I will try to keep this brief: We were in financial difficulty and so in July 2012 we gave the keys of our house back to the bank as voluntary repossession and left. We moved from England to Scotland and started afresh. Around xmas time my wives parents forwarded mail from the council to us which was a bill for council tax. I wrote on the bill that we had given the house back to the bank and they should pursue them, and sent it back to the council. Fast forward to October 2013 and we get a letter direct saying we hadn't paid the council tax and that fees had been added. I wrote back telling them exactly what I had written previously. It's been to and fro since then, with them acting like they are above the law. They haven't sent any bills marked Reminder of Final Notice to our address (or any address). They haven't sent any letters before action to our address. They haven't sent any letters giving us a date for the hearings. They haven't sent any letters regarding action after obtaining liability orders - which were apparently gained on the same day as the summons'. They haven't sent any liability orders to us - either a council construct or an original legal document. They even admitted failing to send them to me - they claim to have sent things to our previous address. They instructed bailiffs to contact us - even though we're now in Scotland and this is not allowed. I've complained and pulled them up on loads of stuff but they are trying to fob us off. I have also explained that we haven't paid anything because we simply don't have any money - we wouldn't have given our house up if we had money!!! It seems that because I'm standing up to them they are now saying that they are going to the magistrates and asking for a warrant of commitment and recommending we are sent to prison. This seems like they know they're in the wrong and are just trying to punish us for standing up to their bully boy tactics. I am going to put in an escalation to the complaint today and say that because none of the letters they say they sent were to our current address then the law says we haven't received them and as such they should set aside all summons/liability orders etc. I've seen it suggested somewhere that I can ask the magistrates to set aside the liability orders because of this. Any thoughts on this? How do I go about getting a magistrate to set aside liability orders?

I am going to try to make this as brief as possible: We gave the keys back to the bank in July 2012 and left the property. They subsequently (in September 2013) started repossession proceedings which granted them a possession order on 18th October 2013. can anyone tell me if, once a possession order is granted, if that means that all rights and responsibilities then transfer to the bank? Our problem is that the local council are trying to get council tax and are saying that we are still liable.

Hi Costa / Foolishgirl I thought that with the AQ, the date is the 19th April. I will look at it later today and try to complete it. I may put it in quickly to get it out of the way. As for the n244, I will get a copy of it and have a look but I don't have £7.50 right now let alone £75, lol. I might have a look to see if there is any help for people on Employment Support Allowance. I tried to follow your thread Costa (as well as a few others).....I've noticed how 'they' always seem to be able to get a lot of leeway when they don't comply and just do what they like......second, third, fourth bites of the cherry.......so much for the justice system complaining about cases taking too long to get to trial and taking too long when they get there.....if they we're as strict with companies and their representatives as they seem to be with individuals they'd have no reason to complain! As for common sense, you don't need to look to far to see many examples of lack of common sense within the 'justice system' so I'm not going to take anything for granted until it finally finishes..... Just have to look at the bank charges thing....they were told they had no right of appeal but still somehow they did and then after losing so many times and in the face of common sense and fairness, they win and the OFT give up.....something seriously wrong there! Anyway, thanks for all your help it is appreciated

Hi Everyone Just got an allocation questionnaire from the court. I think it might be time to submit a strike out application as they haven't responded to my CPR request and I've not been told of any change to the original PoC. Foolishgirl could you help please

The CMC is 7th May so a while away but every little thing like this helps me.....it'll be quite funny if I'm there and they are not (as it says in the schedule they sent to me they aren't available on the 7th May). It's quite useful that it quite clearly shows them receiving an email from me because they can't say that the email address is wrong (and they haven't included an email address on any of the court documents) and it can be proven they have received it if they try to deny it. Unfortunately for them I had to check on things like this in my last job.....as they say 'deleting doesn't usually erase something' there is always a trail unless you destroy the computer system and everything linked to it and I don't think their ISP would be too happy to destroy all their equipment and files, lol.

I've just spoken to an advisor at the court and they haven't submitted a new PoC yet and tomorrow is the day by which I requested they respond to my CPR request.....

Well seven days since I emailed my request to inspect documents and also sent a letter by post and yet no response. I'm sure they'll try to wriggle out of it somehow (I couldn't afford to send it by recorded delivery so they might try to make out they haven't received it - although how they deny receiving an email is going to be a good one....especially as their transaction log shows them as receiving the previous email I sent to them).

Well I've just emailed Morgans with the request. It'll also be in the post to them. If they try to make out that it should have been sent to cabot I'll point to the fact that on the claim form it says all correspondence to Morgans and on the disclosure statement it doesn't include who has made the statement. I think that maybe at the CMC I need to point out the finding from the Wilson case where they quite clearly stated that as companies have an advantage in the fact that they can access legal assistance easily (and in the case of cabot they have their own in-house solicitors) the onus is on them to do everything to the letter of the law....then go on to point out how they have not (in respect of the legal process rather than detail of the case) and conclude that not only does this show a lack of respect for me but also to the Law.....be interesting to see how they think they'll manage to worm out of that... then of course there's the flaws in many of their statements and the actual lack of a real agreement, DoA, etc

Thanks for that...would've been sooner but having a nightmare trying to get the internet to work I've adpated my letter which I'll email them shortly and post tomorrow too. I've just had a quick read through those documents vjohn...makes interesting reading.....I think they've failed on 31.10 (7) as they haven't identified the person making the statement or why he is making it.

This is what I think I'm going to email to them (as well as send a copy letter): My ref: Document Inspection Request - 1 Morgan Solicitors 5 Mitchell Court Castle Mound Way Rugby CV23 0UY Dear Sir / Madam Please note to avoid any doubt that this is a: Formal request to inspect original documents as per the Order issued by District Judge Sarah Richardson, 26th February 2010 in relation to claim no. XXX I require the original documents listed below; as stated in your disclosure statement, to be made available for inspection: The credit agreement for the capital one account The credit agreement for the monument account The Deed of Assignment for the capital one account The Deed of Assignment for the monument account The Notice of Assignment for the capital one account The Notice of Assignment for the monument account I suggest that the central library in Grimsby is a convenient place for me to view these documents. Please confirm when you will be presenting them for examination as per the aforementioned Order. Regards Short and to the point, any opinions?

I've just noticed whilst looking through their list that it says a 'copy representation of the NoA' for each account. In other words they don't have an original and they are relying on those templates contained within the account sale agreements. I've also had a quick read of the post you mentioned, that's quite interesting. Am going to go write them a little letter now I think I'll suggest they bring them to the main library in the town as it's very close to the court and offer them the opportunity to suggest an alternative; such as a solicitors office, in the town centre. Should I mention that I want to see original documents (as requested in my CPR18) not copies, or wait to see how they respond?

Hi FG I'll put something together and post it tomorrow as well as send them an email. I'll have a read of the thread you suggested before I continue. I sent my CPR18 request to them before the track allocation. Don't worry Haditup, it helps me and possibly others to follow (because I don't think I'll be the last) as it's likely they'll behave in the same or similar manner with everyone.

Here is the link to the remaining docs: [url= ][/url]

I'm going to have another go at getting my scanner working and I'll scan it and any other documents that I still haven't scanned yet. My view; without any other knowledge, is that if a document hasn't been signed it isn't in effect, therefore technically they haven't complied with the order. Briefly reading the post from hadit, it makes it even more interesting....I could see this 30 minute case management conference being either very short or very long. It is N265 that they have used. Both this disclosure statement and the cpr18 response is very amateur.......

That's what I thought but it clearly says: 1. Pleadings common to both parties. 2. Correspondence common to both parties etc lol

Hi FG I have sent my diclosure statement to them. On theirs it says pleadings common to both parties.....what does this mean? They haven't signed it either!

Hi Everyone, Still struggling a bit today but thanks for everyones help. There seems to be a lot to go at. I'm not sure what the case management conference is about but I think that's the next step. It says on the order 'the claimant shall seek to agree with the defendant, and file and serve at least four clear days before the case management conference: a) a case summary b) a statement of the issues to be determined by the court' I wonder if I'll even hear from them? In their allocation questionnaire they asked for a stay of a month to attempt to resolve yet haven't contacted me! Does this mean if they send me a pile of rubbish (which is highly likely judging by their cpr18 response) I can tell them no I don't accept this? What would happen then? I think I will need to get the basis of my arguments together by then. I think if I work through each point of the CPR18 response that will be a good start (as it looks like that is full of holes) as well as anything supporting the defence I submitted. I am going to scan the order and their disclosure statement because the order says 'the parties shall give each other standard discosure of documents by serving copies together with a disclosure statement' and I think they have not included all the documents listed on their disclosure statement (which is what I believe it means), just the CPR18 response.

Hi Everyone, just managed to finish scanning, covering personal info and uploading...here is the 'set' at: cpr18 response - a set on Flickr hopefully this should give you access to the full 33 pages that I've scanned, I've added a couple of notes etc to them. My most recent employment may have a bearing on some of my notes but I think it best if I only reveal that via pm. I notice that a lot of info has been posted this afternoon....I'm going to have a flick through it in a little while and then hopefully go through the comments relating to the info they have provided and try to work from there. I have sent a defence in and since that I have received the order to disclose and notice of a case management conference. I will copy those documents if you think it pertinent. I wish I'd known more at the very start, but I'm learning Now for some coffee and painkillers (am full of cold and am recovering from abdominal surgery a couple of weeks ago). Thanks everyone for looking in and commenting / helping

Hi Vjohn/donkey I'm going to scan up as much as I can and will be back later! I agree with the arrogance thing as from the start it was we will pick what laws we apply and only the bits that support us....as I pointed out to them the holes in their arguments they then change their tune. At first they didn't have to abide by the CCA 1974, then it was we have sent the agreements but out of time so we can now do x, y and z....etc etc Again I don't mind if they know that I use CAG, like you said if they are watching (and I think they are because in their transcript they mention that I said I use this forum) and they proceed when they know they don't have a case it prejudices them for this case and any others. It may also leave them open to being made a 'vexatious litigant' which is something that I may just have to investigate further in the future as this may cause them some serious problems.

1. Suggest you PM Vint1954 to ask him to look at whether these accounts have been terminated. This is important and Vint usually has the answers. Selling a debt does not automatically mean termination - otherwise the factoring industry would collapse! Will do. 2. I'm not happy about a combined claim. Through the CPR, are you now clear as to how the amount claimed has been reached - to the penny? Need a proper legal brain on the claim combination issue - Morgans are making a balls up by doing this in quite a few cases at present - seems to be a trend they've started, maybe to try and save money. It looks accurate but it seems strange that they claim that they can continue to add interest as they have an agreement but they only add interest on the monument account. 3. The T&Cs supplied for the Monument account are Monument's own, dated June 03, and not the ones in force when you took the card out in May 2002. You need the originals and should demand them. Can you recall if any T&Cs had been provided to you when you actually signed the app forms? If not, Carey v HSBC from the Manchester case could be useful. I have never received T&Cs for either account. I noticed that the were not the T&Cs from the date of the account application in addition they said monument whereas the company was providian at the time. I thought that might be useful. Will look at Carey. Strangely though in the CPR18 response they have managed to find a copy of the providian T&Cs. 4. Did you ever receive a formal demand for each account or letters before action? I think you've hinted you did not. Was there any other correspondence prior to the claim than that posted on here already? The only correspondence received was constant 'you owe us x amount please call us to arrange payment' as shown on here. No formal demands or LBA's have been sent apart from that one morgan sent (as posted) regarding monument where they witter on about pre-action protocols etc....even though they haven't complied themselves. 5. In the distant past, can you remember receiving a Default Notice regarding either account from the original creditors? Have you checked your credit file to see when any defaults were registered? Also, did you receive any letters telling you your cards had been stopped? Have you sent a SAR to both OCs to get info on letters sent and full statements? I've never received a default notice for either account. I have some credit file reports so I will check them. They also state in their info when info was passed to cra's. No letters received telling me cards had been stopped. I haven't sent SAR's to either OC, I am so broke at the moment I don't have the money to do that right at the moment. 6. Do you have a copy of the NoA re the Monument account? I have the copy that they (morgans) sent to me as part of the cpr18 response. 7. Re the Cabot/Kings Hill No 1 issue. On 15 Jan 2007, Kings Hill (No 1) Ltd changed its name to Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd. At exactly the same time, Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd changed its name to Kings Hill (No 1) Ltd. What date was the Monument debt sold to Cabot? If it wasn't prior to 15 Jan 2007, then Cabot Financial (UK) does NOT own the debt and there is no cause of action. These facts may bring up some discrepancies in the Deeds of Assignment, which you must get hold of and let us see - these could be crucial to ownership and cause of action. It says on the copy of the 'account sale agreement' 'dated 1st November 2006'. However the sheet where barclays and cabot have signed isn't dated and neither is the second schedule which describes form of offer. This makes reference to 2007 about the agreement dated 2006 but the actual dates have not been filled in. I will try to scan as much as I can and then go from there.

After fighting with my pc and the internet I've finally managed to complete a summary as follows: The numbers refer to the numbers in the CPR 18 request. In response to request 2 and 3 they refer to Cabot Europe’s action history. In response to my request (4) for a properly executed agreement they have responded by saying they have enclosed a copy of the executed credit agreement. In both cases they have supplied the completed application forms. It is quite interesting that on the providian (became monument) application that it suddenly has underneath it a barcode and the wording credit agreement. The copy cabot sent me quite clearly says application form. I had pointed this out to cabot and also to morgans. I am sure they are aware that an application form can not be an agreement. In contract law a contract can not be formed unless a minimum of three requirements are met in a particular order – offer, acceptance, agreement. It is clear that an application is, or precedes the ‘offer’ stage. In response to my request (5) for a true copy of terms and conditions they have included copies of terms and conditions (with lots of underlining…trying to point out why it meets the requirements I suppose). It is quite clear that these were not on the back of the application form though as they are A4 size. In response to my request (6) for a notice of assignment for both accounts they have included a copy of what was apparently sent to me. Stating that in their action history it says they’ve done it. In response to my request (7) for evidence that a notice of assignment has been received they say they refer to the above paragraphs and submits that the notices were sent to my last known address pursuant to the criterion set out in section 196 of the law of property act 1925. In other words they don’t have proof that they sent it or I received it. I also don’t understand why they keep coming back to this law of property act – in their first ever response they tried to use that to justify themselves. In response to my request (8) for a deed of assignment they have sent redacted copies…again referring to the law of property act in purchasing it. It appears that barclays (monument) sold the account to Kings Hill (no.1) limited….I have never received anything from this company and it is not Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd. Capital One sold their account to Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd. I haven’t gone through each document properly but in flicking through I did notice that the sale authorisation document isn’t actually signed by anyone from capital one. Yet there is included another sale authorisation document which is signed by capital one. It quite clearly looks as someone has quickly added the second one and not removed the first. The person at cabot who signed is the same person but the signature is slightly different so it is not the same document. It also appears that this is a copy of a copy not a copy of an original as in the first sale authorisation document. In response to my request (9) for statements of account they have supplied them including what they have added. It seems peculiar that they have added interest to the monument account but not the capital one account. In response to my request (10) for a formal default notice they say they don’t need to…. ‘a default notice need only be sent to the defendant in a limited number of circumstances’ they then quote section 87 (1) CCA 1974 and then go on to say ‘the claimant avers that sections 87 and 88 apply only where the creditor/claimant wishes to take one of the steps specified in s87(1)(a) to (e). A default notice is not required where the creditor/claimant simply demands repayment of arrears’ and then they say that no default notices were required in respect of the accounts as it merely demands repayment of arrears. Maybe I’m wrong here but in their correspondence there is no mention of arrears, they ask for the whole amount. That isn’t a demand for payment of arrears. In response to my request (11) evidence that DN’s have been sent they say they don’t need to because they’ve established that they didn’t have to send DN’s In response to my request (12) true copies of default/termination notices and proof of postage they state they don’t have to send DN’s. They then go on to state that termination notices are not required because the agreements have not been terminated. In response to my request (16) regarding a genuine copy of any notice of fair use of my data as required by the DPA they state that they are unaware that they must provide a notice of fair use of personal data and ask me to draw their attention to the relevant provision in the DPA. They then try to make out that the alleged agreement they have means they can process my data. I personally thought that my stautory request for the agreement and the statement that I did not acknowledge the debt would give rise to the fact that until they provide a properly executed agreement they do not have my consent to process my data. As they defaulted on the request and subsequently breached the act and committed an offence then they have to get an order to make the agreement lawful if they have one. Until that point they do now have my written consent to process my data. Therefore I would think section 10 and schedule 2 of the DPA 1998 applies. I'm not particularly sure where the fair use notice comes in to it unless that means part (3) of section ten where the data controller has to give notice of their intention. 　

I'm going to go through it this afternoon / evening and I might spend some time and scan each page of their response to the CPR 18 request. That way everyone can see exactly what they've put rather than me trying to summarise and possibly miss something important. Then I can go through the points and get the exact part of any acts relevant to each response and deal with it accordingly depending on what they've sent or not as the case may be. I do think a lot of it is to draw attention away from the fact that they only have two application forms and they aren't agreements. In one of the letters cabot sent to me they tried to make out that because it says 'this is a regulated credit agreement under the consumer credit act 1974' and I signed it, then that makes it a properly executed agreement. They are just trying it on.

Thanks costa I've read a lot about the Acts etc in question but very little about the court end of matters. I don't think I've handled my cabot case as good as I could have if I'd read more first but I think it will be OK because they don't have a properly executed agreement for either of the accounts. This natwest one will hopefully be much better! Thanks again

Hi Costa, will have a look at your thread in a little while, sorry for being thick but what is sj/so?

Hi CitizenB I have included those words exactly in the letter and email, directly prior to the 'defence' statement.