MODS - Should this be moved to Legal Issues? jockeylad - The first step is to acknowledge service stating that you will be defending all of the claim. This can be done online. Next, you will need to send out some letters requesting information under the Civil Procedure Rules. Exactly what is contained in these letters will depend on the Particulars of Claim. Can you please either scan in the form, taking care to cover anything which will identify you personally, or type out exactly what the Particulars of Claim say? SH

OK. We don't seem to be having a great deal of success trying to get the big guns involved in this, so I will just give my interpretation of it. We have two problems. One is the defence, which needs to be submitted soon, but not with great urgency. The other is the CPR letter or letters, which need to be sent off urgently, as it is important that Crapbot are in default of your requests when the defence is submitted. To get an idea of possible defences, we have been referred to this thread - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/156156-help-mum-being-taken.html#post1665130 The problem with this is that there are two totally different types of defence listed here. The defence in the first post is a "traditional" one, in the model of the defences created by pt2537 which we have used in the past. In post No. 4, x20 has given a much shorter defence which directly refutes the Particulars of Claim. It has to be noted that there is one very distinct difference between the PoC in the thread which is linked to, and the one here. There are account numbers specified on this PoC. There is one general principle which I think we need to bear in mind. It is a far lesser sin to put too much information in a defence than too little. If the embarrassed defence does not contain reasons for a denial, as per Section 16.5 of the CPR, then surely there is a great risk that the claimant will try to have the defence struck out. If, however, the "heavy" defence of the traditional type contains too much information, what is lost? As long as the allegations in the PoC are denied, and the claimant put to strict proof, does it matter if there are extra points of case law involved? It is not as though you are flagging to the enemy anything they don't know already. If I was defending this case, and I don't think there is any doubt that I soon will be defending a very similar one, I would be looking to craft a defence along the lines of the one in the first post. Looking through the DCA Legal Successes section, I see many cases being won with this type of defence. Unless there is a good reason to depart from the proven, don't do so. It also has to be remembered that x20 has a great, and possibly unequalled on this site, knowledge of the law and court process. He may well be able to put in this kind of "skinny" defence, and use it to its fullest potential. We are not in that position. We are not expert, trained litigators. We need to put in a full defence which we can feel happy in referring to, and trying to convince a judge that we fully understand the relevant case law. There is also another factor here which needs to be considered. Showing the enemy that you have a full knowledge and understanding of the relevant case law may just make them back off. I know that earlier in the year I prepared a defence, and then an AQ, with the deliberate intention of showing that every possible point of law would be used in proving that no debt was legally owed. The claimant discontinued. Admittedly, that claimant was one with a history of bottling out, and I seriously doubt that Crapbot will do that. Nevertheless, I don't see any harm in hitting them early with case law that they will simply not have an answer to. There is still time to prepare the defence, so any comments are welcomed. If you think I am an idiot, please say so. I am only here to try to get the most effective defence submitted in this case. Now, to the CPR letters. The problem here is that I have never seen a claim form where two claims have been merged before. I do not know off hand if there is a special requirement in dealing with this situation. In the absence of specialist knowledge, here is what I would do - The CPR 31.14 letter you have printed in post #25 should be sent exactly as is. Although the pitiful PoC do not directly refer to the agreements or the assignments, they are referred to indirectly. This is enough justification for a CPR 31.14 request. The CPR 18 letter which 42man has provided should be sent off exactly as is. As 42man so correctly points out, we need to see the default notices, and as they are not mentioned or even referred to in the PoC, we can't use CPR 31.14 to get them. Evidence of securitization is another interesting matter, but there is no time to go into that here. I would personally send the CPR 31.14 on one day, and then the CPR 18 the next, for no other reason to give them greater distinction. You will need to report Crapbot's non-compliance as part of your defence. Get the letters off tomorrow and the next day, if you can. Please note, these are only my opinions, and I am no expert. If anybody else has any input, it would be most welcome. SH

1. In very few cases does anyone actually owe a debt. They may owe part of a debt, even most of a debt, but you show me one single case where somebody genuinely owes the whole amount that they are being asked for (If "asked for" is the right word). Show me one case where some kind of preposterous charge or exorbitant interest hasn't been added. Also, I think you will find that the majority of people have some degree of moral indignation. Once they have been subjected to harassment and abuse over a certain length of time, they believe that morally the alleged debt has been wiped out. If they can "wipe it out" in the real world, they will do. Again, the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is a loathsome piece of legislation which gives the borrower very few rights. Debt collection leeches only exist because Parliament gave creditors the right to sell off the accounts that THEY made a bad lending choice on, to some unknown pond **** that the debtor has never voluntarily entered into any relationship with. I think once an alleged debt has been sold on to a third party with whom the borrower has no voluntary relationship, any sense of "ownership" or "responsibility" goes out of the window. Why don't the lenders "take ownership" for their lending choices, and work with borrowers to try to solve the problem in the best way possible like grown adults, instead of behaving like savages and making the taxpayer pay for their mistakes? Of course, if the Consumer Credit Act 1974 was an obscenity, the 2006 amendments have taken this to the most ridiculous of extremes. Anyone who borrows any money for any reason now is a lunatic. Whatever minuscule rights the consumer had three years ago are long gone now. 2. Who gave these sick idiots the right to interfere with someone's private telephone line? I PAY MONEY for the right to use a telephone line to make and receive PRIVATE telephone calls. If a commercial organization of any kind violates that right, they are being rather more than "rude", and deserve everything they get in return. If the idiots who administer the law in this country had the slightest concern for the populace which elected them, it would be a criminal offence to make ANY commercial telephone call to a private number unless the registered owner of that number has given written permission. That is exactly what happens with email, and often we don't even pay for email accounts. 3. Because the so called regulatory authorities are run by a government which is 100% corrupt, cares absolutely nothing for the populace which elected it and to which it owes a responsibility, and because it rather likes the back-handers it takes from corporate finance to skew the law in its favour. 4. Because they are idiots or because they just don't care, probably both. SH

Absolutely no need to apologise - you haven't done anything wrong. I wouldn't be the one to tell you even if you had! You've made a valuable contribution to this thread, but once legal proceedings have been issued it is essential that each thread is kept on topic. Have you started your own thread yet? It is just as important for you to get the correct advice as it is for trumpetmaest. We can link the two threads together so we can all help each other, but if the two cases should suddenly head in completely different directions there will be a great benefit in having two separate threads. Let us know if you've got your own thread, and post a link to it if you can. We're here to help. SH

Yes indeed. The fact that you have not responded to their harassment in no way diminishes the fact that it is occurring. If you feel it is more appropriate, you could answer one of the calls and ask that all communication be in writing before you send the letter, but it certainly isn't necessary. They know they are trying to harass, otherwise they wouldn't be making ten nuisance calls a day. Well, you are now part of the most supportive website I have ever belonged to, and are amongst friends. We may never meet in person, but that in no way lessens the bond that CAGgers feel. If you need support, post here and you'll get it. The letter may not stop the harassment, although I have read posts by one CAGger who claimed to have had great success with it. Whatever happens, it is the first step in the complaints procedure. If nuisance telephone calls are a persistent problem, there are ways of dealing with the situation. Have you seen the trueCall? It is not cheap, but it is exactly what the telephone-using public has needed for a very long time. Depending on your situation, it could be the answer. There are other cheaper and more crude answers. As I do all of my business online, I don't even need a telephone. It stays blissfully silent because it is never plugged in. Except when I need to actually make an outgoing call, which I think was four times last year. Of course, I have no living family, so my situation is probably different from most. I only mention it as a possibility, which of course you can use as often or as infrequently as you choose. If there is just one evening when you're feeling particularly down, you can just pull the damn thing out and stick it back in next morning. Send that letter off. I hope it works for you. If it doesn't, there are ways to take matters further. SH

Right, now you've acknowledged service, you've got a bit of time. Not enough to waste, but certainly enough to get the right letters sent out and the appropriate defence submitted on time. There are a few questions which need to be asked because we absolutely need to get this right. The most obvious one is - 1) How does the fact that Crapbot have combined two accounts into one claim affect the defence? It is easy to see why they have done this, as it saves them court fees, the question is, what is the implication for the defence? How does it affect any CPR letters which need to be sent out? This is a situation I have not seen before, so I will do some research. If anyone has any input, it would be welcomed. I really think we need the 'big guns' in on this one before any letters get sent out. I will leave it a bit to see if anyone comes in, if not, I might have to try a direct question. The other obvious question, on reading the thread linked to above, is what type of defence should we be submitting here? I have always used the type of defence that PT came up with - the much longer one. The one on that thread has been updated to have the confirmation that the 1974 Act is the relevant one before the rest of the case law. It does read better and is more logical. x20 then comes up with a much shorter defence - only two points. The question is, would that type of defence work here, when there are two accounts, and the numbers are clearly quoted in the PoC? Even though it is still a pitiful PoC of the type Crapbot always produce. As I say, two accounts on one claim is not something I have seen before, and the last thing I want to do is give out the wrong advice. Crapbot seem to be going to court with anything these days, and we need to get our defences right. There will be plenty of these cases to come. All feedback is welcome. SH

Wow, with the current standard of British TV that really is punishing them! Time they were sent this - - HARASSMENT WARNING - WARNING: PROTECTION FROM HARASSMENT ACT 1997 WARNING: COMMUNICATIONS ACT 2003. s127. Telephone Number: £££££££££ Re: Harassment by Telephone DATE Dear Sir/Madam Alleged Account Number £££££££££££ I am writing in relation to the telephone calls I have received from your organisation, which I deem to be personally harassing. I have requested that these calls stop, and for a time they did; however I have today received yet another unlawfully harassing and distressing call from ££££££ I now require the telephone number listed above to be completely removed from your systems. I am in the view that your renewed calling puts you in breach of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. This is a private telephone line, operated on a contract with the intention of receiving and making personal phone calls, I have not authorised any other member of my family to receive calls from your organisation using this PRIVATE TELEPHONE LINE. By using this telephone number without my permission you are interfering with my ability to use my own private property for the duration of any call. It is my right to require that this telephone line, which is licensed solely to myself, be kept clear for my own personal calls. It is consequently my view that you are committing the tort of interference with contract insofar as for the duration of each call you make to me without my permission, you are interfering with my contractual right to receive and make personal calls on my private telephone line. Continued interference with my contractual rights in this manner will result in legal action. If you continue to harass me by telephone, you will also be in breach of the Communications Act (2003) s.127 and I will report you to the Office of Communications, Trading Standards and the Office of Fair Trading, meaning that you will be liable for a substantial fine. Be advised that all telephone calls from your company are recorded. Kind Regards SH

Further to question 5 above, I have now found that 42man has started a thread which has been stickied, and that all the relevant information is there - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/195265-complaining-oft.html SH

I see what you mean, technically. You could add this - I/we would ask that no further contact be made concerning the above account, beyond a letter confirming that this matter is closed, unless you can provide evidence as to my/our liability for the debt in question. I/we await your written confirmation that this matter is now closed. Otherwise I will have no option but to make a complaint to Trading Standards and also inform the Office Of Fair Trading of your actions. SH

First point - If you receive a communication from a debt collection agency which breaches the debt collection guidance, please don't throw it away! Complaints carry a lot more weight with evidence. Answers - 1 You don't need to send another CCA request letter to Ruthbish. It may be a good idea to send them something, but not that. 2 Yes, an extremely nasty and underhanded one. I will give you some links in a later post to threads where they are being dealt with. I will also give you a link to the blog of a CAGger which has plenty of useful information on this shower. 3 Yes, it is on the blog. I will link to it for you. 4 What exactly do you want to say to them? 5 Good question. I know noomill060 found an email address for the OFT. I had it stored on my old PC but I don't have it now. I'm still trying to rebuild my folder of useful information. If anybody can give us a link, it will help. 6 I don't think so, but I'll try to find out. SH

ukmarc31, You might like to read this, from the OFT Debt Collection Guidance - 2.8 Examples of unfair practices are as follows: a. sending demands for payment to an individual when it is uncertain that they are the debtor in question, for example, threatening debt recovery action to 'the occupier' or sending a payment demand to all people sharing the same name/date of birth as a debtor in the hope that contact with the correct debtor will be made. The situation with a letter addressed to 'The Occupier' couldn't be more explicitly stated as being an unfair practice. Whether you want to complain now, or just send the 'Prove It' letter first and see what happens, is up to you. From my point of view, though, Ruthbish have already gone beyond the point where you promise to complain to the OFT. The guidance has already been breached. The only question is whether you wait before complaining, in case they commit any further breaches. As the OFT don't get involved in individual cases, it might not be a bad idea. Although it can seem like a waste of time, the OFT do operate based on numbers. It really is the responsibility of anyone facing this situation to add to the number of complaints. The only thing I don't like about that Prove It letter is that there is no paragraph requesting a copy of their internal complaints procedure, which they are obliged to supply. If that was there, it would open up the possibility of reporting the matter to the Financial Ombudsman Service should they continue to behave this stupidly. The FOS is toothless and useless, and just a puppet operated by the finance "industry", but at least it charges the clowns £450 when they investigate. For an alleged debt which clearly doesn't exist and on which they cannot hope to collect, this may be an incentive to them to cease harassment. SH

Hi Lizzy69, Are you Pinky69's sister? If so, you could go and have a...... No, I'd better not say it. Seriously, have you got your own thread on this? If so, could you post a link to it? I'll be back with a few more thoughts in a few minutes. SH

The thumbnail is too small to read, but if the letter just contains an internal reference number then that will not be an account number. You can't really send a CCA letter, as if they have supplied no account number there is no account for which to ask for a CCA. Definitely send the 'Prove It' letter. SH

Please start your own thread so we can advise you properly, and leave this thread to the needs of the original poster. What is going on here needs to be the subject of several formal complaints as it is absolutely outrageous. SH

Interesting find. Ezinearticles is the top-ranking article directory where webmasters submit content in exchange for a link to their site in the resource box. I am fascinated to see that he has written (or had ghostwritten for him), an article on starting a debt collection "business" while the link in his resource box goes to a site about coffee! As the idea of article marketing is to drive targeted traffic to your website, I can't really see this working. Why would you not submit an article about coffee instead? The article is well written, though, which is very unusual for Ezinearticles. I'd sooner set up as a contract killer. It's probably slightly more moral. SH

This is outrageous. Have you got your own thread on this? SH

This shows why Crapbot use their attrition tactics. The facts are the same now as they were two or three months ago, but thanks to the repeated sending of monstrous lies they have managed to convince another victim that white is darker than black. I have yet to see anyone benefit from engaging these idiots in dialogue. There is no purpose in doing so. If an alleged agreement is unenforceable it will forever remain so. State the facts once, state that it is your final position, and then spend your time and money on something sensible. SH

Trumpetmaest, Have you acknowledged service yet? If not, start by doing so now. That gives you time to prepare your defence and get your CPR requests sent out. We know Crapbot will default on them, but that can just be included when you challenge them at the AQ stage. Please keep us informed of what you do, and be sure to ask questions if you need to. I will be watching this thread closely, and I'm sure other CAGgers will be as well. We're here to help. SH

Is there an account number on the letter? If not, it is just a fishing exercise. Maybe you've got the same surname as someone who once had an account with the Shabbey. This is the way the lowest of the DCAs, and they don't come any lower than Ruthbish, operate. They send out letters speculatively, in the hope that some potential victims will bite. Sadly, too many do, even the ones who don't actually owe anything. The 'prove it' letter is the right one to send. Only send the CCA request if there is an account number on the letter, and you know it to be one of yours. SH

I've been reading through this thread again today and it really doesn't make any sense. Question 1 - Why is Crapbot's chain of threat letters so incoherent? At one stage, they send out a letter threatening bailiffs, charging orders, examination of debtor and all manner of things they have no power to carry out, yet which must seem quite frightening to the uninitiated. Now, months later, what are they threatening to do? Push somebody's doorbell. Doesn't quite have the same potential to invoke fear, so what is the point? Incidentally, anyone receiving the aforementioned letter should get straight on to the OFT, as it is blatantly in violation of the Debt Collection Guidance, claiming powers which simply don't exist. I am surprised that even Crapbot, who have less regard for the law than Dillinger and Capone (read that either way!), are still sending that one out. Question 2 - The most fundamental question of all - What is Crapbot's 'algorithm' for deciding who ends up in court and who doesn't? This case has been dragging on for months, and the alleged debtor has written several superb letters to Crapbot which must leave them in no doubt that they will never see a penny unless they go to court, yet they don't. In other cases, they have gone straight for the N1, even other cases where there is nothing but an unenforceable application form. I study Crapbot threads all the time in an effort to find recurring patterns which might make their behaviour more predictable. With Clownell, for example, it is like playing chess against one of those cheap computers which always makes the same move in any given position. After a while, they become easy to beat. Crapbot appears to operate randomly, but there must be some modus operandi. The onus is on to try and discover it. What we also need to do is learn from previous court cases the best way to handle Crapbot's obstructive Particulars of Claim, which seem to be uniform in each case, and which invariably leaves the defendant embarrassed to plead. That, however, is a subject for a different thread as there is no litigation here. For anyone reading this thread for the first time, it represents a perfect example of Crapbot's style of attrition warfare, as well as a pretty good way of countering it. Endless threat letters are sent out by machine. None of them respond to the genuine concerns raised in the letters which are sent to them. Threats which cannot be carried out are applied in an attempt to frighten people, but the main tactic is simply to keep pounding away at the victim until they crack. There are varying ways of countering this. I have seen several threads where there has been an emotional reaction by the alleged debtor. This is inappropriate, and represents a partial victory for the Crapbot attrition. There is nothing to get emotional over. All that is happening is that a machine is printing out a templated threat letter and mailing it to your address. It has no relevance to you. The threat monkey who composed it probably did so before Crapbot even had access to your data. Certainly, they will have had no knowledge of who you are. The method I have chosen to employ is to hit them with the strongest possible reply right at the start, declare that no further correspondence will be entered into, and then leave it at that. Crapbot either litigate at their own risk or they whistle until it goes SB. The threats will just be collected as souvenirs and may be used in future complaints of harassment. This method has several advantages - a) it is the cheapest method. It wastes as little time and money as possible. b) It shows the enemy right from the outset that you have an in-depth knowledge of the relevant case law, and that to get even a penny out of you they will need to take considerable risk c) It removes uncertainty. You never have to ask yourself how to respond to their idiotic threats because the choice has been made already. Everybody has to handle it their way. This is only what I have chosen to do. The more Crapbot threads I read, the more I am convinced that standing up to them as strongly as possible is the way to proceed. This thread is an excellent example of this. Well done mpols, you are doing supremely well. SH

Are you sure you have titled this thread properly? The title says Capital1 but you are quoting a letter which says Barclaycard. Either way, the illegible toilet roll in the picture isn't even relevant. If you've sent a CCA request and the "application" is not forthcoming, you are entitled to withhold payment once the time limit expires. If and when they do send you something, I hope it is an application, because if it is, it will not contain the prescribed terms. SH

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm just getting a "Page Not Found" error. SH

Please start your own thread as it is imperative that this one is kept clear for the OP's case now that it is subject to legal action. MODS - should this be moved to Legal Issues? SH

1 The first priority is to acknowledge service. That will give you 28 days to file a defence. 2 Yes, send the CPR 31.14 letter as you have it there. As CPR 31.14 only covers documents mentioned in the particulars of claim, you can't include the default notice. For this reason, I would send a Part 18 request as well. 3 Sending the CPR 31.14 letter and submitting an embarrassed defence are not mutually exclusive - far from it. The CPR letter, which Crapbot will completely ignore, is to help you craft an embarrassed defence. By the way, the defence will be embarrassed not because of the agreements being illegible, but because the pathetic particulars of claim don't give you enough information to file a proper particularised defence. SH

Yikes! These numbers go totally over my head as I've never been involved in mortgages, owning property, raising families, marriage etc. Too big a job for me, that's for sure. There are a couple of possibilities. Could you sell up, move into something smaller, and get rid of the debt? I know selling houses is not easy or automatic, but could you think about it? The other possibility, if you've got a spare room, is to take in a lodger. This gives you tax free income, so you could pay the debt back in a relatively short space of time. I obviously don't know if you've got any other creditors, but this might be a way out for you. This only applies, of course, if your other income would not be affected. It is not my area of expertise. This situation of a pitiful income but high equity creates all sorts of problems. Creditors can go for a forthwith judgment and then get a charging order on the property. In a case like this where there are children it is unlikely there would be a forced sale, but it is still not pleasant. You are also vulnerable to statutory demands because the creditor would have a genuine incentive in trying to make you bankrupt, although it has to be stressed that this debt is probably not large enough for a creditor to want to spend the money on making you bankrupt. The charging order is far more likely. Even the last resort solutions are basically taken away from you. Bankruptcy would result in serious losses, and the Debt Relief Orders which promise to be the salvation for so many impoverished people are not available to homeowners. An Administration Order might be possible in the future, but only if there is more than one creditor, and only if you have a CCJ against you. There is no point pretending that this situation is pleasant, because it certainly isn't. It is important, however, to be aware of all of the possibilities before you decide what to do. In the meantime, I need to find that letter you need to send to these idiots about the doorstep harassment. SH