IMHO I do not think a set aside would do you any good, as it would just mean they would sort the figure out and then re apply the CO. BUT I do not see any reason for you now not to claim back the PPI and actually receive a cheque (they cannot offset it as it is now a Judgment debt) The cash in your hand may actually be better than reducing the debt by x amount (even if you put it in the bank)

My highlight In THIS case the Claimant is NOT depending on the DN at all - they accept it was invalid

original POC, amended POC and WS are all on the thread. Claimant accepted DN was invalid and therefore claim did not rely on it at all They are claiming that their benefits did not cease at termination (accepted) what is being argued is the amount they are entitled to at Common Law at terimation i.e. at the point of termination, whatever was lawfully owing became a simple debt But how much was that simple debt?? It is actually a very interesting argument ....

Ok, so they terminated - that is agreed The DN was invalid - that is agreed The claim is made NOT ON THE BACK OF A DN or relying on a DN at all - important point!! The claim has now been made purely as a Common Law debt - fair enough The BIG question is what is lawfully owed?? With a CCA the creditor is NEVER entitled to earlier repayment of any sum (Unless by way of service of a valid DN or valid notice of termination giving requisite notice etc etc - and even teh latter is a bit dodgy) SO imho at the end of teh agreement, creditor had not become entitle to repayment of teh capital or the balance, but only sums already due to that point. Now please argue against me, but back up arguments with facts rather than just opinions. I have stated why I think teh creditor never became entitled to more than arrears at termination. I accept that by Common Law that amount is owing, however I do see how any more can be owing

Ok, the posts by Docman and emandcole are still relelvant They wouls still need to apply to have the stay lifted and pay the fee, the case would then be tranferred to your local Court and the AQs sent out. Now, IMHO what you need to do is BEFORE the AQs are due in you should make an application for the Claimant to re-plead their case with a fully particularised POC AND to file and serve the relevant docs AND for you to file and serve a fully particularised defence. At this point in the proceedings CPR31 is still effective and you should take advantage of that, once it is on the SCT much of the meat is taken out of the CPR. You do nee to respond to the letter, the '6 yr thing' with the statements is ridiculous of course they have access to all of them!! and the various other points need responding to. One thing I would caution against is that the arguments are getting very messy. You need to try and be very clear and concise about what you want and why. The results of the SAR are good for you as they confirm no LBA and various other points you have already raised. (Either that or they have to admit to breaching DPA!) Good luck

Well, IMHO you can only make that decision on what went on on Friday, the amount awarded and the argument used for that amount. It may be that you will need a full transcript of the hearing to properly assess the situation. Remember that anybody's opinion, not backed up by caselaw or Law itself is just that opinion, some will remind others of that all the time, whilst some may well forget to remind readers that they are offering an opinion rather than fact. I for one know how you took this case on and you were aware of the fact you were 'pushing at boundaries' Of course the other side were also fully aware of every aspect of your argument before you walked into the room, which is also a distinct disadvantage. This case tested a theory put forward over several years - is that theory dead? maybe, maybe not, difficult without a transcript to really know how solid an argument there was. Just my rambling thoughts ....

I can't see any harm is submitting a WS showing the clear facts. KEEP IT SIMPLE though otherwise it will just look messy and it will be overlooked. Stick to the clear facts. It may just delay the CO, you may end up reclaiming the PPI separately (can't see why that should not be possible) Then you'd get a cheque for it. Very murky waters IMO - you really need to seek out some 'qualified advice'

I thought when it came to pushing "The car in front is always a Toyota" Always happy to give you a push in my Landie

TBH, the last app for strike out resulted in an 'or else' order The Claimant has merely submitted further copies of the same documents rubbished by the DJ The letter was merely to emphasize that fact The Court SHOULD now automatically Strike Out the claim. I would wait for a little while and see if there is any action by the Court - if your deadline looms then another app in If you do make another app you don't need a hearing as it will be a paper exercise for the Court

AND, if the other side were represented by Counsel they should have pointed that out .......

Cool :8 I knew this had been dealt with at length just couldn't put my finger on it. Hopefully PH can get the advice and support of a crack team of Pros she requires to see another creditor off at Appeal Obviously once the details of the Judgment are known etc

Ok, so foot has now been placed. You could always reply stating that although the application form would have been good, you do recall signing the application form. You should ask for a copy of the original executed agreement as, although you remember signing some sort of application form, you have no recollection whatsoever of signing an executed credit agreement...... only if that is true of course ...... I have an account with LTSB of a similar age and I certainly cannot recall having signed ANYTHING other than the original application form ...

Application for strike out. £40 without hearing

IMHO you cannot refuse to accept the set-aside agreement if costs are reserved. The Court would still award the set aside, but the other side would (quite rightly) argue that you are wasting their time by not agreeing without taking it to Court. You would then be in the position of winning the set-aside but liable to their costs in teh application. Same reason they are agreeing without a hearing they KNOW you will get it so if they insisted it went to a hearing they would be clobbered for costs. Costs reserved is normal - i.e. the loser at the ends pays all jmho though

On your AQ I would also attach a Draft Order - check out PT's N149/150 AQ thread In that draft Order you would be asking for the Claimant to be Order to submit a fully particularised POC File an serve a true copy of the agreement relied upon True copies of any Default Notice relied upon Statements showing all credits and debits to the account since inception or any other way of proving the amount claimed If the Claimant complies then the Defendant shall have a further 28 days to submit a fully particularised defence Should the Claimant not comply then the claim will be Struck Out without further Order or something like that - that will also cover your defence being ammended You need to ensure you get across the fact that you have asked for the information from the claimant both informally and formal via a CPR31 request. They have ignored your requests and you can enclose the CPR reply as evidence. You can say that you think that they are obstructing you from considering the claim properly by purposely not mentioning any documents in their POC. Sorry not very clear feeiling like cr@p today

right you HAVE already submitted a defence then Get the S78 off hopefully PT can advise best course re getting a proper defence in. App for permission? or just use the AQ but that may be too wooly at this stage???

have you had an AQ form for you to fill in?

you will have to apply for permission to amend your defence as what you filled in the form with has been taken as your defence -- my reasoning for the S78 request is to put a block in place against a Summary Judgment and to slow things up a bit and try and buy you some time

hmm, so, this has got to AQ stage without a decent defence, yet the Claimants have no paperwork. Right, I would get an S78 request off tomorrow as a starter (unless you have already sent one - I haven't read the thread yet I will tomorrow) Check out CPR31.12 to get more info out of them I'll be back tomorrow

subbing

I do have these which may be handy Goode - VIII_Service_of_documents.pdf Goode - Default_Notices.pdf

Interesting quote - but even key sentences of it do not appear anywhere on the web except on this site ..... That is pretty unusual in itself. Unless someone on here has access to LexisNexis you could go and ask on 'that other site' (LB) for help as I know there are posters on there with access

That's a perfect example of what IS covered by WP!! It is a genuine attempt at a settlement - whether you can afford it or not is not part of the criteria. So, the answer to that one is no and you also cannot mention the details of the offer. You *could* say something regarding your own offers and state that they were not accepted

If the correspondence is part of a genuine attempt to settle the dispute then no, you cannot. IF the letters are NOT part of a genuine attempt at settlement then yes, but you should take advice and tread carefully as you would need to show very clearly why their privileged status should be revoked. If it was to show an 'Unfair Relationship' then that could be good reason. Claimants seem to think sticking WP on nasty letters means that the defendant won't use them against them........ and yes I have done it and yes it works in practice as well as theory ------ Just to add - I am not up to speed with your thread and you are far better off relying on Andy's advice as to what you are able to do with resepect to the stage of the claim etc etc I was answering in general

If you PM the quote to one of use I am sure we can find it - if it's to keep it away from guests, attach the quote to a post as a pdf - it is then not available to guests or, as I said PM it OR if you know someone at Uni then ask them to find it for you on LexisNexis