CCJ papers issued

[AndyOrch]

This not true. Are you seriously advocating lying to the judge? This is a very dangerous position to adopt and one that could put the OP in very serious trouble.

 

The agreement is unenforceable - it still however exists.

 

 

I did say edit to the OPs case Rory

 

Regards

 

Andy

[fiveyearplan]

I'll edit and post back up here to make sure everything is okay. One question about the CCA request I sent months ago to Barclaycard - I never sent it to CL Finance because these CCJ papers were the first I knew about the agreement being assigned to them. Would I still put in the date I sent the CCA request to Barclaycard and mention the fact that I knew nothing about CL Finance?

[AndyOrch]

I have amended the Defence as no request was made to CLF for said CCA

 

 

Andy

[rory32]

Would I still put in the date I sent the CCA request to Barclaycard and mention the fact that I knew nothing about CL Finance?

Yes. You would certainly mention your original request for this information from Barclaycard.

[fiveyearplan]

Here is the defence Andy drafted and I have amended/queried.

 

The Defendant denies that he is liable to the Claimant as alleged in the Particulars of Claim, or at all. It is averred that the Claimant has failed to serve a Notice of Assignment in accordance with section 136(1), of the Law of Property Act 1925, in respect of the alleged debt. The amount detailed in the Claimant’s claim, includes penalties charges, which are unlawful at Common Law, Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company Ltd v New Garage and Motor Company Ltd [1915], under The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Accordingly, the inclusion of penalty charges in the purported Notice of Assignment renders it entirely legally unenforceable. The Claimant has failed to comply with section 136(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925, by furnishing a Notice of Assignment in respect of that which is denied, that is inaccurate, W.F.Harrison & Co Ltd v Burke [1956].

The defendant requires sight of the deed of assignment of the debt. In addition the defendant requires proof of service of the Notice of Assignment in accordance with s196 of the Law of Property Act 1925 which is required to give the claimant a legitimate right of action in their own name since it appears this is an assigned debt. The reason the defendant requests this information is inter alia to clarify the dates are correctly stated on all documents , the defendant notes that if there are errors in the assignment it may be rendered in effectual in law per W F Harrison & Co Ltd v Burke and another - [1956] 2 All ER 169

It is therefore averred that the Defendant does not know the case that has to be met and the Particulars of Claim neither disclose any cause of action with any reasonable prospect of success and/or are an abuse of the process of this Court and, in compliance with the Civil Procedure Rules can and should be struck out pursuant to part 3.4 of the same. Furthermore, the Defendant contends that the Claimant’s conduct in issuing this claim is vexatious and amounts to unlawful harassment, pursuant to section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970.

Regarding that which is denied, on the 04 March 2008, This is the date I requested CCA from Barclaycard do I mention that it was to Barclaycard or just leave the date as is? a request was made under section 78, running account credit, of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, to obtain a copy of a credit agreement that the alleged debt refers to. It was sent by recorded delivery to the Claimant, with the statutory £1.00 fee enclosed. It was received on the I need to check this date with PO tracking 2008. The Claimant had twelve working days from receipt of the request, in which to furnish a credit agreement, as stipulated in Regulation 2 of The Consumer Credit (Prescribed Periods for Giving Information) Regulations 1983.

Regarding that which is denied, on 28 October 2008 I requested the disclosure of information pursuant to the Civil Procedure Rules, which is vital to this case from the claimant. The information requested amounted to copies of the Credit Agreement referred to in the particulars of claim and any default or termination notices, a transcript of all transactions, including charges, fees, interest, alleged repayments by myself and payments made by the original creditor. Also any other documents the Claimant seeks to rely on, including any default notices or termination notice, and a copy of the Notice of Assignment required to give the claimant a legitimate right of action. Accordingly, having failed to produce a credit agreement within the requisite timescale or at all, Claimants are in default of said request under section 78(6)(a) of The Consumer Credit Act 1974.

To Date the claimant has failed to comply with my request under the CPR and I have not received any such documentation requested. This is still true although 7 days has not elapsed. As a result it has proven difficult to compose this defence without disclosure of the information requested, especially given that I am Litigant in Person.

The Defendant denies that there has been any failure to make payment in accordance with the alleged contract. The Claimant has failed to produce a copy of a credit agreement in the requisite timescale or at all, should I change this ‘to date’? and in the absence of such an agreement, which conforms to sections 60 and 61 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, not sure what sections 60and 61 mean the Defendant avers that no agreement has ever existed for there to have been any failure to make said payment. Do I just delete this bit?

The Claimant, possessing no legal right claim monies allegedly owed, has acted unlawfully in issuing a Default Notice Barclaycard issued default notice not CL Finance and registering said Notice with Credit Reference Agencies. Not sure this has been done. Such conduct is a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 and amounts to defamation. Furthermore, the Defendant avers, that the Default Notice is wholly unenforceable, given that the amount claimed regarding that which is denied, contains penalty charges, which are unlawful at Common Law, Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company Ltd v New Garage and Motor Company Ltd [1915], under The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.

The Claimants have not established any legal right to issue a claim or proven that any debt exists. It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant’s claim is entirely spurious and without merit and should be struck out for the aforementioned reasons.

[AndyOrch]

Here is the defence Andy drafted and I have amended/queried.

 

The Defendant denies that he is liable to the Claimant as alleged in the Particulars of Claim, or at all. It is averred that the Claimant has failed to serve a Notice of Assignment in accordance with section 136(1), of the Law of Property Act 1925, in respect of the alleged debt. The amount detailed in the Claimant’s claim, includes penalties charges, which are unlawful at Common Law, Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company Ltd v New Garage and Motor Company Ltd [1915], under The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Accordingly, the inclusion of penalty charges in the purported Notice of Assignment renders it entirely legally unenforceable. The Claimant has failed to comply with section 136(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925, by furnishing a Notice of Assignment in respect of that which is denied, that is inaccurate, W.F.Harrison & Co Ltd v Burke [1956].

The defendant requires sight of the deed of assignment of the debt. In addition the defendant requires proof of service of the Notice of Assignment in accordance with s196 of the Law of Property Act 1925 which is required to give the claimant a legitimate right of action in their own name since it appears this is an assigned debt. The reason the defendant requests this information is inter alia to clarify the dates are correctly stated on all documents , the defendant notes that if there are errors in the assignment it may be rendered in effectual in law per W F Harrison & Co Ltd v Burke and another - [1956] 2 All ER 169

 

It is therefore averred that the Defendant does not know the case that has to be met and the Particulars of Claim neither disclose any cause of action with any reasonable prospect of success and/or are an abuse of the process of this Court and, in compliance with the Civil Procedure Rules can and should be struck out pursuant to part 3.4 of the same. Furthermore, the Defendant contends that the Claimant’s conduct in issuing this claim is vexatious and amounts to unlawful harassment, pursuant to section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970.

 

Regarding that which is denied, on the 04 March 2008, This is the date I requested CCA from Barclaycard do I mention that it was to Barclaycard or just leave the date as is? a request was made under section 78, running account credit, of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, to obtain a copy of a credit agreement that the alleged debt refers to. It was sent by recorded delivery to the Claimant, with the statutory £1.00 fee enclosed. It was received on the I need to check this date with PO tracking 2008. The Claimant had twelve working days from receipt of the request, in which to furnish a credit agreement, as stipulated in Regulation 2 of The Consumer Credit (Prescribed Periods for Giving Information) Regulations 1983. In response to the request, a letter dated the XX XXX, with an accompanying document was received. It is denied that the document furnished is a copy of a credit agreement as averred by the Claimant. Barclaycard has provided an application form which is not a credit agreement within the meaning of sections 60 and 61 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Accordingly, having failed to produce a credit agreement within the requisite timescale or at all, the Claimants are in default of said request under section 78(6)(a) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Furthermore, under section 78(6)(b) of the Act.

 

Regarding that which is denied, on 28 October 2008 I requested the disclosure of information pursuant to the Civil Procedure Rules, which is vital to this case from the claimant. The information requested amounted to copies of the Credit Agreement referred to in the particulars of claim and any default or termination notices, a transcript of all transactions, including charges, fees, interest, alleged repayments by myself and payments made by the original creditor. Also any other documents the Claimant seeks to rely on, including any default notices or termination notice, and a copy of the Notice of Assignment required to give the claimant a legitimate right of action. ( edited )

 

 

To Date the claimant has failed to comply with my request under the CPR and I have not received any such documentation requested. This is still true although 7 days has not elapsed. As a result it has proven difficult to compose this defence without disclosure of the information requested, especially given that I am Litigant in Person.

 

The Defendant denies that there has been any failure to make payment in accordance with the alleged contract.The Claimant has failed to produce a copy of a credit agreement in the requisite timescale or at all, should I change this ‘to date’? and in the absence of such an agreement, which conforms to sections 60 and 61 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, not sure what sections 60and 61 mean the Defendant avers that no agreement has ever existed for there to have been any failure to make said payment. Do I just delete this bit? In hindsight no they have not furnished an agreement only an application herefore its alleged

 

The Original Creditor, possessing no legal right claim monies allegedly owed, has acted unlawfully in issuing a Default Notice Barclaycard issued default notice not CL Finance and registering said Notice with Credit Reference Agencies. Not sure this has been done. Such conduct is a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 and amounts to defamation. Furthermore, the Defendant avers, that the Default Notice is wholly unenforceable, given that the amount claimed regarding that which is denied, contains penalty charges, which are unlawful at Common Law, Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company Ltd v New Garage and Motor Company Ltd [1915], under The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.

 

The Claimants have not established any legal right to issue a claim or proven that any debt exists. It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant’s claim is entirely spurious and without merit and should be struck out for the aforementioned reasons.

 

 

Regards

 

Andy

[fiveyearplan]

Okay - here is my defence so far. I still have 2 dates to find which are highlighted in red. I thnk this is now complete! I am going to file it online today about 3:00 pm.

 

The Defendant denies that he is liable to the Claimant as alleged in the Particulars of Claim, or at all. It is averred that the Claimant has failed to serve a Notice of Assignment in accordance with section 136(1), of the Law of Property Act 1925, in respect of the alleged debt. The amount detailed in the Claimant’s claim, includes penalties charges, which are unlawful at Common Law, Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company Ltd v New Garage and Motor Company Ltd [1915], under The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Accordingly, the inclusion of penalty charges in the purported Notice of Assignment renders it entirely legally unenforceable. The Claimant has failed to comply with section 136(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925, by furnishing a Notice of Assignment in respect of that which is denied, that is inaccurate, W.F.Harrison & Co Ltd v Burke [1956].

The defendant requires sight of the deed of assignment of the debt. In addition the defendant requires proof of service of the Notice of Assignment in accordance with s196 of the Law of Property Act 1925 which is required to give the claimant a legitimate right of action in their own name since it appears this is an assigned debt. The reason the defendant requests this information is inter alia to clarify the dates are correctly stated on all documents , the defendant notes that if there are errors in the assignment it may be rendered in effectual in law per W F Harrison & Co Ltd v Burke and another - [1956] 2 All ER 169

 

It is therefore averred that the Defendant does not know the case that has to be met and the Particulars of Claim neither disclose any cause of action with any reasonable prospect of success and/or are an abuse of the process of this Court and, in compliance with the Civil Procedure Rules can and should be struck out pursuant to part 3.4 of the same. Furthermore, the Defendant contends that the Claimant’s conduct in issuing this claim is vexatious and amounts to unlawful harassment, pursuant to section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970.

 

Regarding that which is denied, on the 04 March 2008, a request was made under section 78, running account credit, of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, to obtain a copy of a credit agreement that the alleged debt refers to. It was sent by recorded delivery to the Claimant, with the statutory £1.00 fee enclosed. It was received on the I need to check this date with PO tracking 2008. The Claimant had twelve working days from receipt of the request, in which to furnish a credit agreement, as stipulated in Regulation 2 of The Consumer Credit (Prescribed Periods for Giving Information) Regulations 1983. In response to the request, a letter dated the XX XXX, with an accompanying document was received. It is denied that the document furnished is a copy of a credit agreement as averred by the Claimant. Barclaycard has provided an application form which is not a credit agreement within the meaning of sections 60 and 61 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Accordingly, having failed to produce a credit agreement within the requisite timescale or at all, the Claimants are in default of said request under section 78(6)(a) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Furthermore, under section 78(6)(b) of the Act.

 

 

Regarding that which is denied, on 28 October 2008 I requested the disclosure of information pursuant to the Civil Procedure Rules, which is vital to this case from the claimant. The information requested amounted to copies of the Credit Agreement referred to in the particulars of claim and any default or termination notices, a transcript of all transactions, including charges, fees, interest, alleged repayments by myself and payments made by the original creditor. Also any other documents the Claimant seeks to rely on, including any default notices or termination notice, and a copy of the Notice of Assignment required to give the claimant a legitimate right of action.

 

 

To Date the claimant has failed to comply with my request under the CPR and I have not received any such documentation requested. As a result it has proven difficult to compose this defence without disclosure of the information requested, especially given that I am Litigant in Person.

 

The Defendant denies that there has been any failure to make payment in accordance with the alleged contract.The Claimant has failed to produce a copy of a credit agreement in the requisite timescale or at all, and in the absence of such an agreement, which conforms to sections 60 and 61 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the Defendant avers that no agreement has ever existed for there to have been any failure to make said payment.

 

The Original Creditor, possessing no legal right claim monies allegedly owed, has acted unlawfully in issuing a Default Notice and registering said Notice with Credit Reference Agencies. Such conduct is a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 and amounts to defamation. Furthermore, the Defendant avers, that the Default Notice is wholly unenforceable, given that the amount claimed regarding that which is denied, contains penalty charges, which are unlawful at Common Law, Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company Ltd v New Garage and Motor Company Ltd [1915], under The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.

 

The Claimants have not established any legal right to issue a claim or proven that any debt exists. It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant’s claim is entirely spurious and without merit and should be struck out for the aforementioned reasons.

[AndyOrch]

Hi FYP

 

Ok find the missing dates (do they not refer to them in their reponse? Can be very busy on riday MCOL so dont leave it too late.Dont forget to print off your time submitted reciept as proof.

 

 

Best of luck with your submission.

 

Regards

 

Andy

Edited October 31, 2008 by Andyorch
typo

[AndyOrch]

Okay - here is my defence so far. I still have 2 dates to find which are highlighted in red. I thnk this is now complete! I am going to file it online today about 3:00 pm.

 

 

The Defendant denies that he is liable to the Claimant as alleged in the Particulars of Claim, or at all. It is averred that the Claimant has failed to serve a Notice of Assignment in accordance with section 136(1), of the Law of Property Act 1925, in respect of the alleged debt. The amount detailed in the Claimant’s claim, includes penalties charges, which are unlawful at Common Law, Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company Ltd v New Garage and Motor Company Ltd [1915], under The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Accordingly, the inclusion of penalty charges in the purported Notice of Assignment renders it entirely legally unenforceable. The Claimant has failed to comply with section 136(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925, by furnishing a Notice of Assignment in respect of that which is denied, that is inaccurate, W.F.Harrison & Co Ltd v Burke [1956].

The defendant requires sight of the deed of assignment of the debt. In addition the defendant requires proof of service of the Notice of Assignment in accordance with s196 of the Law of Property Act 1925 which is required to give the claimant a legitimate right of action in their own name since it appears this is an assigned debt. The reason the defendant requests this information is inter alia to clarify the dates are correctly stated on all documents , the defendant notes that if there are errors in the assignment it may be rendered in effectual in law per W F Harrison & Co Ltd v Burke and another - [1956] 2 All ER 169

 

It is therefore averred that the Defendant does not know the case that has to be met and the Particulars of Claim neither disclose any cause of action with any reasonable prospect of success and/or are an abuse of the process of this Court and, in compliance with the Civil Procedure Rules can and should be struck out pursuant to part 3.4 of the same. Furthermore, the Defendant contends that the Claimant’s conduct in issuing this claim is vexatious and amounts to unlawful harassment, pursuant to section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970.

 

Regarding that which is denied, on the 04 March 2008, a request was made under section 78, running account credit, of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, to obtain a copy of a credit agreement that the alleged debt refers to. It was sent by recorded delivery to the Claimant, with the statutory £1.00 fee enclosed. It was received on the I need to check this date with PO tracking 2008. The Claimant had twelve working days from receipt of the request, in which to furnish a credit agreement, as stipulated in Regulation 2 of The Consumer Credit (Prescribed Periods for Giving Information) Regulations 1983. In response to the request, a letter dated the XX XXX, with an accompanying document was received. It is denied that the document furnished is a copy of a credit agreement as averred by the Claimant. Barclaycard has provided an application form which is not a credit agreement within the meaning of sections 60 and 61 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Accordingly, having failed to produce a credit agreement within the requisite timescale or at all, the Claimants are in default of said request under section 78(6)(a) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Furthermore, under section 78(6)(b) of the Act.

 

 

Regarding that which is denied, on 28 October 2008 I requested the disclosure of information pursuant to the Civil Procedure Rules, which is vital to this case from the claimant. The information requested amounted to copies of the Credit Agreement referred to in the particulars of claim and any default or termination notices, a transcript of all transactions, including charges, fees, interest, alleged repayments by myself and payments made by the original creditor. Also any other documents the Claimant seeks to rely on, including any default notices or termination notice, and a copy of the Notice of Assignment required to give the claimant a legitimate right of action.

 

 

To Date the claimant has failed to comply with my request under the CPR and I have not received any such documentation requested. As a result it has proven difficult to compose this defence without disclosure of the information requested, especially given that I am Litigant in Person.

 

The Defendant denies that there has been any failure to make payment in accordance with the alleged contract.The Claimant has failed to produce a copy of a credit agreement in the requisite timescale or at all, and in the absence of such an agreement, which conforms to sections 60 and 61 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the Defendant avers that no agreement has ever existed for there to have been any failure to make said payment. Remove that statement FYP

 

The Original Creditor, possessing no legal right claim monies allegedly owed, has acted unlawfully in issuing a Default Notice and registering said Notice with Credit Reference Agencies. Such conduct is a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 and amounts to defamation. Furthermore, the Defendant avers, that the Default Notice is wholly unenforceable, given that the amount claimed regarding that which is denied, contains penalty charges, which are unlawful at Common Law, Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company Ltd v New Garage and Motor Company Ltd [1915], under The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.

 

The Claimants have not established any legal right to issue a claim or proven that any debt exists. It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant’s claim is entirely spurious and without merit and should be struck out for the aforementioned reasons.

 

 

Just one amendment FYP

 

Andy

[fiveyearplan]

Dates found, form submitted, receipt printed! Now I just have to wait.

 

Thanks so much to everyone who has helped so far!

[fiveyearplan]

It has been over 3 months since I filed my defence and I haven't heard a word from claimant or the court. I'm taking this as no news is good news.

[fiveyearplan]

Update: I filed a defence on 31 October 2008 for MBNA CCJ and I have heard nothing from them in all this time. The default is dated November 2007, so 6 years has elapsed. I'm going request my husband's credit file to see if this has now dropped off.

 

Once again I would like to thank everyone who helped on this.

 

I came back on this forum today to help a friend of mine with virtually the same thing regarding Egg. I will post that in a new thread.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I think you should phone the court to check what's going on, you should

have heard something by now.

You don't want them doing anything behind your back.

[fiveyearplan]

Thanks for your reply Brigadier. What could they do behind my back. I assumed it was done and dusted. If they wanted to resurrect it wouldn't they have to re-issue papers?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

It's just odd that you had no acknowledgment of any sort from the claimant or the court, if the claim was withdrawn, stayed or dismissed.

 

 

What would be of concern is if there was a previous address they could have used to send documents and when not acknowledged apply for a judgement by default.

[fiveyearplan]

We have been at this address for 14 years and my husband had no dealing with them before we moved here so they wouldn't know any previous address. I'll apply for a recent credit file and see what it says. I will update here accordingly.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Good idea, Equifax & Experian have 30 day free trials, Call Credit has " Noddle" which is free but not always up to date.