Good Afternoon me and my debts

[ScabHunter]

If it helps I did make a small contribution when I registered.

 

It all helps! I hope you will feel it was justified as the weeks pass.

 

Take it one step at a time. As soon as you can, print off as many copies of the letter in fedup74's post as you need to send one copy to each current holder of the account. Follow the instructions in fedup74's excellent post. I would send them recorded rather than special delivery in this case, as the expense of special will be excessive.

 

Cancel that idiotic payment plan with Crapbot, as it is totally out of proportion with what is being paid to your other creditors. It wasn't doing any good, anyway, as Crapbot were still hounding you demanding what is not yours to give.

 

Send these CCA requests out, and then wait. When 12+2 working days have expired, post back here to let us know what, if anything, you have received back. If anything does come in in the meantime, start a new thread related to that specific account, and post up what you have received (if you have access to a scanner).

 

We can take it from there.

 

SH

[ScabHunter]

Just the usual templated rubbish.

 

Crapbot usually return the PO for reasons known only to themselves. It means nothing, and your request is still as valid as ever. Crapbot also interpret the CCA 1974 and other relevant laws to suit themselves, no matter how preposterous their interpretation may be.

 

Clownell always say they have requested the document to be retrieved from the archive. Then, they offer reduced full and final settlements, which, translated into English, mean "we are screwed without the agreement, but we are going to try to con you into making a charitable donation to us before we give up the ghost." Ignore this con trick, and the Clownell towel will soon be thrown in.

 

Crapbot are far more tenacious and difficult to shift. Worry about them when they produce an agreement or a court claim. For now, just wait.

 

SH

[ScabHunter]

Should I begin to make the agreed payment to Crabot without there producing the CCA?

 

It depends on the timing.

 

If you are still within the 12+2 days which you have to allow before they default on the request, then you should technically still make the payment.

 

Once those 12+2 days have elapsed, I would suggest not making any more payments until they produce a valid enforceable agreement.

 

This is not a case of "avoiding debts", it is a matter of common sense. Every token payment you make pushes the limitation date further into the future, and extends the window for Crapbot to produce an enforceable agreement.

 

If they do produce an agreement, they will attack mercilessly and demand not only the balance which is probably ten times what they paid for the alleged debt, but also amounts added on for reasons known only to themselves.

 

I consider you have a perfect right to use the law to defend yourself, especially when they are operating outside of the law in attacking you. If you must pay them anything, do it as a properly negotiated full and final settlement. And if you go down that road, be VERY careful that the deal is watertight.

 

SH

[ScabHunter]

This is word for word the same templated letter that all Crapbot "fans" get. Employing literate people to actually compose original letters would be far too much like hard work.

 

You've got to love the way they put your account on hold as a "gesture of goodwill". It is like one of Muhammad Ali's victims in the boxing ring, after receiving the knockout blow, saying "I really intended to win this fight, but as a gesture of goodwill I will now fall over."

 

SH

[ScabHunter]

Any views please colleagues?

 

Very much so. If you have a Santa Claus hanging on the wall by the fireplace, go and shake his hand, and thank him for bringing you such a wonderful Christmas present.

 

Clownell are the ultimate in predictable DCAs, and when they start trying to con you into accepting a full and final settlement you can be sure that's because they have no paperwork to back up their threats.

 

Lo, the days are hastening on, by prophet bards foretold

When Clownell chuck in the towel and you get to keep the gold

 

As predicted by Silverfox, lowwill is about to transmute into highwill.

 

SH

[ScabHunter]

And a very Happy New Year to you as well.

 

This is no guarantee that something won't turn up eventually, but it is certainly a good sign.

 

Crapbot are far more tenacious than Clownell, and far harder to shift. Nevertheless, if they have no agreement, they get no money.

 

A nice way to end the year, indeed.

 

SH

[ScabHunter]

Impossible to say with Crapbot. This is just the standard templated letter that all Crapbot 'fans' receive.

 

Whatever the next instalment is, it may be a long way off. Some people have had letters such as this, and then nothing for months afterwards.

 

You may get another identical letter in a few weeks time. You may even get some kind of agreement sent to you. This may be enforceable, unenforceable, or it may be one of the latest fashionable "creatively reconstructed" kind.

 

Prediction is impossible. What you won't get is a Clownell-style capitulation. Crapbot simply do not give up - ever. They even take people to court for statute barred debts. Be prepared for a long fight.

 

SH

[ScabHunter]

Until 42man arrives on the scene, you might want to read this -

 

Legal Issues Explained - Statutory Demand

 

which is the official insolvency website. This will give you the background information on statutory demands.

 

Also, have a look at the court forms you will need to fill in. There is no charge for applying to have a statutory demand set aside.

 

Forms

 

These forms are for England and Wales. If you live in Scotland or Northern Ireland, get back to us.

 

Yours is a very similar case to many where these ridiculous statutory demands have been sent out, and you have a very genuine reason for disputing the entire amount of the alleged debt.

 

The other thing you might want to do in the coming days is try to contact the person named on the statutory demand. If you don't get put through to them, the demand is invalid, and this can be included on your court forms.

 

I will try to find some good threads for you to read where people have faced a very similar situation, and come out with a successful set aside with costs awarded.

 

SH

[ScabHunter]

There is no need to be worried by statutory demands.

 

Are you a property owner? If so, do you have substantial equity in the property? Do you have a substantial income?

 

All of these questions are relevant to whether the issuer of the statutory demand has any real intention of following through to bankruptcy. Issuing a bankruptcy petition is not cheap - in the region of £1,000 - and if the creditor is going to lose control of the debt and get nothing in return, they will not petition for your bankruptcy.

 

The vast majority of statutory demands are issued frivolously as an abuse of the insolvency process, designed to frighten people into paying money they can ill afford to lose. The fact that this is so common proves its effectiveness.

 

The fact that this statutory demand was issued through the post instead of being properly served is another indication that they are not serious.

 

The set aside which you need to apply for should be granted if they have no paperwork to substantiate the alleged debt. If the alleged debt is subject to a duspute, as this one clearly is, you should have no trouble getting the set aside.

 

Occasionally, you will get a judge who is an idiot. That happens, and there is nothing you can do about it. In these cases, even the judges who are idiots will usually grant the set aside, they just refuse the costs order.

 

Sensible judges award costs as well, so you have every chance of getting some pay for your troubles.

 

Stop worrying, fight the by getting the SD set aside, and give yourself a chance of a nice cheque. If 42man doesn't arrive on the scene by tomorrow night, I'll see if I can dig up some info for you.

 

I do need to get this SD information saved to my database. It is one area of weakness I need to address.

 

SH

[ScabHunter]

lowwill have a look at this. This is an application for a set aside which was used in a case against Worst Crudit. It is probably going to be usable by you almost word for word (apart from replacing Worst Crudit with the goons who are bothering you.)

 

Don't worry about the possibility of some clown attacking you for using a "defence from an internet site", as you will be crafting your own defence. Defences against similar statutory demands are bound to similar themselves. Court defences are an exercise in accuracy and quoting the correct case law, not in creative writing.

 

The only other thing you should do is try, as advised above, to get in touch with this Mathias character. If you can't, then that fact should be added to the application as another paragraph. Make sure you record the times you try to make contact, and exactly what happens when you do.

 

The other consideration is to work out your Litigant In Person costs and get them sent to the court at least 24 hours before the hearing. Doing this definitely increases the chance of the costs being awarded.

I apply for the statutory demand to be set aside as the creditor is aware the debt is in dispute, the creditor has failed to comply with its obligations under the Consumer Credit Act, and I believe that the creditor issued this statutory demand as an abuse of process intended to pressure me into paying the full amount of a disputed debt contrary to the OFT Debt Collection Guidelines.

 

The creditor has defaulted under section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 for failing to provide a copy of the alleged agreement on request within the prescribed period. Under the provisions of s78 (6), the creditor is not entitled to enforce the alleged agreement while this default continues. My request under s78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 was sent to 1st Credit, the debt collection agency who claims to be dealing with the alleged agreement and have raised the statutory demand. This request was received and signed for by them on the xx xxxx 2007. (attached exhibit marked 'A')

 

Further, I believe that the amount of £xxxx.xx referred to in the statutory demand would no doubt include a substantial sum of unlawful penalty charges. (DCA name) have not provided further information regarding the the account, and still have not provided a statement of account (as requested under s78 CCA 1974).

 

In summary

a) 1st Credit have not provided a notice or document of assignment(no proof they indeed own the debt)

(b) 1st Credit have not provided a consumer credit agreement (no proof the debt is enforceable)

© 1st Credit have not proved that the amount of the debt is stated;

(d) It is likely that illegal charges would be placed on the alleged debt, which would comprise a substantial amount of the alleged debt, and so the statutory demand would be for a disputed debt.

(e) 1st Credit have not provided any copies of any default notices which potentially could lead to a counterclaim. - Settled law regarding 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 an unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the Court enforcing any alleged debt, but allow the Defendant to submit a counterclaim for damages (Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119)

 

The respondent has chosen to serve a statutory demand by ‘regular’ post in full knowledge of the fact that the debt is disputed. In view of this, and of the matters pleaded above, the applicant avers that the service of the statutory demand is demonstrably frivolous, intimidatory and an abuse of process.

 

I will also quote from the OFT's guidlines on debt collection which clearly state - Deceptive and Unfair Methods

2.8 (k) . not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating a reasonably queried or

disputed debt.

 

Accordingly, the applicant respectfully requests that the statutory demand be struck out or set-aside. Further, the applicant invites the court to make an order of costs in favour of the applicant in respect of the reasonable cost of preparing this application and of attending any hearings in respect thereof.

 

I make this statement with the sworn belief that all facts stated are true.

 

I will wait for input from 42man who is the expert on SDs (the above was pinched from one of his posts), but this will give you something to work on in the meantime.

 

SH