Santander store card ? How old is the card ? Is it still a store card, was it always a store card (only spend in a store/chain) and is it still only for 1 store/chain ? How old is it ? Did she ever sign an agreement ? M1

http://www.johnpughschambers.co.uk/Consumer%20Credit%20%28Enforcement,%20Default%20and%20Termination%20Notices%29%20Regulations%201983.pdf (2) Any notice to be given by a creditor or owner in relation to a regulated agreement to a debtor or hirer under section 87(1) of the Act (which relates to the necessity to serve a default notice on the debtor or hirer in accordance with section 88 before taking certain action by reason of any breach of the agreement by the debtor or hirer) shall contain-- (a) a statement that the notice is a default notice served under section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974; (b) the information set out in paragraphs 1 to 3, 6 and 8 of Schedule 2 to these Regulations; and © statements in the form specified in paragraphs 4, 5, 7[, 8A] and 9 to 11 of that Schedule. Parties to agreement 2 (1) The name and a postal address of the creditor or owner. (2) The name and a postal address of the debtor or hirer. M1

http://govanlc.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/glc-unfair-bank-charges-update-phase-2.html M1

http://govanlc.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/reid-v-clydesdale-bank-plc.html The case of Reid v. Clydesdale Bank plc has been settled extra-judically and no further comment will be made. M1

It's not ideal but will be fine.Email followed by a phone call to confirm. They may spout some crap that it's nothing to do with them and it'll take x days to process etc but ultimately, i believe, you will have done all the CPRs required of you. It might help you know if you could have a case but in reality if you don't know too much the courtroom is a dangerous step and ,without help, a step too far. I think you'd need a pro to represent you if you had a case given your lack of knowledge and willingness to concede when you aren't sure it's legally correct (as opposed to a sensible move). M1

You have an agreement to extend. You need to let the court know. This then gives you time to consider a defence or a a time to pay order etc No idea, depends on what those documents contain. Are they compliant with the regs ? Is it the creditor who is suing etc etc M1

Should've gone to specsavers. M1

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part15#IDAUXHCC Agreement extending the period for filing a defence 15.5 (1) The defendant and the claimant may agree that the period for filing a defence specified in rule 15.4 shall be extended by up to 28 days. (2) Where the defendant and the claimant agree to extend the period for filing a defence, the defendant must notify the court in writing. M1

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2007/642.html " The only proper sanction for a claim improperly brought in the first place, is to strike it out." "In my judgment, when regard is had to these authorities the key question must always be whether or not, at the time of issuing a Writ, the claimant was in a position properly to identify the essence of the tort or breach of contract complained of and if given appropriate time to marshall what it knew, to formulate Particulars of Claim. If the claimant was not in a position to do so, then the claimant could have no present intention of prosecuting proceedings, since it had no known basis for doing so. Whilst therefore the absence of present intention to prosecute proceedings is not enough to constitute an abuse of process, without the additional absence of known valid grounds for a claim, the latter carries with it, as a matter of necessity, the former. If a claimant cannot do that which is necessary to prosecute the claim by setting out the basis of it, even in a rudimentary way, a claimant has no business to issue a Claim Form at all "in the hope that something may turn up"." "In my judgment therefore if Nomura , at the time of issuing its Claim Form, was not in a position to do the minimum necessary to set out the nature of the claim it was making, it would be seeking an illegitimate benefit, namely the prevention of further time running under the Limitation Acts for a claim which it could not properly identify or plead. That would be an abuse of the process of the court. Insofar as it sought to make any claim in contract, it would be necessary for it to be able to identify the particular contract and the alleged breach." http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2008/59.html "If a party thinks it worthwhile to mention a document in his pleadings, witness statements or affidavits, I do not see why, subject as I say to the question of privilege, the court should put difficulties in the way of inspection. I look upon the mention of a document in pleadings etc as a form of disclosure. The document in question has not been disclosed by list, or at any rate not yet, but it has been disclosed by mention in what, for the purposes of litigation, is another important and formal category of documents. If so, then the party deploying that document by its mention should in principle be prepared to be required to permit its inspection, and the other party should be entitled to its inspection. What in such circumstances is the virtue of coyness?" To my mind it is difficult to see why any Judge would not order disclosure. If the person signing the POCs, which are finished with a statement of truth, says the debtor has breached the terms of the agreement, how can a solicitor (it usually is if it's pursuit of a debt) make that statement, in all honesty, without sight of those terms ? How can the unless order be argued against ? M1

I'd still seek the 28 days extension so they don't get sneaky. The delay they are causing takes away time from you to file your defence. You might wish to check the POCs to see who signed the statement of truth and whether the make statements based on those documents and ask them how can x say y when you don't have the documents. The unless order in the pdf i attached could come in very handy. M1

You could phone the solicitors and ask for an extension and get email confirmation. At the same time i'd ask when you are likely to get the requested documents. Some great advice in the attachment legal issues-compilation.pdf I'd advise an unless order if they keep dithering. M1

2. In respect of that which is denied, The Defendant has made a request for disclosure, pursuant to Part 31.14 of theCivil Procedure Rules, to the Claimant to allow him to properly respond to the claim. The Claimant has failed to fully furnish the Defendant with the required documents to allow a full and particularised defence. You should not be entering a defence. You should be making an unless order. Produce the documents under 31.14 or the claim is struck out. If you defend as above the court will take it you understand the claim and to amend your defence will lead to costs against you. legal issues-compilation.pdf M1

Putting in a defence which you'd have to amend is a potentially costly. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?283443-Embarrassed-Defences-and-the-problems-with-them. Post 6 "Ok CPR 17.1 clearly sets out when you can amend a statement of case or defence So, if you need to amend, the general rule on costs is you pay the other parties costs in dealing with your amended Defence. This can run to £2k or more, if the other side revert to a barrister, which they are entitled to do afterall cos you are the one amending. So this is the problem, you may well be able to amend, but you will pay the costs in most circumstances unless you can show the court that the Claimant has been unreasonable and is the cause of the need to amend" http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?255329-CPR-part-18-vs-CPR-31.14-Confused-well-read-here "you cant defend a claim under an agreement if you don't have the agreement as it is simply absurd to suggest you can,so, dont be panicked into putting in what people say is a "Embarrassed defence" as the rules are there to provide you with the tools and info you need to defend a case, you will not face criticism for using the rules by the court, but you will face a huge costs order if you muck around and file spurious and merit-less embarrased defences which have no legal basis. Use the rules properly and you may face a discontinuance notice, use the rules WRONGLY and you will face summary judgement or a charging order or worst a order for sale." The advice above comes from a solicitor whose firm won :- http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/105.html (appeal court) http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Mercantile/2011/B3.html (high court) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13349239 6 cases listed here plus those 2 above And many more. Ignore that advice if you want. M1

Per the op, Original debt with GE Money(Dorothy Perkins), Taken over by Santander. M1

That was a copy and paste from elsewhere and i asked that it be adapted to suit. I agree there will be no deed of assignment under 31.14 as it's not mentioned in the poc. (largely irrelevant, but this has been assigned in the past) At the moment we are focussed on the lack of agreement under 31.14 which might be enough to get this kicked out or withdrawn. S78 is a potential defence as he says he sent and has had no reply. M1

It is ambiguous, i agree. It seems you want clarity on this and maybe that is best. Call them on Monday and ask them to send clear and concise agreement. Make sure you speak to the call handler. If they refuse to send clear proof of agreement to extend by 28 days ask them how the person who signed the POCs, which contain a statement of truth, could speak to the terms of agreement when they apparently do not have them. How do they know ? Is the statement of truth actually just a guess or worse ? They will agree. I helped one person this week to relay that message and they were met with stunned silence on this point. Either way you need to progress with the unless order as above as they are trying to play you. The rules allow a 28 day extension but they want a stay and if they want it they can as for it. You'll say no obviously. M1

They have agreed to an extension of 28 days. This 28 days doesn't start when they supply the docs but from the existing deadline. Notify the court and provide the email proof to the court with it. Then you need to adapt the following to suit and change the dates to a date 14 days from the date you send it (special delivery ideally) Ok so we use http://hmctscourtfinder.justice.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/n244-eng.pdf Print it off and fill it in as follows. Name of court etc top right of form needs filled in as appropriate. 1. Your name. 2. Tick defendant. 3. An order that unless within 14 days of the making of an order upon this application the Claimant complies with a request made by the Defendant on (date) pursuant to CPR 31.14 by the provision to the Defendant of documents mentioned in the Particulars of Claim, namely [1] the agreement [2] the default notice and [3] the deed of assignment, the claim shall stand struck out and the Defendant shall be at liberty to enter judgment against the Claimant without further order of the court with the costs of this case to be paid by the Claimant to the Defendant to be assessed on the standard basis and pursuant to the provisions of The Litigants in Person (Costs and Expenses) Act 1975. The application is made because of the Claimant's refusal to comply with the Defendant's CPR 31.14 request and the documents are required owing to the claimant claiming assignment but the defendant was unaware of this fact and to enable the proper preparation of a Defence.' 4. Tick yes. 5. tick without a hearing. 6. Leave blank. 7. None. 8. District Judge. 9. Claimant. 10. Tick the evidence set out in the box below. In the box "On (date), following service of the Claim Form in this case, I wrote to the Claimant requesting inspection of documents mentioned in the Particulars of Claim pursuant to CPR 31.14. A copy of my letter of request is attached to this Form.Marked A The claimant replied via email confirming the were "looking in to the matter" A copy of this email is enclosed marked B. The agreement relied upon by the Claimant is now quite old. The documents sought by my request are essential for the proper preparation of my defence and the determination of the claim and CPR 31.14 afford me a right to inspect those documents. On a separate piece of paper :- Claim No: xxxxxx Draft Order 1 Unless by 4:00pm on (date) the Claimant complies with a request made by the Defendant on (date) pursuant to CPR 31.14 by the provision to the Defendant of documents mentioned in the Particulars of Claim, namely [1] the agreement [2] the default notice and [3] the deed of assignment the claim shall stand struck out and the Defendant shall be at liberty to enter judgment against the Claimant without further order of the court, and [ii] the Claimant shall pay the Defendant her costs of this case to be assessed on the standard basis and pursuant to the provisions of The Litigants in Person (Costs and Expenses) Act 1975. 2 In the event that the Claimant shall comply with this order, the Defendant shall file and serve a Defence by 4:00pm on (date) 28 days from date of application and [ii] the Claimant shall pay the Defendant his/her costs of this application Where there is red check it's correct and alter dates etc. M1

Possible but then again the judgement was posted elsewhere, by a solicitor involved, a year ago M1

Please note the above pdf is not 100% accurate. The defendant is Bachellier. Google Cabot v Bachellier for a better copy. should you require it for court. It's either a mistake or an attempt to track the pdf. I obviously borrowed the pdf from another thread. M1

Cabot v Buchellier - For the consumer.pdf m1

The 1st and 3rd docs looks very poor but that's your call as you have the copy and are in the best place to see if it's easily legible (not requiring a close inspection !!) M1

You can't argue it's not easily legible then comment on what it says. These 2 arguments are not compatible. M1

Both 31.14 and illegible documents are dealt with in the pdf in post 3. legal issues-compilation.pdf This is as close as you're going to get, i think. M1

legal issues-compilation.pdf Have a read and pick out the bits that you need. M1

Looks like they are trying to sneak a judgement by default passed you. I'd phone them and ask them what extension, upto 28 days, they are agreeing too and get confirmation via fax/email so you can let the court know which is your job. If they wish to stay the claim then that's up to them but what they say above is designed so you do nothing and fail to perform what is required and they get summary judgement. Sneaky sneaky barstewards. When you phone make sure you are speaking to the claims handler. M1