CL Finance/Cohen Claimform - old GE Edge Card Debt

[tomterm8]

Laiste deserves the credit for this defence, I've just altered one of her's to fit the circumstances.

DEFENCE

 

The Defendant denies that he is liable to the Claimant as alleged in the Particulars of Claim or at all. It is averred that the Claimant having failed to serve a Notice of Assignment on the Defendant as required by section 136(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925, does not possess any legal right to issue a claim demanding monies allegedly owed. Under the aforementioned Act, the absence of a Notice of Assignment precluded CL Finance from instigating these proceedings and continuing with the same. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that a Notice of Assignment was received, as averred in the Particulars of Claim. Accordingly, the Defendant does not know the case it has to meet and the Particulars of Claim neither disclose any cause of action with any reasonable prospect of success and/or are an abuse of the process of this Court and, in compliance with the Civil Procedure Rules can and should be struck out pursuant to part 3.4 of the same. Furthermore, the Defendant contends that the Claimant’s conduct in issuing the claim is vexatious and amounts to unlawful harassment pursuant to section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970.

 

In respect of that which is denied, on the 5th July 07, a request was made under section 78, running account credit, of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, to obtain a copy of a credit agreement that the alleged debt refers to. It was sent by guaranteed delivery to the Claimant’s Solicitors, with the statutory £1.00 fee enclosed. It was received on the 6th June 2007, which gave the Claimant twelve working days from receipt of the request, to provide said document, which is stipulated in Regulation 2 of The Consumer Credit (Prescribed Periods for Giving Information) Regulations 1983. The claimant has not provided this document. Accordingly, having failed to produce a credit agreement within the requisite timescale or at all, the Claimants are in default of said request under section 78(6)(a) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

The Defendant denies that there has been any failure to make payment in accordance with the alleged contract. The Claimant has failed to produced a copy of a properly executed credit agreement and in the absence of such an agreement, which conforms to sections 60 and 61 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the Defendant avers that no agreement has ever existed for there to have been any failure to make said payment.

 

It is denied that the Default Notice received is legally enforceable, as it did not comply with section 88(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, as to form and content, and has therefore been registered with Credit Reference Agencies unlawfully.

 

The Claimants are not entitled to claim interest, as they have not established a legal right to issue a claim or proven that any debt exists. It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant’s claim is entirely unmeritorious and should be struck out for the aforementioned reasons.

[BreadAndButter]

Thanks tomterm8, tried to tip your scales but it says i must spread the love around a bit first!

 

Just tinkered with it slightly to add in the interest figure etc and put about not having recieved default in the first place rather than incorrect one.

going to get it posted online so as to get in before the late afternoon traffic i keep hearing about!

again, thanks so much for this. do you think i need to attach anything e.g. the letter i sent or is that all for the court stage?

 

thanks

[tomterm8]

It's for latter on. I would suggest if the deadline is today, you make sure you submit it on MCOL by 3.15, since most courts close at 4pm.

[BreadAndButter]

Great stuff

Defence submitted online (not without the obvious sudden internet connection issues etc!) so just await the next steps

what can i expect to happen now? am i just awaiting a court date now?

cheers

[tomterm8]

you'll get a letter saying the defence has been served and the claimant has 28 days to decide if he can be bothered to continue (it's actually 33 days, cause 5 are allowed for serving).

 

You will also probably get an allocation questionaire to fill out.

 

Mainly, it's a waiting game.

 

But we'll send a formal complaint so it'll cost 'em another 450 to continue the case (special delivery, of course)

[tomterm8]

 

In the Matter of

Claimant Name vs RugbyPete

CLAIM NUMBER

IN Northampton County Court

 

 

 

 

Your address,

 

Date,

 

soliciters address,

 

Dear Sir or Madam,

 

RE: Formal Complaint under the Consumer Credit Act 2006,

 

I am writing to complain that you have breached the pre-action protocol in this matter, since on DATE and DATE I expressed my intention to pay any amount due as required under the contract to the original creditor, and asked them to send me a direct debit form so that I could do so.

 

The Original Creditor failed to do this, and – despite this offer – the first I heard of your company was when you took me to court for failing to pay this agreement!

 

As you are aware, this is a serious breach of the overriding objectives, and a serious waste of court time.

 

Further, on the Xth I sent a letter asking, as is my right, for a copy of the credit agreement, and you have failed to provide this within the statutory period of 12 days.

 

Also, on Xth I sent you a letter requesting disclosure, which you have not responded to, so resulting in forcing me to file a defence when not in possession of all relevant facts.

 

Please treat these matters as a formal complaint under the consumer credit act, 2006. I request you send me a copy of your complaints procedure.

 

Yours Sincerely,

 

XX.

[BreadAndButter]

will be on later to scan in the letters i've received from howard cohen

will also be posting off that complaint letter tomorrow.

in summary howard cohen have responded to the defence i filed last monday and refer also to my cca request letter. they've included a copy of notice of assignment saying that it is deemed as served as was not returned undelievered although surely they cannot also prove that it was sent in the first place!

they have included the 'credit agreement' which as i've said before i know i can't have signed because i didn't even apply for it! the first page as you'll see later is 'signed' but not my signature and not dated and on the following page is signed by ge and dated. but lower down on the direct debit mandate attached to the same form is another copy of the incorrect signature supposed to be mine and the date is after the ge one. how does that work?

also the interest/ apr etc on the 'agreement' is quoted as 00.00 throughout and yet on the attached statements it quotes that i'd paid interest each month. so surely this is entirely flawed and i believe hashed up by someone at howard cohen! as i say i'll post up scans of the docs later but any thoughts at this point.

the last line of their letter is:

"we look forward to receiving your full defence to the action confirming your reasons for disputing the amount outstanding."

 

what do i do next? help much appreciated!!

[BreadAndButter]

I'm already in the court process with Howard Cohen & Co on behalf of CL Finance LTd (old GE Money card).

the first i heard from them was via the courts and on the advice of cag members i sent a cca request, they defaulted so i sent defence to the court to the effect that no agreement = no proof debt owed etc

 

however, one week ago i received a 'cca' from howard cohen & co solicitors saying they look forward to receiving my updated defence etc

the cca they've sent me has 2 signatures on supposed to be mine however the siganture is not, nor ever has been, my signature (could back this up easily with years of sigantured documentation. the agreement is an online application by the looks of it and the 1st fake signature doesn't have a date next to it

then on the next page there's a signature representing GE and on the direct debit mandate is another false signature with a date 5 days later than the GE one.

The title of the document is Web Application.

Yet straight under this it calls itself a credit card agreement regulated by the consumer credit act

i was of the understanding that an agreement is something you receive after an application has been approved.

This 'agreement' goes on to say that interest is set at a rate of 00.00% and yet statements attached show interest being charged.

Also, the first few lines of the 'agreement' state that 'We will set your credit limit and tell you what it is when we open your account.' so surely this cannot be a credit agreement, and then with falsified signatures also, it's an absolute joke!

 

however, at this stage what action do i need to take? do i have to submit a new defence from the court? i've not heard from them since receiving this letter from the solicitors. or do i respond with some sort of defence direct to the solicitors. Really need some advice as to how to proceed with this, any help much appreciated!!

[Docman]

Any chance you can post a copy of the fake CCA and your defence, taking out any personal details? Or type out the relevant wording from Cohens and your defence?

[N.P]

Hi Rugbypete,

 

I`ve said had a read of your posting with some interest I must say.

 

A few people on here have said when you write/type to these idiots you must NEVER sign your letters for this exact reason. I mysely, use a digital signature of handwriting font if you prefer. That way if they scan/copy and paste I have an excellent defence and if you are absolutely sure they have used a false signature then so have you.

 

If this is the case, then I would say you don`t need to defend at all, just inform the Police and tell them a Debt Collection Agency has knocked up a fake CCA and used a bogus signature to try and claim a debt they can`t legally prove. Getting the Police involved should put a stop to things.

 

On the other hand, they may just be trying to scare you into giving in.

 

You really need to scan the CCA and show on here for us all to check out.

 

Get back soon and someone with more knowledge will help you out. We`re on on here to help each other against these parasitic bullies, but remember, if they have used a fake signature and you can prove it, then that is a matter for the Police, isn`t it fraud by deception or something like that?

 

Good luck with this one. Keep us posted.

 

Catch you later.

 

 

N.P.

[NitrousOxide]

Hi,

The digital signature thread is stickied now in the general debt forum if you need it in the future.

I'd recommend scanning it in ASAP. This is also a rare occasion where if you were comfortable PM'ing us a link to it so we can see the signature.

Remember in court they will need the ORIGINAL document

[spiritgirl59]

Subscribing.

 

This behaviour by H Cohen & Co is absolutely appalling

 

I am dealing with them myself and in my case there is no CCA but they have threatened court, so I will watch your thread with interest.

 

RP I wish you the very best with all this.

 

Love Spiritgirl x

[NailPost]

If the signature is not yours and can be proved it isn't then you have absolutely nothing to worry about. Indeed you should be actively encouraging Cohens into court. As stated before the court will insist on the original document, a copy or knocked up form will not do.

 

When the judge throws it out you could then ask for costs and a ruling on what further action should be taken against the people who brought it to court. This could involve complaints to all the relevant authorities not forgetting the Law Society.

[detectall]

Rugbypete,

 

I never cease to be surprised at the depths these low lifes will stoop to.

 

The court will want to see original documentation and if you can provide other signed documentation to the court as a point of reference regarding your signature then there shouldn't be a problem. I would then report this matter to the police and seek directions from the judge.

 

All the best to you

[BreadAndButter]

hi guys

thanks for the responses so far, really grateful that there are individuals out there willing to lend a hand.

i've scanned the letter annd example of docs they sent (falsified sigs omitted as i'm reluctant for poss howars cohen reps on here but will pm originals poss.

they've not used digital sig nd i deliberately didn't sign my docs to them for this very reason as advised on the board. i'll try to upload docs now, waning tho, i'm no computer whizz!...

[dannyboy660]

Be careful.......These are not the usual computer generated pap, those papers are personal to you. IMO that's the kind of stuff that should be PM'd rather than put on the public forum, especially considering the title of your thread............

 

Perhaps I'm just being a bit too cautious.

 

Just an opinion.

[BreadAndButter]

i thought i'd blocked out anything personal but i'll take your advice on this one and have removed them.

can i get some advice as to who to pm the docs to? so as to be sure, i'll need two people to recommend the person offering - just don't want to be giving the position away to hc if they are monitoring these threads.

thanks guys

so...any offers?

 

also, aby idea of the timeline i'm working with here? no indication from courts or them

[dannyboy660]

Hi Pete,

 

I didn't want to spook you, it's just that even with your details removed it wouldn't be too difficult for the opposition to work out who it is posting.

 

As regards PM, there are several very good people roaming the threads who are able to offer good advice - it's a question of attracting someones attention, or hoping they take an interest in your thread.

 

As a general rule, those with more green 'pips' or squares under their number of posts tend to be the more experienced. I'm sure someone will pick it up very soon...

 

go get 'em.

[dannyboy660]

Bump.

 

Can anyone help with this???

[BreadAndButter]

bumping

anyone able to offer any help/advice on this?

[N.P]

Hi there RP,

 

I was just wondering, does it really matter if the enemy works out who is who on here? I mean, it`s not like we have signed a privacy and secrecy clause and we are just getting help, which is the same as creditors getting so-called help from DCA`s.

 

The bottom line is, if they don`t show up with a properley exucuted CCA, then they still have no right to chase you anyway, wether they read these pages or not. They will still have to prove it is you if they are going to use these pages as evidence.

 

It`s like someone getting caught on camera shooting someone, you just say `well it looks like me, but it`s not, so you have to prove it IS me`.

 

Does anyone have any comments on this.

 

Regards

 

 

N.P.

[dannyboy660]

You're missing the point.

 

RP is effectively accusing them of forging signatures. Look again at the title of the thread and then imagine you are a 'solicitor' at HC.

 

If RP is correct he's holding dynamite which should be looked at by a mod or someone more experienced than the averaged CAG poster or armchair lawyer.

 

No offence intended to anyone - but I'm sure you can see what I'm driving at. An opportunity too good to be missed perhaps??

[N.P]

Hi db660,

 

Yep, I`m with you.

 

I CCA`d Morecrap with a digital signature and they haven`t showed up with one.

 

I`m hoping they`ll copy and paste it so I can bust them. I guess you mean something like this?

 

Regards

 

 

N.P.

 

 

P.S. No offence taken

[dannyboy660]

Weall know DCA's don't play by the rules, and there's a long held belief that signatures appear where they shouldn't be or didn't exist before. The problem is getting evidence to prove it. Perhaps RP has something useful and it might better not to put it on view until someone in the know has had a butchers.

[N.P]

Hi again db660,

 

I`m not trying to be funny here, but it`s just a thought.

 

But lets look at this from another angle.

 

How will anyone on here know wether it`s a fake or not? After all, did they send RP the original documnet with the alleged forgery or was it just a copy / scan they sent him? Either way, he has still scanned it himself to show on here, so no one would be able to tell the difference.

 

And also, it`s his word against their`s. As I say, I`m not trying to be funny, but you have to think of these things.

 

Regards

 

 

N.P.