HP Trouble - Claim form issued.

[emandcole]

This is developing nicely then

 

Just picking up on the NOA we need to remember that although it may be easy for them to knock out another letter they must be able to show they complied with the Law of Property Act 1925. The NOA must be served via recorded post, they must have proof of posting to prove service was given.

 

I suspect this may be difficult for them...

[gh2008]

Again going a bit OT

BUT IMHO they do NOT need to comply with the LoP Act.

I know I keep harping on about this, but it is an important point. They are starting to be a little more open about it since the implementation of the new European Directive (check it out as it gives a fair bit of info about assignment of receivables) Read the Directive as it is quite clear what the DCA must do re the NOA

 

Basically the main point is that Cabot CAN buy just the receivables (the debt outstanding) and leave the account with the creditor. BUT they have to comply with the rules as if they were the creditor AND any defence you would have if it was the OC bringing the claim against you is also applicable to the claimant.

 

Very complicated and jmho

 

and they are the assignee of a debt (i.e. they have bought the right to receive the future receivables on the account - as long as they do the collecting) but not the creditor (i.e. the account owner)

[emandcole]

Thanks GH, I'd chuck it in anyway...just to provide them with another hurdle - I'm awkward like that

[emandcole]

Law of Property Act and assignments does seem to be recognised, however not to the extent we'd hope unfortunately as GH reports above. Just found this on another thread where the solicitor makes reference to the same act, quite interesting I guess:

 

http://s947.photobucket.com/albums/ad315/AVALON970/?action=view&current=200910-CHOENSRESPONCETOCOMPLAINT.jpg

[gh2008]

Very interesting letter as that says 'account' rather than 'debt' ......

 

It is a very murky area .....

 

I agree emandcole stick it in let them explain themselves as, in the past, many of the counsel who are called on the day do not fully understand the ins & outs either .....

 

It's just one of those 'don't rely on it' arguments but can trip teh other side up

[emandcole]

Found this too -

Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes [1973] 2 All ER 476 [1973] 1 WLR 757

By cl 1 of an agreement dated 19th October 1971 made between the defendant of the one part and the plaintiffs of the other, the plaintiffs were granted an option to purchase certain freehold property from the defendant. Clause 2 of the agreement provided: 'THE said option shall be exercisable by notice in writing to the defendant at any time within six months from the date hereof...' On 14th April 1972 the plaintiffs' solicitors wrote a letter to the defendant giving notice of the exercise of the option. The letter was posted, properly addressed and prepaid, on 14th April, but it was never in fact delivered to the defendant or to his address. No other written communication of the exercise of the option was given or sent to the defendant before the expiry of the time limit on 19th April. In an action against the defendant seeking specific performance of the option agreement, the plaintiffs contended that, since a contractual offer could be accepted by posting a letter of acceptance, the time of acceptance being the moment of posting, the option had been validly exercised when their letter of 14th April was posted.

*Held* - The option had not been validly exercised. The rule that an acceptance of an offer could be effected, so as to constitute a binding contract, merely by posting a letter of acceptance, did not apply when the express terms of the offer stipulated that the acceptance had to reach the offeror. The requirement in cl 2 of the agreement that the option was to be exercised by 'notice in writing to' the defendant meant that the written document had to be communicated or notified to the defendant and was inconsistent with the application of the rule that the mere posting of the document was sufficient. Furthermore, since the option agreement was an 'instrument affecting property', within s 196(5) a of the Law of Property Act 1925, the provisions of s 196(4) were incorporated into the agreement; those provisions were inconsistent with the rule that the posting of a letter was sufficient since they contemplated that a notice would only be effective when it was delivered (see p 163 h, p 164 b and g h, p 165 f, p 166 b to d and g and p 167 b c and h, post).

------------------------------------------end

 

So, it seems that if the specifics of the notification of a particular process (such as assignment) are clearly listed as they are when it states recorded service must be used then acording to the above case the court should uphold the fact that this arrangement should be honoured.

 

If the claimant cannot produce registered delivery details of the NOA then I'd throw this in to support the notion that the claimant must have followed the directions that were already set 'in place' to ensure the notice was delivered in an appropriate manner. If therefore the NOA was not delivered correctly then the claimant has no right to action, the assignment process being wholly ineffectual.

[gareth19]

Had a letter this morning from Morgan's along with Notice of Assignment. Both their letter and the NOA are being uploaded to this thread to help anyone out with advice etc. They want to see a copy of my original VT letter to On:Line back in 2002. Problem is I sent this letter to Shoosmiths back in March as they requested it but now they're saying as they no longer act for Cabot I have to contact Cabot for a copy of the letter. My PC went haywire and I lost all my documents to the letter I sent to Shoosmiths is the only one in the world that exists. Surely Shoosmiths have it in their files somewhere??? Obviously this letter is a very important part of the case. I can honestly say I have never seen the NOA that they have just sent me before so I don't know where that went (unless they just typed one up quickly). Where do we go next? Is it time to bring up the old APR matter to them or still keep that in the locker for later? Finally surely just sending me this NOA doesn't mean they are fully complying with the CPR requests I have made. I requested more documents than just that.

[citizenB]

Here you go, Gareth.. click on the thumbnails for a larger view.

 

 

 

 

[emandcole]

Can you verify that the account balance they asked for in this letter is correct for the time it was supposedly sent? If the balance at that date was a different one then you could ask questions. As for Shoosmiths hopefully having the letter you'd need to get in touch with them asap, they should have a copy still. Do you have any other letters that reference this letter in any way to confirm that Shoosmiths had received it? To be fair to Morgans their request to see your letter is more than reasonable and it appears they have recognised the significance of it.

 

I would expect a court would consider their request to be appropriate also so I'd knock a letter up to Shoosmiths asap, perhaps even a SAR might help to uncover anything that could help but aware that time might be pressing. As it's such an important document however (to both sides) I expect you'd be able to mutually agree to hold proceedings until you can verify your position.

[gareth19]

Yes the balance would appear around about normal. I have written twice now to Shoosmiths. Firstly they sent me a copy of the WRONG letter then last time they just said they are not acting for Cabot anymore (which I know) so to contact Cabot. However it is obvious Shoosmiths will have a file (that was proved by them sending me a copy of the wrong letter), but they seem very reluctant to part with it.

[emandcole]

I'd make sure it is disclosed, they have a duty to provide all documents relating to the case and the account, both those that help their case and those that do not help it. How long ago weer they handling this?

 

Solicitors will place older documentation into archives, they certainly should hold all of the documentation relating to this case and regardless of them not acting for the claimant anymore it is perfectly reasonable for you to request copies so long as you offer to cover their reasonable copying costs. If they are unwilling to make them available you'd have to invite the court to consider why this might be - however you should make requests to gain sight of this.

 

If the provision of it will interfere with the court timings you'd need to make sure the other side and the claimant are aware that you are waiting for vital paperwork. The claimant (given the nature of the documents you need) shouldn't really object to your application to place proceedings on hold if you need to secure more time. Get that SAR off to Shoo straight away.

[citizenB]

THE CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1974 - Sections 77 and 78

 

Summary

 

On request and when accompanied by £1, a consumer has the right to:

 

• a copy of their executed agreement

• any other document referred to in it

• a statement showing

- the total sum paid under the agreement by the debtor

- the total sum which has become payable under the agreement by the debtor but remains unpaid, and the various amounts comprised in that total sum, with the date when each became due, and

- the total sum which is to become payable under the agreement by the debtor, and the various amounts comprised in that total sum, with the date, or mode of determining the date, when each becomes due. If the creditor is unable to give this information, he can state instead how the dates and amounts fall to be ascertained.

 

The copy of the executed agreement need not be an exact copy but it must be a ‘true copy’ and not some reconstruction of what the original might have been and it must contain the same terms as the original. Where the terms have been varied as provided for within the agreement, the copy of the original agreement must be accompanied by a document setting out the current terms, as varied. Certain details may be omitted from the original agreement eg the signature but the debtor must be in no doubt as to the true nature of his obligations under the loan.

 

Should no original agreement be in existence it is very hard to say that the copy the creditor offers to the debtor is, in fact, a true copy as there would be no original with which to compare it. In our view the onus of proof would be on the creditor to show that the copy is a true one and where none existed he may have difficulty discharging this. Neither should creditors suggest that a consumer has signed a credit agreement where they are unable to provide evidence to support this — to do so is likely to be a misleading action under Regulation 5 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (the CPRs) and would also constitute an unfair or improper business practice.

 

In our view a debt collector who has bought the debt is the ‘creditor’ and as such takes on the liabilities of section 77.

 

Under section 77(4), if the creditor is unable to provide this information, he is not entitled to enforce the debt while he remains in default (Decriminalised from 26 May 2008 on the coming into force of the CPRs).

 

Legal Argument

 

A copy of the executed agreement

 

Under the prescribed condition, section 77 of the Act requires the debtor to ‘...give the debtor a copy of the executed agreement (if any)....‘. The ‘if any’ most naturally refers to the exception for agreements older than 1985.

 

Where a creditor receives a request to supply a copy of the executed agreement, the Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983 (‘1983 regs’) apply. Regulation 3(1) sets out the basic position that ‘every copy of an executed agreement... shall be a true copy’.

 

Regulation 3(2) goes on to concede that there may be omitted from this true copy various information such as details which are not required to be in the agreement by law: the signature box, signature (it should be noted that sub-ss 3-5 of section 127 do not apply to agreements entered into after 1 April 2007.A Court may then, for example, enforce unsigned agreements if it considers it is just to do so.) and date of signature. In our view the effect of Regulation 3(2) is that the creditor is only obliged to send out a generic copy of the agreement the debtor has signed up to. The creditor is not obliged to make an actual photocopy of the agreement.

 

However, the copy does have to be a ‘true copy’. This is a technical term, which has been discussed in a number of cases, mostly relating to bills of sale and the need to register a ‘true copy’ of the bill with the High Court. These cases come from the days before typewriters, when copies were made by hand. The consequences of filing a copy which was not a true copy were severe, since the bill would then be void and the creditor deprived of his security.

 

Meaning of ‘true copy’

 

In this context, the courts decided that a ‘true copy’ need not necessarily be an ‘exact copy,’ but it must be ‘so true that nobody reading it can by any possibility misunderstand it’ or be misled by it (In re Hewer ex parte Kahen (1882) LR 21 Ch.D. 871 at 875). The copy must contain ‘every material provision which is contained in the original’ (except that if the defect is made good by reading the document as a whole, the omission will not be fatal) (Court of Appeal in Burchell v Thompson [1920] 2 KB 80 at 98-99). Further, it is not sufficient for the copy merely ‘to state with complete accuracy in a summary form the effect of the stipulations contained in the original. It is not merely a document that is to state the true legal effect of the original; it is to be a copy of the original’ (per Atkin LJ in Burchell at 105).

 

Hewer, ex parte Kahen - the filed copy of the bill omitted the precise day of the month on which payment was to be made. The court held this was trivial, and no debtor would be misled by it.

Sharp v McHenry (1888 ) LR 38 Ch.D. 427- the copy contained blanks which were not in the original. The court decided that the blanks were unimportant, since the omitted words were not required for the original bill to be valid.

Burchell v Thompson [1920] 2 KB 80 - the copy failed to include the words ‘per annum’ after the interest rate of 55%. The reader of the copy would have to guess whether the interest was per annum, per month or something else but as one could sensibly assume, correctly, that it was per annum it was a true copy.

Commercial Credit Company of Canada Ltd v Fuiton [1923] AC 798 - suggested further that where there are a raft of smaller differences in a bill of exchange copy, this could prevent it being a true copy. However where the differences were such as to make the copy contract actually different to the original, the copy will not be true. Lord Sumner, speaking of the man who may wish to refer to the copy, concluded that ‘the Act promises him ... a true copy, not a puzzle. He is to inspect it, not to recover the original by a process of conjectural emendation’ (at 807).

 

Terms and Conditions

 

Regulation 7(1) of the 1983 Regs requires that a requested copy of an agreement which has been unilaterally varied under section 82(1) of the Act, shall be accompanied either by the latest notice of variation or a copy of the terms and conditions as varied. Regulation 7(2) extends the principle to copies of varied securities supplied either to the consumer or the surety.

 

Debt collectors as creditors

 

A consumer credit debt can be assigned in two ways: in law under the Law of Property Act 1925 or in equity but in practice we need to be concerned only with statutory assignments.

 

For a debt to be assigned in law, there are three conditions:

 

• the assignment must be absolute.

 

• the assignor must make the assignment in writing.

 

• express notice of the assignment must be given in writing to the debtor (see section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925).

 

The reason the debt is assigned is immaterial. For instance, books of loans may be sold on to be collected as an asset rather than as a discounted debt.

 

In some instances, the debt collector may have purchased a debt but not have the relevant agreement. Whilst, in general, ‘liabilities’ cannot be assigned there must be a question mark over whether ‘duties’ are the same. This is important since there is a rule, expressed in Tito v Waddell (No 2) [1977] Ch 106 at 289 to 302, that where a benefit is conditional upon some burden, the assignee must also take the burden. An example is where the contractor has the right to mine on condition that they pay compensation to those disrupted by the mining. If they assign their right to mine, the assignee takes this right subject to the duty to pay compensation.

 

Therefore, there is a strong argument that under the Act, the right to payment is never absolute. It is always subject to duties (many of which are imposed under the Act). For instance, the right to enforce the credit agreement at all is subject to the duty to comply with section 77 or 78. This duty is not a ‘liability’ as such under the credit agreement but is a condition of the right to repayment.

 

There has been a suggestion that debt collectors can avoid complying with section 77 and 78 by claiming that the agreement is no longer `live’ in some way as it has been ‘terminated’ based on section 103 of the Act. This talks of a ‘trader’ who was the creditor under a regulated agreement, implying that ‘trader’ is no longer a creditor once an agreement is ended. Section 103, however, deals with where the customer no longer owes any money at all and therefore it is correct to say that he is no longer a debtor and the trader is no longer his creditor. Where money is still owed, section 103 would not apply, since the consumer would not be entitled to a termination statement.

 

The first issue on when the debt collector becomes the creditor is relatively simple. Section 189(1) of the Act defines ‘creditor’ as ‘the person providing credit under a consumer credit agreement or the person to whom his rights and duties under the agreement have passed by assignment or operation of law.’

 

Where the debt collector is not acting as the creditor’s agent, or otherwise on his behalf, the only legal basis he can have for demanding payment from the debtor is if the creditor’s rights and duties have been assigned to him. Therefore we can be reasonably confident that a debt collector who has bought the debt is the ‘creditor’.

 

Unpalatable though section 77 and 78 may be for some creditors, if the debt collector is unable to prove the debt, they should be more careful about the debts they buy. They cannot complain that the sections are somehow unfair as it is in the Act and so must be complied with. It is up to them to ensure they purchase and maintain sufficient records to be able to prove the debt and comply with the other requirements of the Act.

 

Misleading statements to debtors

 

Sections 77 and 78 refer to supplying a copy of the ‘executed’ agreement within 12 working days of receiving a written request from the debtor. Failure to do so makes the agreement unenforceable against the debtor until a copy is provided. In addition, if the default continues for a period of 1 month the creditor is in breach of the Act.

 

Execution involves signing the agreement. If no agreement has been executed, it is impossible to supply a true copy of the agreement. Should a creditor supply a copy agreement, even though the debtor has never signed any agreement with that creditor, no indication should be given that it is a true copy or a copy of an executed agreement. To do so may contravene Regulation 5 of the CPRs and be an unfair or improper business practice.

 

The consequence of the debtor not having signed a credit agreement with the creditor is that the agreement is unenforceable except where the court orders that enforcement may take place. Where the agreement was made before 6th April 2007 the court is not able to make such an order unless the agreement was signed by the debtor.

 

Therefore it is misleading to state, when complying with a section 77 or 78 request, that the debtor has signed or would have signed (or similar) the enclosed agreement where the debtor has not done so. From 26 May 2008 such a statement will be a breach of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs). Regulation 5 of the CPRs states that a commercial practice is a misleading action if it contains false information in relation to the main characteristics of the product (amongst other matters) and is likely therefore to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise. The product in question is the credit agreement and the main characteristics include the ‘execution of the product’ (Regulation 5(5)(d) of the CPRs).

 

Telling a consumer that he signed such an agreement is also a misleading statement about his rights and the risks he might face as covered by Regulation 5(4)(k) of the CPRs. It is our view that it is likely that a consumer will take a transactional decision to make a payment under the credit agreement or to refrain from exercising his rights under the agreement as a result of being misled about whether he signed it.

 

Breach of Regulation 5 of the CPRs is a criminal offence under Regulation 9 and can also be enforced under Part 8 of the Enterprise Act 2002. Under section 218A of the Enterprise Act, where an application for an Enforcement Order is made the court may require the Respondent ‘to provide evidence of the accuracy of any factual claim’ (such as a claim that a debtor has signed a credit agreement).

 

In addition, it should be noted that threats to take action that cannot be taken is listed as one of the factors that will be considered in assessing aggressive practices in Regulation 7(2) of the CPRs.

 

May 2008

 

Susan Edwards

Head of Credit Investigations and Enforcement, Office of Fair Trading

 

There might be more up to date information in latest guidance from the OFT.. but this was Susan Edwards' take on assignments in 2008 . The bit I have highlighted in blue that is

[gareth19]

Hello all. Had a N24 form from the court today and as you know I'm not up on legal proceedings or terms so I'd be grateful if anyone could let me know if it is a normal part of the procedure or whether it is something I should be acting upon.

 

It goes like this:

 

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. Order per Civil Procedure Rules 3.3(4). Any application by the Claimant to amend the Particulars of Claim is to be filed and served by 28 days from the date of this Order and thereafter the Court will consider the Defendant's proposed Directions.

 

2. The parties may apply per Civil Procedure Rules 3.3(5) & (6)

[gh2008]

Lost track of the thread Gareth - where have you got to - have you submitted an app or the AQ?

 

It is an 'interesting' Order

 

Basically the Court is NOT happy with the Claim and they are ordering the claimant to not even submit a new POC, but to apply to submit a new POC. Following that application they will then consider your proposed directions (either from a recent N244 or AQ)

 

The last bit is saying that as the Court has made this Order itself, then either side can apply for it to be set-aside or discarded

[gareth19]

Thanks! So this is something between the court and Morgans then really and I need to do nothing? Yes I sent the aq on 20 Sept and Morgans applied for a "stay"

[gh2008]

On the other hand, what it could be is that if they have submitted a new POC without application the Court is telling them off.

[foolishgirl]

It is an 'interesting' Order

 

Certainly is. Looks as though this DJ may be on the ball gareth

 

You don't need to do anything other than keep tabs on it. Wait for the 28 days & then check with the court to see if a new POC has been filed. If you haven't received a copy fron Morgans, inform the court & ask them to send you a copy.

 

Is this with Northants or your local court? If the latter, the beauty of this order is that the claimant MUST now attach the agreement or any other docs mentioned in the POC.

[gareth19]

No this has been transferred to my local court now. Things appear very messy at the mo. I sent back my aq by the 20th Sept as requested then suddenly I get Morgan's aq sent through saying they want a "stay" etc. They also request to see a copy of the termination letter I sent to On:Line Finance back in 2002. Only I sent this letter to Shoosmiths (who were acting for Cabot at the time) back in March of this year. My pc went haywire and I lost all files so the only copy of this letter in existence lies with Shoosmiths. 3 times I have asked Shoosmiths for them to send me this letter as it is vital to the case and 3 times they have said they are no longer acting in this matter and they are not complying. Now I get this order from the court today saying that Morgan's must apply for new POCs. It just seems so messy!! Does anyone involved actually have any idea what they are playing at because I am just waiting for the court hearing and win my defence.

[foolishgirl]

Hang on gareth....

 

You said at the top of this thread:

 

I have just received a letter from Shoosmiths asking me to provide evidence that I voluntarily terminated. This will be hard to find due to the fact it was around 8 years ago!

And just posted:

... I sent this letter to Shoosmiths (who were acting for Cabot at the time) back in March of this year. My pc went haywire and I lost all files so the only copy of this letter in existence lies with Shoosmiths.

So are you now saying you found that termination letter & sent YOUR ONE & ONLY original hard copy off to Shoosmiths??!

 

Pinch me please.

 

Okay, back on my chair & assuming you haven't got a copy of that termination letter.

 

If this the case, you also stated at the top of your thread:

 

OnLine Finace sold off the debt to Shoosmiths

Did they sell the debt or just pass it on for collection? AFAIK Shoosmiths are not DCAs, just sols. Were Shoosmiths acting for Cabot, Online Finance, who??

 

But nothwithstanding that, they did pass it to Cabot who have instructed Morgans to act for them. Therefore the file that Shoosmiths had should have been passed to Cabot & then Morgans. So IMO you need to write back to Morgans & say 'you have that letter in your files, find it!' & without admitting that you can't find your copy.

[gareth19]

Shoosmiths was dealing with this from around 2002 until March of this year. They acted on behalf on On:Line and then GMAC (who took over On:Line) and then finally Cabot (who appear to have taken over the account). I had disputed the fact I was made to pay 100% back in 2002 just after I VT's but Shoosmiths kept saying that because I hadn't paid 50% at the time I VT'd that a VT was not an option. Foolishly I believed this and so paid a small amount monthly to keep them off my back. It was only over the last 12 months or so I discovered from CCCS and OFT that it didn't matter whether I had paid 50% at the time of VT or not I still only ever have to pay 50%. So I wrote back to Shoosmiths and told them to put the account into dispute and gave them the statements from the above organisations. After a few letters back and for with them still not budging they finally asked me to provide a copy of the letter of VT. I never throught I would still have this after so long but I managed to find it stored on my father's pc. I printed off a copy and a few days later my father's pc crashed with a virus and all files were removed. Shoosmiths received the termination letter and immediately wrote back saying they were handing the file back to Cabot due to my refusal to pay. So yes in a nutshell Shoosmiths are the only people in the world that has the letter and they refuse to co-operate. I have stressed to them the importance and have also told them and Morgan's that if they withold this evidence it will prejudice my defence etc but they just say the matter is now with Cabot and they will correspond with me no further. I have told Morgan's that their letter is with Shoosmiths but they will not release it. Surely the judge would see this as witholding evidence though?? Even is Shoosmiths do no longer act for Cabot surely they also have a duty to provide any documents that may be needed as evidence in court??

[foolishgirl]

I have told Morgan's that their letter is with Shoosmiths but they will not release it.

 

Do you mean Shoosmiths have admitted they have the letter but have refused to release it or do you mean Morgans won't release it?

 

Without trawling your thread, have you sent off a CPR18 or a SAR request to any of the sols or Cabot?

 

It wouldn't surprise me if this letter has been deliberately 'lost' in Morgan's files, particularly when you have already laid stress on them producing it . Was it a long time ago that your computer crashed? i.e. would it be possible to get a techy to try & recover the files?

[gareth19]

Do you mean Shoosmiths have admitted they have the letter but have refused to release it or do you mean Morgans won't release it?

 

Without trawling your thread, have you sent off a CPR18 or a SAR request to any of the sols or Cabot?

 

It wouldn't surprise me if this letter has been deliberately 'lost' in Morgan's files, particularly when you have already laid stress on them producing it . Was it a long time ago that your computer crashed? i.e. would it be possible to get a techy to try & recover the files?

 

Yes Shoosmiths have the letter but as they are not dealing in this matter anymore they refuse to co-operate and release it. All they keep saying is talk to Cabot. The only firm I have SAR'd is Cabot and there was no mention of it in there. I would have thought there an official way of getting Shoosmiths to release this letter if it required as evidence in court but they are not interested and told me the matter is closed as far as they are concerned. PC crashed back in March a few days after I printed off the letter so I may have to see if an expert can retrieve any files

[gareth19]

I assume Morgan's don't have it or they wouldn't be asking me to send it to them. However I find it strange that they wouldn't have it because when Shoosmiths handed the file back to Cabot, presumably this letterwould have been in there file. And now Morgan's are acting for Cabot I would think they would have access to it but they are asking me to send it so not sure

[gareth19]

I assume Morgan's don't have it or they wouldn't be asking me to send it to them. However I find it strange that they wouldn't have it because when Shoosmiths handed the file back to Cabot, presumably this letterwould have been in there file. And now Morgan's are acting for Cabot I would think they would have access to it but they are asking me to send it so not sure

[foolishgirl]

Hmm...tricky one.

 

Shoosmiths are quite right, they do not have to disclose that letter to you as you are not their client. However Cabot are (or were) so if Morgans are still asking for that letter I would refer them back to Cabot to ask Shoosmiths to send them the letter. I would also remind them that it is not your responsibility to chase documentation for the Claimant that has already been supplied to them & is (or should be) within their or their legal advisors' possession & that you suggest they get their house in order pdq & until they do so you are not prepared to enter into any more discussion or correspondence on the matter.