1. Not receiving the claim form alone is never going to get the judgment set aside. You also have to prove you have a defence with a realistic prospect of success. You don't have one yet. 2. Asking the claimant to prove their claim now is no defence - it's just a pure fishing exercise. It's down to you to prove you have some kind of defence, it's not good enough to say you might have one if they can't produce certain documents now.

Well the Defendant would argue the same if it is transferred to your court. I think it is certain to get transferred initially to his court; what you then do is ask for another transfer to a centrally located court at the Allocation Questionnaire stage.

If the Defendant is an individual it will be heard in their court. If it's a company, in your court. That's the general rule but you could indeed ask for it to be transferred to an equally distant court, it's up to the judge ultimately.

Don't waste your time arguing that this should have been allocated to the small claims track. If the claim exceeds 5K, qute simply the court has no power to allocate to small claims unless both sides agree, which patently did not occur here.

Who has signed the statement of truth on the Defence - the Defendant or the solicitor?

Sorry the OP's failure to pay is the fault of the Claimant?

Maybe the benefits on the new scheme are better than the old scheme so person B benefits from the higher deductions by having a more valuable pension pot?

Can't see where it says in the book that a Claimant must enforce a breach as soon as possible. When the judge hears that the OP decided not to pay, despite signing a consent order saying he/she would, because no one chased him/her up for it I think it is highly likely judgment will be entered. However, it is also likely that the judge will disallow accrued interest since the consent order because of the delay in applying for judgment. I suspect that is the reason the application has been listed.

I would have thought there is a cast iron defence to this, namely that the guarantee has to be by deed to be enforceable and on the wording described in this thread it does not appear to be (i.e. it does not say it is executed as a deed and is not witnessed). Put that to Screwfix's solicitors and see what response you get.

Yes, of course it is good practice for the creditor to give these details to assist with payments, but if for any reason they don't it's down to the debtor to chase them up. At the very least the debtor can send a cheque.

It's an established principle - just Google it and you'll find dozens of cases where it's been applied. As for annual statements, it's an overdraft not a fixed sum credit agreement so no requirement to send them.

No it is not the Claimant's responsibility. It is settled law that it is the debtor's duty to seek out his creditor, not the other way round. Anyone using the excuse of "Oh I didn't know how I was supposed to pay, and they didn't chase me so I didn't bother" will get short shrift from a judge.

Yes. But no limits have yet been set, and won't be any time soon either.

Yep, its s93 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. Debtors with utd instalment orders will still be protected from order for sale proceedings though.

Well the order you've got will have a provision allowing you to object to it, but tbh even if you successfully did so you'd only be postponing the charging order for a few months because on 1 October the law changes so that creditors will be able to get a charging order even if there is an instalment judgment which is up to date.

Yes they can issue proceedings for the full amount, including future interest. Forward Trust v Whymark says so.

Yes what they have done is legitimate. There is nothing to stop a creditor aving multiple security for the same debt.

Hate to rain on your parade, but the other side's lawyer is correct. Parts 31 and 32 of the CPR don't apply to small claims. They only have to disclose what they intend to rely on (resd the directions order you received). As the claimant its up to you to prove your case, if they happen to have documents helpful to your case they are entitled to suppress them. You won't get an order for specific disclosure. If I were you I would crack on for the trial as best you can.

The statute barred defence is a slam dunk, just go with that and don't waste your time with anything else. Their particulars of claim even give you the evidence you need - they have pleaded a balance which was due as at 4/4/2005 which is the same balance now - in other words no payments have been made since 4/4/2005, more than 6 years ago so that's that. They have deliberately restricted their interest to a sum which brings the total claim to just under £5K (which is fair enough), quite clearly because they know claim is hopeless and don't want a costs penalty. Well, unless and until the claim is assigned to small claims track (which has not happened yet), the normal costs rules apply. Your brother should file the very simple defence and at the same time make an application for summary judgment under Part 24 of the CPR. He will then be able to recover his costs when the claim is dismissed.

This story is all over the place. However, the bottom line is that there is no reason at all why they shouldn't go for bankruptcy, even if they have an ICO. They are not obliged to keep their security once they have it. By issuing the petition, they are giving up any security they did have so the ICO has gone and they have decided to keep the debt as unsecured. In fact, as you indicate you have no other unsecured debts, this is probably the most sure way to get at the equity in the house because sooner or later the trustee in bankruptcy will have to sell the house and as they are the only unsecured creditor they will get the net sale proceeds.

I think you've been done up like a kipper. I reckon there is a problem with producing the agreement and they fobbed you off hoping you'd forget to file a defence in time...which duly happened. Now your job is very difficult because you gave to find some kind of defence, and you only appear to have pure speculation at this point.

I think the silence suggests it didn't go well.

No I am not in the least confused. You have 6 years to bring a claim from the date the cause of action accrued. That was in 2005, so its too late now. Have a read of s29(5) of the Limitation Act and you will find its only a payment by the person facing the claim that extends time. You can't avoid limitation of your own claim by making a payment, that would be a nonsense.

No the TN is not a good point. All you can argue is that the agreement wasn't terminated by that notice because the DN hadn't expired. It did not render the DN defective. Do you know there is an invalid/defective agreement or are ypou just hoping that's the case when you see the 31.14?

Payments made only extend limitation on a claim against a debtor, this is a claim by a debtor. Think OP could recover payments made in last 6 years, but nothing before that.