Quick update. Regal Credit Consultants Ltd are now trying to collect this on behalf of their client.. I will be sending them a letter briefly, but just wanted clarification on the following. According to their Consumer Credit Licence No. 137226, under Right to Canvass Off Trade Premises, it says NO. So, if they send someone round to my house are they in breach of their licence? Any thoughts? Regards.

Best wishes Hedman and keep us updated Regards

Hi rnk, where are you upto? can you do a brief summary to date please. regards

Hi BtB, Your initial defence does state that you would like permission to file an amended defence if they provide the documents, so I think it would be a good idea. Especially knowing the way CL behave. You should also make reference in the amended defence to wanting to see the Deed of Assignment as well. Have a quick read of my CL threads and see if there is any information of use. Then come back with any questions you have. Regards

True, but thats just the way it appears to be.

Hi Angy, Repayment protector is the cover taken out to cover your payments in case you cannot pay due to illness etc.. PPI basically. Did you ask for this? Were you aware of this? If not you could consider reclaiming this by way of a counterclaim if it has been missold. Don't call them, just stick to the court timetables and start compiling your proper defence. Please look for further feedback and continue reading other BC threads for info. Regards

Good development. Will be watching with interest. Well done GLC

Hi BTB, Have you submitted anything other than the short defence Postggj drafted for you? If you have a court date we may need to look at formulating a full defence to what documents they have provided. It would also be a good idea to prepare a skeleton arguement. These you would need to submit to the court and cohens about seven days before the trial date. Regards

Hi Ski, Great order. Is this small claims? If they don't comply by the due date, the court will most probably strike the case out. As foolishgirl said, you could apply on an N244 for a strike out, or just send the court a reminder letter (as we did in our small claims case). see http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/134001-suggested-letter-where-claimant.html Best wishes

Hi rnk, Can you provide a link to your thead please.

Hi BTB What are the main points of your defence? Do you have a copy of the Deed of Assignment as well?

Yes, copies of the full cases, but then just the relevant sections of the regs. That's what I did. Will post a list up of what I provided if that helps. Regards

So defective DN, bad assignment, noa not served properly? Do you have the relevant cases to back these up with? The defective DN gives you a counterclaim for injury to credit. If you are confident enough to stand up in court and argue, then you could let it go to trial. (Your choice at the end of the day.) I would suggest you compile a skeleton arguement and get it sent to the court and claimant at least 7 days before the trial and I would also suggest putting a bundle together of the relevant cases and legislation to take to court (3 copies, 1 for court, 1 for Claimant, 1 for you) with each page clearly numbered and mark your copy of the skeleton arguement up with the relevant page numbers from your bundle and their bundle for ease of/quick reference. If you choose to go to court and don't settle during the trial and they argue that the term 'registered letter' refers to a letter with the registered company address on it, I would counter this by asking the claimants solicitor/barrister to explain why there would have been a need to amend the provisions of the act by the Recorded Delivery Service Act 1962 if it did not refer to the required method of service. Hope this info helps, shout if you need any comments. Regards

Evening Littlebert, The settlement was agreed part way through the trial, drafted by the Claimants Barrister and signed by all parties and the Judge. As we had a favourable Judge and the points being argued are points of law, it was clear they wanted to settle as I suspect they didn't want a ruling on 196(4) LPA. In hindsight maybe we should have pushed it further but we just wanted an end to it and so agreed to settle on our terms. The Consent Order said: By Consent It is ordered that: 1. The Claim be dismissed 2. The Counterclaim be dismissed 3. The Claimant will remove any notice of default it has registered by * and will not process any information relating to agreement no. * to any third party. 4. No order for costs 5. This order is made in full and final settlement of the claim and neither the Claimant nor the Defendant shall commence any further legal action in relation to agreement no. * Hope this helps, could you remind me the main points of your case. Were they the same as ours i.e DN, NoA and DoA??. Best wishes

To summarise, We went to the trial and before entering the court room had a chat with the Claimants barrister who outlined that they were going to try to get a ruling on the DN before proceeding further. We said that there are two issues which need to be discussed, the Assignment and the DN. In the Court room, the Claimants barrister outlined what they were looking for after being told by the Judge to pass a comment back to the Claimants solicitors about the quality of the bundle they had provided. After informing the court we had brought our own bundle of the relevant legislation and cases, we were asked to present our arguements first to allow all parties time to consider the bundle contents. We presented our arguements on the assignment and DN making reference to both the Claimants bundle and the Defendants bundle allowing time for reading and discussion around the points. The Judge was not happy with the Claimants lack of response to the issues over the last 12 months, but acknowledged this was not the barristers problem as had only been instructed the day before. The Judge agreed with our interpretation of s.196 and the Claimants barrister conceeded on the DN being ineffective, but having had no time to read the contents of the Defendants bundle, it was agreed that a break be taken for these points to be considered further. It was during this break that the Claimants barrister offered a drop all hands settlement. i.e we agree to dismiss counterclaim and they agree to dismiss claim, if not they would defend the counterclaim by reissuing the DN in the correct format and get proof of service of the NoA. Now, whilst I suspect neither of these can be done, at the time we opted to settle just to put an end to it and on our terms. Plus we had a favourable Judge which we may not have had next time round. Hope this info helps. Regards

Hi HH Which bit are you struggling with?

I wish But you understand why I said that in post #260.

Just found this on google which may help. www1.landregistry.gov.uk/assets/library/documents/SEV.doc Basically says Section 36(2) of the Law of Property Act 1925 allows one joint owner to serve a written notice on the other joint owners, severing their joint tenancy in equity. Section 196 of that Act, as modified by section 1 of the Recorded Delivery Service Act 1962, says how such a notice must be served.

No probs, just make sure you edit it to suit. Please don't just copy and paste. Take the time to read things through and make sure you can understand and argue the relevant points. I know it sounds patronizing, but its easy to do and have done it before myself. Regards

Hi Hammyhound, You will probably need to take 3 x copies of the relevant legislation with you as they will probably not provide it in the Claimants bundle, including the Law of Property Act and Recorded Delivery Service Act 1962 plus whatever else you need to refer to (CCA etc) as a proper bundle and a good skeleton arguement. The Judge was impressed with our bundle and even their barrister kept a copy... Hope it goes well, but make sure you can argue your side and back it up. Regards

Hi CitizenB, My thought also, but not really worth the extra hassle and time it would take to argue. Plus we got a result we are happy with and on our terms. So all good in the end. Cheers.

Hello all, Brilliant Day... Been to Court and claim/counterclaim dismissed part way through by way of consent order agreed between the parties. The Judge was very good and was in our favour and would likely have ruled against the Claimant but we decided to settle for various reasons. The upshot though to be wary of, is using S.196(4) of the LPA as whilst our interpretation of it is that the NoA must be sent by a registered mail service, the Barrister for the Claimant was going to argue if we had not settled that the term 'registered letter' actually refers to a letter containing the registered company address/registration number. At least we now have closure and can put an end to it rather than have it drag out for longer. The consent order is in our terms so we are happy with the outcome. i.e Claim and counterclaim dismissed No order for costs Claimant to remove all third party data including registered DN's Full and Final Settlement, and neither party can commence any further legal action relating to the agreement. So, basically we won (Nothing to pay). Many thanks to everyone who helped and offered guidance it is much appreciated. Best regards.

Hi Ski Ours was quite short as you said but appeared to do the job. If you can go with Kimberleys more in depth response edited to suit then thats fine. The more info/support for your case the better at the end of the day. Best wishes

It does happen and seems to be quite a regular thing for Cohens. Just hang in there and keep us updated. Regards

Sorry to hear your news but if your happy with the outcome thats fine. Good luck with the rest and I will let you know how we get on with ours soon. Regards