Hi Foxy Check the date effective on the extension, deemed service of claim+ 56 days total........ from the dates in your previous post you may be a couple of days overdue already, you really have to get a defence filed. The alternative would be an application to strike out. Gez

Hi Stuck From memory they attempted to enforce the terms to a tomlin which it seems they had no cause [incorrect party substituted NW/RBS] It seems a long long time to decide on an alleged admin error, have you checked with the court to see if anything else has been filed from the other side prior to receipt of order? Gez

Oi oi stranger Trial = hearing...... you've been there before, nothing to be frightened of Gez

Happens every day in every court in the land, don't take it personally....... use the rules against him whenever the opportunity arises. Gez

No specific issues, no worries Gez

Errr...... ladies, gents ?? Does this imply you are practising paras or Ilex affiliated? Gez

Can you confirm if you were served with the claim and/or if you defended at all? Gez

Evening Bev Sent you a PM Gez

Bev As usual, won't be able to get on here during work hours tomorrow. One last thing I would suggest is calling the court tomorrow and checking the orders again, satisfy yourself that the order was to file only. If you are at all uncertain get a copy off to the other side on a next dayer, its worth the fiver if only for peace of mind. Oh and, don't forget to update your costs schedule Gez

Lets hope it does the trick, kept going over reasons the dj could/would allow an amended defence and all it led me back to was 17.3...... pretty sure the dj was hinting heavily toward undoing the error in allowing the stay to be lifted Gez

Hope the above helps Gez

What about this as an alternative?............... This claim was first brought before the court on 2nd July 2009. Although the defendant filed a defence in good time, the Claimant as pleaded in the particulars of claim, failed to reply to the court, nor did they supply the defendant with the information requested. As a result, the claim was stayed, the claimant [now liquidated] did not apply to the court to lift the stay. During December 2011, some 30 months after the claim was first brought a third party applied to lift the stay without evidence of Locus standi or application to substitute itself in this case. That application being allowed, the Defendant now contends that this was a procedural error in allowing substitution of the party now bringing the application for summary judgment. Having neither applied nor shown the court lawful entitlement to relief to join as party to case prior to lifting of stay. The Defendant further contends that, in light of the above error, the current application for summary judgment must be dismissed.

Evening Andy Really not sure of the best way to weight the defence, the failure to evidence cause [agreement, notices etc] seems to go hand in hand with the 'claimants' Locus [or lack of] Bev You've left your better halfs name and claim number visible on a couple of the pages Gez

Oh bugger, thats not long is it I think their first response will be to rush an application in to the court to substitute themselves in the claim....... kind of leaves the s/j application hanging, guess the court could combine the 2 and allocate a longer slot for the next hearing. Gez

Hi Bev Didn't spot anything else that immediately stood out in your defence, insert the 3 paragraphs above back in their relevant positions..... hopefully we've covered everything. Post the 'final' version back on here when you've tidied it up and ask Andy to have another look to see if we've missed anything obvious - the more eyes and opinions the better. You've got until the 13th [i think] to get this filed so best to take your time and make sure its as complete as it can be. Gez

The claimant avers the OriginalCreditor terminated the agreement/s on or after 10th March 2004 andissued a Default Notice five days later, on 15th March 2004. It isthe defendant’s contention this is in contravention of s87 and s88 of The Act. There being no ambiguity in the Act, termination cannot occur less than 7 days afterthe service of the Default Notice. Pursuant to termination, the claimant hassince made demand of the Defendant for the payment of money the subject of thisclaim.

The accounts and notices to which theclaimant evidences in its witness statement of xx/xx/xxxx were [by the claimant’sown admission] closed on 10th March 2004 with a nil balance. The claimant has shown no known cause toplead those accounts for enforcement in this case, the agreements to which the claimantrefers being discharged and revoked by the amalgamation of the two accounts priorto the alleged assignment. Contrary to s82 of The Act, at no time did theOriginal Creditor seek the defendant’s agreement that those two accounts beamalgamated pre or post assignment [if any].

Hi Bev Doing these one at a time as I'm having problems posting on here again tonight Gez The defendant admits having had with HSBC (“Original Creditor”), a small business loan (xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) which was regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and a current account (xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) with no agreed overdraft facility. The defendant contends that the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA) as enacted is the effective Act in this case. Those regulations contained within The Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 being the effective S.I upon that Act. Agreements covered by a s74(3)determination, and satisfying the relevant conditions, are exempt from mostPart V rules including s61(1) on execution.

Yep, in their w/s they finally admit to relying on 'agreement/s' and notices prior to the amalgamation of the accounts. The effect is that they are pretty much irrelevant to their case as pleaded. If they were terminated [lawfully or not as the case may be] they still needed your agreement to creating a new account with terms effective upon it. Business loan [regulated] - terminated 10th March 2004 [not pleaded in p.o.c] Business o/d - terminated/recalled on/around 10th March 2004 [not pleaded in p.o.c] New account with unknown terms created on/around 10th March 2004 [pleaded in p.o.c] The new account now pleaded, whether current account/overdraft, fixed or running credit required your agreement at the instant of creation. This was 2004 so the old 1983 regs for form/content apply, schedule 8 of the link below [about 2/3 of the way down] is the applicable regulation. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1983/1553/made Should have said, this is why their chat about Carey was such nonsense - no agreement having ever existed. Gez

Hi Wonky The directions are probably sitting in someones tray waiting to be typed up, they can read them out to you over the phone if you ask. There may be something that would assist with putting a little more pressure on the other side Gez

Evening Bev .7....... I believe they've already admitted discharging the loan account on 10th March, 5 days pre service of DN Somewhere or another you also need to get a line/paragraph in regarding their p.o.c stating xxxxxxxx account number but relying on other account terminations for enforcement. Their case is a bit of a mess tbh, hopefully you'll get the same dj next time and he'll see through some of their games. Gez

Hi Wonky Give the court a bell in the morning to get the directions over the phone, would be handy to know if there was any mention of an 'unless' in the costs order. Gez

Without wishing to butt in here, but.......... this is BC and a 600 squid claim, test him with the part 31 [you can CCA as well if you want to, does no harm] and see how quickly he makes a commercial decision to drop this one. Gez

You can only plead the case as presented, the claimant failed to disclose the creation of the amalgamation which you have now countered in your w/s. The amendment really is just a matter of raising additional points following the dj's findings. The original w/s [now evidence] stands so there shouldn't be any requirement to redraft the whole thing. Check the directions are as you understood them to be, assuming they are my initial thoughts would be to include the para [re; part 19] before point 1 followed by a line stating; any reference to claimant in the following statement is not an aquiescence of relief to case substitution of the applicant in this matter. Gez

Hi Wonky Sorry, not able to get on here during the day and had a few problems posting tonight Gez