Yeah that was fine. Have added this for you though if you'd like to use it. First letter is for the court manager so print that and include a copy of the second letter for their records. The second letter just goes off to the defence. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Send following to court manager with copy of bottom letter Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing to inform you of concerns I have with the actions of the defence in the above referenced case (Make sure you supply the case number above) and wish to lodge these in good time with the court. Previously the defendants’ representatives provided me with their skeleton argument via e-mail the night before the hearing. I chose to tolerate this in the overriding interest of the court but do not wish to be subjected to similar conduct for a second time. Please find attached copy letter of the reminder letter I have sent to the defence warning them that any decision to do the same for a second time is likely to result in my request for adjournment and associated costs. Yours Sincerely Enc Copy Letter Issued To Defendant Send via recorded to the defence Dear Sir/Madam, I have today written to the court regarding your prior conduct and wish to advise you that I will not tolerate the late provision of your defence, as was the case last time when you chose to issue your defence via e-mail the night before the hearing. I chose to tolerate this in the overriding interests of the court. Be advised I will not be as forgiving a second time and indeed, if I am provided with your defence in a similar manner again I will make an immediate request to the judge for adjournment with costs to be met by yourselves. I would add I find the use of e-mail to be wholly inappropriate for such important matters and politely request that such information is delivered via a recorded service in the traditional manner. You are more than aware of the order of the court dated (INSERT DATE) and I expect you to follow this fully and without deviation. I look forward therefore to receiving copies of your defence in good time. If you anticipate you are unable to meet the order of the court you should notify the court and myself immediately so that I can attempt to accommodate this. I therefore await your response in good time. Yours Sincerely CC (INSERT COURT NAME) Manager

Hi Oddball, thanks for the PM and sorry to read your dealing with so much at the moment! One day you'll look back and be able to smile about it all I'm sure Others who have posted previously will be along I'm sure but in the meantime having re-read your thread can you provide us with an update on what you did and what you have now in the way of documents etc? What did the SAR reveal? Can we see the agreement from the CCA request? My better area is consumer credit debt with regulated agreements under the CCA so not as sure with the type of agreemet you may have, however, will add thoughts etc where I can. There will be crossover areas though and the T&C's applicable to any agreement you have are still essential in how you're being treated so sure there is a route you can take with this. As for this order to return the van where's that from? Has it been to court or is this from the debt collector/creditor?

Typical Sink. Did you send the 31.15 off after they had failed the 31.14? If not send this to them asap as it adds greater pressure. Don't believe there is any reason you can't do this purely because it is stayed, the stay is a barrier to them and not you so as far as I know this means you can still proceed as normal. Once that's been sent and they fail to respond correctly (which is highly likely) I would then use the combined failures along with the fact that the case is stayed to support an application ordering them to comply. It is unfair to leave you in a state of limbo, the claimant should have had all of their papers in order before litigating. It will cost you £40 and with that application you can also provide a proposed order for directions you'd like the court to consider/approve that goes along the lines of 'Unless the claimant produces XYZ before (date) the claim be struck out'. You can also suggest that full costs are awarded to you as the claimant was clearly not in a position to see litigation through having repeatedly failed to comply with court directions resulting in the stay etc. You get the idea I'm sure. Given the failures of Sink (which you'd demonstrate very easily) there should be no reason why the court wouldn't grant your final order to basically put up or shut up, especially if you remind the court that being subjected to drawn out litigation with no indefinite end in sight due to the claimants failures is unfair and detrimental to your daily wellbeing etc. So, 31.15 next and go from there. In my opinion of course

Bear with us Saviour, we'll do our best to help with this.

Perfect, just what we were after. If you do not have them in time notify the other side in writing/fax and copy the letter to the court manager. Remind them of their duties and state that if they are not able to comply with the order of the court that they should inform you and the court of this immediately. They really won't want to do this but as you've asked questions will be raised if they failed here as well. It is not good enough for them to ignore these directions, if you don't let them get away with it you can rest asured it will come back to bite them at some point. Just keep the letter simple and factual, doesn't need to be complicated at all and just ensure the court is made aware of any develpoment that you feel is compromising your case.

We would be poorer if that really is the case. PT has offered great advice, have learned a lot from the postings and been able to appreciate the style of thinking often presented alongside. Anyone know why at all?

Fair enough JP, respect the fact that unfortunately there is a need for bailiffs, unfortunately as generally it means someone is in trouble but thats a very simplistic approach, some people you just can't help. The truth of CAG is that if the entire financial industry had any respect for itself, the law of the land and customers that ultimately it cannot do without there would be no need for CAG at all. Good to hear you have morals, try your best where you can etc and clearly do your work with dignity and self respect. I may get shouted at for this but that should be commended given the fact that on CAG we're very quick to pick up on those who operate at the other end of the scale. Fairs fair after all and I have no qualms with any creditor who abides by all the rules. Only fair they can recover their money in those sadly unusual circumstances.

You should have their bits at least a week before the hearing I believe. Emailing it the night before is not on, I hope you made the judge aware of this last time? Technically you would be within your rights to ask for an adjournment and costs on the day of the hearing as a result of the other side not getting info to you on time...there really is no excuse. Tiny amendments the judge may overlook but the whole thing? Not acceptable. Perhaps pre-empt their shoddy behaviour by letting the court know you've still not had anything and as they emailed it to you last time with just hours to go you are concerned the other side is again planning to do the same. This way the court will have been made aware of your concerns nice and early. If on the day they've done the same thing you can use your prior warning to justify the request for the adjournment as you had done all you could to notify the court of this problem. Would also write to the other side informing them that you will not be so tolerant of late submissions a second time and that you expect to have a copy of their defence at your door in good time. Warn them that late antics will result in an application for adjournment and remind them you will claim costs for this as well, should they choose to do the same again. Finally, don't you have an order from the court setting out how each party is to prepare for the hearing? If the defence is not complying with the order make noise about it. All they are trying to do is throw you off and disadvantage you...do not let them.

Looks as if they've tried to remedy their first DN by issuing a second, fine ordinarily but not once they've terminated. I'd write back asking what they think they're doing, they cannot issue a DN on an account that is closed and if they register this new one with CRA's then more trouble for them. Ask them specifically what they intend to achieve by issuing a second default on a terminated account. As for the 21 days to remedy...still doesn't comply as they are supposed to provide you with a clear date such as 'on or before the 8th August 2010' etc. Perhaps one day these financial institutions will actually read the regulations 'governing' them .

Dammit, other half has the can opener with her at work (I know) and now I can't have any soup. Quite how we ended up with soup tins without the easy opener on the top I don't know. Now I need that pasty

Welcome. You should be fine, an SJ is only applicable where there really is no prospect of a defence succeeding, hardly the case when Optima haven't provided you with what you need. Keep us posted.

First off I'd call the new court and find out when it's likely to be heard, will give you an idea of how much time you have. You should get a letter from the new court advising you anyway but better to be pro-active. Optima do this all the time, especially when they might be on shoddy ground. They hope for a duffer judge who wants to shoot off for a round of golf to just pass the SJ without too many questions As for the letter you should be able to do this yourself, especially as you state you want it to come from you and not be wrapped in jargon. Just start it with Dear Sir/Madam and go from there. State you are writing to oppose the claimants application for SJ on the following grounds. Give the judge the history to date so they know what steps you've taken to obtain the info you need. Wherever Optima have failed detail that...just look to expose all of Optimas failings so the judge is under no illusion as to the unsuitability of an SJ. List each of those grounds detailing what you don't have and if you do have it detail what is wrong with it. Agreement provided but completely illegible etc. No default notice, just list it all in bullet format and keep it clear and concise. Help the judge to help you ;-). Send it off recorded or better still hand deliver it if you can. I've essentially given you the framework above so sure you'll have no problem composing a perfectly decent letter . You should also pursue an application of your own against Optima to force them into providing the documentation you need, they are stalling and you should look to take advantage of that.

Ok, this is the danger of not following the 31.15 with an application to the court. You've inadvertantly allowed them to get away with things and now it looks as if they're trying to sneak an SJ against you. You should be able to oppose this quite easily by informing the court of the facts to date so you'll ned to write as a matter of urgency detailing why an SJ is inappropriate, you just need to show that this matter requires court time as there are unresolved points the claimant has not resolved. Detail the facts to date, explain you are and have been waiting on the claimant to provide you with documentation. Discredit the documentation you do have in any legitimate way, the illegibility of the 'agreement' is a good example. Is there a date on the court from advising you of when this will take place at all? Not seen one of these forms that's all.

Couldn't we simply mark them so they are clearly recognisable as being from CAG? We are after all intending to use them as examples ourselves of what the creditor at that time was actually dishing out in order to contest the witness from the bank scenario who states what was sent out was perfect. It is a persuasive tool at best, especially as the court should accept that large institutions use templates by the thousand meaning a hand crafted perfect default notice from the same period that does conveniently comply for example is highly unlikely to be what it suggests. If a DCA troll gets it its of little use to them with the CAG watermark all over it for example. If anything it would be good to let them see our armoury, if they know they can be shown in court to be producing 'true copies' that are clearly not they'd be pretty stupid to risk stating otherwise. Besides, there's no way of safeguarding it anyway so let's just make it work our way.

Limitation in the UK is 6 years from the last payment or acknowledgement of the debt. From now on then any letter you send should be headed "I do not acknowledge any debt to your company". This way you are safe to communicate with them. If you were to acknowledge the debt after 5 years and 11 months say this would reset the 6 year period so be careful! Yes, keep us posted. The balls in their court now, you've made it clear they've messed up so keep that paperwork safe.

You did acknowledge the claim at the beginning and then submit a holding defence didn't you? What was the state of play before you got this letter? Maybe the claimant has made an application for SJ, sounds like it.

Would support this completely. A central repository would be very useful and perhaps with site team on side a small charge could be levied for access that could help with the funding of the forum? Large project yes but certainly within the boundaries of a committed group. Grab some shopping cart software and go from there. I'm sure no-one would object to a small cost for such valuable information either? Could also gather default notice examples from various lenders where they are invalid to show that at a particular moment in time the default notice template used (and they are templated I'm certain) looked like this. If I can assist let me know.

£100. Bit of a stretch for me too at the moment, work is non-existent...thanks to the bankers . Was out running the other day and met up with a few novices so tagged along for a chat. Had one guy state he was having a hard time at work and he soon revealed he worked in banking...have to admit my attitude changed to him pretty quickly, just couldn't help it . Got back to where this group had parked and Mr. Banker opens the door of his 2 year old white Porsche Cayman. Yeah, looks like you're having a really difficult time I thought. When the architectural sector has imploded due to the likes of this lot and you meet one guy who states he's having a hard time who then gets into a car like that it's pretty difficult not to explode. Seriously, these bankers just haven't got a ruddy clue . Hi AC, long time no chat . Yes, seems to be going well so far. More as it happens.

Worthy of a complaint to advertising standards isn't it? Seems little more than an advert to me including the 'sales' number below the article and giving clear guidance as to the sort of value he'd accept.

Hi Wannabe, great progress then? I trust you're enjoying yourself Would commend your tenacity, it's only the actions of people like yourself willing to go the extra mile and help expose these idiots that we stand any chance of creating a better and fairer system for us all. All the best with it, will continue to watch closely.

Ok, it's been a while but heard back from the court this morning that my counterclaim has been allowed to continue after being reviewed for legal credibility. It's been filed for a date in October and I now have to get some more money paid to the court as the claimant and issue the other side and the court with my papers etc. Good news I'd say as the judge wrote a while back asking me to explain how Link are liable and to set out in law the basis of my claim. Clearly the judge has examined the case and the case law I provided and decided I indeed have a case against Link. Guessing someone at Link will not be happy with this at all . Can you imagine if I succeed? It won't set a precedent but others will then be able to reference my case in their counterclaims and list it as 'persuasive' to support their own cases. Link quite simply are really on very dodgy ground now. The default notice they provided was inspected by the original judge and rejected as invalid. They were given an opportunity to provide another, although realistically I could have had that dismissed as the one they registered with the CRA was the one they used and no other DN was issued to correspond with any new date with the CRA's. As the invalid DN forms the basis of the claim for injury to credit they are going to have a near impossible job of refuting the invalid DN was registered when I provide the print off in my evidence bundle. Case law supports the fact that I do not need to prove loss, the mere registration of this DN is enough damage in itself. If Sink have any sense they'll try very hard to get this settled without a hearing as the future implications for them are huge. This is without the 'attempting to pervert the course of justice' complaint I made about them that Trading Standards upheld and passed on to the OFT. The judge will love that when they learn what they've been up to! Will keep you posted.

Good innit Thats the thing, we only ask these institutions to drop the arrogance and comply with simple regulation. When we catch them out they adopt a different stance and still maintain innocence...it's really annoying and if you're not aware of the rights you have they'll happily walk all over you. Bit of humble pie will be good for them I reckon. As for responding I wouldn't bother if you have no intention of taking it further, they're in the wrong and they know it. It might be worth writing to the three reference agencies though including a scanned copy of the invalid default and asking them to remove it fron your file as it's not accurate. The CRA will have to refer your request to the bank as they added it there but if the bank refuses to amend it threaten the CRA with litigation as they have a duty to ensure all data they hold on you is wholly accurate, its a founding principle of the data protection act. Banks cannot just record anything they want against you, they had the opportunity to issue a correct notice and they blew it. I'll leave that up to you of course. Just make sure (extremely important) that you do not acknowledge the debt in any way or the limitation period will re-set. If you wait it out you'll be free of this after 6 years (presume you're in UK) so in reality less than that now from the date payment was last made or you last responded to their letters. Clearly, don't talk about it on the phone either ;-)

Should be £40 but if you have any doubts give them a ring and confirm. Recorded Delivery is normally fine but again you may feel more comfortable with Special Delivery given the importance of the contents. I realise Optima can't be botherd to spell check but correct their mistake on your submission, the judge isn't interested in that and typos will only reflect badly on you .

Thats ok, just hope it works out for you but stay open to any last minute offers from the other side...always better to walk away and avoid the risks of court if they come to you with a decent offer

Think this relates to my earlier posting? Keen to point out I did not state it was a waste of time and repeated that it should still be carried out for purposes of formailty, but post Waksman section 78 has undeniably had its potency reduced. How many of us have had the barest of documentation supplied with the creditor boldly declaring they've now fulfilled their obligations? Yes we can complain to the OFT et al but as they're basically toothless this also diminishes the value of the S78 request, whhich should ordinarily be pretty powerful. The OFT have helped more recently by stating that creditors must not be deceitful or misrepresent their actual position when supplying copy agreements but this seems to be quite slow with some creditors taking time to acknowledge this regulation. Have had far more luck personally with CPR, legal departments appearing to attach more importance to such requests (where appropriate of course) than yet another S78 landing on their desks. Just my experience.