Sounds like its saved you a quid for the CCA requey anyway mate It might be worth an SAR initial (£10 plus recorded del) but always bear in mind if you are actively paying, you're saying loud and clear that you agree that you owe them. On that basis, they could *probably* turn up in court with a beer mat for an agreement and you'd still have to pay. You might however find an angle that could substantially reduce the overall debt - charges, penalties and the like, so it could well be worth a punt.

From what I can understand (being only partly up to speed on texting ) you knowingly used somebody elses card, and were caught doing so. Bluntly, I'd say on the face of it: you're bang to rights, and ought to take whatever rogering you're in for as sweetly and humbly as you can in order to minimise collateral damage. My reading of it overall: the more you wriggle, the deeper the hook will go. Be as sorry as it gets, and you'll maybe get a fine and a slapped wrist. Get bolshie and they'll hang you out to dry. And for lawks sake keep your girly sweet - if she turns on you and states you used it without her authority they'll likely throw the book at you.

Going right back... I'm reading that Barclaycard assigned this to Cabot about a year ago? Did you recieve the Notice of Assignment, sent and recieved by you either by hand or by registered delivery? If not: +1 Did you recieve a properly exectuted Default Notice? If not: +1

Actually AC, that was *exactly* what I was wondering - whether I should go keyed up to fight for my life if needs be or whether it would be as much a rubber-stamp affair as the original CCJ was regardless of whether they turn up or not. Frankly, unless they do a rabbit out of the hat on an agreement they've already said they havent got, the only thing they seem to have going for them is my bull$hitting them in February that I'd go into an arrangement to buy time, and only then after they rang my solicitor and scared his secretary witless with threats that if I didnt they reposses immediatly. All conversation logged of course - the blithering idiots not realising that its a legal requirement for Solicitors to do so I made one payment, found CAG, and the rest is history... And for the record: I've only ever had two credit cards, and niether were with the company they PoC'd over Nearly forgot: I do need specific advise on whether it should be thrown out anyway (ie, regardless of anything else) on the basis that they claimed in their PoC and were awarded interest on an agreement that the court has never seen under the County Court Act. Surely that is a "mis-trial" if ever there was one? Cheers Mo

As above, which has cheered me up Does anyone have any clues as to what I can expect at the hearing? What form it may take, whether I'll be expected to file any kind of defence, or wether just turning up will be enough to get the set aside? I've snipped out the application from above for ID reasons, but basically, I didnt defend because I was out of the country, and despite a CCA and a CPR theres still no form of agreement turned up, and the court has never seen one, despite awarding interest under the County Courts Act. Any clues, O wise brothers and sisters?

If it helps:

Cheers KF Rang court earlier today, and have been granted a 10 minute Set Aside hearing for 20th April

Thanks Bill Mo

Just out of interest, can this particular aspect be backdated to an agreement signed prior to both the 08 and 06 changes, or is there a cut off point for the agreement having been signed before which its excluded?

Seconded. The chap seems to have simply dissapeared of radar in a worrying way. Sound off Doc if you're out there! I *think* what WelshMam is refering to is called an "Unless Order"?? I might be wrong though! Do a search for Unless Order and see!?! Punting for you.... Good luck MJ

Just agreeing with FG on this after my comments re difficulty of getting it set aside.

Sort of - but as we know, making you "default" can take many forms, and who knows what lies around the corner? One thing I *think* you need to be aware of (read: this needs confirming) is that where you admitted the debt, the CCJ will have *irreversably* replaced the original agreement. The reason I point this out is that if you had contested the debt, and at that point no docs had been enforceable, you would have been unlikely / unlucky to have been stuck with the CCJ. Now you have, coupled with your admittance, you'll (IMHO) find it VERY uphill getting the CCJ set aside. taken together, the CCJ and your admittance also *I think* stops you declaring the account in default? Thats not to say that if they cant supply docs, or what they supply is a pile of unenforceable tut you shouldnt try, because its very probably worth it from the point of view of, for instance, being able to write to them and say "You've supplied tut, I'm concidering taking this through the courts again" (which you can effectively do by defaulting I guess) and them making them an offer in full and final based on your knowledge. The above is my take on your sitch, but bear in mind I'm as green as the grass so take better advice before acting! Anyway, in knowledge lies wisdom and all that. Get whatever info you can from everywhere, then post back in.

See my post above. For simple clarification: where the OC is not on the Claim sheet, it can be taken as proof positive of an absolute assignment. the only other explanation would be that a novation had taken place, which the Defendant would have been party to as their consent and agreement would have been needed.

OK, I'm almost awake It would appear that we actually agree on the gist of what I was trying to spit out, but on this last part, I beg to differ. From: http://www.lawdit.co.uk/reading_room/room/view_article.asp?name=../articles/Assigning%20a%20debt%20or %20contract%20Article.htm and elsewhere: Where the OC isnt on the claim sheet, its an absolute assignment. Whatever is in a T&C document in no way gets anyone out of breaking the Data Protection Act. If you are no longer in privity of contract with the OC, what right has the OC got to process your data? I would argue: NONE. Legally, if it was an assignation, you are a "perfect stranger" to the OC. If that is so, then a request of the OC by a DCA to process your data breaks the DPA. Likewise, if the OC carries out that request, they break the DPA. Ergo: I'm speculating that a letter stating "we will contact the OC" is either an admittance of breaking the DPA, or a clear obfuscation in order to confuse and obstruct a Defendant in pursuit of the documents they are legally entitled to. I'd be interested in your (or anyones) take on that speculation

My point being, that if there was an assignment as opposed to a novation, then by what right does a) the OC keep and process data on a person that they are no longer in privity of contract with? and b) if you look at the relevant section of the Data Protection Act that the DCA commits an offence by asking the OC to process data to which it isnt entitled process any more if it is no longer in privity with the Defendant. If indeed of course, the DCA *does* ask. If they *dont* ask the OC, yet inform the Defendant that they "arent obliged" but will (commit an offence by) asking the OC - they are either lying to the Defendant under CPR (obstructing justice?) or they ARE proposing to commit an offence under the Data Protection Act. If they DONT commit an offence under the Data Protection Act, then surely that can only be because they didnt in fact get an assignment, but a novation and *failed to inform the Debtor* which makes the novation illegal, and any action by the DCA *alone* rubbish in law, since they MUST be joined by the OC in claiming if a novation took place. Its been a long day and I dont think I'm making clear what half my brain is thinking here

Not an expert, so big pinch of salt: The CCJ will have stated an account, and that account is the relevant account for all purposes, ie, it cant be that an account opened in 1999 becomes treated as an account opened in 2008 for interest purposes. However, I'd send a letter to everyone and see what you get back. On this next bit DEFINATELY GET OTHER ADVICE, its just a vague idea for a strategy: One way *might* be to get the amount owed down to under £5K and then antagonise them into going after an interim charging order on the back of the CCJ, which may allow you the opportunity to contest the validity of the agreement and the usual fall-downs in the (cheaper) SCC? You're obviously not going to be able to walk backwards on owing the debt, but if you can make their pants fall down on the documentation, who knows? the beak might even throw it out?

If the DCA states "We will have to apply to the original owner for a copy contract" - is that not an admittance on their part that the whole contract hasnt been purchased? If it had, wouldn't the original owner have had to pass all information *and rights to hold and process data* to the DCA? If that is so, then are we not looking at an illegal novation rather than an assignment, in that the third party (the debtor) hasn't been party to the novation, and any NoA says specifically that it is an assignment, not a novation. OK, taking that and running with it: for a DCA to attend court having put in writing (eg) "we will contact the original creditor" in answer to a CCA or CPR request is proof of either: The DCA has blatently lied to the defendant when answering the CCA/CPR request in order to excuse their lack of documentation, and in doing so can perhaps be said to have attempted to pervert the course of justice? or The DCA has asked for an uncontracted thrid party, the original lender, who is no longer in privity with the Defendant to supply data that the Original Lender still holds, in which case the DCA breaks the Data Protection Act or The DCA and the OL have not assigned as they have said (hense no NoA being legally delivered, so no comebacks) and have in fact concocted between them a form of novation which has excluded the Defendant just some thoughts..

Quite honestly, if a Judge is so incompetant, or so indifferent to the Law being followed, having said what you said, bolded which encapsulates your right to a proper trial, you may as well give the bent fecker both barrels: The Bill of Rights - established for several hundred years, and used as the basis for the Human Rights Act, which in turn has been used as the basis for European rights Law (which was largely drafted by UK legal experts by the way) all state in different ways but equally unequivocably: a man must be free from forfeture or fine UNTIL he has been tried by the law. He neither has to admit or not admit anything. Its encumbant upon the Claimant to offer lawful facts in order for the court to pass judgement within the law. Your morals are not at issue. The facts presented by the Claimant are, and you may as well spell it out to the beak if he persists in acting outside the law in trying to gain an admission of guilt from you prior to the Claimant presenting their case fully. Frankly, you have nothing to lose. The above is just my humble opinion, but thats where it will go if they try that s*it with me. Relevant clauses, the Human Rights Act 1998: 6 Acts of public authorities (1) It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right. (snipped as NA) (3) In this section “public authority” includes— (a) a court or tribunal, and From the Govt. website, on the Human Rights Act 1998 Civil disputes Those disputes which don't involve the police are referred to as a 'civil law' issues rather than 'criminal law' issues. The most common issues within civil law relate to employment, housing, council tax and debt/credit, but there are many others that are also covered. If you are involved in a civil dispute it is in everyone’s interests to try to keep the matter out of court as this can be expensive, time-consuming and often emotionally draining for those involved. Mediation or alternative dispute resolution, such as conciliation and arbitration, are recommended as the best ways to resolve civil disputes. However if they don’t work, you or the other person or party involved in the dispute may want to take it further by going to court. Going to court If you do end up in court, you have a responsibility to co-operate with the court to achieve the objective of a just and fair outcome. This means providing documentation and following procedures. Dispute resolution or settling the case outside court remains an option right up to the beginning of a court case. Excerpt from European Convention on Human Rights Article 6 . Right to a fair trial 1 In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2 Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. The specific wording from the English Bill of Rights: "- all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void -"

How can something that doesnt exsist be enforceable?

Assuming that you have documented evidence of their refusal / inability (via CCA / SAR / CPR) you have one bolded already. Add to which you must defend, and make sure that the hearing is based upon supplying what they wont have supplied to Northampton, and havent managed to supply to you. Just MHO as a n00b - sure someone else will pop in with better ideas

Where have our two legal heroes dissapeared to?

bumpitty-punt

No, could you point at for me? And try not to worry - they cant hang draw and quarter us (although I expect they're looking for ways... )

Good luck Shelbs. I wont say yay or nay on the rest of the defence as I'm not qualified, but "5" is such a cute thing It basically DEMANDS sight of the agreement or the Court is clearly wrong All fingers eyes and other bits crossed for you

Thanks, on that this PM.