DCA / Goldfish & Egg / combined the 2 debts into one alleged sum of money.

[toymaker1]

Allocation questionnaire

 

 

An allocation questionnaire is a form used in English legal practice. After a claim is made, if a defence is filed each party is required to complete and return an allocation questionnaire to the court so that the judge may properly allocate the claim to a track and give further directions towards a final hearing.

 

Would you be able to give me some advice regarding the following?

I am the defendent in a claim by a DCA which has purchased a debt from Egg and a debt from Goldfish, and has combined the 2 debts into one alleged sum of money.

Both of the debts were assigned/purchased whilst the debts were in dispute.

Therefore in my defence I have said that I consider Egg and Goldfish to be the Creditors, not the DCA which as started the claim.

At the allocation hearing, the judge spoke very briefly and fast, but the essence was that I should submit a new version of my defence which sets out all the facts in much more detail. She said just put it into separate paragraphs and make a statement of truth.

My problem is that I dont know exactly how to proceed from here - e.g. how do I submit my amended defence to the court, - to whom do I send it? do I have to do it on a specific form? It is very confusing, although I think the judge was trying to assist me. I cannot afford a lawyer.

grateful for any advice.

[maroondevo52]

Would you be able to give me some advice regarding the following?

 

Hi,

 

Sorry, I'm not that clever, but I have moved your post and started a new thread, hopefully someone a lot more knowledgeable on this subject will help you.

 

Regards.

 

Scott.

[spamheed]

Can you type up the Particulars of claim (POC) as stated on the claim form, this is what you will initially need to defend against

[toymaker1]

Can you type up the Particulars of claim (POC) as stated on the claim form, this is what you will initially need to defend against

 

"The Claimant is the Assignee of a Debt(s)from

Goldfish Bank Ltd

Credit Card reference xxxxxxx,

Egg Banking Plc

Credit Card reference xxxxxxx,

Notice of Assignment having been given to the

Defendant in writing. Despite demand for

Payment, 24342.64 remains due. The

Claimant claims 24342.64 and interest under

s 69 County Courts Act 1984 and costs."

 

 

 

 

The purported "Credit Card reference" is a 7 digit number, which is not a credit card number.

[spamheed]

"The Claimant is the Assignee of a Debt(s)from

Goldfish Bank Ltd

Credit Card reference xxxxxxx, Do you recognise this reference?

Egg Banking Plc

Credit Card reference xxxxxxx, Do You recognise this reference?

Notice of Assignment having been given to the

Defendant in writing. did you receive such an assignment?

Despite demand for Payment, 24342.64 remains due. Do you recognise this amount, does it appear to be correct?

The Claimant claims 24342.64 and interest under

s 69 County Courts Act 1984 and costs."

 

The purported "Credit Card reference" is a 7 digit number, which is not a credit card number.

 

Have you ever requested copies of the agreements for these "accounts"?

Have they sent you a breakdown of how the amount claimed has been arrived at?

 

You can use CPR31.14 to request copies of any documents referred to or mentioned in the POC

For those that aren't mentioned in the POC, you can use CPR 18 to request further information on them

[toymaker1]

Have you ever requested copies of the agreements for these "accounts"?

Have they sent you a breakdown of how the amount claimed has been arrived at?

 

You can use CPR31.14 to request copies of any documents referred to or mentioned in the POC

For those that aren't mentioned in the POC, you can use CPR 18 to request further information on them

Long before the claim was started I requested copies of the agreements. The Egg one was in order, but the goldfish one did not comply with the regulatory requirements e.g. it was illegible, it was a copy of an application etc.

But I do not consider that is really the fundamental issue I will be relying on. That is to say, I dont think those issues will ensure I win the case.

My real defence revolves around 2 points, the £24000 claimed is a completely fictional debt created by the DCA. That is to say, they simply added together 2 completely separate, disputed debt amounts and said to the court that I owe them that amount.

From where I am coming, it just seems daft, completely illogical, and outside any legal provision for that to be the basis of their claim. Consider, for example, the matter of interest. each disputed and unrelated debt has an associated amount of interest, which will be unique to each particular contractual agreement, and the outcome of the dispute in each of the disputed agreements will determine how much interest is payable, by whom, and to which party in the two unrelated disputes. The point I am making is that in terms of arithmetic alone, it would be impossible to accurately calculate the alleged debt total. due, before one even brings the law - i.e CCA 1974- into it.

That's how it seems to me, as a layman.

So, the 2 chief points of my wife's defence are,

1. the DCA cannot just add together 2 unrelated and disputed debts allegedly owed to two unrelated creditors, which the DCA bought, and claim that my wife owes the DCA that amount of money.

2. The DCA should not have bought the debts whilst they were being disputed with the original creditor - that is a breach of OFT debt guidelines.

On those 2 chief grounds I have stated in our defence that the Claim is vexatious.

There are numerous secondary issues, e.g the interest has not been set out in the POC in the form required by CPR, the purported "credit card reference" is just a 7 figure number which is not recognisable as a credit card reference, but apears to be an internal corporate reference number known only to the DCA., there is no written agreement in existence upon which a claim for £24,000 could be based. etc etc.

 

Hope that makes some sort of sense.

Edited December 24, 2010 by toymaker1
tidying up

[spamheed]

I understand where you are coming from but this is less to do with what they have done and more to do with what they are claiming.

 

There have been cases where multiple accounts have been consolidated and brought before the courts and judgements have been given because the case wasn't defended correctly or the defendant was unprepared.

 

The initial defence is merely with regards to matters within the POC, hence the line of questioning.

 

You need to use the legal processes and relevant CPR against them

[toymaker1]

Long before the claim was started I requested copies of the agreements. The Egg one was in order, but the goldfish one did not comply with the regulatory requirements e.g. it was illegible, it was a copy of an application etc.

But I do not consider that is really the fundamental issue I will be relying on. That is to say, I dont think those issues will ensure I win the case.

My real defence revolves around 2 points, the £24000 claimed is a completely fictional debt created by the DCA. That is to say, they simply added together 2 completely separate, disputed debt amounts and said to the court that I owe them that amount.

From where I am coming, it just seems daft, completely illogical, and outside any legal provision for that to be the basis of their claim. Consider, for example, the matter of interest. each disputed and unrelated debt has an associated amount of interest, which will be unique to each particular contractual agreement, and the outcome of the dispute in each of the disputed agreements will determine how much interest is payable, by whom, and to which party in the two unrelated disputes. The point I am making is that in terms of arithmetic alone, it would be impossible to accurately calculate the alleged debt total. due, before one even brings the law - i.e CCA 1974- into it.

That's how it seems to me, as a layman.

So, the 2 chief points of my wife's defence are,

1. the DCA cannot just add together 2 unrelated and disputed debts allegedly owed to two unrelated creditors, which the DCA bought, and claim that my wife owes the DCA that amount of money.

2. The DCA should not have bought the debts whilst they were being disputed with the original creditor - that is a breach of OFT debt guidelines.

On those 2 chief grounds I have stated in our defence that the Claim is vexatious.

There are numerous secondary issues, e.g the interest has not been set out in the POC in the form required by CPR, the purported "credit card reference" is just a 7 figure number which is not recognisable as a credit card reference, but apears to be an internal corporate reference number known only to the DCA., there is no written agreement in existence upon which a claim for £24,000 could be based. etc etc.

 

Hope that makes some sort of sense.

 

To follow up my previous post,

I have stated in my (my wife's) defence that I do not consider the DCA is the creditor and that Goldfish and Egg are the creditors, and that if I owe any money it is to Egg and Goldfish, not the DCA, whose claim is therefore vexatious.

The judge at the allocation hearing asked both parties to provide a breakdown of the total amount.

I can do that easily, in that I obviously have a record of everthing, but I would think the DCA would start to look a bit daft when it comes out that the total amount consists of two completely unrelated, disputed debts. I dont know of a legal basis within the terms of CCA 1974 which would permit the two unrelated alleged debts to be simply combined into one amount., as I said in my previous post.

By the way, I am not sure of the formalities of providing a breakdown of the total amount. would I set it down on paper and include as a document to be included in the disclosures list which I send to the DCA by the due date?

[nicklea]

Long before the claim was started I requested copies of the agreements. The Egg one was in order, but the goldfish one did not comply with the regulatory requirements e.g. it was illegible, it was a copy of an application etc.

 

If the Egg CC had PPI then it is likely that it will not be enforceable. If it does not have PPI then it is likely to be enforceable.

 

With the Goldfish CC, just because they have sent you something entitled Application does not mean that it isn't enforceable. If all of the schedule 6 prescribed terms and your signature are on it then it will be enforceable.

 

My real defence revolves around 2 points, the £24000 claimed is a completely fictional debt created by the DCA. That is to say, they simply added together 2 completely separate, disputed debt amounts and said to the court that I owe them that amount.

They are allowed to do this.

 

 

From where I am coming, it just seems daft, completely illogical, and outside any legal provision for that to be the basis of their claim. Consider, for example, the matter of interest. each disputed and unrelated debt has an associated amount of interest, which will be unique to each particular contractual agreement, and the outcome of the dispute in each of the disputed agreements will determine how much interest is payable, by whom, and to which party in the two unrelated disputes.

Why do you say that the agreements are disputed - do you dispute signing the agreements or what.

 

 

The point I am making is that in terms of arithmetic alone, it would be impossible to accurately calculate the alleged debt total. due, before one even brings the law - i.e CCA 1974- into it.

That's how it seems to me, as a layman.

Why do you say that - each of the original creditors would have applied interest at the appropriate rates until they sold the debts to the DCA. Depending on the terms and conditions, interest may then also have been added on afterwards and you will, of course, be able to challenge the DCA to prove the accuracy of any amounts that it is claiming.

 

However, there is absolutely nothing wrong with them claiming both debts from you.

 

 

So, the 2 chief points of my wife's defence are,

1. the DCA cannot just add together 2 unrelated and disputed debts allegedly owed to two unrelated creditors, which the DCA bought, and claim that my wife owes the DCA that amount of money.

Yes they can. However, you are at liberty to ask them to prove the accuracy of their figures.

 

2. The DCA should not have bought the debts whilst they were being disputed with the original creditor - that is a breach of OFT debt guidelines.

I still don't get what your dispute is with the original creditors - do you deny ever signing an agreement or is it something else that you are disputing. And, by the way, you are wrong about it being a breach of the OFT Debt Collection Guidance. The nearest that exists to what you seem to be saying is 2.8 (k), however this just deals with debt collection activity, it mentions nothing about selling an account.

 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a company selling a debt to another company regardless of the state of the account. And there is nothing wrong with a company buying multiple debts of one person and then pursuing them for all of those debts at the same time.

 

On those 2 chief grounds I have stated in our defence that the Claim is vexatious.

If that is your defence then I would suggest that you are going to have a very difficult time in court.

 

I would suggest that your best defence would be that you have not received notice of assignment of the debts and that you dispute the amounts claimed.

 

Have a read of this post for some idea of how to word a defence:-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?283833-help-please-capquest-!&p=3215183&viewfull=1#post3215183

 

I would suggest that your main three lines of defence should be:-

 

1 - no notice of assignment

2 - default charges are an unlawful penalty

3 - dispute being sent default and terminataion notices

[toymaker1]

If the Egg CC had PPI then it is likely that it will not be enforceable. If it does not have PPI then it is likely to be enforceable.

 

With the Goldfish CC, just because they have sent you something entitled Application does not mean that it isn't enforceable. If all of the schedule 6 prescribed terms and your signature are on it then it will be enforceable.

 

They are allowed to do this.

 

 

Why do you say that the agreements are disputed - do you dispute signing the agreements or what.

 

 

Why do you say that - each of the original creditors would have applied interest at the appropriate rates until they sold the debts to the DCA. Depending on the terms and conditions, interest may then also have been added on afterwards and you will, of course, be able to challenge the DCA to prove the accuracy of any amounts that it is claiming.

 

However, there is absolutely nothing wrong with them claiming both debts from you.

 

 

Yes they can. However, you are at liberty to ask them to prove the accuracy of their figures.

 

I still don't get what your dispute is with the original creditors - do you deny ever signing an agreement or is it something else that you are disputing. And, by the way, you are wrong about it being a breach of the OFT Debt Collection Guidance. The nearest that exists to what you seem to be saying is 2.8 (k), however this just deals with debt collection activity, it mentions nothing about selling an account.

 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a company selling a debt to another company regardless of the state of the account. And there is nothing wrong with a company buying multiple debts of one person and then pursuing them for all of those debts at the same time.

 

If that is your defence then I would suggest that you are going to have a very difficult time in court.

 

I would suggest that your best defence would be that you have not received notice of assignment of the debts and that you dispute the amounts claimed.

 

Have a read of this post for some idea of how to word a defence:-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?283833-help-please-capquest-!&p=3215183&viewfull=1#post3215183

 

I would suggest that your main three lines of defence should be:-

 

1 - no notice of assignment

2 - default charges are an unlawful penalty

3 - dispute being sent default and terminataion notices

 

Thanks for your response.

There is a lot to consider in your reply. I will give the points you raised some thought and get back to you.

 

Thanks.

[toymaker1]

 

you are wrong about it being a breach of the OFT Debt Collection Guidance. The nearest that exists to what you seem to be saying is 2.8 (k), however this just deals with debt collection activity, it mentions nothing about selling an account.

 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a company selling a debt to another company regardless of the state of the account.

 

On 23rd November 2010 OFT stated that chasing debtors without proper investigation of the issues constitutes a breach of the OFT's guidance on debt collection.

Are you saying that this clarification of OFT debt guidance would have no effect in my case.?

- My case being that the Claimant DCA continued to chase me without proper investigation of the issues which arose in the dispute between myself and the original creditor.

It cannot be the case that those issues can be left uninvestigated just because the creditor sold the disputed debt to the Claimant.

If that was the case, that would provide a magic escape route for every creditor who has a dispute originated by a debtor. - he could offload every disputed agreement just by selling it to a DCA.

[toymaker1]

you are wrong about it being a breach of the OFT Debt Collection Guidance. The nearest that exists to what you seem to be saying is 2.8 (k), however this just deals with debt collection activity, it mentions nothing about selling an account.

 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a company selling a debt to another company regardless of the state of the account.

 

Surely, if a creditor sells a disputed debt to a DCA, that can be considered to be "not ceasing collection activity", because the sole reason the DCA would buy the debt would be to obtain the alleged outstanding debt from the debtor. - That is surely debt collection activity. And the original creditor and the DCA would both be implicated in continuing to carry out debt collection activity, thereby breaching the OFT debt guidelines.

[spamheed]

On 23rd November 2010 OFT stated that chasing debtors without proper investigation of the issues constitutes a breach of the OFT's guidance on debt collection.

Are you saying that this clarification of OFT debt guidance would have no effect in my case.?

- My case being that the Claimant DCA continued to chase me without proper investigation of the issues which arose in the dispute between myself and the original creditor.

It cannot be the case that those issues can be left uninvestigated just because the creditor sold the disputed debt to the Claimant.

If that was the case, that would provide a magic escape route for every creditor who has a dispute originated by a debtor. - he could offload every disputed agreement just by selling it to a DCA. That's exactly what it does in most cases, they simply wash their hands of an errant debtor, write off the amount for tax, make a small return by selling on the account for coppers and then move on

 

 

The OFT guidelines are not binding, they are "only" Guidelines and compliance is not mandatory and neither does their non compliance carry any penalties in law. it may affect their licence application but when it comes to the big companies, it never seems to have any adverse effect.

 

However, when building a defence against a claim, demonstrating a total disregard for the OFT guidelines by a creditor or Debt Collector/buyer can demonstrate the manner in which a company carries out their business and can sway a judge

[spamheed]

Surely, if a creditor sells a disputed debt to a DCA, that can be considered to be "not ceasing collection activity", because the sole reason the DCA would buy the debt would be to obtain the alleged outstanding debt from the debtor. - That is surely debt collection activity. And the original creditor and the DCA would both be implicated in continuing to carry out debt collection activity, thereby breaching the OFT debt guidelines.

 

If the Original Creditor "sells" a debt - any involvement with the debt or the creditor ceases as far as they are concerned and most of the financial institutes do this to distance themselves from the nastier side of the collection business, they are concerned with their reputation much more than a (relatively) small amount.

 

They cannot be held liable for the actions of a DCA or Debt buyer when the debt has been "sold". although there is a limited argument about selling on a debt whilst there is a dispute. they normally just deny the existence of a dispute and then it's your word against theirs.

 

Whilst you have a semi-valid point about the collection process not being ceased, the law see's it differently and as stated earlier they are "only" Guidelines.

 

There have been a lot (far too many) of cases where a judge has simply said, you borrowed it, now pay it back - judgement for the claimant.

 

You could argue yourself black and white, but they will still be taking you to court and if you do not defend correctly, you will still end up with a judgement against you. Nickleas post should be considered a little further.

 

The defence starts with the POC, the CPRs are there to govern the whole county court process, you need to see the documents they are relying on, Disclosure will enable you to start to build a defence

 

Below are two stickied links which cover the first steps in defending yourself

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?108467-Basic-Introduction-to-Consumer-Credit-litigation

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?241827-Legal-Action-how-to-start-off.-IMPORTANT-IF-YOURE-BEING-SUED

[toymaker1]

The OFT guidelines are not binding, they are "only" Guidelines and compliance is not mandatory and neither does their non compliance carry any penalties in law.

In my case, neither the original creditor nor the DCA who bought the debt investigated the issues in dispute, thereby - in my opinion- breaching the OFT debt collection Code. As you point out, the code is only guidance and not legally binding, nevertheless the OFT expects DCA's and creditors to fully comply with the code, therefore, I believe that a court would take that into account, and such conduct is likely to constitute an unfair relationship within the meaning of S140 of CCA 1974.

[toymaker1]

In my case, neither the original creditor nor the DCA who bought the debt investigated the issues in dispute, thereby - in my opinion- breaching the OFT debt collection Code. As you point out, the code is only guidance and not legally binding, nevertheless the OFT expects DCA's and creditors to fully comply with the code, therefore, I believe that a court would take that into account, and such conduct is likely to constitute an unfair relationship within the meaning of S140 of CCA 1974.

 

The essence of the points made in my previous post is that I believe that it would never be considered, in court or out of court, that a creditor has acted fairly and reasonably,within the meaning of S140 of CCA140, if that creditor has dealt with a debtor in a manner which breaches the OFT debt collection guidance.

[toymaker1]

I

 

 

 

 

I still don't get what your dispute is with the original creditors - do you deny ever signing an agreement or is it something else that you are disputing.

 

The dispute with Egg arises because Egg terminated my Egg credit card agreement when it was not in default , merely by telling me that they were terminating my credit card agreement.

My understanding of that is that Egg terminated my egg credit card agreement outside the provisions of CCA 1974.

When I asked Egg to indicate to me the relevant section of CCA 1974 which provided Egg with legal authority to terminate my Egg agreement, Egg never provided an answer. - they just sold the debt.

I consider that Egg has not acted fairly and reasonably within the meaning of S140 of CCA 1974.

[spamheed]

Without seeming overly glib or dismissive of your arguments, if this is the crux of your defence, then I wish you good luck with it.

 

My opinion, such as it's worth, is that you are pi$$ing in the wind by arguing that "they should have done this, or that they should have done that"

 

I do however wonder why you ask questions on a forum and then argue with those who would offer you advice.

[toymaker1]

Without seeming overly glib or dismissive of your arguments, if this is the crux of your defence, then I wish you good luck with it.

 

My opinion, such as it's worth, is that you are pi$$ing in the wind by arguing that "they should have done this, or that they should have done that"

 

I do however wonder why you ask questions on a forum and then argue with those who would offer you advice.

 

I take your point. But are you saying that it is legally permissible for a credit card provider to terminate a credit card agreement in breach of the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, and in breach of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983?

[nicklea]

oh boy, toymaker1 you areally are stuffed - like the proverbial turkey - if this is your defence. Sorry, I had to get a Christmas reference in here somewhere given the date.

 

But seriously, is that your only dispute with them.

 

As spamheed says, and he is far more blunt than I am, you don't have much of a chance.

 

Exactly where in the CCA do you think that it prohibits a creditor from terminating a credit account in non-default circumstances. You have to remember that, in this country, you can basically do what you like unless it is prohibited.

 

If the contract prohibited the creditor from terminating the agreement at anytime it wanted to or the CCA prohibited the creditor from terminating the agreement then, yes, they would not be able to terminate the agreement.

 

However, nowhere in the CCA or in the terms of the contract does it say that the credit may not terminate the agreement at any time, regardless of whether the account is in default or not. All the CCA does say is about what steps the creditor must go through in both default and non-defualt cases in order to terminate the agreement.

 

Basically, if this is your only defence then you really are stuffed.

 

Sorry, I don't mean to come across as being harsh but I would suggest that it is better to hear this now than when you get into court.

[toymaker1]

Exactly where in the CCA do you think that it prohibits a creditor from terminating a credit account in non-default circumstances.

 

In S87.

There is a widespread belief that because S87 refers to termination "by reason of any breach by the debtor of a regulated agreement", that implies that in situations where the debtor has not breached the agreement, the creditor can simply terminate by giving written notice, because the Act says nothing to the contrary.

However, I would refer you to the Explanatory Notes to the Consumer Credit Act issued by the Government in 2006.

Paragraph 36 of the 2006 Explanatory explains that section 87 of the Act requires a creditor to give the debtor a default notice in the prescribed form if he wishes to terminate the agreement.

Notice that it omits the phrase in the Act "by reason of any breach by the debtor of a regulated agreement."

The Government apparently considered that S87 seemed to require an explanation because it is open to misunderstanding.

I agree with them.

There can now be no misunderstanding of S87.

i.e. if a creditor wishes to terminate a credit card agreement he must give the debtor a default notice.

 

That is without even taking S140 of CCA into account (fairness).

To give an example, suppose a creditor had a credit limit of £20,000, and his current debt owed was 10,000, which he paid by direct debit each month and never defaulted.

The creditor writes to him giving 14 days notice of termination.

The creditor is left owing £10,000, and has been deprived of the possibility of what he believed to be a further £10,000 available credit.

I consider that could be put to a judge as being an unfair within the meaning of S140.

[spamheed]

I take your point. But are you saying that it is legally permissible for a credit card provider to terminate a credit card agreement in breach of the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, and in breach of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983?

 

You need to make them prove that they had a right to do what they have done, from there you will be able to see if you have a defence or not.

 

I would suggest in the first instance utilising CPR31.14 for the documents mentioned in the POC and CPR18 for those which are not

[toymaker1]

You need to make them prove that they had a right to do what they have done, from there you will be able to see if you have a defence or not.

 

I would suggest in the first instance utilising CPR31.14 for the documents mentioned in the POC and CPR18 for those which are not

 

Thanks for that useful information.

I will certainly follow that up. Do I have to apply for a court order to obtain CPR18 info? I notice it say that "the court" may order a party etc.

[spamheed]

Thanks for that useful information.

I will certainly follow that up. Do I have to apply for a court order to obtain CPR18 info? I notice it say that "the court" may order a party etc.

 

No you do not need to involve the court with regard to CPR 31.14 or CPR 18 at this stage these are just letters you would send to the claimant or their representatives in order to get them to disclose the information you require to build your defence. There are template letters, but they really aren't one size fits all, I would generally use them only as a guide and heavily edit them to your own words and to fit your own circumstances.

 

The following thread provides an excellent guide of the court process, it is quite lengthy but with good reason, I would suggest you have a look at it, just to gain an insight into the process and what you need to do.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?241827-Legal-Action-how-to-start-off.-IMPORTANT-IF-YOURE-BEING-SUED

 

In the following thread there is a discussion on the difference between CPR31.14 and CPR18 and provides explanations on both, as well as links to the relevant statute(s)

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?184213

 

Ask any questions on any thread you feel is appropriate.

 

Please be patient as a lot of the regulars will be unavailable due to the current festivities, you should have a look at as many of the threads as you can and you will quickly see that there are a huge number of people in exactly the same boat as yourself and also that the Debt Collectors appear to sail through the rules and regulations with apparent impunity, These people are not stupid and when it comes to the court room they have shown that they are not above bending the facts to influence a judge.

 

You really need to do your homework and gain a clear understanding of how your defence is to be/has been constructed.

Edited December 26, 2010 by spamheed

[toymaker1]

No you do not need to involve the court with regard to CPR 31.14 or CPR 18 at this stage these are just letters you would send to the claimant or their representatives in order to get them to disclose the information you require to build your defence. There are template letters, but they really aren't one size fits all, I would generally use them only as a guide and heavily edit them to your own words and to fit your own circumstances.

 

The following thread provides an excellent guide of the court process, it is quite lengthy but with good reason, I would suggest you have a look at it, just to gain an insight into the process and what you need to do.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?241827-Legal-Action-how-to-start-off.-IMPORTANT-IF-YOURE-BEING-SUED

 

In the following thread there is a discussion on the difference between CPR31.14 and CPR18 and provides explanations on both, as well as links to the relevant statute(s)

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?184213

 

Ask any questions on any thread you feel is appropriate.

 

Please be patient as a lot of the regulars will be unavailable due to the current festivities, you should have a look at as many of the threads as you can and you will quickly see that there are a huge number of people in exactly the same boat as yourself and also that the Debt Collectors appear to sail through the rules and regulations with apparent impunity, These people are not stupid and when it comes to the court room they have shown that they are not above bending the facts to influence a judge.

 

You really need to do your homework and gain a clear understanding of how your defence is to be/has been constructed.

Thanks spamheed.

Lots of useful stuff there that should keep me busy for a few days. (weeks?)

I haved been downloading CPR's and am slowly making sense of them.

 

All the best.