you realise Gick its very easy to make win 10 look like win 7.? I wouldn't move from 7 because I do lots of RS232 and other basic comms stuff with vintage gear and past 7 it would not longer do what I want. win10 put everything back and works better than 7 ive even got it on a very old 1gb ram vio pc if you want help pm me and I can sort things for you.

I think that's what we've seen them trot out before cant see a default notice yet mind

well what they send before was well below the required stuff. defence is not due till/by 4pm may 3rd. so incomplete / failure of previous CCA request simply needs to be added to our std holding /no paperwork defence re the way to search here detailed in post 33. something like Particulars of Claim (1)The Defendant entered into a consumer crediticon Act 1974 regulated agreement with Vanquis under account reference xxxxxxxxxx (2)The Defendant failed to maintain the required payments and a default notice was served and not complied with. (3) The Agreement was later assigned to the Claimant on 30/09/2014 and notice was given to the Defendant. (4)Despite repeated requests for payment, the sum of £1,597.56 remains due and outstanding. And the Claimant claims (a)The said sum of £1,597.56 (b) interest pursuant to s69 County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of issue,accruing at a daily rate of £0.350, but limited to one year,being £127.80 (costs) then signed by Lowell Solicitors Limited. #####Defence###### The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have in the past had an agreement with [insert original creditor] but do not recognise this specific account number or recollect any outstanding debt and have therefore requested clarification by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request.. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied I have not been served with a Default Notice pursuant to the consumer credit Act 1974. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment pursuant to the Law and Property Act 1925 Section 136(1) 5. On receipt of the claim form, the Defendant sent a request by way of a section 78 pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974, for a copy of the agreement, the Claimant has yet to comply and remains in default of said request. The claimant has since complied and disclosed various documents however unable to comply with disclosing a valid full copy of the executed agreement on which their claim relies upon. 6. A further request made via CPR 31.14 to the claimants solicitor, requesting disclosure of documents on which the Claimant is basing their claim. The claimant has not complied, but has stated a general extension of time to retrieve the documents, to date nothing has been received. 7. It is therefore not accepted with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to: a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement and; b) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for and; c) show the nature of the breach and evidence by way of a Default Notice pursuant to sec 88 CCA1974 d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim 8. As per Civil Procedure 16.5 it is expected that the claimants prove the allegation that the money is owed 9. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of section 136 of the Law of Property Act and section 82A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 10. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.

it would not take much for the present owner of the CO to get that changed to their name. as far as I am aware, if the property is sold, then it will need paying. whos the owner now or more correctly, whose been sending letters and what do they say? bet DLC is in the mix...

sadly no they can just take. and it wasn't a private company no.

so he cant charges 3*£75 nor 3*£235! aw that's a shame dukes!! trying to fleece you do you know the values of the LO's from THE COUNCIL. not via dukes? see if they've added unlawful fees?

sadly that might no happen. always best to ring the council then WRITE but they will be closed now till Tuesday. you need to check with them when the liability orders were gains on all 3. if they were not gained within 6yrs of 'owing' then they are barred now. yo are lucky the bailiff has not attended again as he'll add £235 to each debt though im not sure he can do that for multiple NOE's at the same time?

the pix of the signs wont be the actual signs I bet.

read upload use PDF only

FSO is an orchestra.!! FOS copy everything you have start a complaint with the FOS for the simple fact there is an account with a default placed by lowell [though id like to see PROOF of lowell saying that in writing please 1st scan the letter up to PDF please - read upload] that is not yours, never has been, and you want it ermoved

rubbish!! stop talking to stupid know nothings.. its a credit file issue and poss ID fraud? yes you can. dx

please complete this we don't need to see the claimform, so ive removed it. dx

have you not got drag files here at the bottom of the msg box? one multipage PDF not several. dx

thought so.. go read these threads you should pick up these were mostly all backdoor on purpose and SW are getting quite frustrated with what they did don't ever speak to Shulmans again. all you'll get is tough we want the money as they get a cut!! https://cse.google.com/cse?cx=partner-pub-8889411648654839:3134625398&q=shulmans ccj&oq=shulmans ccj&gs_l=partner-generic.12...15003.17970.0.20377.5.5.0.0.0.0.94.353.5.5.0.gsnos%2Cn%3D13...0.967j346481j4...1j2.34.partner-generic..5.0.0.zWzt0xHnkQQ the docs you have should be perfect to prove you don't owe the debt. and never did sadly this is Shulmans that have collated the info they LIE!!

that's because I later spaced it for the user. dx