No mate, i submitted my defence, and the claimant has not replied so it is in a state os "STAY"

A BASIC RUN DOWN OF EVENTS 23rd June 2006, Approached a dealer regarding the purchase of a vehicle to use as a Taxi. The taxi was to be used by myself as a sole trader. (One man band) 28th June 2006 The dealer sent all the relevant paper work, Agreement signed and returned with a £500 deposit on the same day. 7th August 2006 Agreement signed by creditor 18th August 2006 Vehicle delivered. 7th September 2006 First payment took from bank account 12th July 2007 Default Notice sent by creditor (none compliant) 15th August 2007 Termination Notice sent by creditor. 4th October 2007 The creditor instructed agents to pay me a visit. The first visit took place on 12th October 2007, the agents were instructed to: (1). collect arrears of £866.16 (2). collect the next instalment due on 7th October 2007 (3). collect a £100.00 late payment fee. (4). finally the costs of the agents fee’s. If these could not be paid in full, the agents were instructed to re-possess the vehicle. However the agents did not re-posses the vehicle as it was parked on my drive, they came onto my drive and wheel clamped the vehicle instead. Returning 7 days later to remove the clamp on the payment of £1839.86 (All witnessed by the police, complete with incident numbers and statements) 18th October 2007 Started a complaint via the Financial Ombudsman Service 25th January 2008 Default Notice sent by creditor (none compliant) 18th February 2008 Termination Notice sent by creditor. 27th July 2009 Final decision from Financial Ombudsman Service 15th October 2009 Default Notice sent by creditor (compliant) 10th November 2009 Termination Notice sent by creditor. 19th November 2009 Link Financial became involved 10th February 2010 Link returned to creditor 18th February 2010 Anglia Uk Ltd were instructed to re-possess the vehicle 26th February 2010 Anglia Uk Ltd re-possessed the vehicle 9th June 2010 Shoosmiths became involved 26th August 2010 Claim received via Northampton County Court (not the bulk centre) 28th October 2010 Transferred to my local county court and an order of 1 month stay to enable the parties to attempt settlement 10th December 2010 Creditor Applied for Summary Judgement 1st February 2011 Application for Summary Judgement refused 8th February 2011 Notice of Allocation to Fast Track commencing between 23rd May 2011 and 30th June 2011 with a time estimate of 1 day

any advice or guidance an what to do now would be greatly appreciated. or could anybody paste any threads to this thread, relating to skeleton arguments, pre-trial check lists, witness statement of facts.

TRIAL COURT ORDER

this little gem, is more confusing than mine. cab

thanx deb, my situation is identical to yours. have you had any come back since then. cab

3. It is noted that the Claimant has failed to comply with the order of District Judge Wall dated 8th October 2010. The Claimant was ordered to serve, among other things: A copy of the “Credit Agreement”. Compliant With the Consumer Credit Act 1974.(“The Act”) A copy of the notice of assignment with evidence as to service. 4. The Claimant has failed to serve these items. These documents are vital to the claim and go to the heart of the issue in this case. Lack of these documents and evidence as to service prior to proceedings being commenced are fatal to the Claimant's claim.

That was confirmed by the judge at my summary judgement on teusday, although they did'nt physically remove the vehicle they still entered my property (without a court order) and immobilised the vehicle, cab

ok, taking away what the claimant has supplied and concentrating on what they have'nt supplied, here goes 1. I, Cab1ne am the defendant in this action and a litigant in person. I make the following statement as my defence to the Claim brought by CL Finance Limited. 2. This amended defence is submitted following the order of Deputy District Judge Maybury dated 18th January 2011. 3. It is noted that the Claimant has failed to comply with the order of District Judge Wall dated 8th October 2010. The Claimant was ordered to serve, among other things, a copy of the credit agreement relied upon and a copy of the notice of assignment with evidence as to service. 4. The Claimant has failed to serve these items. These documents are vital to the claim and go to the heart of the issue in this case. Lack of these documents and evidence as to service prior to proceedings being commenced are fatal to the Claimant's claim. Existence of a Written Agreement 5.The absence of a written agreement containing all of the prescribed terms is fatal to the claim as the alleged agreement was entered into before the 6th April 2007, being the date when s15 of the Consumer Credit Act 2006 came into effect. By operation of Schedule 3 of the 2006 Act the terms of S127 (3) of the 1974 Act are not repealed in respect of this alleged agreement and therefore render it unenforceable. 6. The Court’s attention is drawn to the authority of: Wilson v First County Trust Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 633 (2 May 2001) Wilson & Ors v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (2003). Both of which confirm that where a document does not contain the required prescribed terms under the 1974 Act and the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) the Agreement cannot be enforced. 7. Further, it is noted that the 1974 Act provides that the prescribed terms cannot be found in a secondary document as according to section 61(1) (a),(b) & © the agreement must at the time it is laid before the debtor contain all the terms of the agreement. (Wilson & another v Hurstanger Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 299). The Assignment of the Debt 8. It is not admitted that there was a lawful assignment. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the assignment was lawful. It is not accepted that notice was given to myself of the assignment and the Claimant is put to strict proof that sufficient notice thereof was served upon myself before proceedings commenced. Without this proof the Claimant has no standing before the court (Compania Colombiana de Seguros v Pacific Steam Navigation Co [1965] 1 QB 101). 9. The Law of Property Act 1925 is the relevant act that deals with the assignment of debts. Section 136(1) requires that for the assignment of a debt to be effective, express notice in writing must have been given to the debtor:- 136. Legal assignments of things in action. (1) Any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor (not purporting to be by way of charge only) of any debt or other legal thing in action, of which express notice in writing has been given to the debtor, trustee or other person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim such debt or thing in action, is effectual in law (subject to equities having priority over the right of the assignee) to pass and transfer from the date of such notice. 10. However, it is Section 196(4) that prescribes the requirements for giving sufficient notice by post: 196. Regulations respecting notices. (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 [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. 11. It is noted that by the Recorded Delivery Service Act 1962 a recorded delivery letter is equivalent to a registered letter and that under the Postal Services Act 2000 Schedule 8 any reference to registered post is to be construed as meaning a registered postal service (eg Royal Mail recorded delivery or special delivery). 12. For the assignment of a debt to be effective and so giving the Claimant a right of action a valid Notice of Assignment must have been sufficiently served on me using a registered postal service pursuant to s196(4) before proceedings were commenced. The Claimant is put to strict proof that any notice of assignment was sufficiently served on me before proceedings were commenced. Without this proof, the Claimant has no right of action. 13. Further, it is submitted that the mere fact of giving a notice does not, of itself, create an assignment and that there must be an actual assignment in existence. It is the actual Assignment, not just the Section 136 notice, under which the Claimant derives title to bring the claim and the Claimant is put to strict proof that such Assignment exists. It is further averred that I am entitled, in any event, to view the document of assignment as a matter of law to ensure that the Assignee can give good discharge. (Van Lynn Developments v Pelias Construction Co Ltd 1968 [3] All ER 824). 14. Finally the claimant must establish that the sums claimed are lawfully owing both at the date of the alleged assignment and at all other times. 15. The defendant submits that: It is the obligation of the Claimant to prove all of the above matters. 16. As a result, The defendant respectfully requests that: pursuant to CPR Part 16 Paragraph 7.3(1) and CPR 3.4(2) the claim is struck out and the Claimant be ordered to pay the defendants costs, to be summarily assessed. cab

ok, i'll post up a defence in a mo cab

well that will be interesting, when the judge was telling the barrister that there SJ was at a loss and why, you could physically see the "PAIN" inflicted upon the barrister. cab

having a problem at this point, as they have never supplied an agreement. 8. In such eventuality the absence of a written agreement containing all of the prescribed terms is fatal to the claim as the alleged agreement was entered into before the 6th April 2007, being the date when s15 of the Consumer Credit Act 2006 came into effect. By operation of Schedule 3 of the 2006 Act the terms of S127 (3) of the 1974 Act are not repealed in respect of this alleged agreement and therefore render it unenforceable. cab

good points nicklea, i will adjust the above defence to suit, thankyou for being constructive, cab

sorry nicklea, i was knocking up a defence as you answered, the problem for me is, i never applied for a credit card. back in 1997 i bought a pda off the internet from a company called MNC (my new cheap) in manchester, and the account they refer to as a credit card account is the same account that goes back to 1997. this was purchased through a web application called "ABLE2BUY" and the finance company was at the time GE MONEY.(now santander) cab

"OK" JUST A QUICK ATTEMPT any alterations or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. DEFENCE CLAIM NUMBER: XXXXXXXXX IN THE MANSFIELD COUNTY COURT CL Finance Ltd (Claimant) AND Mr. Cab1ne (Defendant) 1. I, Cab1ne am the defendant in this action and a litigant in person. I make the following statement as my defence to the Claim brought by CL Finance Limited. 2. This is an amended defence and counterclaim that supersedes the ‘Embarrassed’ defence filled 4th September 2010 3. The statements made in this defence are in reply and opposition to the Claimants subsequent non compliance of my request to supply copies of all the documents the claimant relies upon, and pursuant to Civil Procedure Rules 31.14 dated: 23rd August 2010. (XX-01) And court order dated: 8th October 2010. (XX-02) 4. The claimant has supplied to the defendant a copy of: (A). Copy Letter dated: 23rd October 2010. (XX-03). (B). Statements of Account referring to an account that started on 29th June 1997, (XX-04) (C). Default Notice dated: 20th February 2010. (XX-05). (D). Notice of Assignment dated: 8th July 2010 (XX-06). Statement of Account 5. The Statements of account are only partial and refer to an account that started on 29th June 1997, 6. The periods covered on the statement of account are as follows: 4th January 2009, 4th February 2009, 4th June 2008, 4th July 2009, 4th September 2009, 4th October 2009, 4th December 2009, 4th March 2010, 4th April 2010, 4th May 2010, 4th June 2010, 4th July 2010, The Default Notice 7. The Claimant has failed to provide a Default Notice that is compliant with section 87 and 88 of the Consumer Credit act 1974. The default notice clearly states that: To remedy this breach you must pay the arrears within “14 days” from receipt of this notice. The act clearly states that: 87 . (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, 88 . (1). the default notice must be in the prescribed form and specify. (2). A date specified under subsection (1) must not be less than fourteen 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 fourteen days have elapsed. The Assignment 8. Under section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 the assignor, or assignee, must notify the debtor in writing and this must be affected in law via section 196 of the Act in order to lawfully attain the right to issue proceedings. 9. The Claimant has failed to provide proof of service or proof of posting. As a consequence of the claimant’s failure to serve a Notice of Assignment, the Claimant has no right to bring this action is his own name. The Agreement 10. The claimant has not supplied to the defendant a copy of an agreement or any terms and conditions relevant to the alleged agreement. 11. The result of this failure, is that I am unable to file a fully particularised amended defence to the claimants claim as without the documentation which the Claimant relies upon, I am unable to answer their allegations as set out in their particulars and I am placed at a severe disadvantage, as I am a Litigant in person. 12. The defendant respectfully requests that: pursuant to CPR Part 16 Paragraph 7.3(1) and CPR 3.4(2) the claim is struck out and the Claimant be ordered to pay the defendants costs, to be summarily assessed. Statement of Truth I Cab1ne, believe the above statement to be true and factual Signed ..................... Date xxxxx

"UPDATE" went to court, met a nice barrister and a nice judge. the judge let the barrister speel off his claim, and then gave me a right good slapping. "YOU'VE HAD THE MONEY" "YOU SIGNED THE AGREEMENT" the moral issue syndrome. i then had my turn and had a good 30 minute banter with the judge, i demonstrated that the agreement was missing one of the prescribed terms "PAYMENT DATES" the barrister then suggested to the judge that the court had the power to enforce the agreement. Section 65(1) of the 1974 Act provides that an improperly executed regulated agreement is enforceable against the debtor on an order of the court only. Section 127 of the Act sets out the powers of the court upon an application for an enforcement order under (inter alia) section 65(1). Section 127(1) provides that the court shall dismiss the application if, but only if, it considers it just to do so having regard to (i) prejudice caused to any person by the contravention in question and the degree of culpability for it. my wife then passed me my transcript of Wilson v First County Trust Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 633 (2 May 2001). i passed this to the judge, he picked up the section regarding the barrister's comments. i asked the judge to read on a bit more and pointed him to the comments of the court regarding section 127 (3). he agreed with me, he advised the barrister to brush up on section 127 (3) and (4). denied the application for summary judgement, and he is reffering it to trial on a date to be specified in June 2011. cab

IN COURT 2MORO 1st Feb Thanx for all the help cab

DEFENCE 1. 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. 2. The Defendant is embarrassed in pleading to the Particulars of Claim as it stands at present, inter alia: - 3. The particulars of claim discloses no cause of action and are self evidently an abuse of process, in that they fail to deal with the basic rules of pleading in accordance with the CPR (even allowing for the constraints of the bulk issue system). a) The Particulars of Claim are vague and insufficient and do not disclose an adequate statement of facts relating to or proceeding the alleged cause of action. b) No particulars are offered in relation to the nature of the written agreement referred to, the method the claimant calculated any outstanding sums due, or any default notices issued or any other matters necessary to substantiate the claimant's claim. 4. No documents supporting the claims in the particulars have been offered and despite a request to the claimant for further information on 26/07/2010 and via CPR 31.14 dated 24/08/2010, both sent by recorded delivery. None has been forthcoming and as a result I cannot plead in defence to the claim 5. Without clarification of the claimants claim, the defendant is extremely disadvantaged and the claimants claim appears without merit, the defendant asks to be allowed to submit a fully particularised defence should the claimant provide copies of the original documents he will rely upon. Signed I am the Defendant - I believe that the facts stated in this form are true

POC

ok will do (internet been dodgy) cab

thanks nicklea' hoping i could get a dig with the second court order. cab

COURT ORDER 2

No prtoof of assignment and No agreement cab

then recieved these