@lookinforinfo Thank you, great information I wasn't aware of. The aspect of no PP has been accepted elsewhere and I believe that's why cases have been discontinued. If it was my case I would appeal it up. However, better to throw the 'kitchen sink' in with as many unlawful aspects as possible.

@maninthemiddle Hi, Not sure what you are getting to. An overriding principle is different from the overriding objective. You can't achieve the overriding objective by breaching a fundamental principle whereby the Claimant MUST prove their Claim. Except in defamation, a strange quirk in English law. If the Claimant cannot prove their Claim - then it fails. In civil litigation and criminal prosecutions, the burden of proof lies with the party asserting an allegation of fact. It's a fundamental principle. Those that seek the assistance of the law must prove their claim - first, before the defendant. It's not for the defendant to disprove an unproven case advanced by the claimant. The burden of proof in civil disputes and criminal disputes lies with the party asserting a proposition, not the party defending or denying it. The person seeking the legal remedy bears the burden or onus of proof. To satisfy the burden of proof: the party with the burden of proof must prove the alleged fact to the standard required by the applicable standard of proof.

@nightnajjers If you look at the documents I attached to the first post, the councils who are the planning control certainly accept that planning permission is essential. If you build a house without it, they will make you knock it down. Also, I believe that the 'clean hands' doctrine may apply - if a law is broken, then no one can profit as a result or use such in a claim. The legal maxim is Ex Turpi Causa Non Oritur Actio or No action can arise from an illegal or immoral act. In planning 'carrying out development without the required planning permission' is an offence somewhere in the Town and Country Planning Act and erection of signs / cameras requires planning permission. Good point by Nickyboy re multiple arguments and encouraging victims to learn, that is kind of a condition I state when supplying the basis of a defence and encourage them to understand and amend it to suit their circumstances. However, most people are terrified of going to court and reluctant to speak up against a cantankerous judge. Of course we are often lucky if the judge's own family or friends have received an unfair or penal ticket, which many have!

@Nicky Boy Thank you. Around 20 years ago I got involved in fighting the scam tickets (and many other corrupt aspects in the courts). I lost one parking matter around 15 years ago on a wrong aspect in contract law, then have defeated all the others ever since and, as you quite rightly say, have developed a 'standard' defence which has worked ever since, or the companies have backed out before a hearing (well in excess of 50). My main activity is in planning permissions and fighting planning enforcement officer tyrants (they always break the law). Hence a look at the planning permission angle and finding other cases where that argument has been successful. I agree that each case on it's own merits, however, there are some doctrines in law and the CPR Rules that are universal. Where it has been to people I do not know (friend of a friend etc) and where I receive little information, the standard defence I pass on has been successful. From the feedback, the judge on the case today was not well up on planning and my neighbour farmer was not educated in that enough to argue that aspect. In hindsight, the relevant sections of planning control should have been quoted and perhaps some case law re planning decisions. I think an appeal would be successful, if it were my own I would not hesitate. I think planning permission is an important aspect that should be explored, assuming a case could be appealed right up, it might be that a precedent decision would defeat many parking enforcement acting without planning permission for signs and / or cameras. Or others could use this argument by searching on the LPA website for planning permission and the address of the car park in question, as the last few with North West / Vehicle Control Services have discontinued before hearing.

Burden of Proof & Balance of Probabilities in Civil Litigation: Law Simplified HALLELLIS.CO.UK The Civil litigation burden of proof and the balance of probabilities. How courts decide facts on witness evidence: simplified by lawyers @Nicky Boy No, I am not charging. Just glad to fight the system. I would appreciate any suggestions on improving the defence.

Help! Does anyone know of a body that would run an appeal on this in the public interest? I have assisted people to win over 50 cases on similar arguments, last three, the parking co. bailed out and discontinued on the no planning permission I think, though no reasons were specified. I referred to three matters where no planning permission for signs / cameras had been ruled as invalidating the tickets issued, also no Deed of assignment as per Law of Property Act 1925. Today, with the same arguments and evidence, a county court judge ruled in favour of the parking company, HX Car Park Management Ltd, who did not attend court but put written representations in. The judge ruled that the company were right to operate cameras and signs without planning permission. It seems that the judge must be wrong regarding the law and panning permission, also the Law of Property act. This case could have major implications across the country for any parking tickets issued with no planning permission, but my farmer neighbour is reluctant to appeal it himself, both with cost and that he is very busy with harvest. CLAIM FK3GF9473 WITNESS STATEMENT REDACTED FOR HEARING 8.8.23.doc Barrow Council compensate motorist for illegal ParkingEye signs.doc CHRONICLE - PARKING CHARGES UNLAWFUL WITHOUT PLANNING PERMISSION.doc PLANNING PERMISSION REQUIRED FOR PARKING MACHINES AND SIGNAGE.doc

Hi there, Yes, after a lengthy process, two cases due to go to Court soonish! Unfortunately can't say much now, but it is good for all, particularly those with cards dating back a while! And as regards the DCA's, think they they will have to repay where they haven't followed proper rules and procedures. Will be a fight as they won't give in easily, but once we set a standard format for each case, should bear some fruit! keep smiling! T7

Hi again all, Thought I would update. MBNA have not even bothered to chase me since I stopped paying their solicitors at least 14 months ago. I sent the usual stat request docs, no responses of any note yet! Other claims - a DCA has stated things contradictory to that stated by the original creditor, guess what that's done to their credibility! I expect to have very good news for all soon, 2 cases are due to go to Court (after a very lengthy process!) but on one, their solicitors are now 'considering their position'. Can't give too much away currently as you can appreciate but it is along the lines in my previous threads! Will update more as soon as I can, dying to tell! keep smiling, T7

Happy New Year all! A few points to keep us all positive! It seems to me that the majority of claims are from / against DCA's. One of the most important aspects is that there must have been under section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 a Deed of Assignment which must be in writing and served (under Section 196 sub para 4) by registered post. I am given to understand by my solicitor that if this has not been done or not done correctly, then the Debt has not been assigned and cannot be collected by any subsequent purported 'owner' of the purported debt. So, demand proof of this. In my current claims which I have initiated against DCA's for repayment of any sums paid to them plus interest and compensation for any costs they have caused me, we are using this as well as other aspects of the various different legislation. We have recently issued detailed, searching Part 18 requests to demand (amongst other things) a declaration of the existence of any deeds of assignment AND the original Registered Post counterfoils or an admission that they do not have them. On this point alone, we intend to seek summary judgement if they do not have them and can't produce them. Also, it seems there are many other sections of Law applicable to the use of credit cards and regulated agreements. Check out this copy thread for a superb defence (which can be tweaked to use as a claim). :- In the xxxxxxxx County Court Claim number Between xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx- Claimant and xxxxxxxxxxxx - Defendant Defence 1. I xxxxxxxxx of xxxxxxxxxxxxx am the defendant in this action and make the following statement as my defence to the amended claim made by xxxxxxxxxxxx 2. Except where otherwise mentioned in this defence, I neither admit nor deny any allegation made in the claimants Particulars of Claim and put the claimant to strict proof thereof. 3. The Defendant is embarrassed in pleading to the Particulars of Claim as it stands at present, inter alia: - a) The claimant's statement of case still fails top comply with the requirements of CPR part 16 and practice direction 16 insofar that this claim is based upon a written contract namely a regulated credit agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and as such the Civil procedure rules requires that a copy of the written contract be served with the claim. However the claimant still has not supplied the defendant with a copy of the agreement which the claimant bases this claim upon Statutory request made under section 78 Consumer Credit Act 4. On xx/xx/2007 I requested that the claimant provide a true copy of the executed credit agreement, which they claim exists between parties pursuant to section 78(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Consumer Credit (Prescribed Periods for Giving Information) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1569) sets out that the claimant must comply with such request in 12 working days of receipt of such request. Copies of the letter and proof of delivery attached marked Exhibit X & X 5. For clarity, section 78(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 states 78. Duty to give information to debtor under running-account credit agreement.- (1) The creditor under a regulated agreement for running-account credit, within the prescribed period after receiving a request in writing to that effect from the debtor and payment of a fee of [F1 £1], shall give the debtor a copy of the executed agreement (if any) and of any other document referred to in it, together with a statement signed by or on behalf of the creditor showing, according to the information to which it is practicable for him to refer,- (a)the state of the account, and (b)the amount, if any currently payable under the agreement by the debtor to the creditor, and ©the amounts and due dates of any payments which, if the debtor does not draw further on the account, will later become payable under the agreement by the debtor to the creditor. 6. Section 78 (6) consumer Credit Act 1974 sets out the consequences of failure to comply with such request and states s78 (6) If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with subsection (1)- (a) he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement; and (b) if the default continues for one month he commits an offence. 7. It is drawn to the courts attention that the claimant has failed to comply with my request and is in clear default of its obligations under s78 (1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and it is averred that the claimant has no right of action until such time as the default is remedied and the claimant supplies the documents referred to in points 4,5 and 6 The Request for disclosure 8. Further to the case, in an attempt to ascertain what grounds the claimant is bringing this action and to allow me to prepare my defence I requested on xx/xx/2007 the disclosure of information pursuant to the Civil Procedure Rules, which is vital to this case from the claimant. The information requested amounted to copies of the Credit Agreement referred to in the particulars of claim and any default or termination notices, a transcript of all transactions, including charges, fees, interest, alleged repayments by myself and payments made by the original creditor. Also any other documents the Claimant seeks to rely on, including any default notices or termination notice and the notice of assignment. (Attached marked X) 9. To Date the claimant has failed to accede to my request under the CPR and I have not received any such documentation requested. As a result it has proven difficult to compose this defence without disclosure of the information requested. 10. Notwithstanding point 7 that the claimant is not entitled as matters stand to this action. The courts attention is drawn to the fact that the without disclosure of the requested documentation pursuant to the Civil Procedure Rules I have not yet had the opportunity to asses if the documentation the claimant claims to be relying upon to bring this action even contains the prescribed terms required in Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) which was amended by Consumer Credit (Agreements) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI2004/1482). 11. Under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 there are certain conditions laid down by parliament which must be complied with if such agreement is to be enforced by the courts 12. Firstly, the agreement must contain certain Prescribed terms under regulations made by the Secretary of State under section 60(1) CCA 1974, the regulations referred to are the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) 13. 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-- 1. Number of repayments; 2. Amount of repayments; 3. Frequency and timing of repayments; 4. Dates of repayments; 5. 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 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 15. 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 refer to LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD in the House of Lords Wilson v First County Trust Ltd - [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul) 28.........I should outline the salient provisions of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Subject to exemptions, a regulated agreement is an agreement between an individual debtor and another person by which the latter provides the former with a cash loan or other financial accommodation not exceeding a specified amount. Currently the amount is £25,000. Section 61(1) sets out conditions which must be satisfied if a regulated agreement is to be treated as properly executed. One of these conditions, in paragraph (a), is that the agreement must be in a prescribed form containing all the prescribed terms. The prescribed terms are the amount of the credit or the credit limit, rate of interest (in some cases), how the borrower is to discharge his obligations, and any power the creditor may have to vary what is payable: Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983, Schedule 6. The consequence of improper execution is that the agreement is not enforceable against the debtor save by an order of the court: section 65(1). Section 127(1) provides what is to happen on an application for an enforcement order under section 65. The court 'shall dismiss' the application if, but only if, the court considers it just to do so having regard to the prejudice caused to any person by the contravention in question and the degree of culpability for it. The court may reduce the amount payable by the debtor so as to compensate him for prejudice suffered as a result of the contravention, or impose conditions, or suspend the operation of any term of the order or make consequential changes in the agreement or security. 29. The court's powers under section 127(1) are subject to significant qualification in two types of cases. The first type is where section 61(1)(a), regarding signing of agreements, is not complied with. In such cases the court 'shall not make' an enforcement order unless a document, whether or not in the prescribed form, containing all the prescribed terms, was signed by the debtor: section 127(3). Thus, signature of a document containing all the prescribed terms is an essential prerequisite to the court's power to make an enforcement order. The second type of case concerns failure to comply with the duty to supply a copy of an executed or unexecuted agreement pursuant to sections 62 and 63, or failure to comply with the duty to give notice of cancellation rights in accordance with section 64(1). Here again, subject to one exception regarding sections 62 and 63, section 127(4) precludes the court from making an enforcement order. 30. These restrictions on enforcement of a regulated agreement cannot be sidestepped..... And further more 36. In the present case the essence of the complaint is that section 127(3) of the Consumer Credit Act has the effect that a Regulated agreement is not enforceable unless a document containing all the prescribed terms is signed by the debtor 49. ".............The message to be gleaned from sections 65, 106, 113 and 127 of the Consumer Credit Act is that where a court dismisses an application for an enforcement order under section 65 the lender is intended by Parliament to be left without recourse against the borrower in respect of the loan. That being the consequence intended by Parliament, the lender cannot assert at common law that the borrower has been unjustly enriched. 50. This interpretation of the Consumer Credit Act accords with the approach adopted by the House in Orakpo v Manson Investments Ltd [1978] AC 95, regarding section 6 of the Moneylenders Act 1927 and, more recently, in Dimond v Lovell [2002] 1 AC 384, another case where section 127(3) precluded the making of an enforcement order. In Dimond's case the restitutionary remedy sought was payment of the hire charge for a replacement car used by Mrs Dimond. The House rejected a claim advanced on the basis of unjust enrichment. Lord Hoffmann observed that Parliament contemplated that a debtor might be enriched consequential upon non-enforcement of an agreement pursuant to the statutory provisions. It was not open to the court to say this consequence is unjust and should be reversed by a remedy at common law: [2002] 1 AC 384, 397-398. 18. Since the judgment of Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead clearly sets out that without a credit agreement the claimant's case cannot succeed 19. Should the claimant be unable to produce the original agreement signed by both debtor and creditor and containing the prescribed terms, I request that the court uses its powers under section 142 Consumer Credit Act 1974 and declare the agreement supplied by the claimant (marked Exhibit X) unenforceable 20. The claimant would be aware of the fact that they would need to be able to produce a copy of the original agreement should they ever need to take legal action to enforce the agreement. The claimant would also need to be able to produce a true copy of the Agreement upon request pursuant to section 78 (1) Consumer Credit Act 1974, therefore it stands to reason that the claimant must surely hold such document. 21. According to sections 221 and 222 of the Companies Act 1985, a public company is required to maintain records for a period of six years (section 222(5)(b). 22. As a credit agreement is active until the agreement is terminated, I would suggest that all the payment records (and other documents making up the file - including the agreement/application etc) would be "live" until the account is paid, or terminated - thus, the full file should be retained for at least six years after that. 23. This interpretation fits in with Inland Revenue legislation that requires prime documents to be retained for a period of six years - AFTER THE END OF THE RELEVANT ACCOUNTING PERIOD. That would mean some files need to be retained for up to seven years. The relevant legislation is found in Schedule 18 of the Finance Act 1998 (paragraph 21) - of particular significance is sub-paragraph (6) which states: "The duty to preserve records under this paragraph includes a duty to preserve all supporting documents relating to the items mentioned in sub-paragraph (5)(a) and (b)." 24. Finally, key documents/application forms etc must be kept until 5 years after that business relationship has ended. This is a requirement of The Money Laundering Regulations 1993, 2003 and 2007. 25. Therefore since the original documents are required under the regulations stated in this defence and further more since the Civil Procedure Rules clearly set out that Original documents must be made available for inspection in practice direction 32 Para 13.1 I request that the claimant makes available the original agreement between parties for inspection and all other documents that are referred to within the agreement 26. If the claimant cannot supply a document signed by the creditor and debtor, easily legible and containing the prescribed terms per schedule 6 column 2 of SI 1983/1553 the agreement cannot be enforced. If the claimant asserts that it can provide proof that the monies have been used by the defendant and therefore even in the absence of the credit agreement the debt should be repaid then I quote the House of Lords in Wilson -v- FCT "lender is intended by Parliament to be left without recourse against the borrower in respect of the loan. That being the consequence intended by Parliament, the lender cannot assert at common law that the borrower has been unjustly enriched. That would be inconsistent with the parliamentary intention in rendering the entire agreement unenforceable" this clearly outlines that even if it is the case that the lender has loaned the monies to the debtor, if he does not comply with the CCA 1974, he cannot seek and equitable remedy and stands to lose the monies loaned 27. Further more I refer to Sir Andrew Morritt's judgment in Wilson and FCT [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 ss 65(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; The Assignment and Notice of Assignment 28. The claimant cites in their amended particulars that they have acquired the alleged debt by way of assignment. The defendant denies that notice of assignment as required by section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 has been received and the defendant puts the claimant to strict proof that the notice was served in accordance with Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925 29. For the avoidance of doubt, section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925 196. Regulations respecting notices. - (1) Any notice required or authorised to be served or given by this Act shall be in writing. and -(4) Any notice required or authorised by this Act to be served shall also be sufficiently served, if it is sent by post in a registered letter addressed to the lessee, lessor, mortgagee, mortgagor, or other person to be served, by name, at the aforesaid place of abode or business, office, or counting-house, and if that letter is not returned [F1 by the postal operator (within the meaning of the Postal Services Act 2000) concerned] undelivered; and that service shall be deemed to be made at the time at which the registered letter would in the ordinary course be delivered. 30. Therefore the claimant is put to strict proof that the notice of assignment was served in accordance with section 196 as laid out in point 29, should the claimant not be able to discharge the burden of proof in this matter it is averred 31. Further more the defendant requires that the Deed of Assignment be brought before the court for it to be scrutinized and validated as correct 32. In addition, the claimant states at point 4 in their particulars that that there is no need to rely upon service of a default notice in accordance with section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The defendant rejects this assertion 33. Section 87 clearly sets out that a default notice is a prequsite before a creditor can become entitled to take any action in respect of a regulated credit agreement. For the avoidance of doubt I have included the relevant sections of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 below 87. Need for default notice. - (1) Service of a notice on the debtor or hirer in accordance with section 88 (a "default notice ") is necessary before the creditor or owner can become entitled, by reason of any breach by the debtor or hirer of a regulated agreement,- (a) to terminate the agreement, or (b) to demand earlier payment of any sum, or ©to recover possession of any goods or land, or (d) to treat any right conferred on the debtor or hirer by the agreement as terminated, restricted or deferred, or (e) to enforce any security. And further more section 88 states 88. Contents and effect of default notice. - (1) The default notice must be in the prescribed form and specify- (a) the nature of the alleged breach; (b) if the breach is capable of remedy, what action is required to remedy it and the date before which that action is to be taken; © if the breach is not capable of remedy, the sum (if any) required to be paid as compensation for the breach, and the date before which it is to be paid. (2) A date specified under subsection (1) must not be less than seven days after the date of service of the default notice, and the creditor or owner shall not take action such as is mentioned in section 87(1) before the date so specified or (if no requirement is made under subsection (1)) before those seven days have elapsed. (3) The default notice must not treat as a breach failure to comply with a provision of the agreement which becomes operative only on breach of some other provision, but if the breach of that other provision is not duly remedied or compensation demanded under subsection (1) is not duly paid, or (where no requirement is made under subsection (1)) if the seven days mentioned in subsection (2) have elapsed, the creditor or owner may treat the failure as a breach and section 87(1) shall not apply to it. (4) The default notice must contain information in the prescribed terms about the consequences of failure to comply with it. (5) A default notice making a requirement under subsection (1) may include a provision for the taking of action such as is mentioned in section 87(1) at any time after the restriction imposed by subsection (2) will cease, together with a statement that the provision will be ineffective if the breach is duly remedied or the compensation duly paid. 34. Therefore the claimants statement that service of a default notice is not required is clearly in error of law and the above sections of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 clearly sets out that service is a requirement and the defendant puts the claimant to strict proof that a default notice which is fully compliant with the requirements of the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) as to its form and contents, was served upon the defendant 35. The case of Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain & Co - [1998] All ER (D) 339 sets out the importance of a valid default notice and confirms the consequences of non-compliance. Therefore if the claimant cannot produce proof that a compliant default notice has been served, the defendant requests that the court strike out the claimants claim on the grounds of having no reasonable prospect of success especially when considering points 4,5 & 6 above Failure of the Claimant to supply a sufficient letter before action 36. The claimant has in the defendants opinion failed to conduct themselves in accordance with the Civil Procedure Rules insofar that they failed to issue a letter before action compliant with the CPR preaction protocols which state 4.3 The claimant's letter should - (a) give sufficient concise details to enable the recipient to understand and investigate the claim without extensive further information; (b) enclose copies of the essential documents which the claimant relies on; © ask for a prompt acknowledgement of the letter, followed by a full written response within a reasonable stated period; (For many claims, a normal reasonable period for a full response may be one month.) (d) state whether court proceedings will be issued if the full response is not received within the stated period; (e) identify and ask for copies of any essential documents, not in his possession, which the claimant wishes to see; (f) state (if this is so) that the claimant wishes to enter into mediation or another alternative method of dispute resolution; and (g) draw attention to the court's powers to impose sanctions for failure to comply with this practice direction and, if the recipient is likely to be unrepresented, enclose a copy of this practice direction. 37. Without Disclosure of the relevant requested documentation I am unable to asses if I am indeed liable to the claimant, nor am I able to asses if the alleged agreement is properly executed, contain the required prescribed terms, or correct figures to make such an agreement enforceable by virtue of s127 Consumer Credit Act 1974 38. In view of the matters pleaded above, I respectfully request that the court gives consideration to whether the claimant's statement of case should be struck out as disclosing no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim, and/or that it fails to comply with CPR Part 16 and Practice Direction 16. 39. Additionally since the claimant has failed to discharge its obligations under Section 78(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 as stated this defence, it is requested that the claimant case be struck out pursuant to section 78(6) Consumer Credit Act 1974 40. Alternatively if the court decides not to strike out the claimants case, it is requested that the court orders full disclosure of the requested documents pursuant to the Civil Procedure Rules 41. Having instigated these proceedings without any legal basis for doing so, having failed to provide sufficient information required under the pre-trial protocols in order to investigate this claim, or indeed to provide a reasonable time period to investigate this matter, and having failed to investigate a dispute as required by the OFT Debt collection Guidelines I believe the Claimant's conduct amounts to unlawful harassment under section 40 of The Administration of Justice Act1970. Furthermore, the Claimant's behaviour is entirely vexatious and wholly unreasonable. 42. I respectfully ask the permission of the court to amend this defence if / when the claimant provides full disclosure of the requested documents and allows inspection of the original documents 43. Should the issue of the repeal of section 127(3) be brought before the court, it is drawn to the courts attention that schedule 3 of Consumer credit Act 2006 prevents section 15 of the CCA 2006 from having effect on agreements made before 6th April 2007 such as this one for the attention of the court I reproduce schedule 3 section 11 11 The repeal by this Act of- (a) The words "(subject to subsections (3) and (4))" in subsection (1) of section 127 of the 1974 Act, (b) Subsections (3) to (5) of that section, and © The words "or 127(3)" in subsection (3) of section 185 of that Act, has no effect in relation to improperly-executed agreements made before the commencement of section 15 of this Act. : Statement of Truth I XXXXXXXX, believe the above statement to be true and factual Signed ..................... Date Also check out this link http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/33174-consumer-credit-act-agreements.html#post258846 which refers to section 85 of the Act and credit card tokens being reissued which requires re-issue of the original agreement. Keep smiling! T

Hi Talbot, Yes, time limit up on 14 days notice given to DCA who hasn't returned payments / paid compensation but has tried the usual flannel, so, we are ignoring this and are about to issue claim. My Solicitor is away this week and as soon as he returns, we are to go over a few aspects then issue proceedings once we have decided the best action. Keep you informed! Probably be about 3 -4 weeks before we know the response through the Court. Fully expect an offer or series of as they definately don't want a successful claim against them. It's all good fun! In the meantime, everyone else - keep on fighting! T

Thanks Angel, great philosophy, it's good to look at all aspects, I try to keep an open mind and always welcome any thoughts! T

Hi Angel, Udog, all, Just posted some more food for thought on http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/188190-scale-attack-dcas.html#post2046228 posts 9 - 12 of of interest, keep fighting! T

Palomino, a little more! I've actually had a telephone conversation with my solicitor this evening and briefly went over another aspect which I wanted to bounce off him; this lead to two more matters which are relevant. The first was how the debt with the original creditor was dealt with. It seems as though it can be actually profitable for a creditor to write off your debt; I'll explain how. Let us say that you have a debt of £2000 with Mbna and you find yourself in circumstances which mean you can't repay or maintain payments. With interest (in authorised limits and terms) and more so unauthorised, interest and penalties, which can be draconian, a debt can get up to say £6000 over a period of time, even assuming payments, (some minimum) have been made along the way This is good for their books and when they 'default' it, the debt is disposed of in some way, most likely sold off to a DCA. How is this dealt with in their accounting records? Well, it's written off as a bad debt and they then claim the full amount of £6000, less the sale amount against their operating profits and company tax. I think this is currently 28%. So, 28% of £6000 is around £1700; if they sell the debt for more than £300, then they are into a kind of profit, not forgetting all the monthly payments that have been made along the way, say another £1000. And who has given the 'tax' credit to the creditor - well, you as the tax payer have! So, when the debt is sold, the DCA has a go at getting as much as they can, the only person to suffer is you, the poor debtor. Kind of negates any argument for moral responsibility to pay! Next, when the creditors have all the Credit and Credit Card Agreements drawn up, they use a team of expensive blood sucking lawyers who draft it and amend it and double check it and milk all the procedures that corporate lawyers use to hike up their huge fees. Now, here is the interesting part, lawyers have professional indemnity insurance to cover for any errors or mistakes, incompetence etc. So, if these high flying lawyers have made mistakes when drafting the agreements in such a sloppy incompetent fashion (good for us, bad for DCA's and their clients!) which causes losses to their clients, I wonder how many of the claims made against the creditors have simply been thrown back at their lawyers to claim against them or their professional indemnity insurance? If the lawyer is making huge profits, they can then use the 'claim' against their own profits and hence tax bill! Interesting many faceted game eh? T

Thank you Palomino, I appreciate your playing devil's advocate. It's good to always reconsider a course of action or viewpoint. I actually agree in part with the moral stance you suggest, that if the money has been used or enjoyed then it should be re-paid, however...... The aspect of reclaiming money paid has been thoroughly discussed with my solicitor who has researched extensively and advises (reproduced from another post of mine) "if what has been paid is not authorised / legal / compliant then not only should payments cease and the alleged 'debt' be cancelled (or not enforced) but any payments already made should be returned with compensation if / when distress etc caused and any other costs or expenses reclaimed, so one is in the same position as before being in receipt of illegal treatment, debt claims etc. I happen to wholeheartedly agree and happy to be among the first to go for it! It might be seen that we are using loopholes / technicalities etc to avoid debt which would otherwise be due, BUT there is the massive contributory factor of non compliance, bad / non existent record keeping, malpractice, vague and improperly drafted documents on behalf of the original lenders and DCA's. Please remember, these lot are supposed to be professional, competent organised and licensed organisations, with the benefit of huge resources and legal teams who should have set everything up correctly, executed agreements and kept proper records instead of rushing to throw as much money at people in the good times without thought to the consequences simply to earn as much money as possible. Also, if you were taken to Court for a contract which included a term of say 33,333% interest or other extremely high, inordinate amount or penalty, providing the document had been properly executed with legal involvement if necessary, the Judge would have to find against you, no matter how much he / she may want to be lenient. They have to follow the Law. So, if the law states that there are numerous problems within so called 'agreements' or terms or other shortfalls which render them invalid, then that is what must happen, with full redress!" It's a bit like the bank charges reclaim. The banks would argue they were reasonable and enforceable, in fact they have a much stronger line of argument than the DCA's as their 'penalties' were written into 'contracts' far better than the credit 'card' (sometimes!) agreements. But, how much has been successfully reclaimed to date? In my case the so called 'debts' have long since been passed onto DCA's, for as little as 3% of their original balance, apart from Mbna, who has had the file passed backwards and forwards and I still haven't had any official paperwork!. So, the original creditor has removed the debt from their balance sheet and has gained a tax advantage for so doing - end of story. The DCA's have bought the book debt with a low expected rate of recovery and constantly threaten, frighten and harass people into paying what they can't afford. This is not morally or ethically correct. They are making huge profits - I bet anything you would have jumped at the chance to pay your debts off at as little as 3%? So, why should anyone else make a huge profit out of your misery?. The original creditors have thrust huge more credit limits onto people, often without their requests, because they know that given the opportunity, most people will spend what they have access to, they care nothing about the little people in the street as long as the figures look good. I go back to the legal authority, if the law states that something is not legally tangible, even if this is a loophole (or a whole series of big ones,!) then the law must be followed. Another example, when say for instance, there is a good reason or technicality that a conviction under a speed camera related prosecution falls down, then all others in a similar position have their convictions quashed. You can't have a half way house - if something is legally enforceable, then it must be paid or enforced, if it isn't, then it shouldn't be paid or enforced and if it has, it must be refunded with any associated costs such as interest etc. I intend to follow the legal arguments for recovery of all reasonable costs incurred, suffered or endured as a result of unauthorised 'extortion' to the limit to follow another legal principle, simply to be in the same position as before the 'illegal' event! T

Thanks Dx, I'd be interested to know all the details if you can find them! Also re fraud, having an interesting convo on :- http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mbna/172769-mbna-agreement-now-threat-21.html#post2044188 Posts 419 - 422 cheers T