National Hunt Credit Card/Bank One now HBOS - eversheds SD

[cashins]

2) Why would a Solicitor issue an SD, with the threat of Bankruptcy, rather than try to obtain a CCJ? No attempt has been made to go down the CCJ route.

 

 

1 As a way of scaring you.

 

2 As an abuse of the court system.

 

3 The may well be aware that the original agreement is unlikely to hold water in court.

 

Do you have a copy of the original agreement, (most credit card agreements of that vintage are unenforceable in court.

 

Don't panic, others will be along to help.

 

David

[molly13]

Can't hep you much but will bump it for you:)

[airtomoreira]

To cover earlier questions

 

1) Debt between 3.5k and 4.5k

 

2) I am not THAT percussionist, but am a huge fan (wow, someone else has heard of him!)

 

I'm most grateful for replies / links so far, but it would be just great if someone could answer the 3 questions in my original post, as these seem to be quite fundamental points that could make the SD unenforceable (points 1 and 3 anyway)

[tendogs]

Look, I'm still awake! The reason I asked about the debt is that it cost over £1000 to petition for a bankruptcy and without a large degree of certainty about the outcome most creditors will not risk losing that amount of money. They mention the default notice because the regulations state that one has to have been served I'll need to go and look at the regulations to find the exact wording and I'll do that tomorrow. Because 97% of people served with a stat demand pay up because they see themselves losing everything and that makes them atractive to the debt collection industry. You would have thought that, if they were serious, they would have the assignment thing correct, wouldn't you. Speak to you tomorrow.

[tendogs]

up the wooden hill, night night.

[42man]

There may have been a default notice, but I would want them to produce this, the agreement and any notices of assignment....as well as statements for the duration of the agreement...

 

In the first instance I would zip off a CCA request ASAP.....OR do this here - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/173201-why-you-shouldnt-use.html although the civil procedure rules can't be applied for statutory demands (as they are governed by the Insolvency Act)....

 

You've got 18 days in which to submit forms 6.4 (set aside) and 6.5 (affadavit) you can find the forms electronically here - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/dca-legal-successes/86067-getting-statutory-demand-set.html

 

If you have been making regular payments then what you MUST DO is report them to the OFT

 

I received a letter from Gareth Thomas (who is the Undersecretary Of State For Trade And Consumer Affairs) recently and he said this -

 

"Debt collectors who issue stat demands without giving debtors reasonable opportunities to agree a repayment schedule are likely to be in breach of the OFT's debt collection guidance. This guidance outlines the type of business practice that the OFT consider unfair and therefore incompatible with fitness to hold a consumer credit licence.

 

In addition to this, the government has recently strengthened the OFT regime to give them greater powers to investigate and take action against unscrupulous or incompetent firms. The OFT will be targetting its monitoring and scrutiny activities on debt collectors"

 

Once you have filled out the forms you need to take them to your local county court (but ring them first to find out if they do handle bankruptcies/insolvency) if they don't handle BR's then they should be able to tell you the nearest that does....once at the court get them to swear in your affadavit (and any associated paperwork) this is usually free at a local county court, £5 at a local solicitors or £12 at central London courts.

 

You need to substantially dispute the debt....whether this be a combination of the following..

 

The defendant totally disputes the debt.

 

The alleged creditor has failed to provide a valid default notice in the prescribed form

 

The alleged creditor has failed to provide a valid executed agreement that contains the prescribed terms as laid out by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. A request for a copy of the agreement was made on XXXXXX under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, to this date a copy of the agreement has not been provided and as of (12+2 working days after the date you sent it) has been in default of that request.

 

The alleged creditor has failed to provide statements for the duration of the account, it not being uncommon for debts to be made up entirely of excessive and unlawful penalty charges.

 

The alleged creditor has failed to provide any notice of assignment.

 

In light of the above evidence I request the judge sets aside the demand. I also request the judge order the alleged creditor to pay my costs as litigant in person, and in light of the upset and inconvenience this has caused myself and my family, I would also order the judge to make an indemnity award in my favour. I refer to.

 

Hammonds (a firm) v Pro-Fit USA Ltd [2007] EWHC 1998 (Ch)

 

In this case, Mr Justice Warren confirmed that it was usual for an indemnity award to be made:-

 

27 So far as disputed debts are concerned, the practice of the court is not to allow the insolvency regime to be used as a method of debt collection where there is a bona fide and substantial dispute as to the debt. Save in exceptional cases, the court will dismiss a petition based on such a debt (usually with an indemnity costs order against the petitioner).

 

If you need help please shout.....they will certainly not be mentioning that you have been paying towards this !!!

[airtomoreira]

Thanks 42man.

 

I already have a copy of the original credit agreement, which I believe meets all the relevant criteria for being valid, but I will upload this at some time shortly to see if there are any holes that can be picked in it to strengthen my case.

 

Is it worth writing to the Sols asap (given that I still have 17 days left to lodge my set aside) asking for a copy of any Default Notice that has been issued (whats to stop them "inventing" a DN, and saying to me "oh well, it's not our fault if the postman didn't deliver it, we sent it to you"

 

I take it that the fact that I have been making regular payments for the last 6 or so years, and have never been approached to renegotiate the amount of the payment, is good grounds for a set aside (or am I being unduly optimistic on this point?)

[42man]

The Need for a Default notice

• Notwithstanding the above, it is also drawn to the courts attention that no default notice required by s87 (1) Consumer Credit act 1974 has been attached to the demand.
  

• It is denied that any Default Notice in the prescribed format was ever received and the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that said document in the prescribed format was delivered to the defendant
  

• Notwithstanding the above points, I put the claimant to strict proof that any default notice sent to me was valid. I note that to be valid, a default notice needs to be accurate in terms of both the scope and nature of breach and include an accurate figure required to remedy any such breach. The prescribed format for such document is laid down in Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) and Amendment regulations the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/3237)
  

• Service of a default notice is a statutory requirement as laid out in sections 87,88 and 89 Consumer Credit Act 1974. Section 87 makes it clear that a default notice must be served before a creditor can seek to terminate the agreement or demand repayment of sums due to a breach of the agreement. therefore without a valid default notice, I suggest the claimants case falls flat and cannot proceed and to do so is clearly contrary to the Consumer Credit Act 1974
  

• Failure of a default notice to be accurate not only invalidates the default notice (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain and Co - [2001] GCCR 2255) but is a unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the court enforcing any alleged debt, but give me a counter claim for damages Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119
  

The Defendant denies that he is liable to the Claimant as alleged in the demand. 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, which is likely to include 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. 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 and Co Ltd v Burke [1956].

The defendant requires sight of the notice 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 and Co Ltd v Burke and another - [1956] 2 All ER 169

 

Have a read here too - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/170345-tale-dodgy-dn.html

 

As I said above their behaviour in issuing a demand whilst you are making payments is COMPLETELY AGAINST the OFT's guidelines....

 

A letter to the OFT and Gareth Thomas might be a good idea too...

[airtomoreira]

bump...do I need to ask the Sols for for a copy of the Default Notice and Notice(s) of Assignment??

[42man]

No !!....why pre-empt your defence....?

[42man]

You say you have a copy of the agreement is that your copy ? is it the result of a CCA request ? Do they have an executed copy (or a copy at all) ?

[airtomoreira]

sorry to be thick......so my defence is that I don't have the DN and the NoA (even though they may exist, I might for example have binned then years ago), and that therefore there is a case for saying that they were never issued. Is this in itself solid grounds for a Set Aside (if so, anyone could try to set aside a SD by merely saying, in effect "prove it" to the person issuing the SD)

[airtomoreira]

I CCA'd then in Nov 2008, following initial advice on here, when I started to get threatograms. I haven't posted the CCA on here, but have described it in some detail on a previous thread. I think it's legit, so I don't want to base a set aside application on the fact that it's not. If I've got no other grounds, I will post it on here for you to look at, but I wouldn't be optimistic that it would help

[42man]

Absolutely get them to prove that the documents exist and are ALL correct....I think I need to fill out your defence more....

[the_shadow]

I CCA'd then in Nov 2008, following initial advice on here, when I started to get threatograms. I haven't posted the CCA on here, but have described it in some detail on a previous thread. I think it's legit, so I don't want to base a set aside application on the fact that it's not. If I've got no other grounds, I will post it on here for you to look at, but I wouldn't be optimistic that it would help

 

Hi airtomoreira, I would post up an edited copy anyway. You never know it could help, Its like building a wall, every brick in the defence helps

[airtomoreira]

Thanks to all (especially 42man) for input to date.

 

42man, you said that you would need to work on my defence, I would be most grateful for your help!!

 

1) As I understand from Post 18, one line of defence is that I do not acknowledge receipt of a DN or NoA. I take it that the legal wording in Post 18 is what I should use (can I leave out references to penalty charges etc, as I don't think any have been added, or should I leave things exactly as you have quoted, chapter and verse). In raising this defence, am I relying on the first reason on the Affidavit - "Do not admit the debt because...."

 

2) The issue of the NoA also raises its head because on the Statutory Demand, Part C (For completion if the creditor is entitled to the debt by way of assignment) is BLANK. Now, I already have a threatogram from the Sols dated 9 Feb 2009, which states, amongst other things "...You have previously received notice pursuant to the Law of Property Act 1925 that our client obtained the debt by way of assignment from under account xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx". So, one the one hand, they admit that the debt was assigned, but they don't put any details of it on the SD. Surely this alone makes the SD not worth the paper it's written on? Would I use reason 8 "Say that the Demand does not comply with the Insolvency Rules in that..." If not, how would I express this?

 

3) Finally, I feel most aggrieved that I am being faced with an SD when I have made regular monthly payments every month for 6 years. I voluntarily increased my monthly payment in Feb 09, and have done so again in Mch 09. No attempt whatsoever has been made by the creditor or their Sols to come to some sort of agreement about increased monthly payments. In light of the recent decision by the OFT about SD's being issued inappropriately (1st Credit??), are there not grounds for a set aside on this basis, that the two parties should try to come to some sort of agreement? If so, can you suggest appropriate wording for this?

 

Many thanks for the anticipated input.

 

Airtomoreira

[42man]

You'll need to have a good read through here and decide what you want to use and try to understand what is being said...where it says N.B. - "for the avoidance of doubt" that is if a judge says the CCA is not applicable -I presume yours is a pre 2007 account...

 

 

 

The debt is totally disputed

 

The alleged creditor has provided no default notice in accordance with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 this stated the default notice in order for it to be valid must be in the prescribed manner and be correct. (There is no default notice attached to the demand)

 

 

The Need for a Default notice

• Notwithstanding the above, it is also drawn to the courts attention that no default notice required by s87 (1) Consumer Credit act 1974 has been attached to the demand.
  

• It is denied that any Default Notice in the prescribed format was ever received and the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that said document in the prescribed format was delivered to the defendant
  

• Notwithstanding the above points, I put the claimant to strict proof that any default notice sent to me was valid. I note that to be valid, a default notice needs to be accurate in terms of both the scope and nature of breach and include an accurate figure required to remedy any such breach. The prescribed format for such document is laid down in Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) and Amendment regulations the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/3237)
  

• Service of a default notice is a statutory requirement as laid out in sections 87,88 and 89 Consumer Credit Act 1974. Section 87 makes it clear that a default notice must be served before a creditor can seek to terminate the agreement or demand repayment of sums due to a breach of the agreement. therefore without a valid default notice, I suggest the claimants case falls flat and cannot proceed and to do so is clearly contrary to the Consumer Credit Act 1974
  

• Failure of a default notice to be accurate not only invalidates the default notice (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain and Co - [2001] GCCR 2255) but is a unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the court enforcing any alleged debt, but give me a counter claim for damages Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119
  

The alleged creditor has not attached any agreement to the petition.

 

REFERENCE TO CASE LAW

 

 

• As the creditor has not provided the credit agreement Wilson v First County Trust Ltd [2003] UKHL 40 states that:
  ‘….the effect of the failure to comply with the requirements of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 was that the entire agreement ………….. was unenforceable. The statutory bar on its enforcement extended to First County Trusts's right to recover the total sum payable on redemption, which included the principal as well as interest.’
  

SUMMARY OF WILSON v FIRST COUNTY TRUST LTD (2003) UKHL 40

 

THE WILSON CASE MADE IT CLEAR THAT IN THE EVENT OF NO ACCEPTABLE CONSUMER CREDIT AGREEMENT THEN THE CREDITOR COULD NOT RECOVER MONIES OWED UNDER ORDINARY CONTRACT LAW REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY COULD PROVE THE DEBT EXISTED OR NOT – THIS WAS THE DECISION OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS AND SHOULD THEREFORE BE BINDING IN THIS COURT

 

The law states that without a prescribed agreement the courts may not enforce under 127(3) and

 

1.In the case of Dimond v Lovell [2000] UKHL 27, Lord Hoffmann said , at page 1131:-

 

“Parliament intended that if a consumer credit agreement was improperly executed, then subject to the enforcement powers of the court, the debtor should not have to pay.”

 

2.Sir Andrew Morritt, Vice Chancellor in Wilson v First County Trust Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 633 said at para 26 that in the case of an unenforceable agreement:-

 

“The creditor must…be taken to have made a voluntary disposition, or gift, of the loan monies to the debtor. The creditor had chosen to part with the monies in circumstances in which it was never entitled to have them repaid;”

 

I refer to LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD in the House of Lords Wilson v First County Trust Ltd - [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul) paragraph 29

” The court's powers under section 127(1) are subject to significant qualification in two types of cases. The first type is where section 61(1)(a), regarding signing of agreements, is not complied with. In such cases the court 'shall not make' an enforcement order unless a document, whether or not in the prescribed form, containing all the prescribed terms, was signed by the debtor: section 127(3). Thus, signature of a document containing all the prescribed terms is an essential prerequisite to the court's power to make an enforcement order.”

 

 

Judge Boggis QC - RE AWAN - [2000] BPIR 241

 

 

'In my judgment, bankruptcy is one of the most serious forms of execution that can be brought against a debtor. In any bankruptcy proceedings it is, in my view, absolutely clear that the provisions as to service must be followed exactly. The rules provide in terms that the petition must be supported by an affidavit of service showing how the petition was served, and express reference is made to substituted service and the way in which that then is to be proved, which involves the affidavit of service having with it a sealed copy of the order.' - JUDGE BOGGIS QC - SITTING AS A JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

 

 

The defendant has not been provided with any statements for the duration of the alleged agreement (it not being uncommon that some debts are made up entirely of charges)

 

The Defendant denies that he is liable to the Claimant as alleged in the petition 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, which is likely to include 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. 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 and Co Ltd v Burke [1956].

The defendant requires sight of the notice 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 and Co Ltd v Burke and another - [1956] 2 All ER 169

 

2 -Perfection of the assignment.

 

2.1. I have never received a notice of assignment according in all respects with s136 of the Law of Property Act 1925

 

2.2 I respectfully submit to the court that steps to ensure service of a notice of assignment are only adequate if the requirements of s196 of the law of property act 1925 are complied with regard to either (a) personal service or (b) postal service.

 

2.3 Since the claimant explicitly states the notice was “sent” it is assumed that this was done via the postal service.

 

The requirements for service via the post are

 

Law Of Property Act (1925) s196

.

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.

 

3.2 - It is noted that the claimant has, at no time, provided evidence that the notice of assignment was sent via registered post, and if “sent” via any other method, the notice was not sufficiently served

 

3.3 -. I did not receive any notice of assignment in the format prescribed by law and served in the prescribed manner from the respondent, and I have asked the other members of my family if they signed for such a document; they have assured me that they did not.

 

3.4 - To the best of my knowledge, any notice of assignment sent by registered post must, therefore have been returned to the respondent.

 

3.5 - Consequently, I do not believe that any notice of assignment was properly served upon me at the date of the bankruptcy petition, and therefore any assignment has not been perfected in law.

 

I gracefully request -

The Judge dismisses the demand on the above evidence.

The Judge order the claimant to delete all adverse information held on my credit files.

The Judge orders the claimant to pay my full costs in light of the distress and damage to my family and to make an indemnity award

In support of this request, I would also like to refer the court’s attention to the authority of the High Court in the case of:-

Hammonds (a firm) v Pro-Fit USA Ltd [2007] EWHC 1998 (Ch)

In this case, Mr Justice Warren confirmed that it was usual for an indemnity award to be made:-

27 So far as disputed debts are concerned, the practice of the court is not to allow the insolvency regime to be used as a method of debt collection where there is a bona fide and substantial dispute as to the debt. Save in exceptional cases, the court will dismiss a petition based on such a debt (usually with an indemnity costs order against the petitioner).

 

Under section 78 (1) of the Consumer Credit Act A formal written request for any true copies of signed consumer credit agreements was sent to XXXXXX. via guaranteed/recorded delivery on the (insert the date on the recorded delivery slip here Dave) (see attached document 1 – you need to copy the letter and the recorded delivery slip (take 2 copies one for the court and one for the opposing solicitor ) – to date they have not sent any copies of any Consumer Credit Agreements and they are in default of that request under section 78 (1) of the Consumer Credit Act

 

I believe there are no properly executed signed Consumer Credit Agreements, If they had been able to supply these agreements then they would have done already to avoid slipping in default under section 78 (1) of the Consumer Credit Act

 

SECTION 78 (1) CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1974

 

(1) The creditor under a regulated agreement for running-account credit, within the prescribed period after receiving a request in writing to that effect from the debtor and payment of a fee of £1, shall give the debtor a copy of the executed agreement (if any) and of any other document referred to in it, together with a statement signed by or on behalf of the creditor showing, according to the information to which it is practicable for him to refer,—

 

(a) the state of the account, and

 

(b) the amount, if any, currently payable under the agreement by the debtor to the creditor, and..

 

© the amounts and due dates of any payments which, if the debtor does not draw further on the account, will later become payable under the agreement by the debtor to the creditor.

 

The Consumer Credit Act in section 78(6) States that

 

(6) If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with subsection (1)—

 

(a) he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement

 

 

 

It must also be noted that the agreement must contain the prescribed terms.

 

Consumer Credit Act

 

8.2 What if prescribed terms are missing or incorrect?

 

s127(3) provides that the court may not make an enforcement order unless a document containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor

 

If therefore any of the prescribed terms is missing, or incorrect, the agreement is not enforceable against the debtor, and the court is precluded from making an enforcement order.

 

(N.B - For the avoidance of doubt the 2006 Consumer Credit Act does not change the above legislation……

 

The Consumer Credit Act 2006 (Commencement No. 2 and Transitional Provisions and Savings) Order 2007 (No. 123 (C. 6))

Citation

1. This Order may be cited as the Consumer Credit Act 2006 (Commencement No.2 and Transitional Provisions) Order 2007.

Interpretation

2. In this Order “the 2006 Act” means the Consumer Credit Act 2006.

Commencement

3. — (1) The provisions of the 2006 Act specified in Schedule 1 shall come into force on 31st January 2007.

(2) The provisions of the 2006 Act specified in Schedule 2 shall come into force on 6th April 2007.

Transitional Provisions

4. Subject to article 5, section 1 of the 2006 Act shall have no effect for the purposes of the 1974 Act, in relation to agreements made before 6th April 2007. (cont)

5. Section 1 of the 2006 Act shall have effect for the purposes of the definitions of “debtor” and “hirer” in section 189(1) of the 1974 Act wherever those expressions are used in—

a)

sections 77A, 78(4A), 86A, 86B, 86C, 86D, 86E, 86F, 129(1)(ba) 129A, 130A and 187A of the 1974 Act;

(b)

section 143(b) of the 1974 Act in respect of an application under section 129(1)(ba) of that Act; and

©

section 185(2) to (2C) of the 1974 Act insofar as it relates to a dispensing notice from a debtor authorising a creditor not to comply in the debtor's case with section 77A of that Act,

in relation to agreements made before 6 April 2007)

 

I believe the facts herewith in this form are true.

 

Although being in a payment agreement isn't enough to set aside a demand you should also quote this to the judge - this was written by Gareth Thomas, who is a Government Undersecretary Of State For Trade And Industry....(quote this to the judge - if he is not being very friendly)

 

"Debt collectors who issue stat demands without giving debtors reasonable opportunities to agree a repayment schedule are likely to be in breach of the OFT's debt collection guidance. This guidance outlines the type of business practice that the OFT consider unfair and therefore incompatible with fitness to hold a consumer credit licence.

 

In addition to this, the government has recently strengthened the OFT regime to give them greater powers to investigate and take action against unscrupulous or incompetent firms. The OFT will be targetting its monitoring and scrutiny activities on debt collectors.

 

If you wish to comment on a company's non-compliance with the OFT's guidance, you can do so by going to the OFT website and downloading a complaints form, which has been established so that debtors and their representatives can provide them with the information they need in order to investigate complaints quickly and effectively. The form can be found at: The Office of Fair Trading: Debt collection practices "

 

I suggest you make complaints to the OFT too...!!

[airtomoreira]

Phew, I'm going to take 24 hours to read through the above several times, and, as you say, select the bits that are appropriate.

 

I did read on another thread that some judges can react negatively to "copy and paste" set asides, I would therefore propose to rewrite what I consider to be the relevant parts in "layman's terms" - but not forgetting to include references to the relevant case laws, etc. I will post my version on here before I "go official" with it - set aside request needs to be in by middle of next week, so no undue panic just yet.

 

I may have missed it in my scan through the above, but I can't see that you have made any reference to the fact that Part C of the SD is blank, even though the debt has been assigned to BoS. Surely I need to mention this?

 

Many thanks for your time and efforts on my behalf.

[42man]

Yes I would mention the fact that it is blank.....i'm not sure if this is an abuse of the process though...

[airtomoreira]

Please comment on the attached. I think that it has all the necessary requirements to be enforceable, but comments (especially to the contrary) much appreciated!

[airtomoreira]

Help, how do I upload so that you can read it!!

[master woody]

looks like an application form to me take a look at

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/105315-my-agreement-enforceable-useful.html

[airtomoreira]

Hope this is better

[airtomoreira]

http://i558.photobucket.com/albums/ss26/airtomoreira/img024.jpg

http://i558.photobucket.com/albums/ss26/airtomoreira/img025.jpg

[master woody]

Still too small, is the copy received readable? if you have a digirtal camerea take a pics and post them up again

 

From what i can see it's an appliaction form