Thanks Sali. I will give PALS a call tomorrow and also do a SAR letter. Do I still need to send a cheque for £1? I am a bit wary about going to a 'No Win No Fee' solicitor. Will keep you posted. Thanks for the help.

Hi all. I am looking for some advice and help from the learned friends on here to solve my dilemma. I was taken to A&E of my local hospital on the 26th Dec 2003 with excessive bleeding and abdomen pain. They tested my urine and told me I was pregnant, which I was not aware of. They admitted me to do further investigations and gave me morphine for my pain. They then told me the next day that there is no weekend scanning available and emergency scanning has to be authorised by a Registrar, which there wasn't. My condition was getting worse and worse. Then two whole days later, Monday, 29th Dec, they scanned me and confirmed it was an ectopic pregnancy and that they would need to operate on me. They said they will try and save the tube but apparently my tube burst in me on the way to the theatre. I have two small scars on either side of my belly button , one scar on my belly button, which I believe is line with the Key hole surgery they had to do. But I also have a 4 cm scar further down. This was never explained to me and I had no letters or notes to take home with me. I was kept in hospital for a week to monitor which is also unusual, I hear. Anyway, as I had a 1.5 year old beautiful daughter and was so mentally and physically exhausted with this whole thing, I did not complain to the hospital or query what had happened to me. My husband & I have been trying for another baby unsuccessfully and we were referred to the fertility clinic of the same hospital last November. The consultant who saw me had the notes from the ectopic pregnancy and photos of the tube etc. He said I need to have a HSG test to see if my other tube is patent. I got a letter from him ccd to my GP saying I had a Salphingtomy of my right tube. The HSG test was done on the 23rd March. I was asked to go back to the clinic yesterday to review the results of the HSG test. It was another consultant and to my horror, he said the HSG test says my right tube is normal! He said the surgeon's notes from 203 clearly says the right tube was removed so he is not sure what happened. He said I need to have Laparoscopy and a Hysteroscopy done. As with everything else in the NHS, there are huge waiting lists and I will probably not have this done for another 3 months. I came out of there fuming, just fed up with everything. I am so angry that I want to sue the hospital for not scanning me and treating me for my ectopic sooner which could have perhaps saved my tube (whichever one). I also want to sue them for wasting my time and causing me undue stress over this whole issue of not knowing which tube was removed. I am not sure of what I should do now. As the main incident was in 2003, is it now too late?? Can someone please help.......

Hey, I seemed to have missed all the fun. This is fantastic news Leccy! Well done, you deserve it. Get some rest now. You have had enough stress for a lifetime!!! All the Best!!!!!!

Hi EL. I have had a quick read and sounds like you had a really hard time. But do you know what, I have a strong feeling CL will back down before the next hearing. This whole matter has probably already cost them more than the actual debt. And end of the day, they will have some one with a commercial hat on who will see the sense in not carrying on. You have some more breathing space and don't rush into filing the defence & CC yet. Remember, when you do it, it has to be the final say and therefore, try and get the advice of all the experts on here. XXX

This is what happened in my case. The T&C they produced did not have a clause 7 and the Judge threw the claim out. This is what I have been saying to you EL all along that its very important to establish if the T &C they have given you has a clause 7 that says what they have inferred to in their particulars of claim.

EL, That looks perfect. I wouldn't leave it till tomorrow just in case. Have to rush to work now but good luck. X

EL, Your credit agreement & letters scanned are so identical to mine. The only difference (maybe the vital one) is that my one hasn't got that 1st para on APRs (in the box). I also argued that the document starts of by saying "Thank you for taking the time to apply for an account card." If I remember correctly it also says something on the likes of "By making this application....." just above where you sign. I asked the Judge does this mean this is an application or a credit agreement. The Judge thought about it for ages and said its a good question, as he can see anyone would be confused. He then said he believes this is NOT an application but is a credit agreement. I also argued that I was not given a copy of the credit agreement at the time or sent a copy in the post.

EL, Just had a thought. You said that you can't read clause 7 because its very small. s61 of CCA 1974 Signing of agreement (1)(c )A regulated agreement is not properly executed unless— © the document is, when presented or sent to the debtor or hirer for signature, in such a state that all its terms are readily legible. Surely, if the Terms & conditions they provided are not readily legible then the agreement is improperly executed. You could then use the s127 argument. Its a loose argument in this case as it will be hard for you to prove any prejudice caused to you by this text being illegible and IMHO, the agreement you signed did have all the prescribed terms. But if they do provide all statements at last minute, then you need a plan B. And I believe it should be the above + default notice & NOA unenforceable as amount specified has Penalty charges+ Default never received (they can't prove you did) + NOA not received(again they cannot prove it), + NOA has wrong date of claim being issued + Even if claim could be issued on the 9th March, NOA dated the same day, so would not have been received prior to claim being issued + Vexatious Litigation by Claimant resulting in the wastage of costs & time for the Courts & you Manjusha

Hi Electric, The reason I asked about clause 7 is because it is mentioned in your Particulars of claim (as was mine). But when I asked for a copy of the credit agreement they supplied me & filed at court a different set of terms of conditions. These were numbered in a way that there wasn't a clause 7 at all. That was one of the main reasons my claim was struck out. This could explain why on your T & C clause 7 is highlighted.

EL, Another thing that I just noticed whilst looking at the NOA. Its dated the 9th March 2007, which was a Friday. Howard & Cohen issue proceedings online 99% of the time to save costs. This was disclosed to me by their advocate on my second hearing. So they issued online on a Friday and sent you the NOA on the same day. But your POC states that it was issued on the 12th March (Monday) in Northampton County Court. So they either issued after the court shut on Friday the 9th March or the court for some reason did not process this till Monday the 12th March. This is exactly identical to my case. They issued online on Friday the 30th March. But the court only issued the claim on Monday the 2nd April. And the Judge in my case, on the second trial, before making the decision to strike the matter out, thought this was of GREAT IMPORTANCE. He said what this meant is that even if H&C sent me the NOA on Friday the 30th March, as it was not sent by Next Day Delivery Post, I would have only got it after the claim was issued against me. Therefore, the legal assignment was invalid due to the Law of Property Act. In my case it was sent to me by Business Post & I kept the envelope as well. But I only received the NOA much later on. But in your case, I note that you did not receive this at all till at a hearing when it was produced. If they can't prove that they sent you a NOA which you received prior to the a claim being issued against you, then they are in trouble.

Also have you got a copy of the default notice? If the amount owed on the default notice & Notice of Assignment include penalty charges, they are incorrect.

EL, Is there a clause 7 in the T & C of the credit agreement? I can't make out from the scanned copy.

Paul, Why was my thread edited? I clearly stated that I used the free service. This website is referred to by Martin on the MoneySavingExpert website as well. If EL or anyone else wants to use the free service on there, what is the harm? It was not a commercial link at all. Manjusha

Hi El, What I do if I don't have a disk handy (or can't afford to buys some) is after scanning documents to a pc, log into my hotmail account and do an email to myself and attach the scanned documents to the email. I then have the docs scanned with the email sitting in my email inbox and can access them from any PC. As for uploading them on here, have never done it so can't help on that I am afraid. I also found the following website quite helpful. I only used their free service and did not purchase any of their services. {Edit} Manjusha

Hi Electric, As you know you & I had a similar case against CL & GE. The claim against me got struck out & I won some money & costs too. Here is a copy of my defence. Hope it helps. _______________________ 1. On 18 May 2005, when I signed agreement with GE Capital Bank for a Debenhams Store Card I was not shown or given the Terms & Conditions of the agreement. Claimant refers to these in the Particulars of Claim as being in Clause 7 of the agreement. However, I was not given these either at the time of entering into the agreement or when they sent me a copy of the alleged agreement in response to my request for a copy of the full agreement under the CCA 1974. Thus, Claimant has breached S61, S63 & S 78 of the CCA 1974 making this agreement improperly executed and unenforceable. 2. Claimant alleges that a Default Notice has been served on me pursuant to the S 87(1) of the CCA 1974. I have never received such a default notice. Under the Schedule 2 of the CCA 2006 that came into force on 1st October 2006, S 88 of CCA 1974 was amended to the effect that debtor now needs to have 14 days to respond to Creditor from when default notice is served. Therefore, for these proceedings to have been valid, a default notice should have reached me 14 days prior to Claimant issuing court proceedings. As papers were prepared on 30 March 2007, a default notice should have reached me on or before 16 March 2007. However GE Money’s letter to me after that date (19th March) completely contradicts this. Therefore, a default notice has not been served in accordance with the CCA 1974(amended 2006). 3. Furthermore, if the Claimant now present the court a default notice that they allege was served, if the amount owed on the default notice comprises of any penalty charges , the amount is incorrect and therefore, the notice is rendered legally invalid. 3. I dispute the assignment of this debt to Claimant. Claimant alleges that a Notice of Assignment was sent to me prior to proceedings being issued. However I received the Notice of Assignment 12 days after proceedings were issued, sent by Business Post. 4. Notice of Assignment refers to an incorrect amount owed. The amount referred to includes unlawful penalty charges and therefore renders the Notice legally invalid. The case that supports this is W.F.Harrison & Co Ltd v Burke [1956] 1 WLR 419. The last correspondence GE Money sent me on the 19 March before assigning this debt to Claimant on 28 March, does not give me notice that this debt will be assigned to third party 10 days later. Therefore, they have breached S136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 making this assignment of debt legally invalid. 5. Claimant has failed to provide to me a complete list of statements from the inception of the account on 18 May 2005. Their 1-paged letter listing a few late arrears charges between February 2006 and December 2006 is unacceptable. By not providing me with all the information requested under the Data Protection Act, yet cashing the fee for it, Claimant has committed a criminal act and rendered this debt unenforceable until such time that the breach continues. 6.I submit that the charges levied to my account, as set out in the Claimant’s statement letter, penalty charges arising from and relating directly to breaches of contract, both explicit and implied, on the part of the claimant. As a contractual penalty, the charges are unenforceable by virtue of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, the Unfair Contracts (Terms) Act 1977, and the common law. 7. I refer to the FSA disciplinary history for GE Capital Bank Ltd. On 30 January 2007, the FSA fined GE Capital Bank £610,000 in respect of breaches of FSA principles, mainly Principle 2(due skill, care & diligence), principle 3 (management & control) & Principle 6 ( Customer’s interests) . This fine proves that GE Capital are known to the authorities for breach of regulations and improper conduct. Then as you know I had a hearing in October which got adjourned. I then realised that the Credit Agreement did not mention the APR anywhere and the T & C provided by GE as clause 7, did not tally numerically to their POC & Witness Statement to court. I then filed a counter claim which was this: Defendant denies that she is liable to the Claimant as alleged in the Particulars of Claim or at all. It is averred that the Claimants have commenced these proceedings unlawfully and vexatiously, having failed to prove that a valid credit agreement exists between CL Finance and myself. In May 2007, in response to my request the Claimants provided what they have stated is a copy of the credit agreement. The document furnished however, is a copy of an application form, which is not a credit agreement. The document provided does not accord in form and content with sections 60 and 61 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, or the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983, which stipulates the fundamental requirements for credit agreements. Specifically, the application form does not contain the prescribed terms of the alleged credit agreement; and given that the Claimants are asserting that the document furnished in May 2007, is a copy of the purported agreement, the fact that said document does not detail any prescribed terms, renders the alleged agreement entirely legally unenforceable and these proceedings are completely unfounded. The request for the alleged credit agreement was made under section 78(1)running account credit, of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. CL Finance have issued a Court claim without having any proof that a credit agreement exists. I would therefore contend that the Claimant’s conduct amounts to unlawful harassment. The Claimant’s vexatious manner of litigation has resulted in the wastage of time and costs both for me and the court. The Claimants failed to file the Allocation Questionnaire by the 3rd July and the matter was stayed. The Claimants then managed to apply to court to get the stay lifted and the Hearing was scheduled for the 5th October 2007 with clear directions to the service of documents and witness statements from both parties 14 days prior to the hearing. The Claimants once again failed to adhere to the directions and served Statement of truth drafted by a Litigation Assistant just 7 days prior to the hearing. At the Hearing, the Claimant’s representative confirmed to the Judge several times that the Witness Statements served by the defendant had not been received by them. Please find attached Recorded Posting Receipt and Electronic Proof of delivery signed by the Claimants on the receipt of the documents on the 24th September send by the defendant on the 21st September 2007. The Claimant has, therefore, misdirected the Court on the truth. This resulted in the defendant wasting a whole day off from work which cost her £108.30. A lot of valuable time was spent in researching and preparing the extensive documents to Court and Claimant. Defendant estimates that approximately 80 hours have been spent so far on the preparation of documents in defending this matter and would like to claim the costs of that from the Claimant. As I earn £14.44 per hour, this amounts to £1155.20. This does not include the costs of Recorded Deliveries, Faxes and Copying of over 300 pages of evidence that the defendant had to supply to the claimant twice. As I don’t have receipts, I estimate these to have cost me £30.00 approximately. The amount claimed by the Claimant includes Penalty Charges that are unlawful and the defendant would like to claim them back. These are not very clear as the statements provided by the Claimants are not thorough and complete. According to my calculations, these amount to atleast £120.00. Defendant would also like to claim for the undue stress and anxiety that the Claimants irresponsible behaviour has caused her. The Hearing was on the 30th Jan & I won indeed. EL, like I have told you before - the key to this case, as was mine are Credit Agreement Default Notice Notice of Assignment Please would you scan these (erasing your personal details) and either post on here or PM me. These are the only things that matter. Having attended two trials and won, I now understand that the law is so clear on these 3 issues and there is no way you can lose if these are incorrect. Manjusha