Hi, the unlawful repudiation only really occurs when the creditor uses the invalid default to then demand the full balance, either in a formal manner with a termination notice or by inference (a debt collector demanding the full balance). It is not the issue of the invalid default in itself as this can be replaced with a correct one as long as the account is still live. Its the actual 'we want our money back' bit on the back of the invalid default that creates the unlawful repudiation.

What was that based on? There should be a reasoning behind it...

I'd certainly be keen to inform the court subtly at some point in the future that they were so arrogant they billed you before they'd even been to court...and then got rinsed. Another example of their attitude that needs to change I think.

Just make sure everything you claim can be documented/evidenced and is wholly reasonable. If the judge thinks you're being greedy for even a second it will go against you

Hi, Not wanting to be pedantic but ideally the 31.15 should be sent just as the 31.15 with no other info or issues amongst it. The 31.15 is clearly a very powerful tool and as such it should be given the space and seperation from other requests/issues etc. If you can perhaps seperate the 31.15 from the rest of the letter that would be great. Certainly feel fre to send the two letters to the claimant in the same envelope but keep the 31.15 seperate from the other bits where you're detailing their failings etc. As for the court letter yes, keep them advised as this will be useful in future and documents your efforts nicely. As for content it's short and sweet and as you're wisely enclosing a copy of the letter from wiseguys Optima I'd let that speak for itself. No need to complicate matters at this point. Good job i think .

Ok, read this and up to speed. Brig is in very good hands with all you guys being your usual informative selves so guess we wait a bit now for the reams of documentation to arrive so we can pour over them and...pull the claim apart . Strongly suspect this is an aggressive fishing trip and unlikely to go all the way by the time we've all finished with it but if a payment has been made up to bypass limitation Connaught need exposing for it. Interested to read the Brig has been added to the claim as co-defendant, would love to see Connaughts basis for that. Guess we'll see what comes in and once we know what ammo we have perhaps apply for dismissal of the claim at AQ stage to save an application fee? Thinking out loud now . Brig, perhaps be a good idea for your daughter to get a copy of her credit files. A default should have been registered for this debt. Yes it will have dropped off after 6 years but in reality the CRA's aren't always on the ball and secondly the original default may have been registered a little after it was issued (if it was) and so may still show up. Either way a printed copy of her credit files will be useful at some point and as you can get a copy for free she might as well. Try: Credit Check, Credit Score and Free Credit Report from Experian UK Make sure she cancels the free subscription before the end of the trial or she'll get charged though ok? This is going to get interesting.

Not sure actually, never been in that situation and anyone else I've been aware of has managed to deter the SJ with a decent line of doubt. Stay positive though

Ok, first off is this debt actually yours or is it a case of mistaken identity? Important to determine what's going on so we can take the right path.

Great work from all I reckon. This notice of assignment, has it been posted up? Would obviously go down the route also of ensuring the actual deed of assignment is available as well as ensuring the supposed notice is ok as well. Potentially more ammo for Squidward who I take it is as much of a fan of Spongebob as I am ?

Hi Chipmeister, The CPR's are there to ensure either side play ball using common ground if you like so the fact that its inconvenient for the claimant (for whatever reason) is of no concern to you. Simply because they return a letter advising that you are sending inappropriate requests does not make that true. You've sent the 31.14 and to date the response you've had seems to indicate they have little intention of providing you with copies of vital documentation. As such I would not hesitate now to step it up a little and issue the 31.15. It seems clear they have no intention of respecting the 31.14 and waiting for more days to pass merely adds pressure on you, which is not acceptable. Give them the time needed to respond, if you hear nothing (having confirmed via recorded delivery that they've received the letter) then go ahead and make the application to the court. Yes it will cost some money but will be cheap as there is no need for you to attend. Importantly you may find it heads the claimant off and by attacking at this early stage they will quickly learn you are not going to be mucked about. Depending on the strength of their claim this could result in them re-considering their position, which they should do anyway if they only have the usual array of bumpf. Your decision of course

Sweet. Look forward to the detail

Ooo, nice one pumpy, forgot this was a SJ and not an actual hearing date. Starting to get very confused with all the live threads . Yes Olympic, echo pumpys advice completely. You will be fine and take a huge folder with you as well perhaps, the opposition will be killing themselves to know what you've got stashed away in there

Ok, this really needs sorting as Cabot are running rings around you. Can you remember or have any idea/statements that show when a payment was last made on this account, assuming of course that it is actually your account from the past? Also, at any point in the past have you ever acknowledged the debt by writing back without stating that you do not acknowledge any debt to Cabot?

You should not go in there expecting a dreamy grotto with candy floss and a warm hearted judge taking time out from visiting orphans to ensure the creditors are playing nicely any more than you should expect a dark damp hole with festering cadavers and pits of fire...that's just the Link Financial staff room. Its really very important that you are not gripped by fear and simply sit there whilst the claimant rolls off a speech that you cannot defend. The format of the hearing is straight forward. The judge will have read up on the dispute and will go through aspects of the claim point by point in balance with the points you countered in your defence. It is here that you need to convince the judge that you have reasonable grounds to contest all or part of the claim. Wherever either party has submitted documentation it will be examined and at the end of this process in conjunction with the answers you provide a decision will be made. Done. The judge if they are on the ball with CCA issues may well lead to some extent but that is not their main role. It is for you to guide the judge to the conclusion you want and to do that you need to give him a reason to agree with you - the entire point of your defence then is to document the path you wish them to take. I believe the main issue with your case is the lack of any deed of assignment? Can't recall off hand but if that for example is the main argument you have make sure the judge is fully aware and explores it. You need to remember that your case is not special, he or she is not waiting for your case to come round as they're looking forward to it, to them its simply another case in another week of legal arguments and they are no more inclined to give it special attention than they are to dismiss it out of hand. On many occasions a good defence can be tainted simply by poor delivery, the claimant being dominent and pushing the defendant aside where the judge is perhaps not as clued up on CCA law as they might be. Just make sure you put your points across and take every opportunity to ensure any query you have with any statement made by the claimant is fully examined. Your husband will need to be entirely up to date with his argument, on the day it is his name and if you are left entirely to do the work he will be doing himself no favours. Of course if there are valid reasons for him not being able to speak for himself you should present them early on and be his lay representative as I believe you have already planned. Really important he is given the best opportunity to defend himself on the day. Please try to stay calm, it really is just a room with a big desk and some tables and chairs. The rest of the room is familair office stuff like books, half dead spider plants and a suspended ceiling with an orange water mark somewhere . As long as you know your argument and have presented it well with the appropriate reference material and any supporting documentation the judge will do their best to make you feel comfortable, they are not ogres.

Toxic could you please answer the above for us?

Hey LB, thanks for the earlier PM's and good to see you're coping so well. As for cakes for the court scrub that, but how about cakes for all of us? Just kidding. The above is looking good, if it's not too late you might as well add the following. Bung it in around point 22 or 23 I guess. As the application was pre-contractual it was signed blind. The Consumer Credit Act 1974 states: (59): Agreement to enter future agreement void An agreement is void if, and to the extent that, it purports to bind a person to enter as debtor or hirer into a prospective regulated agreement. (2) Regulations may exclude from the operation of subsection (1) agreements such as are described in the regulations.

Hi Olympic, a few bits for you. Easily said but try not be scared, it is only your lack of familiarity that causes this and once you're in there and settled you will quickly realise its just a room with people in it. Secondly, you may feel silly doing this but if either of you are not very confident in speaking up get some practice in! Sit down, play devils advocate with each other. Attack your defence whilst the other defends it, referring to the appropriate bits of evidence such as agreements, defaults whatever. This will quickly help you to become very familair with your argument and boost your confidence that you do know what you're trying to get over. Have fun with it if you can, this will make it so much easier on the day and could make a world of difference to how the judge responds! You can be sure the other side will not be shy and if they realise you're both a soft touch they will take over to some extent - don't let them. This is nothing to fear again, just playground bullishness but when you need to get your point across so the judge realises what your side is its vital that you can take control and do yourselves justice. Hope it goes well.

Typical Optima games. Keep that letter won't you, show it to the judge, think they'll be quite interested in that . As you've used CPR 31.14 I presume the claim has been started against you but has not yet been allocated to a track? This would make sense given what you've added above. You have every right to ask for copies of documents. Send them the 31.15 now (ask if you need it or can't find it) and if they fail to respond follow it up quickly with an application to the court for an order forcing them to respond. Include a copy of their snotty letter in support of your application so the judge can see what you're having to deal with, sure it will give the judge a great deal of pleasure approving your application :grin:. If they want to play games with the court use it to your advantage. With your application also submit a draft order that basically says unless the claimant provides the documentation needed the claim should be struck out and wasted costs awarded against the claimant. That should wake Optima up a little.

Why can't you just win something without having to text off some stupid code like C6g9jj3aF7k8RR to 80076 heading the text message subject as "I'm a gullible consumer and hope by sending this code off to you that I've won a limited edition coffee cup". Perhaps at 35 I'm an old fart but I can remember simply opening a choccy wrapper to see if I'd won something, or pulling a drinks can to see if it had a winners image under it. I don't wanna text someone - no fun!

Thats ok Just wanted to make sure you were ok. Got your PM and have responded. If you add your next posts back on here to keep us all in the loop that would be great. As for adding case law where appropriate do not shy from doing that. There are many occasions where a judge has needed that direction and guidance and in issues of CCA law such submissions can be critical. Unfortunately not all judges are entirely clued up so if you have the ammo don't be scared of using it, you can be certain the other side won't spare the feelings of the judge in the same way. It isn't an issue of emotions anyway, it's business and we all know that is as far seperated from sensitivity where money is concerned as you can get

Long overdue eh? Yes, let's hope the UK responds properly and doesn't just adopt the 'We're British' attitude that has seen us go down the pan in the last few decades. If the ICO does get more than gums and it doesn't use them we'll at least be in a new position to ask 'Why?'. Progress I reckon. Good post Shadow.

In the real world probably makes little difference but agree it should. If they are refusing and you were up for mediation certainly add it to your submissions to show you are a reasonable person

Hi Hammy, just a quick review of your thread. Just wanted to make sure you were fully armed for this as forgive me for saying, you seemed a little bit 'I'll pop along and see what happens' ! Yes Sink are cretins but they are pretty good at making ill prepared judges think the sun shines out of their . Are you well prepared? Seemingly you have a good case so wouldn't want you to fall by the wayside for any reason.

There we go then. Butcher doing the plumbing .

Thanks for the PM. That's an interesting development then? Think it's absurd that a judge can push aside the very clear intention of parliament in the case they quoted - good it's being looked at or it makes a mockery of the entire system we all rely on. The law is quite clear, 14 days must be observed before the creditor is even entitled to take the next step. I suspect the decision by this judge was one of personal distaste for those 'seeking to avoid their financial responsibilities yaddah yaddah' and not one founded on well recognised and publicised legal principle itself. The proverbial 'judge lottery' in all its glory. I would certainly seek disclosure from Restons as they can't spring stuff on you, you have every right to ensure you are fully prepared come court day so if they refuse make sure the court is alerted to their underhanded efforts to off-balance you. As for the postage issues can't recall the ins and outs of this thread but if you do have the envelope showing 2nd class service and Restons have sworn service was otherwise it will be Restons on the day who will look foolish. You have infomed them of the reality of the dispute, which is all you are expected to do. If they wish to play games thats entirely their choice. Ultimately you are relying on sound legal principles long established in consumer credit law and should also have case law to support your argument that it is the creditor who ignored CC law and an invalid DN is fatal to their claim to seek recovery of sums not yet payable (the full balance). In comparison Restons are throwing all their eggs into the basket of a recent case that quite simply appears to be flying in the face of well founded parliamentary intention and should be successfully appealed. We all know the role of a judge is to apply the law to a dispute irrespective of personal opinion or preference - not to make the law up as they go along to suit the business demands of reckless and arrogant financial corporations who are now getting their fingers burnt. I say stick with it. Make Restons provide you with whatever they intend to rely on and trust in the simple fact that it is you who has been incorrectly processed by the creditor irrespective of any gain you may have enjoyed and insist the court gives no weight to arguments of 'de minimus'. 14 days is 14 days and for very good reason . If the judge was to accommodate such an argument make sure you very politely request that he or she details that decision and the thinking behind bypassing the 14 day requirement in order to ensure your appeal can proceed with complete clarity. Given the time limitations and the eventuality that Restons will not provide you with this info in time perhaps a call to the court would result in a suggestion as to how you can best deal with the late provision of Restons argument.