I've been in similar positions before. Recently I've had bailiffs knocking on my door trying to collect a debt I didn't owe and going back a few years I got in a really bad position by not dealing with debts in a timely manner - having to pay a lot of additional money to sort it out, a large chuck of which I still feel was dubious at best. But having it inside my head all the time was doing even more damage, so I took some hits and came out the other side in a far better place. What ever you do, you really need to sort this out once and for all. Otherwise it will get a lot worse, the debt will increase and the problem will get bigger.

Looking at the original agreement, it seems to be in your personal name, page 2 states you as the hirer. I know you said the agreement was altered, but unless you're claiming this was to put your name at the top of page 2 and to insert "your name t/a" at the bottom of page 3 and 4 then I don't see how this helps you. I'm not sure the legal route will work as it all comes down to the agreement. I'd try appealing to someone higher up the food chain at PHS. I'd guess the people you have spoken with are in the accounts / bad debt department who are just doing their job. If you can get your grievance to the corporate / PR team then they might be willing to listen. Or maybe even try your MP, a letter from them to PHS might work wonders. You also want to give some thought to the effect having this hanging over you is having. I appreciate how annoying and frustrating it is being chased to pay a debt you don't owe but sometimes you have to take the hit, move on and put it behind you.

I need some help and advice as I'm being threatened with repossession over a loan that is secured against my house, no court papers yet but they are imminent. The loan for £3x,xxx was taken out in 2002 and I gave the bank a 2nd charge over my property, signing a mortgage document with them. The terms for repayment were that I would cover the interest and then pay off the capital when I sold my house. No time scales were stated for me to sell the house but there was a term in the agreement stating the bank could call in the debt at any time and demand payment in full, which they have now done. Whether or not I'm up to date with the interest payments is subject to debate. The loan agreement states that the interest would be charged to my current account every quarter, but they stopped doing this two years ago. So at present the loan account shows just the capital being owed and my current account is in credit (I don't use it any more). I am planning on selling the house, but I need to get a fair bit of work done to get it up to scratch as its pretty run down at the moment. So it will probably be 6-8 weeks before it will be on the market. Though I won't be looking for top money as I want to sell it quickly so I can put all this behind me. Some time ago I got some advice from a debt help line and they said its possible the bank could not go for repossession, dependent on how the agreements were worded. They were also unsure as to how a judge would handle a situation such as this - no problems with the bank the main mortgage is with and no repayment terms in the agreement. So I need some advice as to how I can buy myself the time I need to sell the house at a half decent but not stupid price. As well as some idea as to what the judge would do, given that I have no way of repaying until the house is sold.

How have you ended up with a personal CCJ for a debt incurred by a limited company? Something isn't right there, provided I remember correctly the liability for late filing penalties never passes on to the director. Though the director can face criminal proceedings for failing to submit accounts on time. What is the IP you are trying to protect? If it's just the name then you don't have anything to protect, as the limited company name means nothing in that regard especially when it has never traded. Plus seeing as the company has never traded I can't see how any other IP could be in its name. You need to dissolve the limited company ASAP. Ring up Companies House and they'll help you with it and then the debt will be gone forever - you'll feel a whole lot better when that happens. I wouldn't rush in to getting a new limited company either, make sure you're ready and can handle the responsibility as if you can't it can get very messy - a lot worse than it is at the present for you. If the CCJ is in your name you need to fight that as well. Just post the details here (in a new thread would be better with a link to it from this thread) and we can advise you on what to do.

You haven't posted the Particulars Of Claim, but assuming it is the standard vague POC that most debt collectors use then you should be submitting a standard defence with the addition of the statute barred statement. You should be able to find the standard defence (claim is vague, documents referred to not supplied, no case to answer etc) pretty easily if you check the forums. I'm no expert, but I think simply using the statute barred argument in your defence is a bit dangerous as if they show it isn't then that's your whole defence gone. Hence using the standard defence as well. Send the SAR but it needs to go to the original creditor, not the solicitors and not any of the debt collection agencies. But its possible the contact won't show up if it was made by someone other than the original creditor - not much you can do about that though. There is no reason to submit your defence immediately and it is often better to leave it as late as possible (without missing the deadline). By delaying you might receive some useful information in the mean time, plus it helps to drag it all out a little bit longer.

Did they give any indication as to who they are alleging you had the conversation with regarding a settlement offer? It's possible it was a debt collection agency rather than the original creditor, in which case it would probably be wise to send a SAR to both. Maybe have a check back through any paper work you have to see who was chasing you around that time. I reckon its always well worth sending the SAR in addition to other requests - you never know what information will show in it which could be very useful further down the line.

Sounds like the judge is only interested in the company name / number discrepancy, so I'm not sure that raising other issues is going to help. But maybe its possible to bring other things in to it - such as whether the default notice and assignment notices have the correct company details on them or not and whether that makes them invalid. But as its maybe not looking too good, isn't it time to start preparing for an appeal? I'm thinking the submission to the court would be a good time to use the County Courts Act section 80 to get the judge to document his final ruling fully. I feel for you though - I won my case recently solely on a faulty DN, for you to have the judge say it isn't relevant nor a requirement is crazy.

Have you done any research on Max Recovery, ie searched them on Google? If not then I'd suggest doing so before doing anything as you'll find plenty of interesting and useful information on them. I checked quickly and it looks like their business is going round buying up debts for peanuts that have been written off by the original creditor - real lost causes and not the kind of debts most of the companies you read about on these forums deal with. So there is a good chance they have bought the debts they are claiming to have bought. But it also looks like they don't try very hard to get payment, I couldn't find anything saying they'd actually taken court action - just the threatening letters from Fairfax (and previously Eversheds). If it was me I'd ignore them. By replying, especially with the legal stuff, you run the risk of them thinking they've got your attention which could lead to an escalation and possible court action. Ignore it and they might simply give up and move on to the next one. If you really must send a letter I'd keep it simple and tone it down. Just state the basic stuff - you deny any debt, you refuse permission for doorstep calls and that unless they come up with some proof of the debt any further contact will be viewed as harassment and treated appropriately.

I think there is often an assumption that it won't come to an actual hearing in court and little is said about what is really involved if it does. There is lots of help given on the forums but when it comes to the hearing itself you are on your own and there is a lot of preparatory work that needs to be done along with a good presentation of your arguments. The risk is that come the hearing some people just won't be able to handle it, I know I wouldn't have been able to a year or so ago and I know a lot of people are in a similar position - health problems, depression, out of work, numerous debts to numerous creditors and so on. If you end up in court and it all goes wrong you're looking at costs awarded against you and more problems on top. There are other options to fighting a court claim and maybe more should be made of those options rather than the blanket approach to fight. My case was a bit more complicated than most as it started with the incorrect POC and then they never filed their AQ. As a result things didn't follow the normal course and it came close to costing me. Again, I've learnt from it and will handle things differently next time around which will improve my chances of success - I've still got 2 other debts that could end up in court. As regards the judge, he really didn't want to rule in my favour - see my previous post about the scathing attack I was on the receiving end of. But he was a good and fair judge at the end of the day and he knew there was no way he could ignore the default notice issue so had to rule in my favour. What annoyed me most about the judge attacking me was that he appeared to have no knowledge whatsoever of what credit card companies, debt collection agencies and their solicitors get up to. If he did there is no way he would have been so hard on me at the end - it would have been them on the receiving end. I doubt it will help my cause but if we end up in court again I'll most likely include details in my witness statement of what they get up to, what they've put me through and why it is so relevant to me fighting their claim. It still really annoys me that CL Finance and Howard Cohen (along with all the others) repeatedly get away with their normal every day business practices. I really, really want to take them on properly and once I've got my life back on track properly there is a very good chance I will. They are the **** of the earth and the sole reason why I have no bad feelings about avoiding paying my debts.

OK, I said I'd post the full details so here we go. Due to my incompetence I never submitted my witness statement, however this was not an issue and was never even mentioned on the day. My defence (see previous post) was very broad (deliberately) and the judge let me use that as the basis for my case and raise any points covered by it. I had totally under estimated the amount of work and effort involved in preparing for a court case such as mine. To be able to present your case and argue any points you must have the following; full copies of all relevant acts and case law and two extra copies of relevant pages for the claimant and judge, detailed notes on every point of law so that you can present it clearly and argue it, everything well organised so you can find it quickly. Due to a lack of time, lack of ability and aforementioned under estimation I had only a fraction of what I really needed to have. As a result I presented a poor argument for some points of law, had to drop others completely from my argument and had major problems finding the paperwork I needed. At numerous points it was embarrassing to say the least, but the judge was very good and understanding on this. After listening to their solicitor present his case I got to present mine, with points of discussion and debate mixed in. All of which was very scary but after a while I got in to the swing of it and even enjoyed it a bit. I tried arguing a defective agreement on the basis of the "approved limit" and got nowhere - the judge didn't buy it for a second. Even if I had presented this argument perfectly I don't think it would have got me anywhere. I tried arguing about the interest rates being stated incorrectly but didn't really get this argument myself and again it got me nowhere. Next up was the default notice, which I ultimately won my case on but at the same time came very close to losing on as well. My major mistake was that my defence stated that I "neither accepted or denied that a default notice was issued". As I side stepped whether one was issued the judge accepted their witness statement saying they had issued one. Which in hindsight was fair, if I had stated I hadn't received one or had no record of receiving one I don't think the judge would have accepted their statement so easily. I argued that they had to prove the default notice was issued correctly and in accordance with the act for it to be valid, which the judge accepted. At the last minute (probably the day before the hearing) they had submitted a copy of a default notice template which I had not seen until they handed me a copy in the middle of the hearing. I have a feeling the judge would have accepted this as proof of the default notice being valid but fortunately they had made a major mistake which I picked up on. The template was dated three years after they were claiming they had issued my default notice, once I pointed this out to the judge it was pretty much game over - I didn't argue any further on the default notice. Next up was the notice of assignment. This came from a 3rd party and there was nothing from Egg or CL Finance themselves regarding the assignment. I had copies of the relevant act and argued the point well but ultimately got nowhere. Not sure why as I still think this was a strong argument. Finally I argued they hadn't proved the amount being claimed. Again, this I felt was a well presented and strong argument as the statements they had presented were incomplete and showed only a fraction of the money they were claiming. But again the judge wasn't interested and felt they had done enough to prove the amount. After a bit more debating it was time for the judgement. The judge went through the various points of law and disregarded them one by one until the default notice - they hadn't shown a valid default notice was issued so I won on that point and that point alone. Their solicitor had tried arguing that they could just issue another default notice but fortunately (and correctly in my opinion) the judge said that wasn't of any relevance to the hearing. As we walked out their solicitor repeated that they would be issuing another default notice, I said fine as I'd fight it again and as they'd terminated the account they couldn't issue one anyway. Whilst its still early days I haven't heard anything from them yet so hopefully that will be the end of it. Plus they are short on time as the 6 years since last payment is up in May so they need to act quickly if they are going to pursue it further. If they do come for me again I will be a lot better prepared I reckon I will have a good chance of winning on some of the other points as well. One final point is that if I'd have known the amount of work, time, effort and stress that would be involved in fighting this when it all started 15 months ago I'm not sure I would have gone down the route of fighting it the way I did. I wouldn't have just rolled over but I would have probably talked to them to arrange a payment plan just to avoid everything it has entailed. I'm not having a go at anyone and lots of people have helped me out which I am eternally grateful for but when first reading these forums it sounds so simple to fight a case such as this, with people making it sound easy when it isn't. So if you've just received the court papers for a similar claim you really want to think long and hard and know what you're letting yourself in for prior to fighting it 100%. There are other options to fighting a claim and its well worth at least investigating some of them before making a decision.

Looking at the docs you uploaded, there is only an invoice for the first year but the agreement itself runs for five years and with the termination clause you could be liable for the full five years. So how much was their claim / judgement for? Just the one year or the full five?

I'd imagine the vast majority of people here know all about this judgement. The only part of it that is relevant to your case is covered in paragraphs 171 through 181 and specifically 173. What this means for you is that the agreement and terms & conditions will most likely be viewed as being a single document, so you can't argue that prescribed terms are missing if they are within the terms & conditions rather than the agreement itself. Prior to this judgement a common argument used to defend a claim like this was that prescribed terms in the terms & conditions rather than the agreement itself rendered it invalid. This argument is now pretty much dead in the water.

It's not going to help that you left it 6 months after the charging order to do anything and 20 months since you first became aware of the issue. I am not an expert though so I'm not sure whether it is too late to fight this or not. I'm wondering if the best option might be to appeal the CCJ as all the papers for this was served to the work address and not to your home address. Might be worth alerting a moderator via the red triangle, hopefully they will be able to get someone to have a look that can advise on your best option.

I'd agree with DD's post. As a solicitor has confirmed everything is in order and the property is in your name and your ex has no claim over it, then your ex has left himself in a very bad position. He has no claim over the property but is still jointly liable for the mortgage payments, and the bank would go after both of you if payment were missed. It would be in your ex's best interests to get off the mortgage, but the bigger problem will be persuading the bank to allow it - they'll be losing someone to go after for missing payments so you'll have to convince them you can afford the payments on your own.

Are they claiming that it is a copy of the default notice that was sent or that it is the template for the default notice that was sent? To be honest, it seems to be neither and instead some strange mix of the two. The default notice itself (I assume the covering letter has no relevance) doesn't even have fields for all of the prescribed terms.