My sols deal with all of this. I have no idea. D

And here's a clip from a letter that they sent in response to my intiial complaint about their response to my CCA request: Yeah 'final response' - cool. I told you I'd see you in court and called your bluff. The 'airhead' manager that composed this letter has just cost this bank a lot of money. Probably more than her annual salary. Their response wasn't what I was hoping for but I think the disappointment may well be theirs now So, Ms KP (sender of the above letter) - THIS is MY final response. Suck on it!

I'd argue she was 'in difficulty' within minutes but 'struggling' about an hour later. A 'dead duck' or 'filleted donkey' within 90 minutes. She did try it on a bit I guess but it was rather easy to answer her questions. Being a witness is easy when you understand the stance that your side is taking better than the barrister questioning you. D

Oh I promise that their brief was struggling in under an hour. She invented all kinds of excuses for her clients which the 'man at the front' just saw through. He was 'on the case' from the first few seconds - what we had was something that they didn't - provable evidence in a logical legal framework. That's what won the day. To her credit she had a job to do and tried her best and I certainly bear her no ill will (leading question attempts when I was on the stand or not). Now Penix will pay her fees - so she doesn't lose really. At one point she had to invent an argument 'on the fly' and had to ask for time (whilst all watched) to formulate a very weak approach. It was a most unconvincing performance and she was offered indirect sympathy by both the judge and my 'brief' for the poor state of the case that she was presenting. Hopefully this will go some way to deterring legals like this from taking on cases as poor as this. PT calls this 'deep pocket litigation'. That's about as succinct as it gets - it's nasty and cynical BUT if you're sure of the facts and you feel that you stand a chance of winning then you have to make basic choices. It's all about risk management & escalation and, if you're considering this, you have to assess what happens if you lose. Up until this afternoon I was thinking about how I might deal with a Charging Order on my home via an appeal. That may have been a consequence.

Can I just echo this - the formulaic approach to embarrassed defences is no longer (was it ever?) a valid approach. This has become an area that judges know about and your arguments need to be a bit better constructed than that folks. In this case the numbers didn't add up and, regardless of any moral argument, there was only one logical conclusion. PT is right though - the judge referred to the unenforcibile 'debt' as a 'windfall' for me. To his credit he relied on the usual HoL rulings in this respect and didn't really linger on the point. Anybody that's been in this position, over such a period of time, will know that even a result like this doesn't pay for the sustained grief that these parasites and their 'friends' apply. D

Unfortunately I haven't documented this fight as well as I might have due to other major battles with Sharklays and their minions. If you do a forum search for my nickname you'll find a minimal amount about this - the reason is simple - I've had to keep quiet because of the arguments that were put forward and having it professionally handled. We all know that our 'friends' read these forums. There is a lot of stuff about my fights with Optima & 1st Credit etc though. If anyone has any specific questions then I'll happily answer them here. This is a victory for ALL of us. Enjoy folks! D

I am more than happy to help HB (and others) in whatever manner I can. The caveat is that no case will ever be the same as any other and formulaic defences etc are being wised up to by our opponents. We need to react and get sharper and smarter.

Actually no - with regard to the NoA to Phoenix it was vaguely referred to in a WS by a witness that didn't turn up (sound familiar). It was apparently 'on their computer'. What a load of BS! I denied having received it (well, I hadn't!) and the judge ultimately sided with my view and was as close as he could be to saying that the other side had lied without actually saying it. It's worth noting that the judge trusted my word principally because of my record keeping and responses to other letters that they had sent (submitted as part of the trial bundle). The clear evidence was that I wasn't ignoring what they were sending at all and, 'on the balance of probablities', that they were full of sh1t.

You know what this is like mate and I've got everything crossed for you. I actually thought of you when we won and I hope this goes some way to giving you some confidence back.

With the help of our own PT and a barrister that he capably briefed we have just handed the above their arses on a plate. Firstly, the Circuit Judge ruled that the statements that they had provided demonstrably had a different interest rate to those in the alleged T&C's and that demonstrated that the T&C's were not related to the 'agreement' Game over. He also ruled that the DN they claimed to have provided me with made no sense and was probably never sent (as I had claimed). He also ruled that their various submissions were untrustworthy and shoddily put together. Leave to appeal: denied. Substantial costs were awarded against them. It has taken the best part of 3 years to get to this stage and was for a substantial alleged debt (fast track sum). Thanks again Paul - that was quite a result. D

Shocking - it's almost like the stance is one based on some misguided personal 'morality' and not logic and precedence. If morality had anything to do with it our banker/DCA friends wouldn't get through the doors.

I take it that's potentially recoverable in the form of costs?

Add to that - FILE EVERYTHING carefully and keep a diary of events.

Count me in for support here too - this is truly disgraceful.

So what we're actually saying here is that they can try 'smoke and mirrors' with people (through section 78.) when they're trying to bully but when it comes to actual court action (through initial CPR and from thereon) they have to produce copies of the 'real thing'? So, all this actually does is save the alleged debtor £1 because a s.78 request is rendered effectively meaningless. Does this affect the status of the account concerned as 'disputed' at all after a s.78 request is made? Can a reconned agreement be disputed? D

That's what I was having difficulty getting my head around. It all seems rather pointless.

I just posted the same view on a different thread. Why can't it be asked how the reconstitution occcured, using what components and where from? If that turns out to be a viable question then a database of both invalidated reconstituted agreements and known 'true' originals here would be invaluable.

I've been following this with interest and have a simple question. If 'reconstituted documents' are to be provided (and accepted) as evidence would it not be fair to ask about the reconstitution process and, more specifically, what they were constructed from and then force them to strict proof thereof? D

erm thanks ... that's very ... erm ... useful.

I just got a letter dated 3rd (a Sunday - really?) Jan from Lowlife. I guess this has been held up due to the bad weather. Still, they must have received the letter I sent before dishing this one out. The direct and implied threats are amazing - they really go big on the personal visit thing (from 8am to 9pm). Go ahead boys, your vendors have been told what happens if this is attempted. You have to remember that they have no idea how valid their alleged claim actually is here (in this case it's not) and yet they think that this approach will get them somewhere. ****. D

What amazed me more than anything was my own reaction when they announced who they were. Just a little under 3 years ago I'd have been really badly affected by a call from Lowells (or their ilk). Nowadays, I'd planned for it, knew exactly what to say and had them on the back foot from the first moment. I'm quite busy at the moment with building a fledgling business with a new found friend (it doesn't pay much for now - I get paid small amounts when the business can afford it - but I have an 'interest' and get to work from home). 2010 is going to be a year of relaxed and quiet consolidation for me. I'm not prepared to let these DCA bullies get in the way of my new found peaceful & 'simpler' way of life - it's simply too valuable to lose. No corporate call centre thug is ever going to ruin what I have found. What I have now, oh the delicious irony, is something that they have inadvertantly helped me to discover. There is no need to be a wage slave and to drop to the level that they do as employees of a DCA or anything equally morally corrupt. Only obeying orders? - is that still a credible defence? What kind of 'human being' does a job like that? D

I suspect the latter. I love how these guys ring you up and ask you to confirm who you are I normally have a lot of fun with that but didn't have the time today. I've now had it verbally confirmed that they buy job lots of debts (probably for peanuts) and then attempt to enforce them with absolutely no case history. That alone is an absolute bloody disgrace. Of course Sharklaycard couldn'd give a damn either but then nor could I - they know what they can do After nearly 3 years it's come to this and this is the best that they can do. Pathetic. So no doubt now the alleged debt gets sent back to Sharklays by another lot of whining bullies only, at some point in the future, to be sold on to another bunch of mugs who will be told where to go. D

And to you M (& of course all others fighting these evil gits). The fights continue as does my indignation and anger. They started these fights without good reason and they're like the knight in Monty Python's Holy Grail. They just don't understand defeat. I'm hoping to get all of my litigation sorted out this year and then I can tell the whole story fully & openly. D

Well well, Guess who just called? That's a rhetorical question Lowlife DCA decided to phone me to wish me a 'happy new year' by asking me to confirm my details. I didn't have the time to point out that they had phoned me to ask who I am. (note to anyone at the start of this process - don't talk to them on the phone ever - in this case I knew EXACTLY what I was doing and the circumstances are exceptional). They denied receiving the very curt letter that I sent them in response to their Christmas greetings so I outlined its content & suggested that they back off now before I start shouting 'vexatious litigant'. I had fully expected this to be honest and I have been waiting for further contact. All of a sudden the bloke on the other end of the line dropped his aggressive attitude and started thanking me and making profuse notes. I managed to confirm something though - I suggested that the 'account' had been bought of part of a batch that hadn't been checked properly and that the 'numbers game' had caught them this time. He agreed with me. So these idiots, as we already knew, are intimidating people on the basis of nothing more than hearsay. I passed on the details of my solicitors and he couldn't have been more pleasant. B'stards the lot of them! They sicken me. Typical bully - comes out shouting the odds and gets faced by something unexpected and then backs off. I get the feeling that this will be such a quick 'Win' that it will hardly deserve to be called one D