My friend and an SD from Connault/1st credit

[dontletthemgrindyoudown]

A friend of mine, with an alleged credit card debt of just over £3000 has received a statutory demand from 1st Credit.

 

I thought I read somewhere that the OFT had applied sanctions to this firm re the use of statutory demands and told them to improve their practises.

 

Please can you advise as to the way forward?

 

Should my friend make a complaint to the OFT?

 

Presumably in the first instance he should write to the court and seek to set the demand aside.

 

Thoughts/advice would be welcome.

 

Thanks

[angryandy]

Apply to have the stat demand set aside. Have you cca'd these idiots?

 

If not do it and see what they come back with.

 

It's seems to be getting very common practice lately for dca's to be applying for stat demands.

[dontletthemgrindyoudown]

My friend tells me he CCA'd a previous firm of agents instructed re this debt and did receive the documentation,

but should be cca 1st credit also?

 

Does anyone know if DCA's actually go through with bankruptcy proceedings

or is this merely a scare tactic?

 

Surely DCA'a dont actually want to spend any money...

 

any help would be appreciated.

 

Thanks

[angryandy]

Bankruptcy proceedings a merely a scare tactic. Has he still got his 'documentation'? Are you in a position to scan it on here to see if it is enforcable? Delete all personal data etc before you do scan it on though

[dontletthemgrindyoudown]

yes, I think he has, ill scan and post this weekend. However what should he do now..should be cca 1st credit or merely disupte the debt, and ask for the stat demand to be set aside?

Also, is it worth filing a complaint with the OFT as well as 1st credit's trade body, Credit Services Association.

Thanks

[angryandy]

If the agreement is not enforcable he should put it in dispute. If you have cca'd a different dca for the same debt then you shouldn't have to do it again. There is a template letter on here to say the account is in dispute. Lets just get your cca on here to see if it is enforcable first. If it isn't you can then send the in dispute letter to 1st credit.

 

Hope this helps

[F_DCAs]

Definitely report it to the OFT. First Credit have indeed recently been issued with an OFT warning for exactly this kind of behaviour.

[dontletthemgrindyoudown]

Chronology

March 08..letter from Goldfish advising of assignment to 1st Credit (Finance) Ltd

March 08..introductory letter from 1st Credit (Finance) Ltd

April 08..letter headed "Legal proceedings" from 1st Credit

April 08...letter sent not acknowledging debt and requesting credit agreeement.

April 08..letter from 1st Credit acknowledging request for Copy agreement

April 08 ..letter from LCS threatening legal proceedings

May 08..letter from 1st credit introducing DEBT HELP TEAM

June 08..letter from 1st Credit stating case had been passed to PRE LEGAL TEAM

June 08..letter to 1st Credit stating thet copy agreement still not provided.

June 08..acknowledgement letter from 1st Credit

June 08..letter from 1st Credit stating they "stll await the copy agreement from our client"

August 08..letter from 1st credit providing "an edited copy of the signed agreement".

March 09..letter from 1st Credit..PRE LEGAL DEPARTMENT want to discuss the account with you.

April 09....letter from 1st Credit "Your home may be at risk".

April 09..letter from 1st Credit offering "generous" discount

May 09..letter from Connaught Collections UK Ltd..."we have been instructed..."

May 09..letter from Connaught "we have been instructed..."

May 09..letter from Judge & Priestley.."we have been instructed by Connaught collections.. and offering reduced sum in full and final"

June 09..letter from Judge & Priestley requesting contact.

June 09..letter from Connaught collections offering 50% discount.

September 09..Statutory demand from 1st credit (Guernsey) Ltd.

 

I will post the CCA shortly..

can you provide advice given the above?

Does the fact that the edited version of the CCA arrived outside the stated timescale for delivery make the alleged debt unenforceable?

Also, the Stat Demand is made by 1st Credit (Guernsey) Ltd, not 1st Credit (Finance) ltd to whom the alleged debt was apparently assigned.

Thanks

correspondence.pdf

Edited September 12, 2009 by dontletthemgrindyoudown

[dontletthemgrindyoudown]

I have now attached the letter and document received from 1st credit. thanks for your help.

[lilly white]

well or friends in the bus stop in reigate.

 

We do need to take this on .

 

I will read through and keep a look out need any help shout.

 

 

Lilly white

[lilly white]

ok how old is the account

 

Where are the terms and condtions.

 

lilly white

[lilly white]

the cca as far as i can see are rubbish.

[lilly white]

ok have a read the debt is in total dispute.

 

12. The credit agreement supplied is not compliant with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) the consequences of such failings mean that the agreement is rendered unenforceable by section 127(3) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

13. Under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 there are certain conditions laid down by parliament which must be complied with if such agreement is to be enforced by the courts

 

14. Firstly, the agreement must contain certain Prescribed terms under regulations made by the Secretary of State under section 60(1) CCA 1974, the regulations referred to are the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553)

 

15. The prescribed terms referred to are contained in schedule 6 column 2 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) and are inter alia: - A term stating the credit limit or the manner in which it will be determined or that there is no credit limit, A term stating the rate of any interest on the credit to be provided under the agreement and A term stating how the debtor is to discharge his obligations under the agreement to make the repayments, which may be expressed by reference to a combination of any of the following--

1. Number of repayments;

2. Amount of repayments;

3. Frequency and timing of repayments;

4. Dates of repayments;

5. The manner in which any of the above may be determined; or in any other way, and any power of the creditor to vary what is payable

 

16. It is submitted the credit agreement supplied falls foul of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) in so far that the prescribed terms are not contained within the agreement. The prescribed terms must be with the agreement for it to be compliant with section 60(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974. They cannot be found in a secondary document as according to section 61(1) (a)(b) &©, the agreement must at the time it is laid before the debtor contain all the terms of agreement

 

17. Furthermore, section 2 of the Consumer Credit Agreement Regulations 1983 clearly states

2 Form and content of regulated consumer credit agreements

 

[(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (9) below, documents embodying regulated consumer credit agreements (other than modifying agreements) shall contain the information set out in Column 2 of Schedule 1 to these Regulations in so far as it relates to the type of agreement referred to in Column 1.

18. Furthermore I refer to the judgment of TUCKEY LJ in the case of Wilson and another v Hurstanger Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 299

"[11] Schedule 1 to the 1983 Regulations sets out the "information to be contained in documents embodying regulated

consumer credit agreements". Some of this information mirrors the terms prescribed by Sch 6, but some does not. Contrasting

the provisions of the two schedules the Judge said:

"33 In my judgment the objective of Schedule 6 is to ensure that, as an inflexible condition of enforceability, certain basic minimum terms are included which the parties (with the benefit of legal advice if necessary) and/or the court can identify within the four corners of the agreement. Those minimum provisions combined with the requirement under s 61 that all the terms should be in a single document, and backed up by the provisions of section 127(3), ensure that these core terms are expressly set out in the agreement itself: they cannot be orally agreed; they cannot be found in another document; they cannot be implied; and above all they cannot be in the slightest mis-stated. As a matter of policy, the lender is denied any room for manoeuvre in respect of them. On the other hand, they are basic provisions, and the only question for the court is whether they are, on a true construction, included in the agreement. More detailed requirements, which

are designed to ensure that the debtor is made aware, so far as possible, of specified information (including information contained in the

minimum terms) are to be found in Schedule 1."

19. If the agreement does not contain these terms in the prescribed manner it does not comply with section 60(1) CCA 1974, the consequences of which means it is improperly executed and only enforceable by court order

 

20. Notwithstanding point 15, The agreement must be signed in the prescribed manner to comply with s61 (1) CCA 1974, if the agreement is not signed by debtor or creditor it is also improperly executed and again only enforceable by court order

 

The Courts Power of Enforcement

 

21. The courts powers of enforcement where agreements are improperly executed by way of section 65 CCA 1974 are themselves subject to certain qualifying factors. Under section 127 (3) Consumer Credit Act 1974 the requirements are laid out clearly what is required for the court to be able to enforce the agreement where section 65(1) has not been complied with

127(3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a)(signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner).

22. Further more the courts attention is also drawn to the authority of the House of Lords in Wilson-v- FCT [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul) which confirms that where a document does not contain the required terms under the consumer credit act 1974 and the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) and Consumer Credit (Agreements) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI2004/1482) the agreement cannot be enforced

 

23. The House of Lords in the case of Wilson v First County Trust Ltd - [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul) Ruled that a credit agreement must contain the prescribed terms and must be signed in the prescribed manner for the agreement to be enforceable and set out the consequences of non compliance with the 1974 Act.i refer to the judgment of Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead below....

28.........I should outline the salient provisions of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Subject to exemptions, a regulated agreement is an agreement between an individual debtor and another person by which the latter provides the former with a cash loan or other financial accommodation not exceeding a specified amount. Currently the amount is £25,000. Section 61(1) sets out conditions which must be satisfied if a regulated agreement is to be treated as properly executed. One of these conditions, in paragraph (a), is that the agreement must be in a prescribed form containing all the prescribed terms. The prescribed terms are the amount of the credit or the credit limit, rate of interest (in some cases), how the borrower is to discharge his obligations, and any power the creditor may have to vary what is payable: Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983, Schedule 6. The consequence of improper execution is that the agreement is not enforceable against the debtor save by an order of the court: section 65(1). Section 127(1) provides what is to happen on an application for an enforcement order under section 65. The court 'shall dismiss' the application if, but only if, the court considers it just to do so having regard to the prejudice caused to any person by the contravention in question and the degree of culpability for it. The court may reduce the amount payable by the debtor so as to compensate him for prejudice suffered as a result of the contravention, or impose conditions, or suspend the operation of any term of the order or make consequential changes in the agreement or security.

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. The second type of case concerns failure to comply with the duty to supply a copy of an executed or unexecuted agreement pursuant to sections 62 and 63, or failure to comply with the duty to give notice of cancellation rights in accordance with section 64(1). Here again, subject to one exception regarding sections 62 and 63, section 127(4) precludes the court from making an enforcement order.

 

30. These restrictions on enforcement of a regulated agreement cannot be sidestepped.....

And further more

36. In the present case the essence of the complaint is that section 127(3) of the Consumer Credit Act has the effect that a Regulated agreement is not enforceable unless a document containing all the prescribed terms is signed by the debtor

 

49. ".............The message to be gleaned from sections 65, 106, 113 and 127 of the Consumer Credit Act is that where a court dismisses an application for an enforcement order under section 65 the lender is intended by Parliament to be left without recourse against the borrower in respect of the loan. That being the consequence intended by Parliament, the lender cannot assert at common law that the borrower has been unjustly enriched.

 

 

50. This interpretation of the Consumer Credit Act accords with the approach adopted by the House in Orakpo v Manson Investments Ltd [1978] AC 95, regarding section 6 of the Moneylenders Act 1927 and, more recently, in Dimond v Lovell [2002] 1 AC 384, another case where section 127(3) precluded the making of an enforcement order. In Dimond's case the restitutionary remedy sought was payment of the hire charge for a replacement car used by Mrs Dimond. The House rejected a claim advanced on the basis of unjust enrichment. Lord Hoffmann observed that Parliament contemplated that a debtor might be enriched consequential upon non-enforcement of an agreement pursuant to the statutory provisions. It was not open to the court to say this consequence is unjust and should be reversed by a remedy at common law: [2002] 1 AC 384, 397-398.

24. The House of Lords and the Court of Appeal before it in considering the Wilson case held that if the agreement does not contain the prescribed terms outlined in Schedule 6 column 2 of Statutory Instrument 1983/1553 then the court couldn't issue an enforcement order. The House of Lords clearly considered it the will of parliament that where a lender did not comply with the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the Subsequent regulations then the lender does not have any recourse, they cannot side step regulation by any other means and weather it is considered right or wrong for the debtor not to have to repay an unenforceable debt becomes irrelevant where the requirements of the CCA 1974 and regulations are not met

 

25. Since the judgment of Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead clearly sets out that without a credit agreement the claimant's case cannot succeed.

 

26. I also refer to the website of Francis Bennion, the drafts person of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and note in particular a PDF document that the honourable Mr Bennion has posted (located here http://www.francisbennion.com/pdfs/f...974-s127-3.pdf ) which states

"As the draftsman of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 I would like to thank Dr Richard Lawson for his interesting and well-argued article (30 August 2003) on Wilson v First County Trust Ltd [2003] UKHL 40, [2003] 4 All ER 97. Dr Lawson may be interested to know that I included the provision in question (section 127(3)) entirely on my own initiative. It seemed right to me that if the creditor company couldn't be bothered to ensure that all the prescribed particulars were accurately included in the credit agreement it deserved to find it unenforceable, and that the court should not have power to relieve it from this penalty. Nobody queried this, and it went through Parliament without debate. I'm glad the House of Lords has now vindicated my reasoning and confirmed that nobody's human rights were infringed.

 

167 Justice of the Peace (2003) 773.

27. The defendant will further refer to the cases of Dimond v Lovell - [2001] GCCR 2751 and London North Securities Ltd & Mr and Mrs. Meadows [2005] EWCA Civ 956,as these cases which were dealt with by the Court of Appeal and House of Lords respectively deal with Consumer credit Agreements and the fact that where agreements do not comply with the Act they are not enforceable by the courts

 

28. Therefore I respectfully request that the court order the claimant produce the original signed agreement before the court to show the form and content of it and that it complies with the regulations referred to in this defence, otherwise the courts powers of enforcement are surely limited in these circumstances

 

29. Should the claimant be unable to produce the original agreement signed by both debtor and creditor and containing the prescribed terms, I request that the court uses its powers under section 142 Consumer Credit Act 1974 and declare the agreement supplied by the claimant (marked Exhibit CP xxx) unenforceable.

 

 

 

[lilly white]

The Need for a Default notice

 

30. Notwithstanding the matters pleaded above, the claimant must under section 87(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 serve a default notice before they can demand payment under a regulated credit agreement

 

31. It is neither admitted or 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

 

32. Notwithstanding point 31, 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)

 

33. 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

 

 

34. In view of matters pleaded, I respectfully request the court give consideration to striking out the claimants case pursuant to part 3.4

(2) The court may strike out a statement of case if it appears to the court -

 

(a) That the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending

(b) That the statement of case is an abuse of the court's process or is otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings; or

© That there has been a failure to comply with a rule, practice direction or court order.

35. If the court considers it in appropriate to use its case management powers, it is requested that the court order the claimant to produce a compliant credit agreement, which complies with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the Consumer Credit Agreements Regulations 1983. Without production of the requested documents the case can not be dealt with justly and fairly, and will severely prejudice my rights to a fair trial as laid out under Article 6 of the Convention rights contained within the Human Rights Act 1998

 

36. Having instigated these proceedings without any legal basis for doing so, having failed to provide sufficient information required under the pre-trial protocols in order to investigate this claim, or indeed to provide a reasonable time period to investigate this matter, and having failed to investigate a dispute as required by the OFT Debt collection Guidelines I believe the Claimant's conduct amounts to unlawful harassment under section 40 of The Administration of Justice Act 1970. Furthermore, the Claimant's behaviour is entirely vexatious and wholly unreasonable.

 

37. In addition, should it be suggested that the claim falls under the Consumer Credit Act 2006, it is drawn to the courts attention that schedule 3, s11 of the Consumer Credit Act 2006 prevents s15 repealing s127 (3) of the 1974 Act for agreements made before s15 came into effect since the agreement is alleged to have commenced in xx/xx/xxx the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is the relevant act in this case.

More to come

 

 

 

 

 

[lilly white]

The Assignment of the Debt

 

 

19. If the Claimant was not Sainsburys Bank then it is not admitted that there was a lawful assignment. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the assignment was lawful and is put to strict proof that sufficient notice thereof was served upon myself. Without this proof the Claimant has no standing before the court.

 

 

20. The Law of Property Act 1925 is the relevant act that deals with the assignment of debts. Section 136(1) requires that for the assignment of a debt to be effective, express notice in writing must have been given to the debtor:-

 

136. Legal assignments of things in action.

— (1) Any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor (not purporting to be by way of charge only) of any debt or other legal thing in action, of which express notice in writing has been given to the debtor, trustee or other person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim such debt or thing in action, is effectual in law (subject to equities having priority over the right of the assignee) to pass and transfer from the date of such notice—

 

21. However, it is Section 196(4) that prescribes the requirements for giving sufficient notice by post:-

 

196. 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.

 

22. It is noted that by the Recorded Delivery Service Act 1962 a recorded delivery letter is equivalent to a registered letter and that under the Postal Services Act 2000 Schedule 8 any reference to registered post is to be construed as meaning a registered postal service (eg Royal Mail recorded delivery or special delivery).

 

 

23. For the assignment of a debt to be effective and so giving the Claimant a right of action a valid Notice of Assignment must have been sufficiently served on me using a registered postal service pursuant to s196(4) before proceedings were commenced. The Claimant is put to strict proof that any notice of assignment was sufficiently served on me before proceedings were commenced. Without this proof, the Claimant has no right of action.

 

 

24. Further, it is submitted that the mere fact of giving a notice does not, of itself, create an assignment and that there must be an actual assignment in existence. It is the actual Assignment, not just the Section 136 notice, under which the Claimant derives title to bring the claim and the Claimant is put to strict proof that such Assignment exists. It is further averred that I am entitled, in any event, to view the document of assignment as a matter of law (Van Lynn Developments v Pelias Construction Co Ltd 1968 [3] All ER 824)

 

 

 

 

25. It is further averred that to be valid the the alleged notice of assignment must accurately describe the assignment including the date (W F Harrison & Co Ltd v Burke & another [1956] 2 ALL ER 169).

 

 

 

[lilly white]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/dca-legal-successes/211818-lowell-hampton-statutory-demand.html

 

have a read forms are there as well.

 

down load them the forms fill them in get to the court 18 days from when you got the SD

 

 

lilly

[dontletthemgrindyoudown]

Lilly

thank you for your considered and lengthy opinion.

In addition to the application to set aside should my friend also point out to 1st Credit that a) the document was improperly served- not by a process server b) the CCA documentation is not in the prescribed form and c) that the assigment of the alleged debt appears to be in favour of 1st credit (Finance) ltd of reigate whilst the debtor as per the stat demand is 1st credit (Guernsey) ltd of St peter port Guernsey.

 

Thank you.

[lilly white]

edit to suit

 

The Statutory Demand has not been completed in accordance with due procedure.

 

The creditor has not entered on the Statutory Demand whether the amount quoted is made up of principal only or whether it represents principal plus any interest and/or charges. If the amount is partly alleged to be interest, no interest rate is stated. The amount of interest forming part of this amount should be shown separately. How the charges have been calculated should also be shown. This has not been done.

 

The Statutory Demand does not state whether the debt is due now or in the future.

 

The Statutory Demand does not state why the creditor believes I cannot pay the debt.

 

I DENY that I am liable to the creditor as alleged in the Demand at all.

 

I, the alleged debtor, respectfully request that:-

 

THE JUDGE DISMISS the Demand on the above evidence.

 

THE JUDGE ORDER the creditor to delete all adverse information held on my credit files.

 

THE JUDGE ORDER the creditor to pay my full costs in light of the distress and damage I and my family have suffered 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).

 

I believe the facts herewith in this Statement are true.

 

DATE: _________________________ __________

 

SIGNED: _________________________ ________

 

[lilly white]

sums claimed

 

Also put here charges that will make up a large part etc

 

It is not admitted that any or all of the monies claimed are lawfully owing. The Claimant is put to strict proof as to how the sums claimed have been calculated and as to how those sums are lawfully owing.

[lilly white]

all your question have been answer.

 

However i do not have clue about 1st credit (Guernsey).

 

However check this out looks dodgy

[dontletthemgrindyoudown]

Thank you for your postings, which are of immense help and assistance.

Should my friend also report 1st Credit and their practises to the OFT for good measure?

Does anyone have a view why the stat demand should have been issued by 1st Crefit Guernsey Ltd whilst assignment of the alleged debt is in favout of 1st Credit Finance Ltd. Are they, in some way, trying to negate the powers of the OFT?

Thanks

[spitfire650]

edit to suit

 

The Statutory Demand has not been completed in accordance with due procedure.

 

The creditor has not entered on the Statutory Demand whether the amount quoted is made up of principal only or whether it represents principal plus any interest and/or charges. If the amount is partly alleged to be interest, no interest rate is stated. The amount of interest forming part of this amount should be shown separately. How the charges have been calculated should also be shown. This has not been done.

 

The Statutory Demand does not state whether the debt is due now or in the future.

 

The Statutory Demand does not state why the creditor believes I cannot pay the debt.

 

I DENY that I am liable to the creditor as alleged in the Demand at all.

 

I, the alleged debtor, respectfully request that:-

 

THE JUDGE DISMISS the Demand on the above evidence.

 

THE JUDGE ORDER the creditor to delete all adverse information held on my credit files.

 

THE JUDGE ORDER the creditor to pay my full costs in light of the distress and damage I and my family have suffered 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).

 

I believe the facts herewith in this Statement are true.

 

DATE: _________________________ __________

 

SIGNED: _________________________ ________

 

 

Without wishing to speak out of turn, I am not sure this contains any grounds at all to get the statutory demand set aside. Even were the other side not to appear there are plenty of District Judges who would dismiss this.

 

For example there is no requirement to state why the creditor believes you are unable to pay the [alleged] debt. The first paragraph about interest and charges seems irrelevant as well.

 

The application needs to be supported by affidavit, not a statement as above. You can get these online at http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/pdfs/forms/6-4.pdf and http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/pdfs/forms/6-5.pdf

 

Also the DJ hearing an application to set aside a statutory demand has no power to make an order regarding your credit file.

 

I would suggest you do some further research on this site before filing this application. What you need to show is that there a substantial dispute regarding the claim, or at least enough of it to reduce the balance below £750

[lilly white]

spitfire650

 

yes you are correct the last post should only be part of see rest of post.

 

All of what has been posted should go in the forms

[lilly white]

link to last post here which we won.

 

however i stress all must go in default, cca, noa, charges.no statments.

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/199097-capquest-stat-demand-costs-8.html

[dontletthemgrindyoudown]

Does anyone know of anyone who has actually been made bankrupt by 1st Credit in the face of a stat demand?

Im afraid I still dont understand how a demand made by 1st Credit (Guernsey) Ltd can be held as valid when, at the very best, notice of assignmenmt of the alleged debt has only occurred in favour of 1st Credit (Finance) Ltd. If these are different trading companies, surely the claimant HAS to be the same as the one in whose favour the alleged debt has been assigned. Is this notgrounds for having the stat demand set aside in any event? I cannot sue someone for a debt which I have not lent or which has not bene assigned to me.

Lastly, im now really confused as to what my friend should include in his application to the court. Can anyone be specific?

Thank you