The POC is as follows: 1. The claim is in the sum of £xxx.xx and is in respect of monies owing by the defendant on a credit agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974. The original creditor was Vanquis under account number xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. The defendant failed to maintain the contractual payments due under the terms of the agreement and a default notice has been served and not complied with. 2. The debt was legally assigned to the claimant by Vanquis on xx/xx/xxxx and a notice of assignment was served upon the defendant. 3. The claim also includes statutory interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum (a daily rate of 0.14094) from the date of assignment of the agreement to the date of issue (xx/xx/xxxx to xx/xx/xxxx) being an amount of xxxx.

Hi, Any views on the defence yet. Still nothing in the post from anyone today. Geoff

ok, How is this for a defence, DEFENCE 1. It is admitted that I the defendant has held an account with Vanquis Bank in the past but will contend that this account is in dispute. 2. On the 19th August 2009 the defendant made a request to Vanquis Bank under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, sections 77−79, to see a copy of any credit agreement and a statement of account. Vanquis Bank did not supply a copy of the agreement or a statement of account as required by law . 3. On the 16th June 2013 I requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CPR 31.14 request. The claimant has declined to respond, or even acknowledge the request, within the deadline set. 4. Without clarification of the claimants claim, the defendant is extremely disadvantaged and the claimants claim appears to be without merit. The defendant asks to be allowed to submit a complete defence should the claimant provide copies of the original documents he will rely on. 5. The particulars of claim are vague and unsubstantiated with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to a. show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement or contract with the Claimant; and b. show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for and c. show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim 6. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 7. Furthermore, if the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 and196 of the Law of Property Act 1925 and Section 82 (a) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. 8. The claimant has failed to comply with sections 111 AND 1V of the pre action conduct "practice directions". The Claimant has failed to even acknowledge any request made by myself, via recorded delivery, regarding disclosure of documents in order that I may plead effectively. 9. By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief. 10. For avoidance of doubt, the defendant is unable to plead effectively or at all to the particulars of claim. Without further clarification and disclosure. Statement of Truth I believe that the facts stated in this Defence of claim to be true.

sorry citizen I think im confusing things... the above example hasnt been sent to me yet. All we received in 2009 was photocopy of a t&c's leaflet. Im just concerned that this new 'internet application' as in the thread above is lowells new tactic to get round the lack of CCA's. Im concerned that my disclosure request will produce one of these and if it does 1. how do i counter it? if they say it was an intenet application and produce this rubbish how can I prove it wasnt? 2. Is this any good for a pre 2007 agreement. bearing in mind that the card was taken out in 2006 I cant see the arguement that 'its too old to have kept the docs' etc being very fair and surely they would have to prove an electronic audit trail to it. After all i could have knocked that up on my home pc. just trying to get things ready. At the moment I have had no disclosure, no answer or acknowledgment of my SAR to vanquis, no deed of assignment and no default notice and not even an acknowledgement of my disclosure request fro Drydens. Getting a bit concerned as I have to have my defence in by 14th and Im not sure what they will spring on me. Reading these threads it appears that nowadays DJ are accepting CCa's drawn up on the back of a fag packet if the bank says its prob a true copy. Geoff

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?302694-Electronic-Signature-for-Online-Applications post 5......... this is example of the 'online app'

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?302694-Electronic-Signature-for-Online-Applications post 5........... geoff

hold on i will find a link

ok so as I just got a leaflet in 2009 with T&C's and nothing else will that make a differnce in court? bearing in mind that would mean even now they havnt complied are they allowed to be even taking me to court? Im sending a follow up because i want the DJ to see my wife as Mrs reasonable who is dealing with a bunch of incompetent shysters... after all that will help when it comes to him being asked to believe that they would have sent the T&C's with the card etc......... why would they when they cant be bothered to now will be what he hopefully asks himself...... Geoff

Im goning to send a follow up request to the cpr letter so that I look very reasonable to the ditrict judge. Then if I dont get a reply its going to be the 'I have had accounts in the past but cant really post a defence if they wont show me the docs defence'. No news from Vanquis regarding there sar....... Lowells said they wanted proof of my wifes name change by an 'official doc' so I sent them the letter above saying 'good try but jog on and give me the info seeing as you are writing to her at her address and you have started the ball rolling by taking her to court'......... I have found my original CCA request letter and the leaflet which was just terms and conditions that they sent in reply. No applictaion form......nothing...Am I write that this means that they didn't and still havnt complied with mey nrequest? Geoff

Does anyone have any advice on when to submit my defence? Its due in on the 15th but they havnt even acknowledged my disclosure request and loweels have tried to faff off my SAR as above. Is it worth waiting till the last moment just to annoy them or should I bung it in now? Im not going to post it up here yet in case Drydens are watching. Any advice. Geoff

ok letter received form Lowells today . Letter was in respose to my sar request. They have stated that as my wife hase chaged her surneam then they require 'official proof' she is who she says she is. They dont state what proof/ so following letter being sent back recorded delivery........ Dear Sir/Madam ACCOUNT/REF NUMBER: ACCOUNT HOLDER ; Dear Sir, I am in receipt of your recent letter. I must say I am rather confused. I cannot see why a change in my surname is relevant and will delay you sending the information I require. You have sent the letter to my home address, confirming my location and your company has issued a court summons against me from the same address. I have written to you under my married name and stated my maiden name. I cannot see why a copy of any ‘official’ document will make any difference to you sending the information? Also you fail to mention what ‘official’ documentation you would require. I submit that this is merely a shabby delaying tactic or used in the hope I will just go away. I must now advise you that neither of these things will happen. If I do not receive all information you hold on me within 40 days of my original request I will be making a complaint to the Information Commissioner about your conduct. May I also take this opportunity of advising you that your solicitors (Dryden Fairfax), if I may call such a shambolic outfit such, have still failed to supply me with any of the documentation I requested under my disclosure request. As the claimant in this matter, and the holder of a consumer credit license, may I remind you that the OFT take an extremely serious view of companies of your type misleading customers as to the enforceability of a debt. If you have started court action without the correct documentation then I would maintain that you are being negligent in your duty. If I do not receive these documents I shall be contacting the OFT to make a complaint regarding your use of the court system to attempt to mislead your customers. After all if you do not have the correct documentation then you are either incompetent or negligent in commencing court action. Yours sincerely

I am about to go to court with drydens over an old vanquis card. I am just wondering if anyone else can post up ; 1. have drydens taken them to court and if so how did they get on? 2. did drydens start bthe action with no CCA agreement? 3.how near to statute barred was your account? 4. did they send you a real CCA or a 'true copy' or a dodgey internet one? I want to see if this is a policy with them and if they are bringing frivilous actions in the hope of scareing people into settling. If there is a pattern I make make a complaint to the SRA and the OFT

she is convinced it wasnt so I added that as if she is right there is no way they will have her iip address etc etc ....

my wife says early 2007 but Im not convinced.... i think prob late 2007 maybe 2008. Im waiting for the SAR from vanquis to confirm that. early 2007 would be good as I think it would be statute barred. either way I think it is nearing the end of its life and thats why a claim has been issued. Im not sure if Lowells are working on the principle that alot of people wont know what to do and will panic and make a payment (reactivating the account) or not get there deadlines right and lose by default. Either way I am not falling for that and have marked both postal orders 'SAR' so lowells or vanquis wont pay it towards the balance and claim a payment. Im not really sure what they are up to as the orig CCA request resulted in a leaflet wich was t&c's and nothing else. I know that DCA's read this site so just in case they take any orf this as an admission of liabilty. I AM NOT YOUR DEBTOR. I AM MERELY SEEKING ADVICE AND I NO WAY CAN I ACKNOWLEDGE THIS DEBT ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER. Lets see what they have found or are making up. As I say it could be a fishing expedition.

ok following done 1. cpr request as posted by citzen sent to Drydens. Also added that is the CCA is an electronic document I will reguire a copy of thye audit tral relating it to a computer request , a statement from who ever downloaded it and their expertise/ qualifications to interrogate a comp system and access to the raw data in order to get the above facts confirmed. 2. a SAR to vanquis. 3. a SAR to Lowells... why not its worth a £10 to find out what is on their files. 4. court summons acknowledged................ ALL THE ABOVE SENT RECORDED DELIVERY.................. ok here we go.... lets see what comes back...

ok ready to go.... any views yet on these electronic CCA's?

thanks mate all very helpful... Geoff

Thanks Citizen.......I have noted the timeline. They are claiming £2627...which includes £461.84p intrest at 8% per annum. £75 court fee and £80 sol costs. We never received a notice of assignment Dont think we had a default notice just loads of menacing calls I think there is default charges but not from when the account was active. I think they would have been added after we put the account in dispute. We CCa'd them about 2/3 years ago and as said they sent a photocopy of a leaflet. I sent them a letter saying this was not a true copy of the agreement and the account was now in dispute. They then got various DCA's to do the menacing bit but then stopped a about 2 years ago. Actually thinking about it it has probably been in dispute for about 4 years as my daughter is 2 and it was done a couple of years before she was born. The Card was taken out on the 18/05/06. Now am I right that this is still under the sec 127 cover but is also subject to the 2004 electronic aggreements thingy if they say it was taken out online? My wife is adamant that it wasnt and that it was taken out using one of those adverts in a magazine. And the photocopied leaflet from the first CCa request would seem to back that up. But then if they deny that and produce a spreadsheet CCA then we will have to start digging. Does anyone have any knowledge of these dodgey spreadsheet CCa's that lowells are throwing around at the moment? Are they legal? Im gonna fight this. I intend to have them prove a line of continuity between the server and that spreadsheet and if necessary prove them to be lying. I think they are getting away with far to much at the moment and we need to get something proved in court. It seems almost unbelieveable that a judge would allow them to say that they dont have one of the most important documents in a contract and let them make it up. It seems they keep everything about a client except their agreement? Why? Could it be that it is a convient document to lose as it would lose them their case if it ever surfaced. I think that they may now be shooting themselves in the foot. The problem with using online applications is the one thing computers can do, and do very well, is store everything. they store ip address, they can even store keystroke info. That's why the DPA was introduced. So if they go down the online application route I think they may be entering a minefield. Also how long does a compnay have to keep data? if its 6 years then that would explain why they wait till 7 years is passed before starting a case...bit sus that. If its longer that 6 years then surely all my wifes details and the details of any alledged online transaction , including 1p adresses etc...will be still on the server and available via a SAR. If not why not...what are the hiding? My first step even before acknowledgement is im going to SAR both vanquis and Lowells. I want all docs relating to the account and all records of calls made etc. Im not going to CCA lowells...why give them extra time....not until its defense time. When I do I am also going to ask for 1. the deed of assignment 2. copy of default notice If the dodgey spreadsheet CCa arrives then we shall see where we go........... Im angry now.... Geoff

I thought it was behind us as they sent me a leaflet with no address name etc on it then stopped pursuing the matter. I have read on hear That Lowells are now producing some sort of dodgy spreadsheet CCA in an attempt to say this is a comp printout and the CCA is valid. Is this true? And if so is it valid.

Help, My wife had a vanquis account since 18/05/06. She cannont remember how she applied whether online or via a advert. Anyway we cca' d them about 3 years ago and all they sent was aset of terms and conds but with no signature or tick box. No name or address on it. I wrote to them saying its not good enough and that the account was now in dispute. We had the usual threatening phone calls etc but havnt heard anything for about 7 months. Today I received a summons from MCOL stating we are being summoned to court. The POC of claim summorised are 1. claiming in respect of an agreement under the CCA 1974 failed to maintain payments etc 2.Debt was legaly assigned to Lowlells by vanquis 3 Interest at 8% Date of issue is 12 Jun 2013. This is all from Drydens sol................. I do still have the original CCA they sent and it certainly isnt a compn screenshot. More like the leaflet they used to send.... Some advice would be grateful. What to do next....Im a bit dissapointed as I hoped all this was behind us and we have managed to get back on our feet. Geoff

i dont see that we have been struck a blow... we had the wrong bit of law... its bit like the police charging the man who stole your car with assault. they are bound to lose. still stole the car though and can still get charged with that............

sorry to here about that. hope everything is ok. reg8 is ok but that just keeps the contract in place. the point would be do the proceeds from the unfaiir term become recoverable? I think they do. all it would mean is that the cross-sub would have to end or be fully explained in future. the sums paid out on it would still be subject to recalim. from my understanding the bank couldnt state customers knew this was the porpose of charges as it has only been their public arguement since the test case began. before it was 1 they are penalties.. 2. then a service with the charge covering the cost 3...then a cross sub...... the FSA guidence on unfair terms is very clear....... anything that is of significant detriment to the consumer... any consumer not just the majority....

by the way your bank was it right when i heard you lost your job?

ok... so a proper definition.........free if in credit....now was anyone told..written to or explained to that the reason for the charging system was to subsidise others at any time even now by their bank? was it in the contract etc.........

Ok folks.. where are we........... some say screwed but i dont believe so.... Lets se what the judgement was all about as far as i can see it. I think that technically the judgement was correct. The law lords tried to make everyone understand that this was all over a very narrow peice of law. They were almost apologetic about. They had to rule whether charges were a necessary core term of the bargin and contract. They ruled it was. Because if you offer a cross-subsidised bankIng system it had to be. Because of that they cannot rule if the price of the ‘service ‘ is now fair. Therefore we lose... everyone shouts unfair...doom pestilance and plague..and the media predict the end of the show... From my point of view thay had no choice. They knew that they were a probably a key term and that if they dismissed the appeal that the banks would appeal to the ECJ. Being powerful that would be granted and the judgement would probaly be struck down. I think that is probably accurate. But they didn’t say that it was all over like the media and the banks have portrayed. They went out of their way to stress an alternative route. They gave us.. 1 the regulation to challenge on..reg 5 2 the arguement to challenge on... not the price which is now not allowed to be challenged... but the price structure. Is it fair and open. Did they tell you that your charges paid for free banking for others. Do they make it very easy to incurr charges etc... 3. and lastly a broad hint that they may already view them as unfair. I think it would be helpful if we looked at these routes and ones through the cca and the enterprise act as well. Lets not use this thread for arguements with bank flunkies or free banking parasites and stick to the legal issues..........and no great injustice posts or accusations of corruption against individuals. it wont help. some could argue we have had the best legal advice in the country from the five most senior judges. lets use it. Discuss.............. F x