I did consider that initially from the costs point of view. However, a few reasons that keep jarring at me: even taking the costs of £220 off the total claim brings it to £5942, which is a bit far off the £5k SCT limit even if it is a simple claim; I don't believe I'll lose the case; and going for SCT precludes me from claiming costs (well, I guess I can always ask...) Thanks Chris - pretty much what I thought - just wondered if it was worth having a bash Indeed Cheers Michael

Well I did this (will post a copy of the letter later on), but the Court wrote back recently (took them a month to reply to the letter) to say that a DJ considered my request and advises that it should be made on an Application with Notice to be dealt with at a hearing. As this'll cost £75, I'm not sure if I can be arsed...... Cheers Michael

Well, have heard nowt at all from SC&M since filing my Defence Did get a letter from Northampton CC though (dated 5th December) saying that the Defence was being served on the Claimant and that it was up to the Claimant to advise if they wanted to proceed within 28 days (after that, the claim would be stayed and the Claimant would need to apply to the Court to lift the stay). Since then, have received a notice of transfer of proceedings to Swindon CC (my local CC) and an N150 AQ to fill in & return by 8th Jan. Not sure if this means that SC&M have told the court they wish to proceed or not? Also, here's my proposed content for the N150 - whaddya think (info obtained from other posts & advice on the forum)? Draft order: Should I be making an application to strike out the case based on my request in the Defence, or is it enough that I made that request in the Defence? Cheers Michael

Well, my mate & I have decided to try a letter to the court to try and get at least a defence filed.... here's the main body (obviously dates removed): Guess we just see what happens now... Cheers Michael

A mate of mine has 3 cases going through Swindon CC - 1 has been stayed by the judge without a defence being filed, but the other 2 have proceeded thus far to AQ stage (go figure!) Cheers Michael

Once the debt is statute-barred under the Limitations Act, AFAIK acknowledging it doesn't restart the clock - once it's statute-barred, it's statute-barred and nothing can change that (though of course, it'd be better if you didn't acknowledge it, just send a "this is statute-barred" letter). It's only when it's within the limitation period that the clock is restarted. However, you're right to advise caution when within that limitation period - especially coming to the end of it! Cheers Michael