For anyone interested in the letters Reston sent to a cagger (Referred to above by DD) confirming their Default Notice was invalid and non complicit with CCA 1974 follow the link below - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?124572-HFC-No-Agreement-Amended-defence-help-please-**WON**/page14 Post #268 onwards

Thanks PT for adding your thoughts, appreciated. Olympic, PT is quite right to pick up on your initial defence and unfortunately the court will brush aside various arguments as they are looking at the bigger picture - sucks but true. Good rule to follow from here on in is that anything you state in any witness statement must be specific and very clear. As PT pointed out, where you dispute accuracy due to charges you should state what charges you are referring to - the court will want to know. Simple thing but very important. As discussed previously I think one of your strongest arguments is based around the supposed assignment of debt, as you've picked up in the above post if the assignment is invalid then Link have no standing before the court so potentially this is a killer blow for the claimant. Given the fact the debt went from LR to Ford Credit and then from Ford Credit to Link I believe, after looking at the structure of the companies involved, that you should have two asssignment paper trails, not one. As for them making it to fit they cannot escape (ideally) the need to provide you with proof of posting if you use the case law provided earlier. This is to ensure at the very least that such paperwork cannot merely be re-invented to suit at a later date or it makes a mockery of the need to assign any debt correctly in the first place. At what point in the past have you asked the claimant to provide you with proof of their right to act? Can you give us dates along with details of how you asked for this assignment information?

As they'd have seen your defence already there's nothing to lose by posting it up so yes please, that would be helpful. Just vet it first for any of your really personal details Might be better to copy and paste the text from the original instead of scanning as well.

Good you have all the paperwork and are up to date. Never heard of Link wishing to entertain mediation unless they suspect their arguments might not be too solid. Link quite simply is a parasitic money making machine so you have to look at anything they do with an air of skepticism, if they have indictaed they want to try mediation its not because they want a cuddle...it will be the sole result of an economic stance on the merits of your particular case. I'm not up to date on your thread but the first question you have to ask yourself is what are you prepared to risk in order to defend this matter? If your standing is good you may well wish to ignore mediation as it places the onus back on them to succeed or fail in their claim, simple rock and a hard place scenario. If you doubt your chances then you'd perhaps be silly to dismiss mediation as ultimately no-one wants to go to court, however by doing so you're already entertaining the notion in your own mind that you may have to lose something in order to achieve a resolution of some kind with the claimant. To indicate you are willing to attend mediation isn't a weakness either, it also demonstrates to the court that you are open to intelligent discussion where you may well be able to bargain a mutual arrangement between yourselves saving court time. You are not necessarily expected to reach an agreement of course, if you simply can't agree to terms there will be no other option but to continue on the litigation trail and let the hearing rule either way. Each case is different with its own individual characteristics and whether to try mediation really is a decision for you to make. You are able of course to ascertain your own legal standing with case law, this way you can argue for a possible resolution more in your favour that minimises the risk to the claimant as they also don't want to lose a claim. Risks for each party therefore, just make sure your hand is as strong as can be and ensure if you do try mediation that you aren't bulldozed into accepting anything that you don't need to, balanced with the strength of your own arguments it should be possible in theory to end up with an acceptable result based on the risks of litigation (for you both) if you were all to proceed. Mull it over I'd say

I guess irrespective of date you'll have a main argument to (at least) question the amount they are trying to claim from you, even if you were to partially admit the debt, which I suspect you will not be doing. Clearly something might be owed but given the background you appear to have a few good counter arguments to offer. Did you indicate on your acknowledgement of service that you were intending to defend the whole claim? If you did what did you submit in the end by way of defence - your main points of contention?

Good! Would spend the time ensuring all that you have is solid and that you are confident in delivering your arguments in a concise and clear manner. Keep tabs on the progress of this just to make sure you do not miss any paperwork the court sends out as you won't get a second bite of the cherry! Let us know what you get and sure between us we can put it all together.

Good, the Litigation Privilege looks great. You should definitely look to use the SAR notes, after all Land Rover through misdirection and misinformation prevented you from VT, a right you had. The SAR notes are very helpful so hold onto all of that. What defence have you submitted so far and what has been your main argument? Does your credit file record searches by organisations - I believe they do. If LR pop up on there that would be very useful in order to show you applied for credit, couldn't get it and as such this further supports your claim that you were prevented from VT as clearly you were unable to access credit.

Have just been going through your thread and picked up earlier bits about LR stopping you from VT. If you go back to page 7 and read through some of Jaspers stuff you'll see that this is certainly an angle you should explore, all the more so as you wrote that your SAR had revealed that you had discussed attempts/wishes to VT with LR at some point in the past. How did you attempt to raise the funds to keep the car? Or was it simply a look at income vs outgoings and deciding you would be better off surrendering the vehicle? If you could show, perhaps via a credit application that was refused for example, that you attempted to raise funds to pay but couldn't that would add more weight to your argument that you wanted to terminate and hand back, and that LR didn't allow you to as it's not in their interests to allow customers to do this. As for the CPR requests you have the agreement, the default notice (which you typed out I think, any chance you can re-post the original for us with photobucket or similar? as the link to it doesn't work anymore and I'd like to re-examine it) but are still missing the deed of assignment/s. You could make an application to the court which will cost you £75 but this might be well worthwhile. If Link cannot or will not produce it you could ask for strike out of the claim as a consequence of your application not being met. Given the slightly confusing nature of the transfer I'd be certain to push this fully. As for the A4 sheet I mentioned ignore that for now, just that Link sometimes turn up with such a sheet and try to pass it off as a deed of assignment. We'll come to that later as required.

All coming back to me now, this has been going on a long time hasn't it?! You can ask the judge anything so certainly, if you feel Link have displayed less than necessary levels of respect for their claim, the courts process and yourself ask away, they can only deny or approve your request so nothing to lose. Given your repeated requests for information under CPR and their repeated failure to provide what you need I would be focusing on the assignment paperwork to prove they even have the lawful right to collect this debt. Given the fatc that LR have refused it stating confidentiality as the reason I wonder if the appropriate paperwork is actually in order, all the more so as the debt has supposedly then be reassigned from Ford to Link. Two seperate transfers of debt so twice the possibility of mistakes. You need to see the assignment paperowork from LR to Ford and another set from Ford to Link. Go over the following concerning assignments, the case law is there to back it up so would suggest researching it and becoming familar with the points that are appropriate to your particular scenario. Don't make the mistake of just printing case law out and not understanding it, make sure you know the case so that you can present a well composed argument as to why that case law is also appropriate to you. Case law is superb but you can't just reference it and hope the court will do the work for you, even though as litigant in person the judge should cut you some slack in terms of formaility. Remember at all times in this process that you need to help the judge to help you so hand them the ammo and allow them to fire it across. Another important factor to consider is that judges do not like Link Financial, they have a sour reputation and many judges will happily find in your favour if they can so try to help them to do that with good research and by knowing your beans. ------------------------------Assignment info you can use, adjust as needed as this has been re-hashed many times over For the avoidance of any doubt, in the event of an alleged breach by the Debtor the alleged agreement remains at all times an Agreement Regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. There is no provision in the Act that allows a large financial institution to terminate an Agreement that is in alleged default or breach simply by giving notice to the Consumer. Section 98(6) makes that quite clear. The Creditor must follow the steps outlined in Section 87 and Section 88 if they are to lawfully Default and Terminate, and enjoy the benefits of Section 87. It is averred that in view of the defects in the Default Notice (Did we establish the accuracy of the default notice?) that any Termination Notice must be invalid and that the claim brought by the Claimant is fatally flawed. The Assignment of the debt It is not admitted that there was a lawful assignment. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the assignment was lawful and is put to strict proof that sufficient notice thereof was served upon myself. Without this proof the Claimant has no standing before the court. The Law of Property Act 1925 is the relevant act that deals with the assignment of debts.Section 136(1) requires that for the assignment of a debt to be effective, express notice in writing must have been given to the debtor:- 136. Legal assignments of things in action. — (1) Any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor (not purporting to be by way of charge only) of any debt or other legal thing in action, of which express notice in writing has been given to the debtor, trustee or other person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim such debt or thing in action, is effectual in law (subject to equities having priority over the right of the assignee) to pass and transfer from the date of such notice— However, it is Section 196(4) that prescribes the requirements for giving sufficient notice by post:- 196. Regulations respecting notices. (4) Any notice required or authorised by this Act to be served shall also be sufficiently served, if it is sent by post in a registered letter addressed to the lessee, lessor, mortgagee, mortgagor, or other person to be served, by name, at the aforesaid place of abode or business, office, or counting-house, and if that letter is not returned[by the postal operator (within the meaning of the Postal Services Act 2000) concerned]undelivered; and that service shall be deemed to be made at the time at which the registered letter would in the ordinary course be delivered. Have you actually had any assignment letters? The format is reasonably strict and I've seen a judge look at a Link template letter supposedly showing an assignment has taken place and hand it back to their representative informing them it was invalid. Even if you have had one (you might need two depending on actual ownership and transfer from LR to Ford and then from Ford to Link) what they may have sent may also be unacceptable. It is noted that by the Recorded Delivery Service Act 1962 a recorded delivery letter is equivalent to a registered letter and that under the Postal Services Act 2000 Schedule 8 any reference to registered post is to be construed as meaning a registered postal service (eg Royal Mail recorded delivery or special delivery). So, you will be requiring evidence that such a notice was sent from any party who have had the debt assigned to them. Is it clear as to who owned the debt at all points in time? EG Di Ford Credit actually own the debt or were they merely handling the debt on behalf of LR before Link 'bought' the debt? 1 or 2 absolute assignments? For the assignment of a debt to be effective and so giving the Claimant a right of action a valid Notice of Assignment must have been sufficiently served on me using a registered postal service pursuant to s196(4) before proceedings were commenced. The Claimant is put to strict proof that any notice of assignment was sufficiently served on me before proceedings were commenced. Without this proof, the Claimant has no right of action. Further, it is submitted that the mere fact of giving a notice does not, of itself, create an assignment and that there must be an actual assignment in existence. It is the actual Assignment, not just the Section 136 notice, under which the Claimant derives title to bring the claim and the Claimant is put to strict proof that such Assignment exists. It is further averred 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) As you have found it is common for a claimant to state confidentiality as a reason for not showing you the deed of assignment. At the very worst this deed should still be available and at the very least made available to the court for inspection. Do not accept a random list of names including yours on an A4 sheet, Link turn up regularly with this sort of thing and it is no more than an A4 with names on it. Anyone can knock that up! It is further averred that to be valid the alleged notice of assignment must accurately describe the assignment (W F Harrison & Co Ltd v Burke & another [1956] 2 ALL ER 169). It is submitted that any alleged notice of assignment cannot be accurate as it refers to an incorrect amount (Check to find discrepencies between any document and that of Link itself) Think about unlawful charges also which should render the amount incorrect. Look to expose their paperwork as they have added all manner of charges - as such ensure that this was permitted in the inception terms and conditions should you default. There should ideally be a clear tariff of costs to you as the debtor should you default, they can't simply start adding all manner of costs to suit themselves or where would it all end? Quite simply if they cannot show they have the lawful right to be acting in this matter they will lose the case, having proved no more right to demand sums from you than any of us have so make sure they provide complete paperowrk history to cover the assignment of this debt. That'll do for starters. Did you ever make an application to the court to force them to supply what you needed? The court will have expected you to do this if your earlier CPR requests were not met.

VT - Voluntary Terminated. Not certain enough about the how and why of the 'Restore Hearing' but I would guess that if you could demonstrate to the court why perhaps another hearing should not be granted that would make things very hard for them. After all, it is them who didn't turn up last time so why should you not have some say in what happens right now? I'd have asked for costs as well if they didn't turn up to their own claim. You have nothing to lose by sending a well constructed argument as to why another hearing shouldn't be given so worth a shot I'd have thought. I'll go over the thread again during the week to recap all of this as I can't recall the various ins and outs of your case. A good start would be to provide a list detailing what has happened and when, for example when you requested docs, what date you got anything sent etc. That way we can look at that and hopefully spot some gaps and suggest a way to progress this.

Presumably there have been payments etc that mean 6 years hasn't been met but interested in these charges. I'd like to see the lawful right they have that allows them to claim these. I don't think they'll be unsuccessful in getting another hearing, especially given the status of the claim the last time. Probably good to concentrate on the documentation they rely upon and attack their right to claim the money. You might want to look at Holwell v Hughes case, the burden falls on the Claimant to prove posting per s196 LOPA 1925 when it comes to serving the Notice of Assignment. Also look at Holt v Heatherfield Trust Ltd which states the Assignment has to be given to the debtor. Use Van Lynn Developments Ltd v Pelias Construction Co Ltd [1969] in order to examine the DOA, or at least to force the claimant to produce it. As for the DOA Link (if forced) try to pass off an A4 sheet with a random list of names on it, with yours somewhere amongst it. Anyone can make up a list of names, claiming it's from the original creditor and this is not good enough. An A4 sheet with a host of names on it should be attacked for what it is, a bit of paper. Can't recall but I believe you VT'd and they state otherwise? Depending on the scenario a default notice might not be required but a quick re-cap would help us all to offer you some more suggestions

I'd back that up actually, SRA are pretty feeble

Hi, can you recap for us and give us an idea of documents provided, and is the amount claimed more than 5k? We'll keep specifics as brief as possible as Link go over these forums looking for anythng they can use against you, losers that they are...

Unfortunately you're caught up in the reality of modern day debt collection practices - we all know it's riddled, they know it, you know it, the court knows it, the government knows it, the regulators know it, heck, Elvis Presley on his 'secret' island with Shergar and Michael Jackson know it but who'll do anytihng about it? No one. That's what sucks, nothing changes and this kind of practice goes on day after day, the weakest and least well prepared often taking the brunt of it all when they cannot defend properly. All comes down to the banking and finance influence on the government, eg it is them who dictate what actually happens rather than the government who pretend or at least like to think they're the ones in charge. One reason I don't believe for a second that we live in a democratic country, I mean would the taxpayers collectively if asked been happy to use their hard earned cash to prop up the gambling dens that pose as respectable banks? Another argument of course but the sad reality is you're unlikely to get much joy unless you're prepared to risk life, limb and wallet to get the blind and/or ignorant duffers at the top to wake up.

Great thread and some interesting arguments, always good to throw things about in order to help strengthen your own point of view. Think this is a very important thread given the current climate of consumer rights getting increasingly undermined so will be watching this closely. The Brandon v Amex farce should have been heard by then too so although there are differences the common theme of 'dodgy' default notices might work together very nicely and will hopefully aid your own arguments to some extent. As Surfaceagent wrote some time ago now the law does tolerate contract breaking so any claim the claimant may try to force that RBS Mint issued a termination when technically it can't have done due to a dodgy DN (meaning the agreement endures) should be easily countered. The everyday person is not responsible for the failures of a bank and is perfecly entitled to take the banks word for it when the bank insists and acts as if the agreement is indeed terminated. Look forward to seeing how this goes and the very best to you Pumpkinhead.

Hi, nice to read an update. I suppose Santy will carry on unchecked but ultimately the only way any of this will be resolved is with court intervention, theirs or yours. Might be worth a chat to some local solicitors on a pro bono basis for damages maybe? You have enough to throw at Santy, I think if a well constructed claim were commenced against them Santy might well remove the blinkers and start engaging with you properly. Failing that I'd package the whole sorry mess up and politely demand that the OFT/FSA get involved as you are being ignored and pushed about by a very large institution who have clearly lost the plot!

Had this myself actually. Link tried it on with an old GE account that should not have been sold (long story). They eventually discontinued but I counterclaimed. Got to court and the judge agreed my counterclaim was in itself perfectly solid however the judge was not satisfied that Link were the party to pursue, despite the fact that Link had posed as the supposed owner and had litigated in their sole name against me. I'm now taking it up with the original creditor and inviting them to comment on the whole sorry matter as it was a contractual breach on their part that led to me placing the account in dispute in the first place and instead of just dealing with it like grown ups so we could move on they sulked and 'sold' it to Link. We'll see what comes back but yes, the whole 'who is responsible' part of debt purchasing can quickly get out of hand.

I've not completed one myself but if you get hold of it and fill out the obvious stuff we can help with anything you're unsure of. Should be very straight forward though, I imagine there will be a box asking you to explain what it is you want the court to do so detail briefly what has happened and ask for the original judgment to be set aside on the grounds that you submitted everything required on time but the court cannot find what was submitted in the drop off box. It might not hurt (just to make sure you get the judges attention) to very briefly point out the more colourful aspects of the claim and state that given those irregularities the case really does need the full attention of the court. As for Link, yes they really are pondlife and if you actually get a judge off the record in the majority of cases they will agree with that opinion. I am aware that in Northampton CC for example that judges there really do not like Link and often look to use whatever you have provided to give them a bit of a kicking, sadly however in many cases the litigant in person has not provided enough ammo for the judge to use and Link can get their own way. This was actually confirmed by a female legal representative who takes assignments from Link as she has often felt the displeasure of the court when Link have failed to do something or have been caught out with one of the many games they like to play. Believe me, if you give the judge something to throw and Link are involved there are few who won't take some pleasure in actually throwing it. Preperation therefore really is important, help the judge to help you.

If they've produced three different 'true copies' that makes it quite easy for you to state that none of them can in fact be a true copy at all! If they choose one that 'is' the true copy ask why the other two have been provided as 'real' when they are clearly different. Once they've come up with some smart answer remind the court that if the claimant can produce two different 'true copies' to the one they claim is the actual 'true copy' what guarantee does the court have that this 'real' one also isn't a made up copy. Use the other two against them to add doubt to their claims. Also make sure you see a document trail linking this supposed true copy to the original that appears to be missing. Given the absurdity of the claimant producing three different 'true copies' I would insist such a data trail is produced in order to eliminate doubt, however we all know such a data trail will not be produced by the claimant as they rarely seem to bother themselves with such things. If the claimant cannot evidence how this supposed true copy is linked to the original, especially when they appear to have two spare but very different true copies this should be enough to demonstrate to the court that what they've submitted as being accurate documentary evidence is anything but. As for the PofC changes it may depend on the judge, some will let the claimant get away with all manner of irregularities (especially if you let them) but I believe in a perfect world that a change to the PofC should be done in the correct manner and they should certainly let you know about it in good time otherwise you are potentially disadvantaged by their chopping and changing. If anything does throw you off at any point make sure you complain to the court about it so they don't introduce any last minute surprises to catch you off guard. If this means requesting a delay to allow you to respond fully to their changes (which must be seen as materially significant, not just tiny changes that make little difference) then ask for this, if they have clearly been sly about it in order to trip you up then a request for costs would not go amiss either.

Very shoddy. Yes, ring the court and make sure they help you with this, least they can do given the mess this has caused for you. Your arguments are plentiful concerning the claim so hardly suitable for quick disposal anyway!

All a little odd, let's wait for the answers and between us and we can hopefully get this sorted out! Bryan Carter though...explains a lot from the very off.

Hi Dotty, been stuck on a course in London and only just got back. Good to catch up on this and see what's been going on, agree with the others and look forward to seeing how they respond. I think we all know why their POC is so poor, let's see how they intend to progress with this. Belated happy new year to you all as well

Hi Dotty, would remove the reference to being embarrassed

Hi Dotty, great input here as usual! Have added a few bits below for you should we collectively decide this is the best option to take. Pretty dire particulars of claim, you shouldn't have to guess as to what they are referring to, it should be concise and perfectly clear. My name is (Insert full name) and I am the defendant in this matter. The Defendant will object that the Particulars of Claim in this action disclose no reasonable cause of action against the Defendant. There is no detailed allegation against the Defendant in law as to how the Defendant should be liable to the Claimant for the amount claimed making no reference to specific failures or breaches of statute. The Particulars of Claim do not comply with the Civil Procedure Rules as (amongst other things) they do not show how the sum of (INSERT CLAIMED SUM) was arrived at and the Particulars of Claim are too vague. The Claimant should, therefore, be ordered to file and serve an amended claim to set out the basis in law and fact as there is no pleaded basis for the claim itself other than a simple unsubstantiated and ill detailed demand for payment. The Defendant respectfully requests that opportunity should then be given to defend the proceedings further, however should the claimant fail to do so the claim should be struck out for non compliance of CPR under the case management powers of the court. Post up what you have and we can help you to get this in hand.

Hi, thanks for the PM. First off make sure you have acknowleged the claim, presumably you intend to defend in full. First off without anything that identifies you can you list what is stated on the PofC.