All credit to the judge - I think he has gone out of his way to be fair to me. Its an adversarial system after all, and if you don't show up I guess you should expect to lose. Also, just remembered another point - the judge has deferred a decision on costs of the day - probably pending an explanation as to why I didnt show. I'm fully expecting to be on the hook for those.

I asked about that. They were represented by an 'agent' apparently? Asked for a barrister or solicitors name, but she couldn't find one. They had a young (late 20s) barrister from a local law firm at the SJ hearing in December. He was very nice, but seemed remarkably confident of winning considering he didn't know very much about the case. In the hearing he just read out the claimants witness statement. Didn't put up any kind of fight at all. Perhaps it was the same fella?

I must have the luck of the Irish at the moment! Just got of the phone to the court - very nice lady has found the file for me and has read me the judges orders from yesterday. Goes something like this 1. trail be re-listed for next available window 2. Claimant to file and serve a reply to the amended defence within 14 days of today 3. Defendant to file witness statement within 14 days of the new trial date. I will be collecting a copy of the notice from the counter tomorrow. Will post up the exact words as soon as I can Cant help thinking I could have nailed them if I'd been able to present my case. Just glad that littlebert lives to fight another day. I'm a very lucky cagger indeed!!!!!

Just checked the trial notice from last August - it does indeed say the trial is listed for today. I cant understand how I made such a basic error. I booked time off work ages ago - I'm sure I even checked the notice a few weeks ago. I've always had the 11th in mind as the date and nothing made me thing otherwise. I even phoned the court the other day and checked the start time. I phoned the court this afternoon to ask if the trial bundle had been filed. They couldn't find anything, but then one of the clerks checked the diary and noticed that the trial was today - hence the file was with the judges. They couldn't tell me any more, but said to phone back at about 9:30 tomorrow to find out what the judge has ordered. I guess the best case scenario is that Cohens didn't turn up. However, I don't hold out much hope if they did. I'd go to town on them if they didn't show up, so I fully expect them to have done the same to me. I suppose I'll just have to wait and see, but is there anything that I can do if the judgement has gone against me? Do I have any grounds to set aside the judgement or do I just have to put it down to experience and take whats coming?

Thanks, but I don't think I can be that lucky.

Have made the mother of all cock-ups - trial was today. Don't know if cohens attended, but suspect I have blown it. Will check the notice when I get home, but its bound to be my mistake. All the effort and stress just to throw it away with the most basic error. I feel quite sick.

Yes - closer to £9K

They were late complying with the last order - I have the franking sticker that states it was posted 2 days after it should have been served! They also filed their checklist and hearing fee late - only a few days before the standard unless order expired. They have a track record of taking the p. At the SJ hearing they were represented by a young local barrister. Nice fellow, but seemed poorly briefed - not sure if I will be so lucky again. I'll be in work well before the post tomorrow, but will ring the court anyway. As for costs, I already have permission to claim costs for the SJ hearing. I was intending to list all costs up to that point and separately list the cost of an amended defence and trial prep.

I'm in court on Thursday for the trial hearing. Cohens have failed to serve a trial bundle and nothing had been filed at court as of 4PM yesterday. I think I have a good case, but am still worried about playing the judge lottery. Anybody got any tips on how best to deal with the situation where Sir or Madam is not receptive to your case?

Also, does anyone know what the fee is for a counterclaim where you are not claiming for a specified sum of money?

I was going to put this in as a counterclaim (taken from GhostDebt thread): 1. The defendant repeats his defence 2. The defendant counterclaims costs to date, to be summarily assessed in accordance with Practice Direction 48.6 and at the appropriate rate. 3. The defendant counterclaims for damages in relation to the anxiety the harassment of the Claimant has caused the Defendant in accordance with Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970. 4. The court should summarily assess an appropriate level of award for damages. 5. The defendant counterclaims for damages to his credit worthiness by the claimants actions in issuing an invalid default notice and recording inaccurate information with the Credit reference agencies whilst having terminated the account in a manner which is an unlawful rescission of contract. 6. For clarification of the extent to which damages can be awarded the court should make reference to: Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society 1996 4All ER 119; King v British Linen & Co (1899) 1F 928; Wilson v United Counties Bank Limited. [1920] AC 102; Richard Durkin v DSG Retail Limited and HFC Bank Plc; and summarily assess an appropriate level of award for damages. Howver, Im not sure about the damage to credit rating bit - I have just checked CreditExpert and CL Finance are not reporting this account.

Thanks msshaw. I'm not sure that service of the DN is covered by the CPR - this seems to relate to documents served during the course of litigation. I have seen reference to the Interpretation Act 1978 and a practice direction from 1985. Will have a look for this when I get home.

Here is my revised Defence. Any comments would be greatly appreciated... [Header] 1. I, XXX, of XXX, XXX am the defendant in this action and a litigant in person. I make the following statement as my defence to the Claim brought by CL Finance Limited. 2. In accordance with the directions of District Judge XXX made on 21 December 2009, this is an amended defence and counterclaim that supersedes the ‘Embarrassed’ defence filled XXX. 3. The statements made in this defence are in reply and opposition to the Claimants Statement of Claim and the subsequent witness statements of Mr XXX 09 January 2009 4. I Deny that I am liable to the Claimant in the sum of £8xxx.xx or indeed at all. The Agreement 5. I neither admit nor deny that I entered into regulated agreement with MBNA Europe Bank for the provision of a Virgin Money Credit Card, account number xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and put the Claimant to strict proof. 6. With reference to paragraph 3 of the Claimants Witness Statement and the document Exhibited as ‘GSD1’, I require the opportunity to inspect the original document in order to satisfy myself that it exists and was signed by my own hand. 7. If 'copies' of any of the documents referred to in this case are to be relied on in court rather than 'originals', a copy of the Notice of proposal to adduce hearsay evidence required under s2(1) of the Civil Evidence Act 1995 together with proof of the authenticity of the document(s) as required under s8(1)(b) of the Act is required, including but not limited to: a. a copy of the procedure(s) used for copying, storing and retrieving documents; b. a copy of the relevant log entry showing the time and date of the scan or copy, the name of the member of staff making the copy, the method used for copying, storage and retrieval and time and date of destruction of the original document(s); c. copies of internal and external audit reports covering the entire period from the date of the copy to the present to demonstrate that the procedures have been complied with; d. copies of Quality Assurance accreditation certificates covering the entire period from the date of the copy to the present to demonstrate that the procedure(s) and audit process(es) comply with the appropriate quality standards. 8. I would also bring to the courts attention the following: Code of Practice for Legal Admissibility of Information Stored on Electronic Document Management Systems, BIP 0008:2004 (previously PD 0008 ) issued by the British Standards Institution (BSI). This Code of Practice provides guidelines to ensure, as far as possible, that electronic documents and scanned images will be accepted as evidence by the courts. The basis of the guidelines are that process under which documents are managed are as important as the technology used, for example where a document is printed, it should accurately reproduce the contents of the "original". The Civil Evidence Act (1995) introduces a flexible system whereby all documents and copy documents, including computer records, can be admitted as evidence in civil proceedings. A judge will still have to be persuaded to treat that evidence as reliable, therefore organisations will have to prove the authenticity and reliability of the record. The key principles behind BIP 0008 are: Authenticity – Processes to be followed at system planning, implementation and the procedures by which the systems should be operated. Storage and access procedures – Procedures including scanning, indexing, retrieval, system administration, archiving, off-site storage and training, to be followed. Demonstrability of adherence – A structured audit process resulting in a Certificate of Conformity that displays demonstrability of adherence. 9. In light of point 7 above, I therefore put the claimant to strict proof that the documents they are relying upon in this claim are compliant with the key principles of points 7 & 8 above and that failure to supply this proof renders the evidence inadmissible. 10. With reference to paragraph 8 of the Claimant’s Witness Statement, the claimant states that the original document is in the possession MBNA Europe Bank Limited, yet despite claiming to have been assigned the account, they appear to have made no atampt to obtain this crucial document from the assignor. 11. The claimant has failed to adduce hearsay evidence as required by the Civil Evidence Act 1995 and as directed by. As a consequence the document marked ‘GSD1’ should be set aside as per point 9 above. 12. I deny that the copy document exhibited as “GSD1” in the Claimant’s Witness statement of 09 January is an enforceable agreement under the terms of the Consumer Credit Act 13. The documentation which the claimant claims to be relying upon to bring this action must contain the prescribed terms specified in Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) which was amended by Consumer Credit (Agreements) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI2004/1482). The prescribed terms referred to are contained in schedule 6 column 2 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) and are inter alia: - A term stating the credit limit or the manner in which it will be determined or that there is no credit limit, A term stating the rate of any interest on the credit to be provided under the agreement and A term stating how the debtor is to discharge his obligations under the agreement to make the repayments, which may be expressed by reference to a combination of any of the following- a. Number of repayments; b. Amount of repayments; c. Frequency and timing of repayments; d. Dates of repayments; e. The manner in which any of the above may be determined; or in any other way, and any power of the creditor to vary what is payable. 14. The courts attention is drawn to the fact that where an agreement does not have the prescribed terms as stated in point 6 it is not compliant with section 60(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and therefore not enforceable by s127 (3). The courts attention is also drawn to the authority of the House of Lords in Wilson-v- FCT [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul) which confirms that where a document does not contain the required terms under the consumer credit act 1974 and the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) and Consumer Credit (Agreements) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI2004/1482) the agreement cannot be enforced. 15. It is submitted that if the credit agreement supplied falls foul of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) in so far that the prescribed terms are not contained within the agreement then the court is precluded from enforcing the agreement. The prescribed terms must be within the agreement for it to be compliant with section 60(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974. In addition there is case law from the Court of Appeal which confirms the Prescribed terms must be contained within the body of the agreement and not in a separate document . I refer to the judgment of TUCKEY LJ in the case of Wilson and another v Hurstanger Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 299: "[11] Schedule 1 to the 1983 Regulations sets out the "information to be contained in documents embodying regulated consumer credit agreements". Some of this information mirrors the terms prescribed by Sch 6, but some does not. Contrasting the provisions of the two schedules the Judge said: "33 In my judgment the objective of Schedule 6 is to ensure that, as an inflexible condition of enforceability, certain basic minimum terms are included which the parties (with the benefit of legal advice if necessary) and/or the court can identify within the four corners of the agreement. Those minimum provisions combined with the requirement under s 61 that all the terms should be in a single document, and backed up by the provisions of section 127(3), ensure that these core terms are expressly set out in the agreement itself: they cannot be orally agreed; they cannot be found in another document; they cannot be implied; and above all they cannot be in the slightest mis-stated. As a matter of policy, the lender is denied any room for manoeuvre in respect of them. On the other hand, they are basic provisions, and the only question for the court is whether they are, on a true construction, included in the agreement. More detailed requirements, which are designed to ensure that the debtor is made aware, so far as possible, of specified information (including information contained in the minimum terms) are to be found in Schedule 1."" 16. If the agreement does not contain these terms in the prescribed manner it does not comply with section 60(1) CCA 1974, the consequences of which means it is improperly executed and only enforceable by court order. 17. I accept that I made an application for a credit card and that in consequence of that application MBNA Europe Bank Ltd advanced monies to me. 18. With reference to paragraph 9 of the Claimant’s Witness Statement, should the claimant seek to rely upon the fact that they can show that the defendant has had benefit of the monies and therefore the defendant is liable, I refer to and draw the courts attention to the judgment of Sir Andrew Morritt in the case of Wilson v First County Trust Ltd - [2001] 3 All ER 229, [2001] EWCA Civ 633 in the Court of Appeal at para 26: "In effect, the creditor--by failing to ensure that he obtained a document signed by the debtor which contained all the prescribed terms--must (in the light of the provisions in s65(1) and 127(3) of the 1974 Act) be taken to have made a voluntary disposition, or gift, of the loan moneys to the debtor. The creditor had chosen to part with the moneys in circumstances in which it was never entitled to have them repaid;" Statement of Account 19. I deny that a balance of £8xxx.xx is outstanding under the agreement and contend that the copy statements exhibited as ‘GSD3’ in the Claimants Witness Statement include unlawful charges. Furthermore the statements are incomplete and begin with a balance carried forward, the origin of which remains unexplained. 20. The Claimant has failed to comply with the directions of District Judge XXX made on 21 December 2009 by failing to serve “a full schedule of loss, to include a full and complete statement of account including all payments made and charges applied covering the period beginning with the day of the making of the agreement and ending on the date of this order” 21. Documents received by the Defendant on 14 January 2009 included no more than the same incomplete set of copy statements previously disclosed by the Claimant. 22. The Claimant has disclosed limited copy statements however these statements show an opening balance of £6489.72. They do not show how that earlier amount has been calculated. Furthermore, the statements show various ‘default sums’ and fees for which there would appear to be no contractual basis. Consequently those fees are unlawful. Furthermore, the Defendant has no means of ascertaining whether the earlier sums validly accrued. 23. I content that the clause in the alleged agreement under which the account charges have been imposed is, at common law, a penalty clause in that it does not reflect any actual losses sustained by the claimant nor does it reflect realistically any actual costs incurred.(Dunlop Co Ltd v New Garage Ltd [1915] AC 79) 24. The Claimant has not disclosed a copy of the original terms and conditions under which the default charges have been imposed. It is averred that before the court may assess whether the charges imposed are pursuant to a penalty clause that it must consider the position of the parties and indeed the agreement at the date of its’ inception) “The question whether a sum stipulated is penalty or liquidated damages is a question of construction to be decided upon the terms and inherent circumstances of each particular contract, judged of as at the time of making the contract, not as of its’ breach” (per Lord Dunedin in Dunlop v New Garage) 25. The Charges referred to relate to a “LATE DEFAULT SUM”, which is a standard fee of £12 imposed regardless as to whether the payment is one day late, or three weeks late or indeed never arrives. It is averred that in any event the claimant suffers no detriment in late payment in that it continues to charge interest at its’ contractual rate. 26. The second charge is an “OVERLIMIT DEFAULT SUM” which is again charged as a standard fee, this time of £12, which is charged for every month in which an account exceeds the credit limit imposed. Again the fee is charged irrespective of the extent by which the credit limit is exceeded, it is the same fee if the limit is exceeded by £10 or £10,000. The Claimant suffers no actual loss in the sense that the Claimant continues to charge interest on the balance outstanding and consequently suffers no loss. The clause must therefore be penal in nature. 27. Furthermore, the Defendant avers that the clause under which the charges were imposed was an unfair term in a consumer contract and in breach of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and by virtue of regulation 8(1) not binding on the consumer. 28. The Defendant refers to the Office of Fair Trading guidance on this issued in April 2006 in this regard and notes that following an OFT investigation into credit card default charges that the OFT concluded that many credit card charges were unfair. The Default Notice 29. I deny receiving the Default Notice exhibited as ‘GSD3’ in the Claimants Witness Statement until after the start of these proceedings. 30. The Claimant has failed to provide proof of service for the Default Notice as directed by District Judge XXX on 21 December 2009 31. Notwithstanding points 29 & 30, I note that the date on the copy Default Notice is 06 March 2009. If the court wishes to accept this as the date of posting, then service should not be deemed to have occurred before 12 March 2009. Without evidence to the contrary, the class of postage should be assumed to be 2nd class with service deemed to be 4 working days later [Need citation for the Practice Direction] 32. The Default Notice exhibited by the Claimant is invalid on three counts:- a. The arrears include unlawful charges b. The remedy date of 23 March 2009 does not allow 14 calendar days from the deemed date of service (12 March 2009) c. The agreement was terminated by assignment on 20 March 2009 33. I note that to be valid, a default notice needs to be accurate in terms of both the scope and nature of the breach and include accurate instructions on how to remedy any such breach. The prescribed format for such documents 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). 34. 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 also unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the court enforcing any alleged debt, but would also give rise to a potential counterclaim for damages where damage occurs to my credit rating (Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society - [1996] 4 All ER 119). The Assignment 35. I deny that a lawful and absolute assignment has taken place. 36. With reference to paragraph 7 of the Claimant’s witness statement, I do not understand how a deed of assignment dated 29 December 2008 can be used as evidence that the account referenced xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx was assigned absolutely on 20 March 2009 37. The document exhibited as ‘GSD4’ in the Claimant’s Witness Statement contains 3 separate pages. There is nothing to connect the page showing account number xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx with the pages setting out the agreement and its execution by the parties. Furthermore, the date of 20 March 2009 is not shown on any page 38. Under section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 the assignor, or assignee, must notify the debtor in writing and this must be effected in law via section 196 of the Act in order to lawfully attain the right to issue proceedings. The Act stipulates that the notice must be served via registered post which is covered under the Recorded Delivery Service Act 1962. 39. The Recorded Delivery Service Act 1962 states a recorded delivery letter is equivalent to a registered letter and that under the Postal Services Act 2000 (schedule 8 notes any reference to registered post is to be construed as meaning a registered postal service (e.g. Royal Mail recorded delivery or special delivery). 40. I note the Claimant’s assertion that the notice was not “returned undelivered”. However, the Claimant has failed to provide proof of service or proof of posting. 41. The Defendant would like to refer the court to the case, which placed importance on s.136 of the Act, in W F Harrison & Co Ltd V Burke and Another [1956] 2 All ER 169 where it was held: “written notice of the assignment is an essential part of the transfer of title to the debt, and the requirements of the sub-section must be strictly complied with. I think that the notice itself must be strictly accurate, in particular, in regard to the date which is given for the assignment.” 42. Further, and in any event the notice referred to identifies a balance outstanding. That balance includes default charges imposed pursuant to an unfair contract term and/or a penalty clause. 43. I also note that the sum quoted in the Notice of Assignment is £8xxx.xx and that this differs from the ‘Balance Sold’ figure of [£5 less] quoted in the Deed of Assignment. 44. Consequently any Notice served by the Claimant which referred to the alleged balance outstanding would be inaccurate and therefore invalid. 45. As a consequence of its failure to serve a valid Notice of Assignment, the Claimant had no right to bring this action is his own name. Conclusion 46. The claimant has failed to adduce hearsay evidence in the correct procedure and the document purporting to be a Credit Agreement is inadmissible as evidence in this claim. 47. The claimant has not been correctly assigned this alleged account and has no legal right of action for the aforementioned account. W F Harrison & Co Ltd v Burke and another - [1956] 2 All ER 169 refers. 48. The claimant has failed to serve a valid default notice, and the claimant should not be bringing this action before the court. Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain & Co - [1998] All ER (D) 339 in the Court of Appeal refers. 49. In the circumstances the Claimant has no substantiated particulars of claim and no entitlement to claim any of the relief now sought by its claim and it is respectfully suggested that the claim be struck out pursuant to CPR Part 16 Paragraph 7.3(1) and CPR 3.4(2) and judgement and costs/counterclaim be awarded in favour of the defendant. Counterclaim 50. The defendant repeats his defence [need to find a good example of an unlawful rescission counterclaim] [statement of Truth]

Just had another thought about the DN. As cohens are being coy about proof of service, I shall aver that the earliest it could be deemed as served is Thur 12 March as it is dated 6 March (Fri) and they don't specify the class of post, so it should be deemed 2nd class i.e. 4 working days. This makes the DN invalid in itself as only only provides 11 days to remedy the default.

Thanks GD, I've commented against your points below...

Here we go again - Cohen just won’t give up on me. I was on my way to the court this afternoon to file my application to strike out, but popped home to check the post first. To my dismay, there was a bulging white envelope with a Cleckheaton postmark dated 12 Jan (the day after the deadline) . Lo and behold, inside is a Witness Statement dated 09 Jan: ------------- Witness Statement I, xx, Litigation Assistant, of Messrs Howard Cohen & Co, Solicitors for the Claimant, am authorised by the Claimant to make this statement on its behalf. 2. The Defendant is, and was at the commencement of this action, justly and truly liable to the Claimant in the sum of £8xxx.xx. 3. On 3 February 2005 the Defendant entered into a regulated credit agreement with MBNA Europe Bank Limited for the provision of a Virgin Money Credit Card, account number xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. There is now exhibited hereto marked “GSD1”[page1, page2] a copy of the said agreement and the terms and conditions. 4. There is a balance of £8xxx.xx outstanding under the agreement and there is now exhibited hereto marked “GSD2” a copy of the statements for the account showing how the balance has accrued. 5. On 06 March 2009, pursuant to Section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, a Default Notice was served upon the Defendant requiring payment of the arrears to be made, the Defendant having failed to make payment in accordance with the terms of the agreement. The Defendant failed to comply with the same and therefore the agreement was terminated. A copy of the said default notice is now exhibited hereto marked “GSD3”. 6. Service of the default notice was undertaken by the original creditor and after making enquiries with MBNA Europe Bank Limited, we have been informed that there is no record of the said default notice being returned to them as undelivered. 7. By a deed of assignment dated 29 December 2008 an agreement was reached between MBNA Europe Bank Limited and CL Finance Limited for the continuous assignment of accounts for a 6 month period. On 20 March 2009, MBNA Europe Bank Limited assigned this account absolutely to CL Finance Limited. Notice of such assignment was sent to the Defendant on 09 April 2009. A copy of the said deed of assignment is now exhibited hereto marked “GSD4” [page1, page 2, page 3] and a copy of the said notice of assignment is now exhibited hereto marked “GSD5”. There is no record of the notice of assignment being returned undelivered. 8. After making enquiries with MBNA Europe Bank Limited, I have been informed that all original credit agreements are scanned onto their computer systems for future reference and the originals are stored off-site for a period of 6 years from opening as they administer millions of accounts. 9. I therefore, contend that a copy of the original credit agreement is sufficient to show that the Defendant entered into the agreement and has had the benefit of the credit facilities provided to him. 10. In the event that the Defendant fails to file and serve an amended Defence and Counterclaim by 4.00pm on 25 January 2010, we respectfully request that the Defence be struck out and permission be awarded for the Claimant to enter judgment accordingly. Dated 09 January 2010 Postmark 12 January 2010 Delivered 14 January 2010 ------------------- With the exception of the ‘deed of assignment’, all the documents have previously been provided. I will post these up as images linked from the text above when I have finished scanning and redacting them – except the statements, which again only start in 2008. Any thoughts on where to go with this now? Continue to apply for strike out based on late service, incomplete compliance with the orders etc; or should I just get my head down and start formulating a solid defence based on unlawful rescission?

Sorry to bump this again, but there was nothing from HC in the post today and I want to file this application tomorrow. Can anyone offer any comments?

Anyone have any comments on my draft application?

Here we go guys – a draft N244 application for strike out. There seem to be different schools of thought on the format – I’m going for a simple form without a Draft Order or separate WS. Please take a look and let me know if I’m on the right track... 3.What order are you asking the court to make and why? An order that the Claim be struck-out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)© because the Claimant has failed to serve documents and statements as directed by the court order dated 21 December 2009 An order that the Claimants do pay the Defendant’s costs in this application to be summarily assessed. 4.Have you attached a draft of the order you are applying for? NO 5.How do you want to have this application dealt with? WITHOUT A HEARING 8.What level of Judge does your hearing need? DISTRICT JUDGE 9.Who should be served with this application? CLAIMANT 10.What information will you be relying on, in support of your application? 1. At the hearing on 21 December 2009 District Judge dismissed the Claimants application to strike out the Defence and made an order for directions in the case (a copy of which is attached to this application). 2. Counsel for the Claimant did not object to the making of the directions and agreed that the timescale for compliance were reasonable 3. Whilst declining to make an ‘unless order’ as drafted by the defendant, Judge Phillips noted that non-compliance with the order could be dealt with by application without a further hearing. 4. The Claimant has failed to serve the documents as ordered and has not provided any explanation to the defendant 5. The Defendant respectfully requests that the Claimant’s Statement of Case be struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)©

Thats what he does - issues claims in bulk and hopes for default judgement. You need to start your own thread in Legal Issues - title it something like 'Bongo vs Howard Cohen/'. Be sure to post up the Particulars of Claim (your personal details and the reference numbers) and any details of any pre-action correspondence with Cohens, the DCA and/or the Original Creditor. Feel free to look at my thread. Don't let it put you off though - Cohen has been known to give up a lot easier than in my case.

He didn't say I could just phone the court. He declined to make the unless order but said I could apply for strike out without a further hearing. I assume I need to submit an N244 and pay the fee

Do I wait and see if HC stump op the fees and listing questionaire or should I apply for strike out immediately?

anyone?

Sorry for not posting in a while. Quite a bit has happened in the last few months. Just before xmas, I faced Cohens in court for an application hearing. I'm glad to say that I won that one and even managed to get an order for disclosure for free - the orders only came through last week though: I filed my pre-trial quationaire by hand over xmas and this weekend I got this: There was nothing from Cohens in the post today, so they are now in breach of the order made on the 21 Dec. The DJ refused to make the 'unless' order that I had drafted, but said that I could make an application myself if the claimant failed to comply and that this needn't require a hearing. Counsel for the claimant agreed that the timescales were reasonable and that he would notify them immediatly to avoid any delay in drafting/posting the order notice I guess I'm wondering what to do next. Obviously, I would like to apply for a strike out, but I'm quite sure how to go about this. Also, should I give them a few days to allow for postage or should I 'go in for kill' tomorrow? I also believe that I have a strong case against the claimant due to unlawful rescission of contract - the agreement was assigned, and therefore terminated, before the remedy date on the default notice. Should I use this when applying for a strike out? I assume that this would require a hearing whereas the failure to comply with directions is straight forward? The trial is currently listed for 11 Feb.

Thanks Guys. Just to let you know, the judge dismissed the summary judgement and had made the draft orders I suggested. Anyway, the result was what I wanted, but I blew it with the unlawful rescission - I mentioned it, but the DJ didn't seem interested and he was already about to dismiss the application and make my draft orders, so I didn't push it - save to agree that the Deed of Assignment would prove it. I think I blew it because the claimants barrister will now have advance warning of how I intend to defeat the claim at trial. Nice fella, but I reckon he could be dangerous if he spent more than 5 mins looking at the case.