Yes, I did but just wanted to make sure when I can submit the claim. Will present in court on the day. Many thanks.

Thanks everyone but just one last question. How far in advance do I need to file a claim at court? Is 24 hours sufficient ie the day before the hearing. Your help is valued.

Can anyone confirm the current costs that I can claim for as a LIP to set aside a SD? Thanks

Is there any update? How did it go?

Have a look at my thread on Nwide - very similar to your case and they were allowed to amend POC and issue an amended DN. This went all the way to court where we lost but not without a good fight. If we'd had the energy and funds it was very tempting to take it to appeal but decided not to in the end. Our case was very much based on the "balance of probabilities" and the judge found for the claimant in the end. Now paying the CCJ but at a very reasonable amount I am glad to say.

Hi BB I originally CCAd Cap One back in late 2008 and placed the account in dispute in Dec 2008 as they were unable to comply. In the interim there have been some quiet periods interspersed with periods of activity with various DCAs and/or solicitors and the best anyone has been able to come up with is an application form. Cabot are proving a little more tenacious and just keep repeating the same old drivel - the CPUTR request was an attempt to force the issue but they have chosen to ignore it completely.

Hi all and thanks for your responses. Boo, the OC is Capital One (credit card) and the amount is over £10,000 so if it did go to court would hit FT not small claims. P1 - to whom do I complain? Cabot presumably but anyone else? This is blatant disregard to my request and yes I am not amused at their allegation of debt avoidance. Hatesdebt - keep us posted - do you have a link? Would be very interested to see their response.

This account with Cap 1 was originally place in dispute in December 2008 and in the interim has been handled by various DCAs/Solicitors. I have sent the usual SARs which have only ever produced an application form and they have all backed off. Earlier in the year the account was assigned to Cabot. In the meantime I have continued to remind Cabot the documentation I have received from Cap 1 fails section 78 and 61a and 127 of the CCA and I gave them 7 days to produce a copy of the executable agreement. A response followed in some months later in which they stated all obligations under Section 77/78 had been fulfilled and as such there was no reason to dispute the account or failure on my part to repay. I followed this through with a request under CPUTR 2008 in which I categorically asked "will you confirm and state clearly whether either yourselves of Capital One currently hold, or have ever held, a properly executed Consumer Credit Agreement pertaining to this account under the CPUTR Regs 2008" This is their response and any advice would be appreciated. Many thankscab.pdf

Hi Sev Thanks for your interest but I did seek advice from a barrister whose initial reaction was to agree with the judge's decision. After much pondering and deliberation we have decided not to appeal although still smarting at the decision. I just feel Nwide/Esheds have been given so much free reign over this case and managed to get a verdict on the basis of a recon and a compliant DN which was issued during a stay in proceedings. I really don't think this was the intention of Waksman. If I had loads of money and loads of time would definitely have gone for an appeal but I don't have much of either although it would have been interesting to see the outcome. The CCJ is unfortunate but I'm not in the market for credit any longer and the whole experience has been stressful to say the least. Good luck with yours if you do appeal - I have read your thread and your case seems very polished. Panty

Sorry SB can understand your frustration having been in court myself last week. Seems more and more leniency being shown to the creditors. Well done so far, at least you put up a good case but I know how you feel - after this length of time you feel at though you do deserve some outcome. Keep us posted P

Thanks Brigadier but do you know what the tolerance level would be for repayment on a CCJ?

hi brigadier How long is extraordinarily long? Just trying to get some idea of degrees of tolerance. Do you know how long will be tolerated to pay a CCJ? Many thanks

Hi SB Thanks for your sentiments and good luck with your endeavours - I have been following you on the difference between CPR31.14 etc thread. It's tough but don't go down without a good scrap.

Lost:-x but not without a good battle. Counsel couldn't understand first thing this am why it had been listed for a whole day as she was of the opinion it wouldn't take long. That is until we got in to the court room and battle began. Their case was based purely on sec 77/78 and the recon and the effective DN they managed to send whilst the case was stayed. Put forward strong counter arguments re the variation in interest rate on the recon compared to statements, section 61/65, loss of benefit of 127, previous 2 dodgy DNs, failure to comply with 31.14 but all to no avail. Judge in the end was satisfied that the recon with its terms and conditions together with the signed application form was sufficient for the purposes of this case so all other objections paled in to insignificance. In his summing up he thanked me for a very well presented case and was swayed by many of my arguments but he had to be satisfied with the recon. Have asked for permission to appeal as I decide the best way forward. Don't think I could have fought a better fight but need time to think as there is a lot at stake on this one. Would need legal representation as well - the recon would need a forensic analysis almost and I don't think I have the expertise for that.

Hi c this on fast track

Hi C POC at post 162. Defence attached Original POc issued summer 2009 on the back of a dodgy agreement and 2 defective DNs. Defence submitted and I went for a strike out. In the meantime claimants went for a stay and the only hearings of substance have been for this and 2 further hearings to extend same - claimants argued they were awaiting outcome of Carey to enable them to issue a recon agreement. They had already issued me with 4 copy "agreements" previously Issued a recon in June last year (post Carey) together with another DN. However, at this point case was still stayed until 23 July. Course of events changed substantially at the last hearing in October/November last year when claimants put in an application to amend POC. Arrived at court - judge thought it was a CMC. Counsel for claimant said it was an application to amend POC to which I attempted to argue against. I was not afforded any opportunity to argue my case. Counsel for claimant started to quote case law but judge called a halt saying there was not sufficient time. Judge then said she would agree to amended POC and part of my new defence could be to object. It is on this basis that the trial hearing has been set for this week. In essence we are going to court with a recon agreement which was issued 9 months after the original POC and 4 "agreements". At this point claimants also took opportunity to issue a compliant DN having issued 2 defective DNs previously. I appreciate current school of thought re defective DN can't lead to termination but at what point should they be allowed to issue a compliant DN? In the midst of proceedings which have been stayed for their benefit?? The only change on the current POC is the DN where they are only asking for the arrears but no explanation as to how figure is arrived at - ill includ unlaful charges. Words of wisdom welcome. defence[1].pdf

Hi Caro Thanks for that and if such words of wisdom could be offered within next 24 hours it would be appreciated.

Originally the DNs claimed the full amount but then they were granted a stay to issue an agreeement post Carey. Then on the back of this stay they issued not just a recon agreement but another DN claiming just the arrears, literally both sent together in the same envelope. All this is post termination. The defence was submitted some time ago and the bundle has already gone in to court - trial date set for next week. Will fight like a tiger - feel as confident as can be in the circumstances but any last minute advice would be appreciated. Scheduled for a day's hearing but this case is so convoluted it remains to be seen what happens.

Hi Caro Amended POC as requested. Would appreciate your views on this one. Many thanks particulars and ammended[1].pdf

Yes have read Harrison but this case is more complex than that.

Yes

Claimants didn't turn up, case struck out, they appealed to reinstate hearing, went to hearing. At this hearing judge thought it was a CMC although claimant's counsel said it was to amend POC. I started to object re amending POC but counsel offered counter arguments. Judge said because of time constraints she would allow the amended POC with my new defence to be based on amended POC. Since exchange of disclosure documents Esheds have withdrawn and this case has now gone back to Nwide in house sols. In essence the original stay was granted whilst they prepared a recon under Carey and at the same time they issued yet another DN bearing no resemblance to others issued previously. The other DNs asked for the full amount although the latest one asked for arrears only with no explanation as to how the figure was arrived at. Bundle now ready for court. Appreciate the Carey ruling and S77/78 and can find faults in their recon. However, there is still the enforceability issue without even bringing in to the equation the DNs. From the bundle it is apparent that their tactic is to ignore all that has happened previoulsy and move forward with the last POC and DN and recon. Any advice would be appreciated.

Hi Caro www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?212629-Eversheds-Nationwide-issue-court-docs/page8 Yes i do here - haven't posted for some time because of prying eyes but will update on link now.

Hi Mould "My arguments in respect of the same are well reasoned, based upon factual events, supported by statute, case law and established principles at common law, there is no need for the op (Mrs SB) to accept termination, it is a thing/event that [has] clearly already taken place, it is not for the courts to stay proceedings while the creditor issues a valid statutory notice in order that enforcement of the contract be decided upon." Is there a CPR/abuse of court process/anything that can be referred to re this issue. In court next week where this has happened to me. Sorry to hijack but things are getting a bit tense.

Was this a CAG case and if so is there a link? In a very similar situation with Nwide. Due back in court next month for more entertainment.