Nice. If the court has sent the email and it's that specific then I don't see why not - however I'd like to see the order on paper which should still be sent to you pretty soon. As for the claimant I think they're essentially finished having had every opportunity to respond - an appeal by them now is unlikely to be heard unless perhaps they produce everything requested in a perfect manner and get a sympathetic judge. Provisionally then I'd certainly be chuffed but perhaps wait for paper confirmation finalising it all

Probably be my last chance to get on here before I head off so will have to leave you with these thoughts and trust that others will add further.

Hi, thanks for the PM. Haven't a lot of experience with a request like this so long after the original judgment but a few thoughts came to mind whilst reading through the above. Personally, I would be cautious about categorically denying the debt full stop. Clearly a financial relationship existed betwen you and the OC and as you're asking the court to really help you out I feel you'll do yourself no favours by insisting the debt is entirely fictional and nothing to do with you. Matters of legality and agreement enforceability would of course been entirely appropriate if you'd been in the position to defend any original claim at the time, but perhaps not here with this particular application. I would think your best angle is to push the fact this original situation was the sole result of substantial duress and untruths from the DCA regarding your actual legal position at the time. It is only now with greater insight and knowledge that you have realised how the claimant has treated you and with great respect you'd appreciate it if the court would allow you to examine the true nature of the debt/claim. I feel it is worth adding that due to the amount of the debt and the fact that this has substantial bearing on your daily life (including that of your family) that you merely ask for the opportunity to ascertain the actual position as you're unsure the claimant even had any right to bring the claim. Finally, suggest that this matter could very quickly be resolved with the production of the deed of assignment, the legal documentation or proof that the claimant does indeed have the right to enjoy the benefits of the previous judgment eg collecting money from you now. After all, the claimant should have no problem producing this and then the court can be satisfied that they are not upholding an incorrectly brought claim.

So, the head in the sand approach appears to make up a large part of one module on the legal practice course Turdburgers the lot of them.

As long as the defaults were entirely attributable to GE (eg you have no others) then this is an example of how such data can be hugely damaging and depending on a few other factors your solicitor should look at you may be able to explore a claim for this head of loss also.

Quick update for you all on the GLC test bank case Sharp v HBOS that was due to be heard on the 11th June. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- GLC has received lots of e-mails and messages from citizens across the UK asking for an update on our bank charges cases. In Scotland, the banks have deployed the strategy of applying to the court to 'remit' cases from the small claims system to the ordinary court procedure on the grounds of complexity. This can be a powerful tactic in practice. The Royal Bank of Scotland used the remit rules to thwart a claim for negligence last year. Once a case leaves the small claims procedure in Scotland the protection against court expenses flies off, and the claimant would be exposed to unlimited expenses in the event of failure. In the case of Sharp v. Bank of Scotland, the defender applied to remit the case to the ordinary court procedure. As our client is eligible for civil legal aid this was not a problem (legal aid is not available for small claims in Scotland, but it is for ordinary cause actions). However, we may oppose this in other cases where appropriate, and will disseminate this knowledge if successful. Accordingly, the case of Sharp will proceed to an Options Hearing next month, and it is likely a 'debate' (a court hearing on all of the legal arguments) will take place shortly thereafter. This is necessary because the banks defence to a s.140A Consumer Credit Act (CCA) claim is to argue that the banking contract was not a regulated credit agreement. The banks are also arguing that claims cannot go back before 6 April 2007. Accordingly, if we can persuade the court that these lines of defence are irrelevant and wrong in law, this would leave claims to be determined on the facts as regards the unfair relationship test and the level of unfairness and consumer detriment. Of course, in many cases the level of unfairness is severe. Because cases depend so much on their own facts under the CCA - whether in terms of the transitional arrangements or the unfair relationship test - there may be little point in cases being sisted or stayed. Each case is different, and under the CCA each case is looked at specifically between the parties, the contract between them and the consequences of the charges on that customer. GLC will post further updates, but we are unable to make too much detail public at this stage as cases are live, and we cannot prejudice the prospects of our clients. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source: Govan Law Centre: Bank charges update from GLC

Is this all you've been sent relating to 'the agreement' between you and Egg? Was it an online application? Guessing not. Is there nothing with a signature on it? No T&C's? No PPI paperwork or certificate of cover? Also, any chance of re-scanning it, perhaps into .pdf format so we can view it on a larger scale...will be important now its going to court. Initial suggestions would be to send Carter a cpr request for copy documents and go from there trusting they are insufficient/invalid and he won't disclose. Can then proceed with next step of cpr and get the court to order disclosure under threat of an unless order or similar, perhaps even get the claim struck out. What date does the defence need to be in?

Yep, just noticed that. The LIP could easily claim the DN was confusing as Santander quite clearly state payment should be made (in capitals under the 21 day bit) before the date shown. The only date on there is the date it was issued/composed so how on earth could you offer payment before you even received it? Specifying 21 days is just not good enough. Let's hope LL gets on OK.

Muppets. Even if you were using a defence widely circulated on the internet thats your choice. Personally, given their bold accusation that you are using such a defence 'in an attempt to avoid repayment of a debt or to substantially delay matters' I would consider that to be both unfounded and defamatory in nature. I would insist they produce justification for this accusation (which is precisely what it is) and if they are unable or unwilling to do this it does amount to an act that can be punishable as contempt of court. This is why you cannot simply enter litigation and start throwing mud about with no justification or evidence to back it up. Contempt of court could result in their claim being struck out - however you'd need a very good day to achieve that, still technically possible though .

Sincere congrats to you for not selling it to her. If only more people had the same kind of approach the world would be a far better place. As for the nutter - remove the licence to kill and give her a complimentary bus pass :grin:.

I still maintain there is a proportion of the population (in all countries) that quite simply do not have the skills required to be safe drivers. Fact is many of the people out there shouldn't be driving. Problem is the society we've built allows everyone the right to drive regardless of their actual ability to do it. How many times have you seen one of those driving programmes where someone stands there scratching their backside with a smirk on their face as Quentin Wilson tells the audience this particular Schumacher has failed his test 27 times? In reality we should say 'you know what? This is something you clearly can't do so just get over it and get on the bus or walk'. Harsh but true I'm afraid. I used to spend a great deal of time at RAF Wyton mucking about in Slingsby training aircraft. Thing is I could. I proved I was safe. Some people with all the will in the world would liked to have flown but they didn't have the skills and didn't get to do it. I'd love to be an astronaut but you know what, I don't have the skill set and the intelligence needed. NASA didn't just feel sorry for me and give me a seat! Why then do we willingly hand the keys to someone who just doesn't have the skill set to drive? If the driving examinations were anywhere near as hard as aviation exams for example A) The roads would be pretty empty and B) You could let your kids walk to school knowing some idiot who's just been to the pub is very unlikely to come out and crash into them on the pavement. Instead we let them have another go and another go until one day he flukes a pass in a quick 30 minute 'drive' through the clogged streets of London where he demonstrates his great skills of co-ordination and observation during an actual drive of maybe 4 miles. Next thing you know he's sitting in a tonne and a half of 4x4 on the motorway behind you at 80mph taking 'an important' phone call about chinese fighting kites from his best mate Gerald whilst digging through his glove box for a takeaway menu. He kills a bunch of people, lives ruined etc and what do we do? Three week driving ban, £8.50 fine and he's told to be more careful next time . Given the fact the roads are clogged and are set to essentially double in the next 15 years isn't it time we kicked the idiots off the road who think its just a huge playstation game and gave the valuable space to those who give a damn? Just a thought

That's a pretty odd thing to send out, not sure if they're attempting to fool you into thinking it's an official default notice or not? Doesn't state it's served under the CCA 1974 but other than that it appears to pass as a default notice with its demand for money. In their mind it seems to be a default notice though as para 2 clearly states 'This default notice now served on you'. If you faill to make payment we will terminate this agreement? wmr you have the envelope don't you? Was it sent 2nd class? Guessing you've still not had an agreement? If sufficient time has passed you should write again and place it into dispute, no point paying them if they can't provide you with the basics. Also, no letter from the OC about this assignment? Perhaps keep an eye on your credit file too. If they add a default and it's to do with this notice and the dates are short unlawful rescission could be the way to go on this.

Sounds odd to me. Does this give everyone carte blanche to drive around backwards hitting anything and everything whilst leaning out of the window yelling it's their fault, not yours? Sure, the morons who sit on your back end who insist they can stop in less than 15ft at 60mph on a wet day are a dangerous bunch who all eventually end up in ditches and under lorries (that we all have to pay for with increased insurance premiums:-x) but surely allowing someone to reverse into a space in front of you is a courtesy, not a must. Driving backwards against traffic flow surely places the element of responsibility with the driver, not the poor bugger behind. Then again the concept of 'responsibility' seems remote from the typical driver today .

Yeah, the fuul speech was awesome and as you point out he was certainly ahead of his time. Sure enough if the bankers say jump the politicians politely ask 'how high?' The rest of us don't get to ask 'how high?' as we are merely told how high. Isn't democracy awesome? For anyone really interested in the alternatives to our disgraceful fiscal system I'd really recommend a read here: Financial Crisis Solutions & Monetary Reform - How Fractional Reserve Banking is Ruining the World Sign up for the newsletter, genuinely hassle free and worth staying in touch with.

Small roundabouts - there's a clue in the name. Why do you have to chuck your brakes on to stop some doofus driving through the roundabout and taking the front end of your car off? Is is that hard to follow the pretty white lines, which contrast to popular belief are not there for decoration . Roundabouts people - not throughabouts!

Would def agree too. Clearly Loopy can demonstrate he/she is at a disadvantage caused entirely by the late provision of documents. Adjournment is clearly the fairest route to allow time for response.

Hi Lexis - know what you mean. However if they rely on the word Before and not By it's possible for the debtor to question when this is, before could mean the date the notice was received, or perhaps its the date the day after...all of these being before the date shown. Technically use of the word before could mean (subject to a semi-absurd argument) that payment of default sums was actually due a year ago thus you weren't given the required 14 days! Daft yes, but equally it opens the date issue up to scrutiny and questionning and this should never be the case. In contrast use of the word by makes it plainly clear as this is clearly the latest payment can be made. I'd rely on the bit about the debtor being presented with a clear document rather than being presented with a puzzle. Sure we understand what the default is getting at but there are many in society who do not or cannot understand a demand unless it is perfectly clear and beyond contemplation.

The DN isn't great at all, asking you to pay sums before a specified date means what exactly? It should give you a clear date to provide payment by, not before. As for the Christmas period such holidays only effect actual postal service time, not the time you have to act. So, if it was sent on the 8th a Saturday you say, then it will be deemed served Tuesday 11th 1st class or Thursday 13th second class. Dates wise then it is actually fine as 14 days has been exceeded, it's the wording and format that you need to attack as confusing and not to prescripted requirements. However, the fact they've claimed you received it on the same day it was dated is clearly nonsense and I'd attack that also.

Thnk HC have a lot of explaining to do . Loopy, have you checked your credit file to see when/if it was added there? Could be useful.

Important not to get carried away with the figures etc but it's the principle of the issue you need to get across. What you have is great, however it seems to get a bit waylaid and doesn't really get to the crux of your argument. Go over the following and see how/if it relates to you. The red stuff at the bottom is interesting but in answer to your last post the bold section in red may help you to get your point across, as said by the Lord Chancellor, Lord Birkenhead. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wilson v United Counties Bank Limited was a case brought by an individual (Wilson) and his trustee in bankruptcy against Wilson's bank. The defenders' negligent handling of the plaintiff's estate whilst he was away on military service caused an actual loss to the estate, and also resulted in the pursuer, Wilson being made bankrupt. The trustee in bankruptcy was held entitled to recover actual losses caused by the negligent management. There was only one claim in respect of damage to credit, namely the fact that Wilson was made bankrupt when, had the defenders managed his affairs prudently, he would not have been. There was no claim that Wilson had suffered any specific loss to his credit by virtue of the bankruptcy, but the fact of bankruptcy was recognised as a serious injury to his general credit standing. This resulted in an award in 1919 of £7,500. The case, as was also the case with King v British Linen, was based on breach of contract and not negligence. The Lord Chancellor, Lord Birkenhead, said of the type of case where a banker, though his customer's account is in funds, nevertheless dishonours the customer's cheque, that the refusal to meet the cheque is so obviously injurious to the credit of a trader that the latter can recover without allegation of special damage reasonable compensation for the injury done to his credit. He applied that principle to the circumstances of Wilson's case where a defendant had expressly contracted to sustain the financial credit of a trading customer and breached that obligation. At page 120, Viscount Findlay said that the fact of bankruptcy must injure the credit of the person made bankrupt, apart from damage to the estate. He continued "In an action for negligence against a solicitor leading to the bankruptcy of his client even if due to fortuitous circumstances the estate had not been damaged, it seems on principle that the jury might give substantial damages for injury to the credit of the person made bankrupt." Later on he said "It was urged that proof must be given of special damage in order to sustain the verdict on this head for more than nominal damages. I cannot see on what principal this contention rests. The mere fact of bankruptcy imports damage to the credit of the bankrupt. It is a natural consequence, and it is for the jury to assess the damages for such a slur." Had there been no finding of specific loss in this case, I would have had no hesitation in finding that an award of damages for the mere injury to credit was appropriate. In modern society credit plays a very big part in the conduct of the daily lives of a significant portion of the population. The financial services industry is constantly advertising loans, credit cards, store cards, mortgages, consolidation accounts etc. To have one's credit worthiness impugned so that one is at risk of being unable to obtain credit on the grounds that he is not credit worthy is, if anything, a more significant matter for the individual than it would have been at the time of King, over a hundred years ago. Mr Beynon has submitted that a figure of £10,000 would be appropriate. The figure of £100 awarded by the sheriff and left standing by the Inner House in King v British Linen translates, according to the Office of National Statistics Publication "Focus on consumer price indices" 2008, table 5/3, to £9,975 in the year 2008. The figure of £5,500 awarded to an individual in Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society 1996 4All ER 119 was not interfered with by the Court of Appeal in 1996 and, in today's figures, would be worth £8,215.

We all agree the late provision of documents to you from HC is crap, I suspect they've done this in some feeble effort to put you at disadvantage. Make sure the court is aware of this, as the others have detailed above. As for your defence the following will help. Ok, the default notice is certainly invalid and as they're demanding full payment now during litigation it's safe to say it's been terminated so we have unlawful rescission too. Quite simply the creditor has no right to be trying to take advantage of enforcement when they've previously failed at the earlier stage to get matters in order. GE famously had 'system issues' and lost a vast amount of customer data relating to account transactions for the following months and years: 2004 - May, June, September, October 2005 - February, March As your account was open then there's a strong possibility your records may also have been touched by this, perhaps one of the reasons as to why a full account history has not been provided to you. Quite simply then you are unable to audit sums claimed and equally the claimant cannot demonstrate such sums are even payable. So, attack the credibility of thier claim for X amount as they cannot document it fully and use the Money Laundering Regulations as an added threat against HC, they as the creditor are entirely responsible for having these records. The T&C's are also wholly unlinked to the application. GE was a large organisation dealing with many products so put HC to strict proof that these T&C's were the inception T&C's for this application/agreement. Until they can the terms provided are generic and do not govern any arrangement. You'll note from my previous post that GE did not include a tariff of charges, they cover themselves with the simplistic term found in : Charges 14.1 - We may make charges for administering your account, but we will not do so unless we have first given you seven days notice of the amount of any charges proposed. Proposed? May make charges? Seven days notice? I take it you were not actually notified and HC have no letters, not even a template to demonstrate how any charges were notified before being added? It gets better though. 14.2 - You will be liable for payment of reasonable expenses incurred by us: a) in establishing a new address for you if you fail to notify us etc b) as a result of any breach by you of this agreement c) in ensuring that any balance outstanding on the account is paid when due d) in recovering any cards which should have been returned to us The word here is 'reasonable', they're basically inviting a challenge aren't they? GE used to charge in the region of £30/£25 a go for a late payment before it came down bit by bit until the OFT intervention finalised it at a maximum of £12. So, I'd first ask HC where the right was to charge these default sums and secondly ask them to demonstrate that such charges were indeed 'reasonable'. An itemised schedule for each charge applied detailing the staff time and process involved will do nicely . When they fail to demonstrate £25 a pop is reasonable use it to counterclaim the sum back along with compounded interest at the same rate the OC used. As for the agreement all of GE 'agreements' from the date yours originates were microfiched. Quite simply the original does not exist. We can find ways of using this to your advantage, more on that later as I'm sure the others will pick up on. As this is clearly an application the following should be added to your defence also. 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. The title for the type of credit is also wrong. De Minimus? I don't think so and here's why. Prescribed terms for credit differ according to the type of credit concerned. Your application states it is a Credit Agreement Regulated by the CCA 1974. The Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 state: SCHEDULE 1 INFORMATION TO BE CONTAINED IN DOCUMENTS EMBODYING REGULATED CONSUMER CREDIT AGREEMENTS OTHER THAN MODIFYING AGREEMENTS Regulation 2(1) TYPE OF AGREEMENT INFORMATION Nature of agreement All types (1) Subject to paragraph (2) below, a heading in one of the following forms of words— (a) "Hire Purchase Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974"; (b) "Conditional Sale Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974"; © "Fixed Sum Loan Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974"; or (d) "Credit Card Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974" (2) If none of the headings in 1(a) to (d) above are applicable a heading in the following form of words--"Credit Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974". As the defendant you would therefore argue that the agreement type has clearly been mis-stated as Credit Card Agreement is clearly applicable for running-credit agreements. As the claimant is technically relying on an inaccurate credit agreement heading the claimant must also accept that a “Credit Agreement” must contain the following terminology to conform with form and content regulation. Once again with reference to The Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 a “Credit Agreement” must amongst other details and without exception contain: The nature of the agreement (Covered above) The term “Credit Limit” and not as this application shows, “Credit Value”. The Total Amount Payable The Total Charge for Credit Clearly a fixed sum Credit Agreement is very different to running-account credit. If the claimant insists they have a valid “Credit Agreement” these terms must be included. These terms are not to be found anywhere on the pre-contractual application rendering the claim irredeemedly unenforceable. HC have also used the term 'running credit' so they cannot attempt to distort this. After highlighting this issue you can then rely on this extract from the judgment of TUCKEY LJ in the case of Wilson and another v Hurstanger Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 299 : “[11] Schedule 1 to the 1983 Regulations sets out the "information to be contained in documents embodying regulated consumer credit agreements". Some of this information mirrors the terms prescribed by Schedule 6, but some does not. Contrasting the provisions of the two schedules the Judge said: 21. In my judgment the objective of Schedule 6 is to ensure that, as an inflexible condition of enforceability, certain basic minimum terms are included which the parties (with the benefit of legal advice if necessary) and/or the Court can identify within the four corners of the Agreement. Those minimum provisions combined with the requirement under s61 that all the terms should be in a single document, and backed up by the provisions of s127(3), ensure that these core terms are expressly set out in the Agreement itself: they cannot be orally agreed; they cannot be found in another document; they cannot be implied; and above all they cannot be in the slightest mis-stated. As a matter of policy, the lender is denied any room for manoeuvre in respect of them. On the other hand, they are basic provisions, and the only question for the Court is whether they are, on a true construction, included in the Agreement. The right to cancel box is also interesting as it states above on the application that 'if you are given the right to credit when you sign this agreement the right to cancel referred to in the box below will not apply to this agreement'. Use this then: Right To Cancel – This application was not signed on the premises of GE Capital or Burtons but signed elsewhere and returned to store. The statement to be found on the application denying the defendant any right to cancel is therefore innacurate. If this was not the case I put the claimant to strict proof that the application was signed on business premises. Until the claimant can provide this evidence the defendant maintains that GE should have forwarded details of any right to cancel within 7 days. This corresponds with the application form “Your Right To Cancel” box which confirms that the claimant has a duty to forward these cancellation details by post. The defendant therefore puts the claimant to strict proof that the claimant provides evidence that this was complied with. I require the claimant disclose proof of posting per s196 LoP Act 1925. You are implying that this was a postal application. The claimant can disprove this easily of course with the production of the original application as on the other side they will show the T&C's and not as you suggest, an address for the application to be posted to . You do of course need to see the actual Deed of Assignment. If HC do not show this to you (unlikely) they need to make it available for the court to inspect it, without it they have no proof they have any right to collect the debt, irrespective of the rubbish default notice that already prevents them from having any 'right' to act. To get the Deed of Assignment put in your defence that you have a right to inspect the Deed and quote that: I am entitled, in any event, to view the document of assignment as a matter of law (Van Lynn Developments v Pelias Construction Co Ltd 1968 [3] All ER 824). This'll do for starters but there is no good reason for HC to win with this. Judge lottery aside if you know your arguments, back them up with concise info and resources there is no reason for a judge to award against you on the strength of what HC has produced, HC know this which is why they're messing about and trying to make things needlessly difficult for you. If the judge misdirects him/herself and attempts to bulldoze the law in favour of the claimant politely ask the judge to accurately record the exact part of his/her thoughts (where they're choosing to ignore the law, probably during consideration of the default notice)so that you can have it reviewed during the appeal process. The judge won't be too chuffed with this but if they're going to make life awkward and inject personal views into the gears of parliamentary will they'll have to get used to it. So Loopy-Loo, are you going to be comfortable doing this or will you be able to get assistance from someone on the day as suggested previously? Important you can present the facts clearly and all that.

Ooh, the anticipation of waiting to see the documents is killing me . How's it going Loopy? Trust the excellent guide above from middenmess is helping you?

That's a pretty cosy way of informing them of the facts, you seem to have a skill for softening potentially expensive 'days out' and making them sound almost enjoyable . Think what you've got is to the point but perhaps find a better word than 'digging', sounds like you haven't got a clue . Run a spell check over it and make sure the grammar is perfect - "for injury done to a persons credit reputation" isn't great for example. Hope you don't think I'm picking but I feel such attention to detail is very important, gives the other side a feel for you as a person etc so make sure they feel they're dealing with someone with their finger on the pulse . As you're sending this to them as a genuine offer to aid settlement before the courts and mediation you might as well mark it 'without prejudice' as there is very clearly a dispute between you both.

Sounds like they were testing the waters then, just to see if you'd take it and run. You may be unlikely to get any award for stress, anxiety this has caused you unless you go the full hog and have medical experts submit expert statements etc, sure however the judge if your case was to succeed would bear this in mind as part of the overall award. Do you know what case law you'll be relying on as the foundation of your claim? Once you have that in order you can build from there adding the unique aspects of your particular claim, hopefully ending up with a concise and credible case to put to the bank.

Hi, agree this is not right at all. Interested to read that GE have failed to provide a full account history, not the first time I've read this. There's an instant arrow for you as GE/the DCA is unable to provide a fully documented history of the account. Also means they cannot comply with the Money Laundering Regulations as they should have kept hold of these account records. Loopy we really need to see some scanned documents in order to ascertain the various strengths of your likely defence. Any chance of also running through the account history and listing which months for which years are missing? Do this from the date the account was opened to the date it was closed. GE (depending on when your account was opened) also failed in many cases to reserve any right to apply charges by failing to include a tariiff of charges on their T&C's. If that's the case for yours as well it will further ruin any default notice and prove the amount requested is completely inaccurate. Suspect there's a lot here we can all go to town on