will do...thanks;)

hi 42man i have no idea whats included in the paperwork they have...as i didnt receive anything nor did the court..and it was not shown to me yesterday. it was faxed to the sol that morning. They have been ordered to send me a copy of it within 14 days along with their witness statement. My SAR to egg did not include any of those you mentioned. mj

theres always guests on the Lowell threads...watch out! 2 on this one and 1 on the thread above...

FG i have been following Humble...what a rollercoaster ride and a truely unjustified outcome...i am gutted! Thanks for your kind words...i will now just have to wait and see what the **** cough up! MJ:D

Thanks ODC and FG... I probably wont give in...just feel really cheesed off with it all now..ive gone from one case that lasted a year with two hearings although i did manage to get it struck out! straight to another that i hoped would be over and done with today:( I know there are people far worse off than me on here so i really should snap out of it:D thanks MJ:)

Hey MDAW...how are you and your westie dog? just saw your post on 007's thought i had better not hijack that one with "how are yous"! Yes its not all bad with todays outcome but just wanted it over and done with...you know what i mean im sure! See yours is still hanging in the balance:-o that is the strangest thing! Well hope you had a good xmas and NY and heres to a brighter debt free 2010! regards MJ:)

Hi 00 Excellent news for you...when i was up against Arrow they showed up..! Well dont worry...its set aside now they will have to persue you with a ccj if they want to continue...bit of a long shot but if they do you can set aside just as easily...my hearing was today at 2 for SD set aside...i was not so lucky and mine has been ajourned, so more worrying times for me and the other side showed as they always seem to do (3 times) Go have a large drink and relax for yours is prob over! MJ:)

Hello everyone Well im back...hearing was ajourned:( They sent a lady rep armed with their witness statement and all the paperwork from Egg (apparently)! I of course did not see it. The DJ was a very nice lady..went straight for the other side and asked her "do you have a defence in reply to MJ's set aside?" Rep said yes, its here! DJ: Well.. (lots of huffing) why have i or Mj not got a copy of it? Rep: it was only faxed to me this morning DJ: Thats disgraceful...you have put MJ at a severe disadvantage, show me it! What took them so long? (four months in total)! Rep: Egg had to go into the archives to retreive the paperwork. DJ: this is everything MJ is relying on and she is a LIP you have to make allowences for that, i am going to ajourn you have 14 days to provided mj with a witness statement and everything she has requested, 28 days in total till next hearing. Then to me "mj you dont have to do anything..ok" The dj then pointed out the new manchester case and asked if i am aware of it, i said yes..she then asked me if i was familiar with reasons to get this set aside..i said i was and thanked her, she was kind and smiled at me alot! So thats it...more worry for the next month might give up and give the next hearing a miss cant stand the stress and they prob now have the all the docs...they must be quite confident if they sent someone to court, from most of the threads about lowlife they never show...it had to be me:rolleyes: MJ out!!

All the very best wishes and good luck winging its way from me Humble... my hearing is at 2pm today so i am also feeling very scared! lets hope we both come home with a positive result for our friends on CAG! GOOD LUCK MJ:)

thanks main man and lilly.. just phoned the court but the file has now gone in prep for the hearing...so as of fri nothing received by the court, dont know if anything went in today or yesterday.. wel lets see what happens mj:)

can anyone give me an answer for this post!

Thanks V...bumping for post 178

ok hearing tomorrow:eek: Post just been and still nothing received. Should they not be sending me their response to my set aside paperwork? or will they turn up tomorrow at court with it? or is an SD different, whereas this is not done? Getting very nervous:( wish someone was going with me:( mj:)

thanks 42man all understood...sent my costs off today recorded delivery. Posty has been this morning and still nothing from lowells re: my CCA request, telephoned the court and nothing has been submitted from them. We shall see if anything turns up..or if they send anyone on tuesday;) thank you:D CB for having a tidy up! mj

bump

Blimey Jasper...just peeked in on that thread:eek: didnt realise that was on here...i heard that jackie lambert (think her name is) on the radio bigging up her so called compensation company, they are the real crooks in all this ! what a joke. Good luck northern lass hope sis sorts it out MJ:)

Hi... I heard about this on radio two jeremy vine was disscussing it...let me go find it and will post up for you MJ Here you go... CITIZENS Advice has criticised a Nottingham company in a report about businesses which pursue shoplifters for compensation – often without crimes being reported to police. Retail Loss Prevention, a centre for retail research, features in a report out today entitled 'Civil Recovery: Unreasonable Demands?' The CAB says it has been dealing with increasing cases of clients accused of shoplifting or employee theft who are then pursued for "substantial sums of money" as compensation. It says: "Criminal charges are rarely brought and often the police aren't even called. "In some cases the intent to shoplift is questionable. Clients are then surprised to receive a letter demanding a large sum of money, weeks after the event, when they had thought the issue was resolved. "We believe the manner in which these requests for payment are made, and the threat of escalating costs and court action may constitute 'deceitful', 'unfair' and 'improper' business practice, as defined by the OFT. "Whilst Citizens Advice doesn't condone crime of any kind and does not underestimate the cost to retailers, we believe that if retailers are dissatisfied with the level of governmental action against retail crime, and seek civil redress, they must do so using means that are transparently fair and proper." The report says Retail Loss Prevention was founded in 1998 and its registered office is at Nottingham-based law firm Actons Solicitors. RLP managing director Jackie Lambert said: "Civil law is there for us to take action. "Shoplifting is the one area of crime that has increased where all other areas are decreasing. "Sadly in Britain today people in their homes are having to take more security measures because of things happening. "It is a claim for compensation. If somebody commits a wrongful act you have the right to take out a civil claim to recover the cost that has been incurred."

Have merged a few "bumps" to keep your thread tidy. Your post references above will now be wrong cos your thread is shorter.

bump for post 181 and 186 please:)

Hi, this is a post from my other thread of what my credit file says in regard to this Egg card Right ive just got an updated credit expert done, on the Egg entry it says: Egg banking plc credit card - satifactory/settled **/05/05 Name: MJ address: *** DOB:*** company name: Egg account type: credit/store card started: **/06/02 current balance: settled credit limit: 6000 settled on: **/04/05 file updated:**/05/05 status history: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 ( one late payment) no default showing... ok this is the only egg entry on my file with the CRA, it says settled in: April 2005. The CCA i received from Egg in my SAR says personal loan of £5,*** taken out **th oct 2004 "This loan will be used to pay your existing Egg card." Your new Egg loan APR 5% New loan amount £5*** Why would it have taken 6 months to pay an egg card off with an egg loan, seeing as i have just found on the next page this paragraph.. "please note that your loan money will be paid directly to your existing Egg card account. The new loan amount should be sufficient to repay interest due on your existing egg card account up to the date of closure" something is not right i really do not remember doing this at all....and why would i...for gods sake i was paying the card without any problems!! and please can someone check out my post 181 and advise if i need to send anything else to court. MJ

lilly, To clarify...egg credit card taken out originally, (paid every month no defaults or late payments) then for some reason was changed into an unsecured loan, why i do not know or remember! no the loan cca is not posted was advised not to scan up because of prying eyes! You are probably thinking of my previous ccj/co thread, there the cca was on thread. mj

bump;)

Hi all... ok im sorry but i really need to go over some old ground here for my own piece of mind...below is what i submitted along with my 6.4 and 6.5 for setting aside this SD. I will send in my costs on monday of next week. I have received nothing in response to my CCA request to Lowell,(posted in sept last year) sent account in dispute letter to them. Received my Subject Access Request from egg within the 40 day timescale. They did not include in the Subject Access Request a DN, TN or NOA. got some statements and CCA and ts and cs. Do i need to send anything else to the court?? The Defendant totally disputes the debt. The alleged creditor has not provided a valid notice of assignment The alleged creditor has not provided a legible copy of the agreement that contains the prescribed terms and is executed. The alleged creditor has not provided any compliant default notice as required by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 The alleged creditor has not provided any statements for the duration of the account (it not being uncommon that some debts are made up entirely of excessive charges) The alleged creditor has not provided any proof that the alleged debt has been securitised under English law Under section 78 (1) of the Consumer Credit Act a formal written request for any true copies of signed consumer credit agreements was sent to ******* via recorded delivery on the ********** (see attached document 1 – you need to copy the letter and the recorded delivery slip (take 2 copies) – to date they have not sent any copies of any Consumer Credit Agreements and they are in default of that request under section 78 (1) of the Consumer Credit Act I believe there are no properly executed signed Consumer Credit Agreements SECTION 78 (1) CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1974 (1) The creditor under a regulated agreement for running-account credit, within the prescribed period after receiving a request in writing to that effect from the debtor and payment of a fee of £1, shall give the debtor a copy of the executed agreement (if any) and of any other document referred to in it, together with a statement signed by or on behalf of the creditor showing, according to the information to which it is practicable for him to refer,— (a) the state of the account, and (b) the amount, if any, currently payable under the agreement by the debtor to the creditor, and.. © the amounts and due dates of any payments which, if the debtor does not draw further on the account, will later become payable under the agreement by the debtor to the creditor. The Consumer Credit Act in section 78(6) States that (6) If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with subsection (1)— (a) he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement; It must also be noted that the agreement must contain the prescribed terms. Consumer Credit Act 8.2 What if prescribed terms are missing or incorrect? s127(3) provides that the court may not make an enforcement order unless a document containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor If therefore any of the prescribed terms is missing, or incorrect, the agreement is not enforceable against the debtor, and the court is precluded from making an enforcement order. (N.B - For the avoidance of doubt the 2006 Consumer Credit Act does not change the above legislation…… The Consumer Credit Act 2006 (Commencement No. 2 and Transitional Provisions and Savings) Order 2007 (No. 123 (C. 6)) Citation 1. This Order may be cited as the Consumer Credit Act 2006 (Commencement No.2 and Transitional Provisions) Order 2007. Interpretation 2. In this Order “the 2006 Act” means the Consumer Credit Act 2006. Commencement 3. — (1) The provisions of the 2006 Act specified in Schedule 1 shall come into force on 31st January 2007. (2) The provisions of the 2006 Act specified in Schedule 2 shall come into force on 6th April 2007. Transitional Provisions 4. Subject to article 5, section 1 of the 2006 Act shall have no effect for the purposes of the 1974 Act, in relation to agreements made before 6th April 2007. (cont) 5. Section 1 of the 2006 Act shall have effect for the purposes of the definitions of “debtor” and “hirer” in section 189(1) of the 1974 Act wherever those expressions are used in— a) sections 77A, 78(4A), 86A, 86B, 86C, 86D, 86E, 86F, 129(1)(ba) 129A, 130A and 187A of the 1974 Act; (b) section 143(b) of the 1974 Act in respect of an application under section 129(1)(ba) of that Act; and © section 185(2) to (2C) of the 1974 Act insofar as it relates to a dispensing notice from a debtor authorising a creditor not to comply in the debtor's case with section 77A of that Act, in relation to agreements made before 6 April 2007) REFERENCE TO CASE LAW As the creditor has not provided the credit agreement Wilson v First County Trust Ltd [2003] UKHL 40 states that: ‘….the effect of the failure to comply with the requirements of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 was that the entire agreement ………….. was unenforceable. The statutory bar on its enforcement extended to First County Trusts's right to recover the total sum payable on redemption, which included the principal as well as interest.’ SUMMARY OF WILSON v FIRST COUNTY TRUST LTD (2003) UKHL 40 THE WILSON CASE MADE IT CLEAR THAT IN THE EVENT OF NO ACCEPTABLE CONSUMER CREDIT AGREEMENT THEN THE CREDITOR COULD NOT RECOVER MONIES OWED UNDER ORDINARY CONTRACT LAW REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY COULD PROVE THE DEBT EXISTED OR NOT – THIS WAS THE DECISION OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS AND SHOULD THEREFORE BE BINDING IN THIS COURT The law states that without a prescribed agreement the courts may not enforce under 127(3) and 1.In the case of Dimond v Lovell [2000] UKHL 27, Lord Hoffmann said , at page 1131:- “Parliament intended that if a consumer credit agreement was improperly executed, then subject to the enforcement powers of the court, the debtor should not have to pay.” 2.Sir Andrew Morritt, Vice Chancellor in Wilson v First County Trust Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 633 said at para 26 that in the case of an unenforceable agreement:- “The creditor must…be taken to have made a voluntary disposition, or gift, of the loan monies to the debtor. The creditor had chosen to part with the monies in circumstances in which it was never entitled to have them repaid;” I refer to LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD in the House of Lords Wilson v First County Trust Ltd - [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul) paragraph 29 ” The court's powers under section 127(1) are subject to significant qualification in two types of cases. The first type is where section 61(1)(a), regarding signing of agreements, is not complied with. In such cases the court 'shall not make' an enforcement order unless a document, whether or not in the prescribed form, containing all the prescribed terms, was signed by the debtor: section 127(3). Thus, signature of a document containing all the prescribed terms is an essential prerequisite to the court's power to make an enforcement order.” If the agreements are, as I expect, unenforceable by law or if no written agreement exists, then the respondent was in error when it stated that a liquidated and legally enforceable sum was due to the respondent at the time the bankruptcy demand was issued. DEFAULT NOTICE The Need for a Default notice Notwithstanding the above, it is also drawn to the courts attention that no default notice required by s87 (1) Consumer Credit act 1974 has been attached to the demand. It is denied that any Default Notice in the prescribed format was ever received and the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that said document in the prescribed format was delivered to the defendant Notwithstanding the above points, I put the claimant to strict proof that any default notice sent to me was valid. I note that to be valid, a default notice needs to be accurate in terms of both the scope and nature of breach and include an accurate figure required to remedy any such breach. The prescribed format for such document is laid down in Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) and Amendment regulations the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/3237) Service of a default notice is a statutory requirement as laid out in sections 87,88 and 89 Consumer Credit Act 1974. Section 87 makes it clear that a default notice must be served before a creditor can seek to terminate the agreement or demand repayment of sums due to a breach of the agreement. therefore without a valid default notice, I suggest the claimants case falls flat and cannot proceed and to do so is clearly contrary to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 Failure of a default notice to be accurate not only invalidates the default notice (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain and Co - [2001] GCCR 2255) but is a unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the court enforcing any alleged debt, but give me a counter claim for damages Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119 The Defendant denies that he is liable to the Claimant as alleged in the demand at all. It is averred that the Claimant has failed to serve a Notice of Assignment in accordance with section 136(1), of the Law of Property Act 1925, in respect of the alleged debt. The amount detailed in the Claimant’s claim, which is likely to include penalty charges, which are unlawful at Common Law, Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company Ltd v New Garage and Motor Company Ltd [1915], under The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Accordingly, the inclusion of penalty charges in the purported Notice of Assignment renders it entirely legally unenforceable. The Claimant has failed to comply with section 136(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925, by furnishing a Notice of Assignment in respect of that which is denied, that is inaccurate, W.F.Harrison and Co Ltd v Burke [1956]. The defendant requires sight of the notice of assignment of the debt. In addition the defendant requires proof of service of the Notice of Assignment in accordance with s196 of the Law of Property Act 1925 which is required to give the claimant a legitimate right of action in their own name since it appears this is an assigned debt. the reason the defendant requests this information is inter alia to clarify the dates are correctly stated on all documents , the defendant notes that if there are errors in the assignment it may be rendered in effectual in law per W F Harrison and Co Ltd v Burke and another - [1956] 2 All ER 169 I refer to: Judge Boggis QC - RE AWAN - [2000] BPIR 241 'In my judgment, bankruptcy is one of the most serious forms of execution that can be brought against a debtor. In any bankruptcy proceedings it is, in my view, absolutely clear that the provisions as to service must be followed exactly. - JUDGE BOGGIS QC - SITTING AS A JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT On the above information I request that the demand is set aside and I kindly ask the the judge award my costs in this matter as a LITIGANT IN PERSON. As a lone parent/low income earner/low income family with limited finances I approached a solicitor by phone and asked for an estimate on how much it would cost. I was given an estimate of 3 to 6 hours at £170 per hour to prepare the Application (£510-£1020) plus extra for attending the court. I respectfully request that the court give consideration to awarding these costs on the indemnity basis or, in the alternative, on the standard basis as I believe, in any case, that they have been proportionately and reasonably incurred and/or are of a proportionate and reasonable amount. In support of this request, I would also like to refer the court’s attention to the authority of the High Court in the case of:- Hammonds (a firm) v Pro-Fit USA Ltd [2007] EWHC 1998 (Ch) In this case, Mr Justice Warren confirmed that it was usual for an indemnity award to be made:- 27 So far as disputed debts are concerned, the practice of the court is not to allow the insolvency regime to be used as a method of debt collection where there is a bona fide and substantial dispute as to the debt. Save in exceptional cases, the court will dismiss a petition based on such a debt (usually with an indemnity costs order against the petitioner). thanks MJ:)

***signed***