Thanks DX. Your a lifesaver. Thanks Manxman. Everybody stay safe.

I was travelling through a roadworks with a temporary speed limit of 20mph. There is a gatso fixed speed camera within the roadworks signposted 40mph. I mistakenly went past the camera at 35 to 40mph thinking that the 20mph limit is after the camera. After driving back the temporary 20mph limit is definitely before the 40mph gatso. Have I been fined?

Thanks andy

Would it be worthwhile to have the claim struck out and be able to claim costs i.e. postage, letter writing, research time etc. Or maybe better to just let sleeping dog lie. Any advice would be appreciated.

Just phoned the court and they have not heard anything from the claimant. So I think that means it is now stayed. So what now?

Sorry about that. Have removed barcodes. Even the statements they have supplied are not copies of originals. They are all marked 'peoples banks, connecticut'. I have all the originals and they are all marked 'Citifinancial' and a different address. They have just printed my account details on current stationery. My defence was received by the court on 19/1/2015. So I will just contact the court after 16/2/2015 to see if anything else has been filed or if it is stayed. Many thanks Dx.

Just received a reply to my CCA request from Cabot including a copy of an agreement and copies bank statements. Copy of their letter attached below. They admit that it is a reconstututed agreement and is actually just a generic copy with no signature. So does this comply with the CCA request? If so I assume that the original will have to be produced if there is a court hearing. So do I just keep this for my records and do nothing. Or should I send some sort of reply?

Just filed my defence today. Probably receive a DQ shortly. I understand that it will be automatically stayed if the court has no response for 28 days. Is that 28 + 5 days for service or, just 28 days? Is it possible rectums will take this further without a signed CCA and NOA? Or will it be stayed indefinitely unless they come up with the original documents? :smile:Many thanks in advance.

Thanks. I cannot see what they can do unless they produce a signed agreement at the last minute. I have been asking for that for nearly 6 years and nothing. So a fairly good chance I think. Failing this, I am long term sick and disabled. My income is quite low and if they win should be able to settle on a few pound per month, hopefully.

Yes, I am quite happy with this. I think I will submit it this weekend.

Thanks Andy. You are a diamond.

Ok, will leave it the same.

I have been comparing my defence with other threads in the forum and thought that I maybe should replace point No.2 with the following: I am more happy with this but unsure. Please, if you could help Andyorch or anybody.

Thanks dx and andy. Your help has been invaluable. Will let you know how I go.

Yes, I know but thought I would prepare the defence in advance ready to file next week as might be too busy then. I have had acknowledgements to my CCA request and 31.14. Going by other threads that is the end of it until I file my defence. Unless I hear anything else is this defence ready to file as it stands?

Thanks Andy. So is that it. Do you think it is good enough to go? I will wait until after CCA request is in default (Friday 16th) just to make sure nothing else turns up.

Hi everybody. I have received a bog standard response to my CCA request today. Stating "we will be able to provide this information withing 40 days. So I wish to file my defence shortly and have been researching other similar threads thoroughly. I am not sure if this is the correct wording especially with point No. 2. Thought about putting . Does this depend on whether payments were made? If someone could advise I would greatly appreciate it. Particulars of Claim 1. The Claimant claims payment of the overdue balance due from the Defendant(s) under a contract between the Defendant(s) and Citifinancial dated on or about Nov 04 2002. 2. Assigned to the Claimant on May 30 2006 in the sum of 54XX 3. Particulars a/c no XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 28/11/2014, Default Balance: 54XX, Post Refrl Cr NIL, Total: 54XX Defence 1. The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2.Paragraph 1 is denied with regards to an amount due under an agreement referred to in the Particulars of Claim ('a contract'). .The claimant has yet to provide a copy of the agreement as per my section 78 and is and remains in default of said request. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served in 2006 or any other year from either the Claimant or Citifinancial .* 4. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of assignment/balance/breach requested by CPR 31. 14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement with the Claimant; and (b) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and © show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 5. On receipt of this claim I requested by way of a CPR 31.14 request and a section 77/78 for copies of any documents referred to within the Claimants particulars to establish what the claim is for. To date they have failed to comply to my section 77/78 request and remain in default and with regards to my CPR 31.14 request have stated that they are under no obligation to disclose any documentation on which their claim is based. 6. As per*Civil Procedure*Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 7. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the*consumer credit*Act 1974. 8. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.

Ok, will do. Thanks dx.

Received a "no signature" reply letter from Restons 3 days ago. I immediately sent them another CPR 31.14 request with a not normal signature on a security background. Today received their "We acknowledge receipt" letter. Exactly the same gibberish responses received on other threads such as: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?438796-Cabot-Restons-claimform-Halifax-OD-debt-(2-Viewing)-nbsp&p=4673762#post4673762 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?438687-Claimform-Cabot-Restons-LLoyds-Credit-Card&p=4673822#post4673822 Still no response to my CCA request. If no reply by Friday 16th Jan. they will be in default. So should be ready to file defence anytime after then.

Thanks Andy. That answers my query perfectly.

My debt is due to be statute barred next year and hence my alleged debt owners action now. Please correct me if I am wrong but, I understand that if a court claim is issued the statute barred clock stops. The clock resets to zero only if a ccj is obtained. The clock continues from where it left off if the claim is stayed, struck out or discontinued. Thus, it is still statute barred 6 years from the last payment as if the claim never took place. I have searched many threads on here but am unable find a definitive answer.

Thanks DX

After looking at many threads on here about Pestons they usually reply to the CPR 31.14 request with the standard "no signature", sign and resend response. I wondered if it is better just to ignore and count it as non compliance. Or, would it be better to resend with a not normal signature. I have searched numerous threads on here but am still unable to find which is the best way forward.

Thanks Andy and Dx for your quick response. Will wait to see if I get a response to the CPR request and CCA request before filing a defence.

May I ask why it is better to wait until the very last day? Is there a technical advantage i.e. to deny claimant time for replying to defence? Any help would be appreciated.