No I don't want to Go Compare, not at a private girls school, not whilst hovering over a new BMW on the driveway or whilst looking at a message in a bottle on a remote island in the pacific. Could someone please shut that overweight opera singer up? I don't care how, just make it stop

And as for them using Carey use this. Credit due to whoever I got it from, can't recall Carey differs because it primarily deals with non compliance with copy agreement requests under s78 of the Act (see para 1 Carey Judgment). In Carey the fact was the absence of an original executed agreement was not a bar to compliance with s78.(see para 119 Carey Judgment). In Carey, the judge confirmed that the burden of proof is upon the Claimant. This was confirmed at para 196 Carey Judgment), where the burden of proof in relation to an Improperly Executed Agreement (IEA) was upon the Debtor Claimant Mr Adris, and not upon the Defendant Bank. This differs from your case, because you are the Defendant, so the burden of proof is upon the creditor Claimant to provide proof of the alleged executed agreement containing prescribed terms. You have put them to strict proof.

The loan figures all add up and APR sems within tolerances so that's a start. However, and I might be wrong here but seem to remember something about PPI and interest and how that is added to the loan. Isn't it unlawful to have added the PPI and then added interest to that? Worth a check perhaps but have to admit PPI issues are not my strongest area. Guessing the PPI was also appropriate for you and you're happy with all of that too?

Adjust this one as appropriate so that it relates to your scenario. Copy to the court manager and send the request itself to Sink. Be prepared to respond if they do actually turn round and say 'Ok, we'll have it here for you to inspect, when do you want to come over?' (Highly unlikely of course), just that if they were to do that and you didn't go they could then legitimately claim you were messing them about. Send recorded as ever and once their time is up you can put an application together, no need to attend the application itself so will only be £40 or so. 31.15 and subsequent action is a real thorn in their side, they will 'love you long time '. Dear Sir/Madam, Re xxxxxxxxxxxxxx v xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Case No: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx CPR 31.15 Request Further to the above case number, I have sought a copy of the original agreement that you mention in your POC. Despite numerous requests under CPR 31.14, you have failed to supply this document, supplying only a one sided application form and a truncated section of terms. Both of the documents that you have supplied are inadequate and illegible, obviously being unfit for the purpose of my defending your claim. In an attempt to again resolve this issue, I now require sight of the original executed agreement, as I am allowed to do under CPR 31.15. You will note that under this rule, you must allow me inspection or the original document within 7 days of the date of this letter. I look forward to your urgent response. Yours Faithfully c.c. xxxxxxxxxx County Court Manager.

Just jumping in here with both feet so this may have been covered earlier but as long as you've acknowledged the claim and abided by the strict deadlines (assume you have) you don't need to inform the court if you're represented or not. That info would have been declared on the forms you would have returned already. Keep an eye on your dates! Once the 31.14 has been ignored/unsatisfactorily responded to you'll need to follow up swiftly with the 31.15 to force the hand of the claimant. If they still don't behave you can submit an application to the court for an order along with a proposed directions order, in which you'd request the case be struck out for non-complinace in the event the claimant fails to respond to the courts order itself. All in good time and plenty of advice on here to help you do that .

To be honest I feel a CCA request holds limited value (generally speaking) in what you're likely to be sent in return but is still worth doing purely for the implications later on if you haven't issued one to the creditor/DCA. The 31.14 followed by the 31.15 and application to court if they don't comply is a more potent tool so yes, as you've highlighted above read through it and send off once you understand how it can help you.

I'd actually get the 31.15 sent off to Sink asap. Once they ignore it (which they will as they're the great Sink Financial who can do whatever they want ) you'll be set to put the application in to the court. Do you need a 31.15 template?

Agree, personally I think E-Bay has had its day! By the time you've paid all manner of costs theres bugger all left, when you factor in your time and the hassle of packing it all up and standing in a post office queue I reckon its probably easier and more rewarding to just give it away to someone or somewhere that will appreciate it!

Hi Mitsy, Read somewhere you were all alone but when I turn up it seems loads of people have already beaten me here Consumer Credit Act 1984? Is this an Australian agreement?!! Believe the UK only has the 1974 and the 2006 versions with amendments here and there so quite how your agreement can be regulated by what I believe is a non-existant act I'm not sure! Have read Post is helping you on this thread, he's great so you're in good hands. By the look of what I've read already I suspect the other side will have some explaining to do. All the best with it, will keep an eye on your progress.

Helpful, thanks for the post. MB may well have issued correct paperwork before instructing repossession (we'll find that out) however the taking of the vehicle from a driveway is a problem MB will have to account for as your info above highlights. Hang tight Dave, once you get the info you need you'll be in a position to make a complaint where one exists and see how MB account for their actions. I suspect MB will maintain plausible deniability having instructed a third party to repo the car. Could be interesting.

Thats fine then, if Natwest don't wanna talk just make sure the court is aware of that when the time comes, especially if you win and costs are being considered . Concentrate now on your argument and do all you can to ensure you know it inside out and back to front, along with detailed knowledge of any case law you're relying on.

Ah . Think you may be in a spot of bother with this particular agreement but def wait and see what you get back from your SAR. Important MB issued the right notifications to you and also important they sold the car on at a value that was reasonable, if they essentially 'gave it away' you'd have grounds to dispute what they are now demanding from you was reasonable. Lets see what you get back first eh but stay positive

Ok, you need to follow the 31.14 with a 31.15. If Sink do not comply with the 31.15 you can then make an application to the court to order Sink to respond. You are forcing them to comply and if they don't the implications for them are huge depending on what you ask the court to do for you. You will submit a proposed directions order stating that if the claimant fails to comply the case is struck out. Once a case is struck out Sink or any other DCA will have little to no chance or bringing the action again meaning you are effectively free of the claim, although the debt will still exist of course until limitation kicks in.

Mint are pretty interesting. I queried an invalid default notice (they since terminated on ) and they insisted it was fully compliant...well they would wouldn't they. To prove it was compliant they sent a copy of the default they had issued which clearly states: 'Please read this Default Notice carefully and send the required payment to bring your account back into order within 10 days of the date of this Notice'. Hilarious, this 'true copy' is different to the one they actually sent and is worse than the original! I mean, this was invalid before it was even put in the envelope. They also failed to contractually reserve the right to apply charges, they have to their credit recognised this and offered to pay me £95.00 in full and final. I refused, reminded them all I lawfully owe is the arrears amount on the default of £66.00 and not the full balance before they repudiated it. Another letter arrives offering me all charges plus stat interest amounting to more than £800. They then want the balance on the account paying by me in exchange, around £300. I've had to decline their offer but have offered to withdraw litigation if they remove the invalid default notice from my credit files, and return the £800 by way of cheque to me less the £66.00 I lawfully owe them. If they have any sense they'll accept what is a very reasonable offer to settle this amicably without me claiming for unlawful repudiation of contract, injury to credit, restitution and interest at their rate, not the statutory interest they've offered, let alone costs etc. Hopefully we can then both go our own way and perhaps they'll learn that default notices are actually 'quite important'.

Hi Dave, can you clarify where the car was taken from? You have conflicting posts

Can you recap for me - what have you sent to Sink in the way of document requests? Sar, CPR 31.14 or 15 etc? If you want to wrap things up on the presumption Sink don't have the paperwork required you could use the CPR's. Alternatively you could just apply for strike out but I feel you are unlikely to get it as the court would just give them more time to produce what you needed.

There you go...glad you had a positive experience so next time you'll be able to go in there and do your thing. Has it been adjourned or stayed? Either way before making a decision on what to do wait for the order to come through the post so you know for certain what the judge has decided. Good news Sink didn't turn up, perhaps an indication of their attitude to this case, after all if they were confident in their documentation etc they'd pursue it aggressively and ensure someone was there to represent them. Perhaps they don't have what they need to push this through? We'll find out soon enough. Congrats anyway, a good start

This is a two way street remember, just because the chief mediator emails with an assumption doesn't mean that's how it has to be. If you're still up fpr mediation email/phone back and state you still require their services. As for 'Do you want mediation still?' if both sides are engaged in meaningful dialogue mediation is still worth a shot, an impending hearing date can quite often loosen the demands of one party, all the more so if one side are not so sure about their position. You have to remember this is a bank, if they peed on you to put a fire out they'd sooner or later send you an invoice. On a final note when you are talking with the other sides representatives be cautious about the words you use. Describing an offer as an insult may well have been uttered harmlessly at the time but taken out of context when the solicitor reports back to his client it suggests a level of hostility that they could well use against you when the judge starts questionning events to date.

Yep!

I'd certainly write to the court about it. If you're claiming you were mentally vulnerable at the time who knows how this application got to where it did, it should have been signed by you. Without your signature anyone could have ticked the admission box and sent it back off, you'd have known nothing about it. I'd be pushing for a review so that you can defend the action now that you're aware of the matter fully and can deal with it appropriately. I'd also want to know why the judge allowed it to get that far when there was every chance the defendant wasn't even aware of the case against them!

Have seen similar where things appear to contradict. Just go with it and follw the disclosure bits below, clearly each side will need to rely on documentation for this particular case. Perhaps the judge got a bit confused...a call to court will verify what they actually want I'm sure

Agree that there appears to be real confusion about the Carey implications but the judge in the case of LB145 appeared indifferent to the vital differences that made the Carey case inappropriate to LB's. Yes, if anyone awesome can check out LB's thread that would be great. This wasn't helped by a solicitor ramming further bosch at the judge regarding section 78 compliances and of course the judge lapped it up. Believe LB is considering their options regarding appeal but if this route is taken its obvious they'll need to know S78 inside out and this case therefore becomes a classic working example of how not knowing section 78 in enough detail can prove disastrous against a persistant claimants representative. Think in summary that we all need to gain a better working understanding of section 78 in conjunction with the Carey ruling, especially as claimants also run with McGuffick which will also need to be pushed aside.

Hi, thanks for the PM. Just gone back over your thread as it's been a while! If I were you I would respond to their letter. First off it demonstrates you have been open at all times. Secondly it will act as a reminder to them that you are actually waiting for them to respond favourably, they have defaulted incorrectly and terminated on it...not you. I would re-iterate the points of your earlier letters, perhaps even enclosing copies of your earlier letters, and remind them once more that you can do little now other than offer to pay the amount lawfully outstanding which would be the arrears as stated on the default notice. This would be in full and final settlement of the account. In contrast if they wish to pursue the litigation they are threatening remind them of their position and also remind them you will counterclaim for unlawful repudiation of the agreement and if they've registered the invalid default on your file (have you checked its on there?) you'll also claim damages for injury to credit. Invite them to offer you a solution to this outstanding dispute, bearing in mind it is them who have failed you and not the other way around. I suspect the recoveries manager is in a very difficult spot. He/she may well be responsible for the fallout of this dispute and may well be very keen to adopt a bullish atitude towards you in an attempt to make things right. Ultimately they can threaten all they want, they are in the wrong here. Send recorded as always and see what you get back. As for them litigating they'd be pretty silly but who knows what companies will do in ignorance or denial of the facts? They could of course issue proceedings but doing that and actually going to court after all of the exchanges needed beforehand are two very different things .

So you only learned the original CCJ had been granted using this unsigned 'admission' as a result of this appeal process? Shame you didn't know this earlier for the benefit of this attempt for set aside. Have to say although I'm not sure that this seems highly irregular. If your signature isn't on it then the original CCJ should surely not have been processed? Tricky as highly unusual but as far as I can see if a submission wasn't signed by you and you can't remember submitting it (for example you were not in a fit state) it seems grossly unfair that the original CCJ was pushed through.

Unsigned? So any admission they have from the original hearing resulting in the CCJ doesn't even hold your signature? It was you who submitted it back then wasn't it, albeit under duress?