I'm no expert, but Moorcroft are a debt collection agency - bailiffs normally only get involved after court action. Moorcroft are well known on here - inafmous is I believe the word you could use! Have a look around the CAG site, but one of the first things I'd do is get them to request the CCA, as the debt might be unenforceable. A template letter to do this is on the site. Main thing is don't panic, as I'm 99% sure it's just Moorcroft using scare tactics. Hope that helps. Someone with more knowledge and experience than me will probably be around to advise further soon. TT

Thanks again DD (and everyone else) for all your help. Just a case of sitting and waiting now! TT

Clever - I like it A lot more clever than someone who loses an RD receipt anyway Would you suggest I take any action with this now? State of play is that the defence has gone in and I'm waiting for the next move. Or keep it up my sleeve? Incidentally, how long does it usually take to get word back from the court of the next move in these types of scenarios? I'm guessing it will probably now be transferred to my local court, just got no idea of timeframes. Thanks again for your help DD!

Checked with PO and they only keep records of Special Delivery, not Recorded. Will just have to keep scouring for receipt - can't believe I'd be so stupid. Will submit another Part 18 request if I can't find it today but the galling thing is that I'm pretty sure they've gone over the 14 days now! Would this make any difference at this stage in proceedings? ie. my defence has gone in and the due date has passed - or would it just be of benefit for my future defence? TT

Bit of a schoolboy error from me here... Sent Part 18 request to NW on 9/7/10 and now I've come to trace delivery date and check if 14 days is up and I've mislaid the Royal Mail receipt! Feeling completely stupid now! I submitted the defence already as the deadline was 21 July - would NW not complying with my Part 18 request within 14 days have a material impact on my defence now, or should I just wait it out and see what the court send back to me? ie. would they look at anything new at this stage? And does anyone know of a way that I can get hold of the Recorded Delivery number for track & trace - would the post office I sent the letter from have any record? Can't believe I'd be so stupid!!! Thanks for any advice, an embarrassed TT

Agree with Sharpman - cancel them now - you need to live this month and ultimately, paying the cc bills will just push you further into debt as you'll be dipping deeper into credit cards. Contact you CCCS/Payplan/A.N.Other now and start to discuss setting up your DMP. You could send a token £1 payment to the cc companies in the meantime and explain that you're in hardship and what you're planning to do. A DMP is a good short-term solution for you - it may be that you stay on it all the way until the debt is paid, or perhaps your income will improve and you'll shortly be able to pay it off quicker, or even an IVA in the future, but the benefit of a DMP now is that Payplan/CCCS will do all the letters to creditors for you and set it up and it should get most of them off your back in the short term. Definitely do SOMETHING immediately is my advice. Been exactly where you are now and it's the start of solving your debt issues. Good luck and don't panic!! TT

Your situation is remarkably similar to mine, so first thing is don't panic and you'll sort it out! I've been with Payplan now for a year and all has gone OK so far. Most creditors have frozen interest and charges, the only difficult ones so far being Nationwide. However, you seem to have recognised the fact that you can't go on the way you have been doing, so a debt management plan seems to be your best current option. It won't protect you from county court action, but nor will doing nothing! And ultimately, if you carry on the way you're currntly going, the debt will just grow and grow. Make sure you get a bank account now at a bank you have no financial relationship with - currently you have a decent credit rating, as soon as you start missing contractual payments (even if they are agreed via a DMP), your rating will drop through the floor and you'll get defaults and possibly CCJs (again, don't panic!). Then you keep this bank "clean" and they won't be able to "set off" payments by taking money from your current account to pay their own bank's credit card/loan repayments. Google "setting off" if this doesn't seem to make sense. Originally, I called CCCS and Payplan - the only real reason I decided on Payplan was because they could set my DMP up a lot (6 weeks!) sooner. When you're self employed, it's usually a specialist department that deals with you and they can be quite busy. That said, I've had no complaints with Payplan, they've been great. Good luck and don't panic - you've made the right first step by acknowledging your issues - from here it's a rocky road but it will get easier. TT

Thanks for that MM, had wondered why defences were written this way. Without CAG I'd not have a clue about any of this. Just keeping fingers crossed now, nothing more I can do at this stage. Hopefully the judge will be a bit more helpful/reasonable than after my last "holding" defence. Cheers, TT

OK, here's what I've gone with. I've put it together from various things I've seen on here, mainly a previous Nationwide one that was one. Fingers crossed - thanks again for the time that many of you have put in helping me so far, it really is valued and appreciated. In the xxxxxxxx county court Claim number Between Nationwide Building Society- Claimant and xxxxxx - Defendant Defence 1. I xxx of xxxx am the defendant in this action and make the following statement as my defence to the claim made by Nationwide Building Society. 2. The claimants particulars of claim as very vague and are not sufficiently particularised in accordance with CPR part 16 and practice direction 16 3. The claimant has issued proceedings in the Swindon county court therefore according to practice direction 16 Para 7.3 7.3 Where a claim is based upon a written agreement (1) a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement should be attached to or served with the particulars of claim and the original(s) should be available at the hearing 4. The claimant has failed to include a copy of the written contract which he relies upon and it stands to reason that they are in breach of their obligations under the Practice Direction 5. Further more the claimant offers no particulars in relation to how the sums claimant are calculated and no statements are attached with the claim in support of the figures 6. A copy of any evidence of both the scope and nature of any default, and proof of any amount outstanding on the alleged accounts, has not been served attached to the claim form. 7. Consequently, I deny all allegations on the particulars of claim and do not know what case I have to meet 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 09/07/2010 the disclosure of information pursuant to the Civil Procedure Rules Part 18, 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 a copy of the Notice of Assignment required to give the claimant a legitimate right of action. (Attached marked xx) 9. To Date the claimant has failed to comply with 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. On 25/5/2010 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 11. 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. 12. In response to this request, the claimant's response was to send a document, which is annexed to this defence, marked xx, which they claimed to be the credit agreement. The document clearly states "you have the right to cancel" yet no cancellation notice has been supplied nor are there any details relating to how to cancel which are referred to in the document. I note that the burden of proof is upon the claimant to prove they did indeed send cancellation details and notices as per the ruling of ANGLO LEASING PLC v. PASCOE and ANOTHER [1997] EWCA Civ 895 (31st January, 1997) 13. In response to the purported credit agreement supplied by the claimant, Marked Exhibit xx, it is denied that it is a valid executed credit agreement within the definition contained within the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and it is submitted that the document fails entirely to comply with Consumer Credit legislation as laid out below. 14. The credit agreement supplied is not compliant with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) 15. 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 16. 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) The prescribed terms for a Running credit account as set out below 17. 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 18. It is submitted the credit agreement supplied falls foul of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) in so far that the prescribed terms are not contained within the agreement. These terms must be contained within the agreement. They cannot be contained within a separate document. The prescribed terms must be with the agreement for it to be compliant with section 60(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 19. 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." 20. 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 21. Notwithstanding point 20, The agreement must be signed in the prescribed manner to comply with s61 (1) CCA 1974, if the agreement is not signed by debtor or creditor it is also improperly executed and again only enforceable by court order 22. The courts powers of enforcement where agreements are improperly executed by way of section 65 CCA 1974 are themselves subject to certain qualifying factors. Under section 127 (3) Consumer Credit Act 1974 the requirements are laid out clearly what is required for the court to be able to enforce the agreement where section 65(1) has not been complied with 127(3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a)(signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner). 23. Further more the courts attention is also drawn to the authority of the House of Lords in Wilson-v- FCT [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul) which confirms that where a document does not contain the required terms under the consumer credit act 1974 and the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) and Consumer Credit (Agreements) (amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI2004/1482) the agreement cannot be enforced 24. With regards to the Authority cited in point 16, I refer to LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD in the House of Lords Wilson v First County Trust Ltd - [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul) over the following paragraphs 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 25. The House of Lords and the Court of Appeal before it in considering the Wilson case held that if the agreement does not contain the prescribed terms outlined in Schedule 6 column 2 of Statutory Instrument 1983/1553 then the court couldn't issue an enforcement order. The House of Lords clearly considered it the will of parliament that where a lender did not comply with the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the Subsequent regulations then the lender does not have any recourse, they cannot side step regulation by any other means and weather it is considered right or wrong for the debtor not to have to repay an unenforceable debt becomes irrelevant where the requirements of the CCA 1974 and regulations are not met 26. In addition to the requirements of schedule 6 of SI1983/1553 these terms must be within the agreement itself, not in a separate document. I refer to the judgement of Tuckey LJ from Wilson and Hurstanger in point 19 above, from reading the document submitted as the "agreement" I cannot see any prescribed terms within the document and since they cannot be contained within another document as laid out by Tuckey LJ then I cannot see any other conclusion other than the agreement rendered unenforceable 27. Therefore it is submitted that this document falls foul of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 as previously outlined in points 7 through to 15 and as a result Section 127(3) prevents this document from being enforced 28. I also refer to the website of Francis Bennion, the drafts person of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and note in particular a PDF document that the honourable Mr Bennion has posted (located here http://www.francisbennion.com/pdfs/f...974-s127-3.pdf ) which states "As the draftsman of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 I would like to thank Dr Richard Lawson for his interesting and well-argued article (30 August 2003) on Wilson v First County Trust Ltd [2003] UKHL 40, [2003] 4 All ER 97. Dr Lawson may be interested to know that I included the provision in question (section 127(3)) entirely on my own initiative. It seemed right to me that if the creditor company couldn't be bothered to ensure that all the prescribed particulars were accurately included in the credit agreement it deserved to find it unenforceable, and that the court should not have power to relieve it from this penalty. Nobody queried this, and it went through Parliament without debate. I'm glad the House of Lords has now vindicated my reasoning and confirmed that nobody's human rights were infringed. 167 Justice of the Peace (2003) 773. 29. If the claimant is in disagreement, then it is respectfully requested that the claimant bring before the court the signed credit agreement containing the prescribed terms laid out in SI 1983 / 1553 schedule 6 and signed by both creditor and debtor as laid out in Regulation 6 of SI1983/1553. Should the claimant be unable to produce the original agreement or a copy of, 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 xx) unenforceable. 30. In addition to the credit agreement being irredeemably flawed, it is submitted that the default notice served under s87 (1) Consumer credit act 1974 failed to comply with the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) See attached exhibit xx. 31. In view of matters pleaded, I respectfully request the court give consideration to striking out the claimants case pursuant to part 3.4 (2) The court may strike out a statement of case if it appears to the court - (a) That the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending (b) That the statement of case is an abuse of the court's process or is otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings; or © That there has been a failure to comply with a rule, practice direction or court order. 32. If the court considers it inappropriate to use its case management powers, it is requested that the court order the claimant to produce the original documents before the court as the documents supplied do not comply with the Consumer Credit Act or Regulations made under the act, the is confirmed by case law as well. Without production of the requested documents the case can not be dealt with justly and fairly, and will severely prejudice my rights to a fair trial 33. I request that the original document be made available by the claimant for inspection pursuant to Practice Direction 32 .if the claimant cannot supply the original documents in this case it is requested that the claimants case be struck out as to seek enforcement the claimant would need to retain the agreement in case a stored copy was for example illegible or corrupted, therefore it stands to reason that the claimant must surely hold such document. however I note there is other pieces of legislation which set out the requirements of Document retention 34. 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). 35. As a loan 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. 36. 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)." 37. 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. 38. I respectfully request that should the claimant disclose any new documentation that has not been disclosed so far with the Particulars of Claim that the court grant permission to amend this defence accordingly 39. Should the issue arise where the claimant seeks to rely upon the fact that they can show that the defendant has had benefit of the monies and therefore the defendant is liable, I refer to and draw the courts attention to the judgment of Sir Andrew Morritt in the case of Wilson v First County Trust Ltd - [2001] 3 All ER 229, [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;" 40. Finally I will address the issue of which Act is relevant in this case, in case it is suggested that the claim falls under the Consumer Credit Act 2006, it is drawn to the courts attention that schedule 3, s11 of the Consumer Credit Act 2006 prevents s15 repealing s127 (3) of the 1974 Act for agreements made before s15 came into effect. Since the agreement would have commenced prior to the inception of the Consumer Credit Act 2006, section 15 of the 2006 Act has no effect and the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is the relevant act in this case. 41. For the avoidance of any doubt I include the relevant section of the 2006 Consumer Credit Act (Except taken from Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14) - Statute Law Database accessed Thursday 31st January 2008 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. 42. Therefore the Consumer Credit Act 2006 is not retrospective in its application and has no effect upon this agreement and the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is the act which this agreement is regulated by. Statement of Truth I xxxxx, believe the above statement to be true and factual Signed ..................... Date

Might be worth you having a look at this thread, IHNW - I think I'm just a little bit further down the road than you... http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/262680-urgent-advice-please-re.html TT

Thanks, MM. Looking through it and there's quite a lot that's relevant for me and quite a lot that's not but it puts things a lot better than I could Will edit it and have a go. Thanks again

Any final advice before I try to put together my defence tomorrow? Thanks for any help!

Sorry to bump this, it's just that I'm pretty much out of time and want to get this right, as so far the judge seems to have definitely been favouring Nationwide. Also, where and how in my defence should I request the opportunity to amend my defence, should my part 18 request bring new evidence/information to light? Thanks for any help, and again sorry for bumping it, it's just that I need to post my defence tomorrow at the latest, ideally today. Best Wishes, TT

Thanks to TB and Elsa. I've scoured and scoured and can't find the DN - I'm now starting to wonder if I actually got one! The last letter received yesterday was a termination notice and notice of intention to take legal action, and within that letter it did say I'd been served with a DN. It's possible (though unlikely) that I've mislaid it but I'd like to be sure. What's the procedure for getting documents from them relating to a bank account, is it the same as on a credit card? At this pre-court stage would I be able to do a CPR31.14 or an SAR or something different, any ideas? Thanks for the help. TT

OK, here is going to be the basis for my defence: 1. The T&Cs are not properly linked to what is more like an application form than a CCA 2. Thus, all the prescribed terms are not on the CCA 3. Also, my signature is not within the 4 corners of the agreement, based on the fact that the prescribed terms are supposed to be on there 4. There appears to be discrepancies with the dates NW are using Now - not sure how the best way to word all this is, and the best order to put my points in (and also any previous cases to quote). Also not sure if anyone can see I've missed anything that strengthens my case. Does anyone have any feedback on this? Thanks in advance, TT

Hi, Got a Nationwide Flexaccount that's currently overdrawn by circa £3k - however, half of this is charges largely incurred when they reduced my OD limit after I went on a Payplan DMP (which I'm up to date with). Got the DN a while ago, then a couple of weeks ago I got an letter from KPR to call them to discuss a reduced settlement figure, now today I got the "last letter before legal action". I've not responded to any of these, as when I did that with the credit card debt I have, I got nowhere and they started CC proceedings anyway. Any advice on what I should do next? Do CCA requests and unenforceable CCAs apply for bank accounts? Any other general advice or do I just wait for them to issue CC claim form? Thanks for any advice, TT

Thanks for this. I'm back now so I'm working on making a defence from the ideas I've been given on here. Is there a "set way" to word a defence or a set format I should use? Also, is there anywhere on CAG I can find cases that I might need to refer to? Any other general (or even specific) advice on putting my defence together? I'm looking to ideally send it Special Delivery on Monday, though I'll do it Tuesday if needs be as deadline is 4pm Wed. Incidentally, as expected, I've had nothing back from the part 18 request yet. Many thanks in advance again for all the help I've received. When all this is done and dusted, I hope to be able to give a bit of the knowledge back. TT

Thanks, Wycombe - that's good advice. I'll start putting something together while I'm away. Still can't quite understand why the judge rejected 31.14 and then failed to give me enough time to execute a part 18 request. If I was to lose the case, I'd hope that this might be the basis for an appeal. Thanks again.

Yeah, a bit like a football referee giving the home team a dodgy penalty! With the N1 itself, I got very little. Most of what I posted came with their threats or as a result of my CPR31.14 request/SAR. The POC is in post #31 of this thread, and that's all I got from the county court with the N1 - no further documents from NW. Seems that all I can really do is hope for the best that NW comply with the part 18 request in time for me to look through the paperwork and use anything relevant in my defence. Should that not happen, I need to submit a defence with what I have (unenforceable CCA etc) with a view to amending it once the part 18 paperwork does arrive. I just hope the judge doesn't award in favour of NW before I get the chance to have it transferred to my local court. Is this possible/likely? Being away for a week with work and having limited internet access couldn't have come at a worse time! Thanks again for all the advice! TT

Just for reference purposes, I called the court and they said the only way I could apply for an extension would be to pay £40 and file an N244. The very helpful lady at the court said off the record how ridiculous it was that the judge recommended I request info under part 18 yet didn't give me enough time to facilitate getting that information from NW. I think my strategy now is to wait until I get back (I'm away unavoidably for a week) and if the paperwork hasn't arrived then file a defence at the last minute with the info I have, mentioning that I'm awaiting info from a part 18 request, requesting permission to amend my defence when that arrives, should it be necessary to do so. Does anyone else have another suggestion? Thanks for the help.

Thanks, I'll call them today.

Thanks for this - will do it today. However, 14 days will take me beyond my deadline that the judge set (July 21). Any ideas of if I can get that extended somehow and how I might do that? Hopefully NW will reply within that timeframe anyway, though somehow I doubt it. Thanks again.

Got an update. Just got notification back from Swindon CC today that my defence against Nationwide Credit Card's court action has been rejected. Basically, they have said that "unless the defendent files and serves a defence setting out a positive basis upon which he disputes the claims by 4pm on 21/7/2010, the existing defence will be struck out". On the accompanying sheet, it says "with reference to your defence which was referred to the district judge who has stated "the request under CPR31.14 is misplaced. If he wants further information, he should apply under part 18". Any advice on to what to do next? How do I apply under part 18? And is there any way I could get a response from Nationwide by 21 July? - because by then I have to give a "positive" defence. Spanner in the works is that I'm away from Saturday 10-17 July inclusive so I've got very little time to organise myself. Have put some of this info on a nother thread in case it attracts people who won't see this one. Panicking a bit! Any help as ever is gratefully received.

Sorry to bump my own thread but I'm really short of time as I need to respond by 21 July but I'm away from a week of that. Has anyone got any ideas please? Thanks!

Hi, Just got notification back from Swindon CC today that my defence against Nationwide Credit Card's court action has been rejected. More background info is here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/262680-urgent-advice-please-re.html I've started another thread as I'm looking for more specific info on this issue and want more people to see it. Hope that's OK. Merge if necessary and apologies to mods if this is inappropriate. Basically, they have said that "unless the defendent files and serves a defence setting out a positive basis upon which he disputes the claims by 4pm on 21/7/2010, the existing defence will be struck out". On the accompanying sheet, it says "with reference to your defence which was referred to the district judge who has stated "the request under CPR31.14 is misplaced. If he wants further information, he should apply under Part 18". Any advice on to what to do next? How do I apply under Part 18? And is there any way I could get a response from Nationwide by 21 July? - because by then I have to give a "positive" defence. Spanner in the works is that I'm away from Saturday 10-17 July inclusive so I've got very little time to organise myself. Panicking a bit! Any help as ever is gratefully received.