MERCERS and 2 faulty BC DNs **WON**

[tomterm8]

cool, bumpt this thread to the top five days before the defence and/or if anything new happens;)

[Delfi101]

Hi all,

 

It's looking highly likely that 'Optima Legal Services' are going to default on my Request for Information in the next couple of working days.

 

I take it that I'll need to apply for a Court Order immediately if they haven't complied.

 

Who do I write to, what do I say and how quick should I be about this? Bear in mind that the deadline for my defence is within a week of this default happening.

 

Cheers,

 

D

[Delfi101]

'Optimistic' Legal Services have now not replied to the CPR request that I gave them a full 14 days for ...

 

With Paul's help I hope to be filing a killer defence in the next few days.

 

No valid CCA agreement, an invalid Default Notice and now no CPR protocol observed. And add to that total breaches of Collection Guidelines and Criminal Law by Barclay****** Oh they've also ignored a formal complaint about Mercers and multiple complaints about passing accounts in dispute onto 3rd parties.

 

Here's what I'm having to defend:

 

"The Claimant's claim is in respect of a credit agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 whereby the Claimant provided the Defendant with a credit card and in return the Defendant agreed to pay at least the minimum payment given in the statement. A default notice was served on the Defendant on xx/xx/xx. The Defendant has failed to comply with this. The claimants claim of xxxxx is the sum owed plus accrued interest as at xx/xx/xx (date of default notice). Demand for payment has been made, however the sum due remains outstanding"

 

I wonder which bit of 'get stuffed' they missed.

 

I really want to pursue all of these b'******s in return for what they did to me and are trying to do to others. Humiliation is not enough for these r*****s.

 

D

[babybear39]

 

I wonder which bit of 'get stuffed' they missed.

 

I really want to pursue all of these b*****s in return for what they did to me and are trying to do to others. Humiliation is not enough for these r*****.

 

D

 

I totally agree Lets hope they get what they deserve

[pt2537]

'Optimistic' Legal Services have now not replied to the CPR request that I gave them a full 14 days for ...

 

With Paul's help I hope to be filing a killer defence in the next few days.

 

No valid CCA agreement, an invalid Default Notice and now no CPR protocol observed. And add to that total breaches of Collection Guidelines and Criminal Law by Barclay******ds. Oh they've also ignored a formal complaint about Mercers and multiple complaints about passing accounts in dispute onto 3rd parties.

 

Here's what I'm having to defend:

 

"The Claimant's claim is in respect of a credit agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 whereby the Claimant provided the Defendant with a credit card and in return the Defendant agreed to pay at least the minimum payment given in the statement. A default notice was served on the Defendant on xx/xx/xx. The Defendant has failed to comply with this. The claimants claim of xxxxx is the sum owed plus accrued interest as at xx/xx/xx (date of default notice). Demand for payment has been made, however the sum due remains outstanding"

 

I wonder which bit of 'get stuffed' they missed.

 

I really want to pursue all of these b*****ds in return for what they did to me and are trying to do to others. Humiliation is not enough for these r*****.

 

D

 

Hi D

 

i am starting on the defence, this should be done by tomorrow evening

 

can i ask, could you confirm in a summary format

 

when you sent the CCA Request,

 

when they recieved it,

 

when they sent you the copy of the credit agreement,

 

when they sent you the default notice,

 

any dates of any other letters,ie Letter Before Action etc

 

and finally when you sent them the CPR request for disclosure

 

 

that way i can copy it off the site and paste it into a word document and refer to it while writing, it makes life easier than trawling through 17 pages of this thread

 

 

regards

paul

[Fred Bassett]

Delfi, I've read your thread from start to finish - better than any novel that is.

 

May I wish you the best of luck. I can't wait for the next installment.

 

Regards.

 

Fred.

[Delfi101]

Many thanks Fred.

 

It's now starting to get very serious and very interesting. I'm still here because I'm indignant, I trust the people that have helped me along this journey through some rough times AND it would be plain wrong to choose any other track now.

 

I can afford (with ease) to pay these alleged debts now.

 

Still, I'm a proud guy and these people really kicked me hard when I was down ... I was previously one of their 'best mates' for over a decade too.

 

This whole journey has made me reappraise my view of personal finance though.

 

I'm not suggesting, for a moment, that this is a means of debt avoidance. Had these idiots (not swearing eh Paul? ) bothered to negotiate with me it wouldn't have come to this ... my honesty and near begging for more time

did no good,

 

After 15+ years of custom it took them 2 months to issue a default notice.

 

And now it's come to this ... my first ever appearance in court. They pushed it this far and now get the lot back ...

 

It's a story you couldn't make up

 

I owe so very much to the folks on here ...

 

D

[Fred Bassett]

Delfi,

 

I'm about to start my own battle against a number of creditors after months of dithering. I was in a debt management plan with the CCCS and they refused to stop payments to those creditors who couldn't provide legally-binding agreements without me providing them with legal advice first. If I could afford legal advice then I wouldn't have had a DMP.

 

Anyway, I've now stopped the DMP and payments to certain creditors and I've got quite a few battles to look forward to, amongst them 2 very nasty DCA's - Credit Solutions (see this web site for a smile) and Blair Oliver Scott. Not to mention everybody's favourite, MBNA.

 

My only worry is that they may try to ring me at work. I've got the home 'phone situation sorted. Got a BT account with an extra number - have told all my family and friends of this, but I've also got a Sipgate account and have the ability to divert my normal number through to this account. I'm not bothered about calls on my mobile as I rarely use it and of course I can switch it off.

 

Anyway, this is your thread and I'm rooting for you. I hope you give them a good hiding. They deserve nothing less.

 

Regards.

 

Fred

[pt2537]

In the xxxxxxxx County Court

Claim number

 

 

 

 

 

Between

 

xxxxxxxxxxx- Claimant

 

and

 

 

- Defendant

 

 

 

Defence

 

1. I xxxxxxxxx of xxxxxxxxxxxxx am the defendant in this action and make the following statement as my defence to the claim made by xxxxxxxxxxxx

 

2. The Defendant is embarrassed in pleading to the Particulars of Claim as it stands at present, inter alia: -

 

3. The claimants' particulars of claims disclose no legal cause of action and they are embarrassing to the defendant as the claimant's statement of case is insufficiently particularised and does not comply or even attempt to comply with CPR part 16. In this regard I wish to draw the courts attention to the following matters;

a) The Particulars of Claim are vague and insufficient and do not disclose an adequate statement of facts relating to or proceeding the alleged cause of action. No particulars are offered in relation to the nature of the written agreement referred to, the method the claimant calculated any outstanding sums due, or any default notices issued or any other matters necessary to substantiate the claimant's claim.

 

b) A copy of the purported written agreement that the claimant cites in the Particulars of Claim, and which appears to form the basis upon which these proceedings have been brought, has not been served attached to the claim form.

 

c) A copy of any evidence of both the scope and nature of any default, and proof of any amount outstanding on the alleged accounts, has not been served attached to the claim form.

4. Consequently, I deny all allegations on the particulars of claim and put the claimant to strict proof thereof

 

 

The relevant Act of Parliament in this Case

 

5. Firstly I will address the issue of which Act is relevant in this case, in case it is 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 would have commenced prior to the inception of the Consumer Credit Act 2006, section 15 of the 2006 Act has no effect and the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is the relevant act in this case.

 

6. For the avoidance of any doubt I include the relevant section of the 2006 Consumer Credit Act (Except taken from http:// www.statutelaw .gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&title=consumer+credit+act++2006&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&TYPE=QS&PageNumber=1&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=2459360&ActiveTextDocId=2459451&filesize=643 accessed Friday 15th Feb 0 8

 

11 The repeal by this Act of-

 

(a)the words "(subject to subsections (3) and (4))" in subsection (1) of section 127 of the 1974 Act,

 

(b)subsections (3) to (5) of that section, and

 

©the words "or 127(3)" in subsection (3) of section 185 of that Act,

 

 

has no effect in relation to improperly-executed agreements made before the commencement of section 15 of this Act.

 

 

 

7. Therefore the Consumer Credit Act 2006 is not retrospective in its application and has no effect upon this agreement and the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is the act which this agreement is regulated by

 

The build up to this action

 

8. In the build up to this action, I had raised a formal dispute with Barclay card. on the xx/xx/2007 I wrote to Barclay card requesting a copy of the Credit Agreement pursuant to section 78(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 . This request was received on the xx/xx/2007, the claimant replied to my request on the xx/xx/2007 supplying a barely legible document.(Attached to this defence marked IC03)

 

9. I wrote to the claimant setting out the facts that the document supplied did not comply with the requirements of the CCA 1974 and that as it stood the document was not an enforceable credit agreement and requested that they supply the required documents as they were in default as laid out in section 78(6) CCA 1974

 

10. The claimant ignored my dispute and pursued an active campaign of harassment against me, they contacted me by telephone on xx/xx/2007,xx/xx/2007 (set out the date and times of calls)

 

11. Ultimately after the claimant passed the account over to Mercers Debt Collection Agency it was transferred to Optima legal services. On xx/xx/2007 Optima wrote to me threatening legal action. I replied to them on the 20th January 2008 setting out the fact that the account was in dispute due to the fact that Barclay card had failed to supply the information required under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and that Barclay card had been in contact stating that they were unable to provide a full response to my complaint. However, even knowing that the account was in dispute and that the agreement, which was sent to me, failed to live up to the requirements of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, Optima forged ahead with commencing Litigation. It is hard to believe that they would take such action where it is clear that without a complaint credit agreement the case cannot succeed and therefore it is suggested that the claimant is vexatious and wholly unreasonable

 

The Request for Disclosure

 

12. Further to the case, on xx/xx/2007 I requested the disclosure of information pursuant to the Civil Procedure Rules, which is vital to this case from the claimant. The information requested amounted to copies of the Credit Agreement referred to in the particulars of claim and any default or termination notices, a transcript of all transactions, including charges, fees, interest, alleged repayments by myself and payments made by the original creditor. Also any other documents the Claimant seeks to rely on, including any default notices or termination notice, and a copy of the Notice of Assignment required to give the claimant a legitimate right of action.

 

13. To Date the claimant has ignored my request under the CPR and I have not received any such documentation requested. As a result it has proven difficult to compose this defence without disclosure of the information requested, especially given that I am Litigant in Person ( a copy of the request is attached to this Defence marked IC02)

 

 

The copy of the purported credit agreement

 

14. The copy sent in response to my section 78(1) request is extremely poor quality and it is illegible and not in compliance with the requirements of Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1557).

 

Regulation 2(1) states

2 Legibility of notices and copy documents and wording of prescribed Forms

 

(1) The lettering in every notice in a Form prescribed by these Regulations and in every copy of an executed agreement, security instrument or other document referred to in the Act and delivered or sent to a debtor, hirer or surety under any provision of the Act shall, apart from any signature, be easily legible and of a colour which is readily distinguishable from the

.

Therefore the document sent in reply to the request made on xx/xx/2007 fails in its entirety to comply with the requirements of section 78(1) and the regulations as stated

 

15. In addition to the document not being complaint with the Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1557). The purported credit agreement supplied is not compliant with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553)

 

16. 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

 

17. 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)

 

18. 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

 

19. 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. in addition there is case law from the Court of Appeal which confirms the Prescribed terms must be contained within the body of the agreement and not in a separate document

 

 

20. 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."

21. 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

 

22. Notwithstanding point 21, 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

 

23. 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).

24. 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

 

25. With regards to the Authority cited in point 24, I refer to LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD in the House of Lords Wilson v First County Trust Ltd - [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul)

 

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.

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

 

27. 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

 

28. 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 IC1) unenforceable.

 

The Need for a Default notice

 

29. In addition to the credit agreement being irredeemably flawed, the default notice served under s87 (1) Consumer credit act 1974 failed to comply with the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561)

 

30. Section 2 (5) and (6) of the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 sets out the following

(5) Where any statement is required to be in a form specified in a Schedule to these Regulations and is reproduced in the notice, then apart from any heading to the notice, trade names or names of parties to the agreement-

 

(a) the lettering in the statement shall be afforded more prominence (whether by capital letters, underlining, large or bold print or otherwise) than any other lettering in the notice; and

 

(b) where words are both shown in capital letters and underlined in any statement specified in a Schedule to these Regulations, they shall be afforded yet more prominence.

 

(6) The wording in any such statement shall be reproduced in the notice without any alteration or addition, and in relation to any statement to be contained in the notice the requirements of any note shall be complied with, except that the words "the creditor" may be replaced by the name of the creditor, by the expression by which he is referred to in the agreement or by an appropriate pronoun, and any consequential changes to pronouns and verbs may be used.

31. The default notice served by Mercers on behalf of the Creditor did not contain the required statements in the required form for the following reasons

The notice failed to set out the

name and a postal address of the creditor or owner

as laid out in schedule 2 of the regulations, regulation 2(2) paragraph 2

 

the notice also failed to include the following statement

 

"IF THE ACTION REQUIRED BY THIS NOTICE IS TAKEN

BEFORE THE DATE SHOWN

NO FURTHER ENFORCEMENT ACTION WILL BE TAKEN IN RESPECT OF THE BREACH

 

as required by paragraph 4, in the claimants version the statement is set out in lower case and therefore contrary to the regulations

 

also the notice failed to set out the notice required by paragraph 5

 

"IF YOU DO

NOT

TAKE THE ACTION REQUIRED BY THIS NOTICE

BEFORE THE DATE SHOWN

THEN THE FURTHER ACTION SET OUT BELOW MAY BE TAKEN AGAINST YOU [OR A SURETY]"

 

again in the claimants version it is lowercase and not as prescribed

 

 

finally the document does not contain A statement in the following form--

 

"IF YOU ARE NOT SURE WHAT TO DO, YOU SHOULD GET HELP AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. FOR EXAMPLE YOU SHOULD CONTACT A SOLICITOR, YOUR LOCAL TRADING STANDARDS DEPARTMENT OR YOUR NEAREST CITIZENS' ADVICE BUREAU".

32. I note that the regulations do not allow any variation in the form of these statements and there fore it is suggested that where the statements are not as laid down in the regulations the default notice is invalid and further enforcement action should not be taken until such time as a complaint notice be issued

 

33. For a creditor to be entitled to terminate a regulated credit agreement where there is a breach, demand repayment in full or take any legal action to recover any monies due under the agreement, a creditor must serve a Default Notice under section 87(1) CCA 1974 which states

(1) Service of a notice on the debtor or hirer in accordance with section 88 (a "default notice ") is necessary before the creditor or owner can become entitled, by reason of any breach by the debtor or hirer of a regulated agreement,-

(a) to terminate the agreement, or

 

(b) to demand earlier payment of any sum, or

 

© to recover possession of any goods or land, or

 

(d) to treat any right conferred on the debtor or hirer by the agreement as terminated, restricted or deferred, or

 

(e)to enforce any security.

34. I note the opening part of section 88(1), which states

 

88. Contents and effect of default notice.

 

- (1) The default notice must be in the prescribed form....... The word must makes it clear that no variation is acceptable. Therefore it cannot be dispensed with as a De Minimus issue

 

 

35. In the case of Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain & Co - [1998] All ER (D) 339 in the Court of Appeal, the court addressed in some detail the issue of the contents of a default notice and should the notice fail to comply with the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) it would render the default notice invalid I quote the comment of KENNEDY LJ: "This statute was plainly enacted to protect consumers, most of whom are likely to be individuals" the judgment appears confirm the consumer credit legislation made under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 as plainly enacted and set out to offer protection to the consumer. Therefore it is suggested that the failure of the claimant to set out the default notice in accordance with the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) should render it invalid

 

Conclusion

 

36. The claimant's case cannot succeed as matters stand. It is averred that the claimant and its representatives have acted unreasonably when dealing with this dispute. The claimant transferred the debt to a Debt Collection Agency while the account was subject to a dispute, which is a clear contravention of the Office of Fair Trading Guidelines on Debt collection. The claimant and its representatives have subjected me and my family to a unacceptable level of unwarranted telephone calls and it is averred that such actions amount to harassment and has caused an unacceptable level of distress for my family, especially since they ignored the fact that their document purporting to be a credit agreement failed in its entirety to comply with the CCA 1974

 

37. 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.

 

38. If the court considers it in appropriate to use its case management powers, it is requested that the court order the claimant to produce the original documents before the court as the documents supplied do not comply with the Consumer Credit Act or Regulations made under the act, the is confirmed by case law as well. 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

 

39. 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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Statement of Truth

 

 

I xxxxxxxxxxx, believe the above statement to be true and factual

 

 

Signed .....................

 

Date

 

 

ok this is where im at so far, however im sure there needs to be some tweaks here and there

[Delfi101]

And this is why I trust the CAG ...

 

Simply awesome Paul ... I'll have a careful read this weekend and ask a few Q's and then it's a 'Special Delivery' for these ... erm ... 'nasty people'

 

Thanks mate ... that's taken a lot of time and attention to detail.

 

Now, I know that you guys won't accept personal help but the CAG needs supporting.

 

Please let's go for costs here ... I'll give the lot to the CAG as promised.

 

D

[citizenB]

WOW, awesome stuff.

[gh2008]

Hi Delfi,

 

Just found your thread/journey, read it from start to here (I see from the clock it's tomorrow already )

 

it's one of those inspirational threads - & it's about time more people were given the power (self belief call it what you will) to stand up to these bullies

 

Go get 'em

[Delfi101]

If what I've documented here inspires just one more person to take these disingenuous bullies on then all the better.

 

With Paul's help I'm just putting the final touches to my defence which I shall file this week with all of the evidence I need.

 

Thanks for the kind thoughts ... and yes ... it's been one hell of a ride so far.

 

D

[ODC]

We are all rooting for you Delfi. Anyone reading all of your thread would know that you have been more than patient with these idiots. Lets hope the man in the wig thinks so as well and wipes the floor with them.

[babybear39]

We are all rooting for you Delfi. Anyone reading all of your thread would know that you have been more than patient with these idiots. Lets hope the man in the wig thinks so as well and wipes the floor with them.

 

 

You've been an absolute saint with them

 

I wish we could all be there to show the judge how much support you have and that there are hundreds of thousands of people just like you who don't find CAG and give up against these bullues *hugs* and good luck...

[Delfi101]

Defence finished and all evidence in order.

 

This now goes Special Delivery sealed with a CAG sticker (it's only proper eh?)

 

I hope this gives some bad guys a real headache.

 

They've been threatening to fight me at something for nearly a year ... now they have their chance. I wonder if, once they see this defence, they won't just 'bottle it'.

 

D

[pt2537]

Defence finished and all evidence in order.

 

This now goes Special Delivery sealed with a CAG sticker (it's only proper eh?)

 

I hope this gives some bad guys a real headache.

 

They've been threatening to fight me at something for nearly a year ... now they have their chance. I wonder if, once they see this defence, they won't just 'bottle it'.

 

D

 

Good luck mate,

 

lets wait and see what happens eh?

 

they may bottle it, they may not but they really have very little arguement here, as they have failed to supply a compliant document their default is flawed, they are piddling in the wind so to speak

[Delfi101]

Nice one Paul,

 

It's gone SD with a CAG sticker on the front and one as a seal

 

A token gesture but ...

 

D

[The GodMother]

oh that sound like fun are you trying to provoke them?

 

Chrissi

[Delfi101]

Just making a point and it's sent to the court anyway. No worse than a solicitor using business envelopes and letterheads.

 

Me trying to provoke them? I think that kinda works the other way with this lot.

 

They've spent nearly a year trying every trick in the book to harrass me and scare my family. They're low-life scumbags who now have it all coming home to roost. They have it coming to them in spades and, all things being equal, that's what they're going to get.

 

So, provocation doesn't come into it. This is a step towards what I define (not what they do) as closure. In this case however they've gone for the ultimate in arbitration.

 

I can't help feeling that they gambled the debt against possible costs and ,should I win this case, I'm going to complain about them.

 

D

[The GodMother]

oh maybe you should send some to the solicitor. Provoking them to give in with CAG stickers seems like a good idea.

[mr.ton]

They've spent nearly a year trying every trick in the book to harrass me and scare my family. They're low-life scumbags who now have it all coming home to roost.

 

Im fully on ur side in getting even with the c**ts if they are harrassing ur family

[Delfi101]

oh maybe you should send some to the solicitor. Provoking them to give in with CAG stickers seems like a good idea.

 

Sorry? Have you missed something here?

[The GodMother]

maybe.

 

I was saying about provoking them in to giving up by using CAG stickers. As if they are clearly in the wrong then they might get a bit annoyed when they no you are using the full extent

[Delfi101]

Frankly if they're "clearly in the wrong" as you suggest then that's entirely their fault.

 

I've pointed out the error of their claim to them specifically on no less than 4 occasions and they've either totally ignored me or denied any wrongdoing. So be it.

 

Besides the CAG stickers have been stuck on the envelope sent to the County Court not to Optima or B/C.

 

More of a gesture on my part than anything meant to send any message.

 

I think the defence itself looks far more intimidating than any sticker

 

D