Hi pt2537, As you will probably see the attached is basically sculped from the defence you wrote for Count1. So thank you for that. Obviously there are addition's amendments for content...would you mind casting your eagle eye over it and let me know where I've gone wrong... I also need to know if this should be filed within the 14 days, of after I obtain an extension to see if they reply with my request for info within the 10 days I set them in my "request for further information". Any advice or nudge in the right direction would be helpful. Kind regards, Jody

Ah Dave, A man after my own heart.... I set one of our macs up as a windows test environment - within a week it was corrupt...what a waste of time and energy... regards, Jody

Court Name Claim Number Between Bank of Scotland PLC – Claimant And ***** – Defendant Defence 1. I, *****, of *******, am the defendant in this action and am a litigant in person. 2. Except where otherwise mentioned in this defence, I neither admit nor deny any allegation made in the claimant’s Particulars of Claim and put the claimant to strict proof thereof. 3. I wish to draw to the courts attention that the claimant has failed to provide requested information during initial discussions that would facilitate negotiation on any settlement of this issue before issuing proceedings as required by the Civil Procedure Rules. Whilst there was correspondence with the claimant between January 2007 and September 2007, the claimant repeatedly failed to provide the information that I have requested in support of the alleged debt (see attached letters marked “Exhibit *” through to “Exhibit *”). I do not consider that a poor copy of a faxed copy of a “Possession Order” constitutes proof of a mortgage shortfall. Furthermore I do not consider the provision of a copy of the selling solicitor’s invoice, in another person’s name (see Exhibit *), nor two differing “Completion Statements”, with conflicting and inaccurate information (see Exhibit * an * respectively) as proof of debt. The fact that they have provided 2 different documents, which purport to be the same document, one of which is described as an “Amended” completion statement (see Exhibit *) leads me to question the authenticity and validity of one if not both of these documents, and thereby the claim. I believe the claimant has acted unreasonably and vexatiously in bringing this action, so accordingly I put the claimant to strict proof that they have indeed followed Civil Procedure rules Pre-action protocols, namely: 4.3 (b), the provision of essential documents which the Claimant relies on. 4. In an attempt to further this case I wrote to the claimant on the 10/12/2007 (see attached letter marked “Exhibit *” ) sent via both fax and Special Delivery and received by the claimant on the 10/12/07 via fax and the 11/12/2007 via post. The request was made for disclosure of all documents and information I felt may be relevant to the case and any further documentation which the claimant sought to rely upon in this case and would help me to prepare my defence and expedite the case. 5. To date the claimant has ignored my request and has not supplied any information nor has the claimant stated any such reason as to why they will not comply. As a result, I consider this is an attempt to frustrate my attempts to compile a defence to the allegations in the particulars. 6. Without disclosure of the aforementioned documents requested I would like to draw to the court’s attention that, as a litigant in person, it is proving difficult to compile a fully particularised Defence in response to the claimants particulars of claim. 7. Consequently I cannot assess if I am indebted to the claimant for any sum of monies and put the claimant to strict proof thereof. 8. As far as I am aware, this claim cannot succeed as, I believe, the claim is barred by the Limitation Act 1980 in particular section 20. To the best of my knowledge more than 12 years have passed since I ceased payment on this account, if the property was ultimately repossessed, then 12 years have passed from what would be considered the initial Cause of Action to the issue of these proceedings, without any acknowledgment or payment to the mortgage account, by me. If there was a Default on the Agreement then this occurred in 1994/5, therefore the cause of action occurred no later than 1995, not 1999 or 2000. However I am unable to be more specific due to the claimant’s unwillingness to furnish me with the documentary information I have requested. 9. If it is the case that the claimant failed to demand payment when he was entitled to do so, it is suggested that this has little bearing on the fact that the cause of action occurs from the point which the monies became due not when they were demanded. I refer to LINDLEY, L.J. in REEVES v. BUTCHER. - [1891] 2 Q.B. 509 “This expression, "cause of action," has been repeatedly the subject of decision, and it has been held, particularly in Hemp v. Garland (1), decided in 1843, that the cause of action arises at the time when the debt could first have been recovered by action. The right to bring an action may arise on various events; but it has always been held that the statute runs from the earliest time at which an action could be brought.” 10. I further believe that the claimant has a duty under the Civil Procedure Rules to supply documents relating to the particulars of claim in accordance with Practice Direction 16, paragraph 7.3 which states: 7.3 Where a claim is based upon a written agreement: (1) A copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement should be attached to or served with the particulars of claim and the original(s) should be available at the hearing; and (2) Any general conditions of sale incorporated in the contract should also be attached (but where the contract is or the documents constituting the agreement are bulky this practice direction is compiled with by attaching or serving only the relevant parts of the contract or documents). 11. I now turn to the figure of £15,892.28. Notwithstanding the above, it is my belief this figure contains interest and other charges under the Mortgage Agreement/Deed referred to by the claimant, which should be separated from the principal sum owed under the mortgage. 12. Any such interest/additional charges contained within the amount should be considered a separate cause of action and accordingly it is submitted that such sums would now be barred by the Limitations Act 1980 as more than 6 years has passed without any acknowledgement or payment of the debt being made. I therefore put the claimant to strict proof that: a. The amounts claimed are indeed owed; b. The amounts claimed of £15,892.28 does not contain any interest or additional charges other than capital; and c. That an acknowledgement or payment of this debt has been made in the last 6 years from the point of issue of these proceedings. 13. Notwithstanding the above, I firmly believe that this action is barred by the limitation act 1980 section 20 in so far that to the best of my knowledge, 12 years has passed since the initial cause of action. The claimant refers to the date of sale of the property in the particulars of claim however this is not the cause of action. The cause of action would surely be the point where the agreement was breached and the claimant becomes entitled to demand the repayment of the full sums under the agreement. This appears to be affirmed by the case of Bristol & West plc v Bartlett and another; Paragon Finance plc v Banks; Halifax plc v Grant - [2002] 4 All ER 544 which set out that the twelve years starts from the cause of action and not the sale of the property. 14. The mortgage deed would surely show when the right to take recovery action occurred. Since this document has not been forthcoming in pre-action correspondence, nor been supplied with the particulars of claim I and unable to assess what I am liable to the claimant for if indeed anything. 15. I request that the court consider striking out the claimants particulars as they have failed to supply supporting documents with the particulars and it is my opinion that they fail to comply with the Civil Procedure Rules in particular part 16 and Practice Direction 16. In addition the claimant has in my opinion tried to frustrate matters by failing to disclose the requested documents and I believe they are acting vexatiously 16. Should it not be considered acceptable to strike out the claimants particulars, it is respectfully requested that the court orders the claimant supply the requested information as per point 4 and I respectfully request the court grants permission for me to amend my defence when the claimant discloses the aforementioned documentation. Statement of Truth I, *******, believe the above statement to be true and factual Signed ………………… Date Much of this was drafted based on the back of Count1's defence, so not sure which bits to take out/leave in/amend etc etc., I know I should be careful about the highlighted bit - It's just that its very frustrating trying to obtain information when all they send are bits that are not relevant, not legible or conflict!!! My heartfelt thanks to all who are reading this and chipping in - I'm feeling a little overwhelmed at the moment and its not even related to me - is there any wonder some people bury their heads. Think I need to chill for a bit... Jody

OK... I'm going to post his holding defence....Do I still need to put a paragraph or four in about MIG's (not sure if he has one, but would like opportunity of questioning why this has not covered any shortfall if there is one) - and underselling of property if all else fails....according to their figures, if he was repossessed, and had they sold for market value the debt would have been around 4K - 3K of which would have been their fees! Or would this go in any amended defence based on their supply of information?? I would also welcome some advice on whether to leave in/take out the highlighted paragraph in the defence, and whether it should be filed immediately, or ask for extension and give time for them to respond to my Part 18 request....if they even do... Regards, Jody

Sorry Sequenci - its taking me so long to function at the moment that Chloe is whipping up a storm ahead of me... He doesn't know....is there no way of forcing them to tell him prior to his having to defend this?? Is there something in the paperwork that they are hiding, or do they just deny people their rights of access as a matter of course? Dazed, confused and thoroughly naffed off!! Jody

Hi guys, I've posted their claim above. In answer to your questions... a. No he doesn't know when he last made a payment on the account - he's trying to work backwards from the houses he's owned, but as we are talking about 1991 - 2001 its proving difficult to trace it all back to any definite date... He thinks his last payment must have been at some point in 1994/95, and he's sure he must have sold this property to buy his next one. b. He cannot comment on when the house was repossessed, as he wasn't aware that it was - in 1999 he was still living in the area in a mortgaged property in his name, and on the electoral register. b. They say they took possession on 11/8/99, but the poor photocopy of a fax that they sent shows a "received" date stamp of (I think) May 99, but the copy states "Upon hearing the Solicitor for the Claimant and the Defendant not attending: court orders that Defendants give the claimant possession of ****** on 19 June 1999...is the date of the judgement? If so how can it have a received date of May 99? My friend has no knowledge of these forms, and the copies they have sent do not show a solicitor's address, just his name the address that he did take out a mortgage in 1991 (actually he took the mortgage in the late 80s with his then girlfriend, but he took on the mortgage on his own when they split in 1991. Without the details relating to payments on the account I'm not really sure where he goes from here... in his acknowledgment of service what is he actually saying he contests....the claimant's claims 1-3 or the particulars of the claim points 1-9. If he is acknowledging service does he need to specify his action yet, as it pretty much depends on their providing the information he's been asking for since January - albeit not quite as specifically as he is now. Soooo tired. Jody

Here's a topped and tailed copy of the claim... In the **** County Court between Bank of Scotland plc (claimant) and *** (defendant). 1. by way of a Legal Mortgage dated *** 1991, **** charged the property konwn as and situated at ******* to the claimant. 2. the claimant obtained possession of the property on ** ** 1991. 3. On 17 November 1999 the claimant sold the property in exercise of its power of sale as mortgagee in possession off the sum of £23,000. 4. At the date of sale the amount outstanding under the mortgage was £38,892.28 5. The claimant apportioned the sale proceeds of £23,000 to the mortgage debt in the following order (i) interest; (ii) Capital. Immediately following the sale in point 3, in the premises due and owing to the claimant from the defendant amounted to the sum of £15,892.28. The aforementioned figure represented capital debt. 6. The claimant claims interest pursuant to secftion 69 of the County courts Act (1984) at the rate of 8% per annum for the period 29 November 2001 and 29 November 2007 in the sum of £7,624.68 7. further the claimant claims interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act (1984) at the rate of 8% per annum at a daily rate of £3.48 to date of judgment or payment if sooner. 8. The defendant is jointly and severally liable for the full amount outstanding under the mortgage as detailed above. 9. On the 17 September 2007 the Govenor [sic] and Company of the Bank of Scotland ('the Bank') was registerd under the Companies Act 1985 as Bank of Scotland plc. Also, on 17 September 2007, by virtue of setion 10 of the HBOS Group Reorganisation Act 2006 ('the Act'), Halifax plc transferred its undertakings (as defined in the Act) to the Bank. By virtue of section 12(19) of the Act, any legal proceedings by Halifax plc may be continued by the Bank. AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS: 1. the sum of £23,516.96 pursuant to details in paragraphs 5 an 6 above; 2. interest pursuant to details in paragrpha 7 above; and 3. costs

Morning Guys, Am assuming penfold is a guy, but I don't know why...apologies I've been up all night researching and drafting a defence of sorts. The Mortgage was with the Halifax....and he wrote to them back in September when letters to HL returned nothing....Halifax have not responded, but will need to check whether he sent that Recorded Delivery or not... The only thing they filed was the form that contained particulars of the claim - there were no supporting papers... Should I write to them again and ask them for the supporting papers under Section 16 practice direction? And prior to the deadline for filing the defence - anyone know how long they would have to reply within? Can anyone answer on the following points raised in my first post ... What is his current position with regard to defending this claim? Particularly as he is sure that he sold the house and even though they have provided copies of a “repossession order” from another solicitors dated 1999 in his name. Given that he is sure he sold the property and has received no previous notification of this alleged shortfall he is inclined not to believe this copy. Could the Halifax have stuffed up and assigned the person he sold the house to, to his mortgage account number? Or given the sale dates in the first completion statement the person who bought the house in 1999 given that they show interest as running from 1991 to 2001 and have charged interest from 2001 in the court papers? Can they claim s69 interest given that even if the house was indeed repossessed in 1999 then the Statute of Limitation should apply to their ability to add interest to the debt if proven, but I’m not altogether sure on this one. According to the 2nd “amended completion statement” the original mortgage was for £29,800, payments of 14.7K were made and interest was added between 28/6/91 and 17/11/99 (although the first statement said between 28/6/00 and 17/11/99) of £17.6K. It shows sale of the property as £23K, which was undersold in my opinion, in 1999 (although the first statement said 2000), with insurance costs, solicitors costs, etc etc being added. Am I right in thinking that assuming the house was indeed repossessed then under s24 of the statute of Limitations Act 1980 they cannot claim for the recovery of the solicitors fees, etc etc as they are time barred. There would also appear to be one or two insurance policies on the original mortgage account. On the “completion statement” there are costs of £35 for “Additional Mortgage Security Premium” and a debit of £3578.98 and a credit of £1377.91 for “insurance premiums”. Should these not have covered any mortgage shortfall debt? And, if the insurance did cover the mortgage shortfall debt would their trying to reclaim the money paid out on the insurance premium not now be time barred? Could he also consider a counter claim for underselling the property in the first place? Why are they claiming interest in the court papers from November 2001 – and not from November 1999 if they believe that they have a valid claim? - this has been answered by Sequenci - apparently the are statute bared from claiming anything older than 6 years... Anything anyone can offer by way of insight would be great....what I find coincidental is that count1's claim is around the same time frame, and for around the same amount - were HL given a bunch of statute bared accounts that they've decided to chase anyway - in the hope that ignorance is a money spinner? Regards, Jo

All POSTS BY ME ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE Hi ChloeJane, Thanks for the information - about as clear as mud now.... The problem is that my friend was not even aware that the property had been repossessed - he has since owned 3 other properties, been on electoral registers at each, and had no notification from anyone regarding an alleged shortfall debt. He feels like he's between a rock and a hard place.... He can't admit an allegation when he did not know of it and he can't counterclaim for any underselling on the property, argue that the action/interest is statute barred, etc., without mortgage payment information Why do they not have to comply with Rule 18 - from what I have read they are already in breach of CPR pre action protocols 4.2 a etc - is it that only a judge can make a request under Rule 18? Sorry I know I'm a pain - will end up converting my degree to a law degree by the end of all this! Regards, Jody, p.s. Here's my plan of action: Tuesday 11 December: Send off an S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) to Halifax with £10 fee Wednesday 12 December: file an Acknowledgment of Service - extends deadline to reply to 28 December. Thursday 20 December see what information is forthcoming from HL. Thursday 27 December file defence I have already sculped what I could from Count1's defence. Will post both Once I've received a response/no response from HL....although I appreciate that this will be near to christmas and fewer people will be around, but I think it would be better if I could state in the response that I had no received a response to my request for further information. I appreciate that this is not ideal - but I'm sure HL read these forums and I don't particularly want to give them a heads up on any defence before its filed - if that makes any sense whatsoever - or am I just being paranoid??

All POSTS BY ME ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE hi CJ, Thanks for the info above, but I'm completely confused now....A court summons has been issued...in which I have another 4 days in which to ask for a further 14 days to prepare a case. The letter I sent above I sent as part of disclosure - how can I assess whether a debt is owed, or the amount of that debt if I am not in possession of the above information. Furthermore how can I assess any counterclaim, particularly if I find that this has been disclosed to other banks/agencies without a proven debt... If I send an S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) they do not have to reply for 40 days - and I need it within 10 if I am to make any kind of assessment or defence within the time limits set by the court. I believe that much of the points in my attachment above are necessary in order to make this assessment - my friend was not even aware of the alleged shortfall debt until January 2007 - some seven an a half years after they state the property was repossessed. And around 12 years since he left the property. Can they file these papers without providing any proof? And how can anyone provide a defence if they do not have any of the paperwork? Whilst I am happy to send £10 and request a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) (I assume that I send this either to the Halifax, or the Bank of Scotland - but am not sure which) - how do I get my hands on the mortgage account details, the sale of property details, the letters notifying me that there was a shortfall debt etc etc NOW... Any advice would be appreciated. Jody

All POSTS BY ME ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE Here goes with the letter sent... to the solicitors asking for more information. Friends address 10 December 2007 Solicitor’s Address By Fax and Recorded Delivery Halifax Customer services by Recorded Delivery Bank of Scotland addressee to be advised by solicitors Dear ******, I do not acknowledge any debt to your company or to any company you claim to represent. I have received a Court claim filed by your company in *** County Court reference number ********. Given that this matter is now the subject of legal proceedings, I request that you disclose to me, under Part 18 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the information and documents detailed in the attached document. Under the Civil Procedure Rules; Part 18, I require this information to be furnished to me within the next ten days. I must advise you that if any of the above is not forthcoming, then the matter will be reported to the Court as an attempt to frustrate proceedings and deny me the opportunity of filing a defence and counter-claim. Furthermore, a copy of this letter will be provided as evidence to the Court for an Order to enforce your compliance. Please also advise me as soon as possible of a name and address for the Bank of Scotland to whom I should also send a copy of this letter and request, as it would appear that they are the ones now chasing this alleged debt. Yours sincerely, ******* cc. Halifax att. Request for information Request for Information Under Part 18 of the Civil Procedure Rules dated 10 December 2008 Under the above rules I request that you disclose to me all records you hold on me relevant to this case, including but not limited to: a). A genuine copy of any Deed of Assignment, or other documentary evidence (equitable or absolute) that shows that you have any legal authority to pursue this matter on behalf of another company, or in your own right; b). Certified copies of the mortgage application and mortgage deeds; c). A full transcript of all transactions, with dates, including charges, fees, interest, repayments etc., on the mortgage account. d). Full transcripts of all telephone conversations and any notes made in relation to telephone conversations by your company, or by any company you claim to represent. e). Where there has been any event in my account history over this period which has required manual intervention by any person, I require disclosure of any indication or notes which have either caused or resulted in that manual intervention. If you are unable to supply this data because there has been no such manual intervention, then please be so kind as to confirm this in your response. f). True copies of any Notice of Assignment and/or Default Notice that may have been sent to me, including documentary proof of its/their delivery. g). Details of the sale of the property, how was it marketed, by whom it was marketed, how long was it marketed for, details of all offers, when was it sold, who it was sold to, what price it was sold for. h). Documentary evidence of any building or remedial work undertaken at the property together with associated costs i). Full breakdown with documentary evidence of all costs associated with sale of the property /j). … j). Documentary evidence of independent valuations done on the property k).Documents relating to any insurance added to the account, including the insurance contract and terms and conditions, date it was added and deleted (if applicable). l). Full details of any Mortgage Indemnity on the property, together with any claims made, dates paid etc.. m). Details of any collection charges added to the account; specifically, the date they were levied, the amounts, a detailed financial breakdown of how these charges were calculated, and what the charges covers. n). Specific details of any fees/charges levied by any other company/agency in respect of this account and a detailed breakdown of these fees/charges, what each charge relates to and on what date these fees/charges were levied. o). A genuine copy of your client’s Notification to me of their intention to pursue the alleged shortfall debt. p). A copy of any Fair Processing Notice, as required by the Data Protection Act 1998. q). A list of third party agencies to whom you or your client may have disclosed my personal data and a summary of the nature of the information you have disclosed. r). Any other documents you seek to rely on in court. Under the Civil Procedure Rules; Part 18, I require this information to be furnished to me within the next ten days.

Hi Sequenci, Couple of questions: Can you explain section 24 of The Limitation Act (1980): 24:-- (1) An action shall not be brought upon any judgment after the expiration of six years from the date on which the judgment became enforceable. (2) No arrears of interest in respect of any judgment debt shall be recovered after the expiration of six years from the date on which the interest became due. Sorry for being a numpty - what is a judgement - does repossession of a property and the subsequent interest on any outstanding mortgage under that judgement not qualify for this time barred limit? And do I take it that the cml agreement not to persue interest after six years is not admissable in court? Regards, Jody

All POSTS BY ME ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE Hi all….desperate…advice needed…. I've read “Count1”s thread (County Court Summons – Mortgage Shortfall – Advice Needed Urgently, please Help” and a friend has a similar problem...which he could really do with some help on points not covered by Count1's thread.... in brief. Bought house with girlfriend in late 80s when they split in 91 he took on mortgage. Sometime in 94/95 (he's crap with dates and paperwork!) he moved out and lived with a girlfriend for a year or so before buying another property. He is sure he sold the first house so he could buy the second one, and has moved house buying and selling a couple of times since. In January 2007 he got a letter stating that he owed a shortfall debt on the first house of c £15,892.28. This was the first he had heard about it. They were very arrogant on the phone threatening to make him bankrupt and then saying they would take the equity in his current home. He responded to the phone call with a follow up letter asking for everything to be in writing. From January to September about 10 letters were exchanged where they insisted he owed the debt, and he by return asked for proof of same. He was told that the house was repossessed in August 1999 and sold in November 1999. He was unaware that the house had been repossessed, let alone that there was a shortfall debt, and when he asked for proof of the debt he was sent a “completion statement” for the woman to whom the house had been sold. When he questioned the validity of this he was sent another completion statement with a Halifax logo at the top. This paperwork said that the house was sold in November 2000 and yet the interest owing on the account ran from June 2000 to November 1999 (i.e. backwards and to the date when according to their first paperwork the house was sold). When he queried this he was sent an “amended” (note: not “corrected”) completion statement, again supposedly from the Halifax in a different layout format and with the dates of acquisition changed to August 1999. In this statement the interest ran from 1991 to 1999. He repeatedly asked for proof of the debt and HL kept saying they had sent “proof”, but he certainly wouldn’t have parted with any money on the strength of the information they sent, particularly with the differing dates/figures/layouts etc etc.. In September he wrote direct to Halifax in exasperation asking them to send the proof of this debt as HL seemed unwilling (or unable?) to do so. He then heard nothing further until receiving a County Court Claim Form last weekend, filed by HL in the name of Bank of Scotland. The “debt” has now risen to £23K in the court papers due to interest under section 69 of the County Court Act (1984) - the odd thing is that they are applying for interest on the shortfall from 27 November 2001… and not 17 November 1999 when they state the repossession occurred. He has been to the Land Registry to see if he can prove when he sold the house, but they have “lost” the files for between 1993-1996. So given this potted history I have a few questions…. What is his current position with regard to defending this claim? Particularly as he is sure that he sold the house and even though they have provided copies of a “repossession order” from another solicitors dated 1999 in his name. Given that he is sure he sold the property and has received no previous notification of this alleged shortfall he is inclined not to believe this copy. Could the Halifax have stuffed up and assigned the person he sold the house to, to his mortgage account number? Or given the sale dates in the first completion statement the person who bought the house in 1999 given that they show interest as running from 1991 to 2001 and have charged interest from 2001 in the court papers? Can they claim s69 interest given that even if the house was indeed repossessed in 1999 then the Statute of Limitation should apply to their ability to add interest to the debt if proven, but I’m not altogether sure on this one. According to the 2nd “amended completion statement” the original mortgage was for £29,800, payments of 14.7K were made and interest was added between 28/6/91 and 17/11/99 (although the first statement said between 28/6/00 and 17/11/99) of £17.6K. It shows sale of the property as £23K, which was undersold in my opinion, in 1999 (although the first statement said 2000), with insurance costs, solicitors costs, etc etc being added. Am I right in thinking that assuming the house was indeed repossessed then under s24 of the statute of Limitations Act 1980 they cannot claim for the recovery of the solicitors fees, etc etc as they are time barred. There would also appear to be one or two insurance policies on the original mortgage account. On the “completion statement” there are costs of £35 for “Additional Mortgage Security Premium” and a debit of £3578.98 and a credit of £1377.91 for “insurance premiums”. Should these not have covered any mortgage shortfall debt? And, if the insurance did cover the mortgage shortfall debt would their trying to reclaim the money paid out on the insurance premium not now be time barred? Could he also consider a counter claim for underselling the property in the first place? Why are they claiming interest in the court papers from November 2001 – and not from November 1999 if they believe that they have a valid claim? Sorry I know this is rambling, but I hope my query points are clear…if anyone can advise on the above I would really appreciate it. I will also post a copy of the letter that was faxed and sent via recorded delivery today under this post, in which information under Section 18 of the Civil Procedure Rules, has requested. I think I’ve covered everything, but again if anyone knows of something else I should have asked and didn’t I’d be grateful for a heads up! p.s. This is a fantastic website – it give’s one hope that things aren’t as bleak as the solicitors tell you on the ‘phone, and also some cold comfort that you’re not alone.

Hi Fermi, yup, I'd read that before - but there is no specific mention of whether they can file and add interest to a debt under s 69 of the County Court Act. Any one know where this one stands legally.... Cheers, Jody 123

anyone help with this one??

Hi Sequenci, seeing as you answered my pm I'll provide you with some info on Macs V PCs - something I do know about...basically because I would NEVER, EVER go back to PC, except for testing out websites where the internet platform is pc based and I can do that from a Mac... I would go for a MacBook Pro if you can afford it, or a Mac Book see the following link for Apple Store UK... Apple Store - U.K. - MacBook There are lots of free aps included in the price of all Apple Macs, but if you can afford it then also go for Logic studio which is not only very affordable, but also comes complete with a self standing great GUI program called "main stage" which is solely for live performance (though it depends what you need your computer to achieve during a gig as this is mainly a high end sound module and guitar effects rig. That said - if you wait I would suggest doing so until January - Apple are rumoured to be bringing out new laptops then. This means either a better product for you, or this years laptop at a heavily reduced price. Regards, Jody

Post deleted - there may be spies!!!!!