Yup, this is why lawyers earn so much money! That's a reasonable assumption, given recent case law. It might be worth taking a view on whether it's easier to settle this. But we can argue unenforceability and counter claim for the PPI - a Judge will surely be swayed by the fact that they owe you more money than they are claiming from you, so this has a very good chance of success, IMHO.

Your 'agreement' is an application form. The issue being an application form can be enforceable if the prescribed terms of credit limit, interest rates and repayment details are part of the same document. If they are in a separate document, the agreement is irredeemably unenforceable by s.60/s.61/s.65/s.127(3) CCA 1974. They will argue that the terms are part of the same document, therefore the agreement is enforceable. You need to argue against that. This is why I'm saying you need to research and come up with your Defence - no longer is a 'template' defence suitable in these cases, as they just won't work.

The agreement is unenforceable as it doesn't contain the prescribed terms - you need to use this time wisely and research, research and research these issues some more. It isn't going to be as easy as saying it's unenforceable, you need to show why it is. Sitting back and waiting isn't an option if you want to be prepared to face this down in Court, as it may well come to that with recent successes these 'chaser' companies have had and this always spurs them on. I'd suggest a cheeky little contact with the OFT regarding their Consumer Credit licence status, as suggested above. Although this won't help in your case, directly, the OFT need to understand what is happening here and they can't do that without individuals taking a stance, in vast numbers, to get some action.

It basically means that the claim doesn't have sufficient chose of action (a legal term meaning 'reason', in laymans terms - I'll forego the Law Lecture! ) whereby they aren't stating what the alleged breach is and how they have suffered, etc, etc. As for the documents, can you link them here again? I think we need to decide what sort of assignment has taken place, as MBNA can't have assigned the debt and not the duties that go along with it. In other words, your 'dispute' with MBNA is actually a counter claim against Verde. So, if the documentation isn't in order, and the debt is unenforceable, it may be that you have a complete defence to the claim, plus a counter claim for the PPI that is owed.

Personally, I'd be seeking a strike out for non-disclosure of written documents relied on and insufficiently particularised POC. But that's just me!

Brachers are a legal firm, so will be acting on MBNA's behalf. If they haven't supplied documentation to allow you to respond to the claim you must send a CPR request for info, now, and then apply to the Court for enforcement of the same before your time to enter a Defence expires. This is a reasonable response to the claim, whereas just asking for the documents and waiting won't be. You need to play these timescales very tightly, as they will seek Default judgment from you if something is missed. Have you sent a DPA SAR? Do this now, also. No matter what has gone before now, requests for documentation must be responded to now that a claim has been issued - they've upped the ante so an appropriate response needs to put them under pressure.

Statutory interest?! When will Brachers learn?

Where have you posted it? It's like Challenge Anneka, you need to point us in the right direction!

Clearly will take a sledge hammer to break a nut, this one - anyone fancy talking about use of DCA's in Social Networking, or the CSA's lack of approach, or shall we continue fighting against each other instead? I'm sure the latter is their intention. Remember, the CSA is against CAG, which means CAG is a threat to them. Site team won't allow one member to become a threat against another. Constructive input welcomed, as always.

**Cough, cough** I think you might have misread TG's post there, Jim. What about a FOI request to get those figure? In fact, this rings a bell and I think this might have been done, previously.

357 complaints in 6 months. So long as consumers accept this sort of behaviour, it will always continue. It's not the Social Networking aspects that need to be reviewed - don't understand the query around should we still use it, as why wouldn't we - but we need more complaints and more action as a result of complaints. Interesting the OFT are issuing threats of stripping of CC licences for this behaviour. It's time they put their money where their mouth is and to stand up for the consumer.

Are the DCA's collecting arrears, or the full balance? Have you received termination notices? Are they collecting on behalf of the OC, or has the OC sold it to them? Does the PPI claim outweigh the outstanding amount, by any chance? The answers are all in the paperwork

It's not a faulty DN that results in a solid defence, it's unlawful termination following a faulty DN - this cannot be rectified in most situations. Add to that harassment as debt collection technique and the game is up.

Ah. Cost cutting... If tosh can say when the defence was submitted, we can work the dates out and he can call them to check the status

A stay applied in these circumstances is unlikely to be lifted without a very good reason - the whole legal system is based on parties playing by the rules, so a Claimant bringing a claim, having a defence entered by a Defendant, then a stay applied because the Claimant is out of time, is unlikely to get any sympathies from the Court. You wouldn't want a stay lifted, as you're effectively doing the Claimant's job for them if you did. When was the Defence submitted, exactly? If a stay is applied, you should get a notice from the Court.

Actually, you need to follow what Cerb said and quote that wording in the form to have it routed to his team

You're right to query the debt - it's been known that the wrong person has been chased. You're also right to check your Credit File. I'd suggest a statutory request for your CRA file from Experian/Equifax, (don't sign up for a free trial) just search their sites for the process. Ultimately, it's up to them to prove this debt is owed by you, not that it's for you to prove it isn't. Keep everything in writing - no telephone conversations, unless they are recorded. It's a poor show if they have this process for dealing via the web team and they haven't acknowledged you - this is highly unusual. Perhaps you could contact Lee yourself and ask what the problem is. Other CAG users have had success in dealing with this team, and we'd be keen to see the commitment already made to help CAG members being followed through.

so they've defaulted you failing to settle the debt as you said you would, but that isn't a breach of the agreements terms and conditions. I have a feeling this Default is unlawful, as you haven't defauled on the agreement due to maintaining minimum payments as and when they are due. I take it you don't have the recorded calls, then? If they don't, neither, (by the looks) it seems very strange that they've took this approach. This is actually very simple, you need to send them a DPA SAR (we have templates in our library) and see what they return to you.

What does this entry show as Default balance on your credit file? They can terminate the agreement for reasons other than non-payment, (such as insolvency) but I can't see how that applies here. When you say telephone conversations, I take it you mean the reduced offer settlement? What did they agree to and did YOU record those conversations? There's some serious issues here if they've defaulted you with a zero payment needed

You will be required to give notice of contract termination. Your minimum term contract may be minimum term plus 30 days notice, or the 30 days notice may be included in the minimum term. Do you have proof that you contacted them previously? Recorded calls? Did you tell them you were intending on cancelling? Moving you to the mobile telecom subforum.

Well, no, but I'd resend your LBA and give a reasonable time to respond - the key is to not being seen to be unreasonable, but the LBA needs to be timed effectively. If you wrote in May and didn't follow through at the time, another LBA is in order, but keep it brief and refer to the previous correspondance and what they need to do to comply this time. There is some big risk here - it will take 6 months to come to Court. If you lose, you can appeal, but a lost appeal would cost dearly and take a significant time. The timescales for resolution of this against the CRA file info dropping off needs some thought, I think. Now, if you had 4 years for this to run, then...

Yes, this would make it unenforceable on it's own, anyway. Wow, this is going to prove very useful indeed. I think you're making a mistake using Part 8 - Part 8 is for non-monetary claims, where something other than money is being claimed. In your case this would be the specific performance of removing the data, but if you're wanting to claim for PPI/damage to credit reputation, etc, then it needs to go on the Part 7 track. In fact, I'd highly recommend that you stick to Part 7, as your claim is likely to end up on the small claims track, where costs are limited. If you continue along the Part 8 track, then go on to lose, (unlikely, based on what you've said, but not impossible, neither) then you may face a bill for unlimited costs. Have you issued the claim yet? If so, and it's on Part 8, I'd highly recommend that you apply to the Court to have it moved to Part 7, because of the costs issue. If you haven't issued the claim, yet, have you considered what your POC is going to be? I think, because the issues in this claim are so complex, (in legal terms - it's quite straight forward, factually) there's a danger that you will be moved to the fast track. Costs are something that need considering here. When will this negative info disappear from your CRA file? If it's within the next 12 months, it may actually be easier to just wait for it to drop off. If it's longer, or is causing you specific pain, then I can totally see why you'd want to pursue this further. I'd be tempted to give them one more chance, here. What you need to do is construct a huge, long letter, outlining all the details of your complaint and the action that you want to be taken. You then need to send the LBA if they don't respond positively. This time, though, you need to be ready to follow through - they may not budge, as you've sent complaints/LBA's before and not followed through with them. Think carefully about what it is you want and what you need to do to get then, then work backwards in your plan from there. Like Brig, I think getting to "someone" with sense at Welcome will get a result. Unlike Brig, though, I don't think you will find that "someone"... There's loads of 'Welcome experts' on CAG, BTW, so I'm moving your thread somewhere more appropriate to see if we can catch their attention also...

CPR prevents a party that has discontinued from bringing another claim on materially the same basis without the permission of the Court - CPR 38.7 Did you defend the original claim? On what basis was it brought? Did they disclose their reasoning for discontinuing? Why are you using Part 8 for your DPA claim? What type of agreement is this? Personal loan, HP, etc?