Partial success! I think I have a set aside hearing according to the clerk so will shortly need to know how to outline the claimants lies in the best possible way. If I can present this the right way then that might be an end to this...

No probably not. That is why I think we need to contact MPs to make them aware they are doing this and have direction notice from a higher court to remind them they are glorified admin assistants and have no power to opine on the subjects, however annoyed they are that people are forcing the banks to account and not having tp pay back debts. In the majority of cases, the defendants have already paid back interest many times the initial sum and the banks really have no moral ground there. Will only change if we campaign and write to MP's.

Just don't forget if they do start proceedings, that SAR is not the best way to obtain. Ask for the documents they rely on as per the CPR thread sticked as your reply to the initial form and if they refuse then N224 them. SAR is weak and what you want is to stop them from getting any further than the initial claim, sending them packing prior to the hearing or getting anywhere near a judge is the best way to go. Then they can't start the argument.

Mind infoline on 0300 123 3393 http://www.mind.org.uk/help/social_factors/looking_after_your_personal_finances#mental%20health%20problems Also may be worth considering a compliant to the financial ombudsman. Edited to add Don't forget, you can issue a request under the data protection act for all communications. When I did this it proved that key phonecalls had taken place and that forms were received then lost etc.

Well. The date is 2001. SENDA, the act covering services under education and disability discrimination came in in 2001. My understanding is, correct me if I am wrong, that this persons income was never above the threshold for repayment and the issues arose through no reponses, quite understandable given the illness, and a judgement was entered in default. The SLC are, to quote a famous film, the most vile and wretched vilanous **** in the universe. Perhaps your friend in fact did send the forms back, (they loose mine every year). The SLC lie lie and lie again, quite happy to publish that as I have documentary proof of the sort of tactics they engage in in order to extract cash from the vunerable. My tack for the N244 would be. State the serious ongoing medical condition, which is a disability under SENDA, (which the SLC should be covered by) and the DDA. Provide proof of income for that period and that the defendant was in fact NOT in fact under any liablity to repay the loans and as such the losses sustained by the SLC are zero. They gained summary judgement for a debt that was in effect never actually due. Send in proof that, or a witness statement to the effect that applications to defer WERE sent in and the SLC either ignored them, lost them or failed to act on them which you can find much proof of for the court on this forum. I may be able to help with provision of this if I can find the docs. Ask for a breakdown of charges applied. These charges can be disputed as they are NOT enforceable. I have had these returned EVERY TIME I threatened court action. If there are charges and they exceed the cost of administration, they you would be entitled to claim these back as either a counter claim or a new claim against them. I bet that the charges and interest, statutory interest since 2001 or before, (remember, statute of limitation does not apply where the SLC has broken the law, just as per the credit card charges refunds are never defended by banks on the six year limitation act rule). They charged £30 per pop at that time, this will add up to a fair sum. State they are in breach, having been made aware of the defendants health issues, of the DDA and that reasonable adjustments have not been made in order for them to discharge duties under SENDA and the DDA and that they have acted unreasonably. Was the defendant a student at the time the CCJ was issued? This can be used to argue that the SLC had evidence that it was unlikely, on ballance of probabilities, that the loans would be due for repayment as an income over the threshold while a student is not probably. (I did this and it worked). The final and really obvious point is they are chasing a debt over six years old. If there has been no contact from them, or they have no proof of this then the debt is STATUTE BARRED and they can not proceed. I would also see if legal aid is available or if their house insurance has legal insurance added on. Finally, contact MIND as they may well be able to help with proforma witness statements from doctors on the effect of depression and finances and the issues caused by dealing with paperwork and depression. These could be presented as witness statements and they will be keen to help. I think that you should read the sticky on being chased for debts older than 6 years before doing anything else. This may just be a bluff on the part of the SLC. Should be possible to set aside on that basis. Others will help.

My understanding of this is if you should request the documents on receipt of the claim and before the case is allocated to track, so your defense is to insist on the presentation of the documents to the required standards. How can anyone be expected to defend if the claimant has not given proof that they have documentation to the standards required.If nothing is forthcoming, then issue an N244 forcing the request with a copy of the relevant judgements and case law attached on the continuation sheets and ask for the claim to be struck out if they can not provide the true signed agreement. At least if this then goes ahead, you loose and you appeal, you can show that there was no will to comply and that the judge was not acting in accordance with statute. I really feel for those who have been ripped by the judge. I think that this may well be something to refer to your local MP. At least that is free and if MP's are made aware of the situation, more direction may be given to CJ's on the issues and what exactly a enforceable agreement really is. This would be the simplest way to solve our issues. Vunerable people are being targeted with these actions and no matter how good our grasp of the law, litigants in person are not taken serously by CJ's or the courts. Lets force the issue.

Any thoughts? Where a claimant has lied in the course of the defence, what would the courts response be?

I have spoken to the court and the CCJ's are registered that same day. So the effect depends on the frequency of the credit reference agencies updates. This is going to have a serious effect on my ability to carry out business and probably result in the total loss of all credit facilities and the loss of up to 15 jobs. It takes at least 6 weeks to get a hearing. If I go on to win this or have it set aside, can I then seek compensation for losses from the claimant?

Thanks. No. It has not gone that far yet, I filed notice of receipt defended then the court entered judgement in their favour as they claimed to have not received my defense so I have had to apply to set aside the judgement. This relates to communications between me and the claimant outside of the court. All they have sent to the court in the original claim is that I owe them money for building works which has not been paid.

CPR31.14 can only be used prior to allocation to track if the amount is below £5000 and BC and others have got wise to this. Best not to go down the route of it's not quite right if you have an alledged debt with them as Judges don't like this sort of approach and you want them to think you are honest and reasonable. Where they rely on a document as the basis of the case, you must ask for CPR disclosure prior to entering a defense and prior to allocation to track. If they come up with some reconstituted agreement, the judge may accept that at a later date in the hearing. If BC are forced to admit there is no such document at the outset, then you can file for it to be struck out without having to go through the hell of the rest of the process and, I have to say, Judges are not impressed by the approach of asking the claimant to prove the debt is enforcable, some see this as OK and to the letter of the law, others seem to see it as an attempt to get out of debts owed so best not to get to the roulette stage... Good luck and I have subbed to see how this goes.

I thought I would post this seperately. I had building work done on my property after an insurance claim for storm damage. In the process of the works the company caused around £4000 of damages and £4000 in losses. Prior to this, they had carried out other works, around £12K's worth, a total renovation, (to let it in pristine condition and unfortunately, this bill was paid), since which time it appears the works were defective. So I disputed the £3200 repair bill. They responded by giving it to a DCA even though the 30 day invoice was less than 10 days old and in dispute. DCA gave up (eventually after endless threatograms), when I proved the disputed account, around 50 hours of my time to defend, 3 months passed. Then, out of the blue, with no LBA, arrived a court application to recover the money. I acknowledged the claim and intended to both defend and counter claim. The court lost the paperwork, I had a judgement made against me and now I have to submit an application to set aside. In the course of defending, (to me not the court I have attempted to come to a compromise with the idiots as I thought this would look better it it did get to court and if it worked, saved me a load of grief), the building company have stated that they never did any work on the property prior to the latest insurance works, (as they wanted to state that the house was in poor condition, it was not, they supposedly renovated it). I actually have the receipt and schedule of works, which details the work they charged for but did not really do, such as rewiring which wasn't done etc. As the house was let, many of these things didn't come to light for some time and the tenants were too scared to complain as, unknown to me, they treated the tenants like ****, which is really upsetting as they were all lovely people. So I fired the agency the moment I found out. The agency were also the builders.... The builders are trying to say that the damages that occured were there before the works. Yet had in fact provided a condition report that stated the property was in good order...then later stated they never inspected the property....then stated they had...all in emails thankfully. The damage included paint soaked carpets in all rooms in the same colour as they repainted after the works, and loads of other issues which added up to more than the bill and massive losses as the house was trashed and unfit to let for several months after the works while the damage was repaired and recorded. Oh yes, they also attempted to take possession of the building in lieu of the bill being paid by refusing to give the keys back to me or the new agent. Does the bare faced denial of the restoration to justify the condition leave me with a chance to hammer them for perjury on presentation of the facts in their defense or not? They put that in writing. They just made up the damage occured prior to the works and changed their minds 3 times about if they had actaully inspected the property after the let. I can prove they did renovate, what exactly they did and that they didn't do most of it or the works they did do were defective. So how do I use this to my best advantage once I have had the existing judgement set aside?

Thank you very much for that, really helpful, I do have some time to make some preperations for this then. SCC are fairly quiet down here and it will be sent for action in the SW so some hope it may be heard before if I outline the situtation, they can be quite helpful. Anyone any thoughts on the other question about how to deal with the claimants lying in the course of defending their case?

Hello all! Helped a lot of people on here but now its my turn to ask sadly. I had work done on my house by a building firm. Caused more damage than the bill and refused to pay. Sent their DCA packing of course. Out of the blue N1 arrives with a claim from the buidling co for the full amount. Sent back service of claim form by return and ticked intend to file defense. A few days later, I sent defense in but it seems it was either lost in the post or misfiled. Now have a judgement letter today which states sum due and "have not replied to the claim form". Does this mean they are saying that they never received the response to the claim at all or just the defense or had they sent out an allocation letter which I have not received. I always respond by return to anything like this. Obviously intend to file a N244 to set aside. The problem is that a CCJ on my file at the moment could cause a lot of problems with my business and potentially lead to a loss of 15 jobs if it spirals. How long does it take for a judgement to be entered? It is right away or at the end of the 28 days. My worry is that it will be entered before a hearing to set aside is granted. It's my understanding, (from someone who designs the software and systems for credit ref agencies), that they do indeed keep records of these for the 6 years regardless of if they are set aside. Also, the judgement has been entered but in the intervining corrispondance between myself and the builders, they made false statements in the course of that defence, (proven by actual letters and emails from them). How do I properly incorporate this into my defense and make the judge aware that my counter claim is being defended with lies and fabrications. It would prejudice their case if I could bring this up. Thanks for your help, getting a bit frazzled of this one!

Hello all! Any news on this case or has it become vapourware?

It appears there were basically 2 errors fatal to the case 1. That no specific instances were given of the unfair relationship.This is vital. Had this been done then the outcome may have been different. 2. That people need to be careful regarding the exact wording of Sec 140 claims which are in any case date dependent. My thoughts are that the prior arguments in the case were not relevant at all, certainly the reference to common law when it had already been decided that this was not relevent and that the common law penalty argument was dead in the water. Starting with section 140 and going on to argue UTCCA would have been more successful. I will let you know how mine goes.

So is there a date set for the Scottish hearing? I could mention that the sort of behavior by Santander sending a barrister to a sub 1k fast track case would look very much to me like a breach of our European rights, there is a right to have a case heard without the sort of intimidation. The crux of the problem though is of course people not being careful to submit a robust POC. The only way the new argument works is if you state individual effects of the unfair relationship so to not do so would be fatal to your case. I'm not a conspiricy theorist but it does seem to me that we have all been stiched up by the governments and the banks. They don't care about us at all, they just want the proles to pay up the tax and support the super rich. The OFT and FSA are proof absolute that the system is designed to be unfair. If they had let the banks collapse, something better would have come out of it. The fact they didn't let it go suggests that they will never let them. They would rather have 5 million people with no jobs than let the banks have what was coming to them. A debt jubilee, (mass write off), from the collapsed banks would have sorted out the country quite nicely. I still think the new arguments will win out, but if people keep making half arsed attempts at it then it just undermines those of us who are serious. And we should launch as class action suit against the banks. Let's pick the weakest off first and the rest will run scared for the hills. This is only a matter of time. Oh yes, and remember that the liberals did in fact seek to support us so let's hold them to that. If they let us down then the conspiricy theory is pretty much proven as far as I am concerned.

If you entered into the agreement after the original term of the contract to supply the set top box etc has passed, i.e., that you had the installation done more than 12 months before the start of your latest contract, if there has been any change in terms and conditions during this time you have the right to cancel the contract today without paying for the equipment. If you have had the equipment for less than 12 months then they will let you cancel but will make you pay for the equipment and installation which would leave you worse off overall. I argued with BT that they changed terms and conditions and I would not be bound by the new agreement. They released me from an 18 month contract on that basis and did not ask for the equipment back. Other than that, as others said it is a case of downgrading to the lowest package then ending the contract. Don't forget that you may have to give 30 days notice BEFORE the end of the contract is due to make sure that it actually ends at the earliest date. There is nothing wrong with asking though, you never know, if you write to them they may be generous and cancel it, though knowing Sky, that's not very likely.

Hi, sorry to hear this. I had a lot of help from http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showforum=30 they are brilliant and specialise in motoring issues. Scan ALL your documents to pdf received to date and post them up there, be sure to edit out your personal and ticket number details. They found several faults with mine which prevented them from enforcing the PCN, also found the signage was defective and that the TRO was unenforceable. My car was broken down at the time as well... Hope that helps and good luck!

Well most of the large organisations directly challenge government on core policies without any issues, Trident, nuclear power, mental health, anti terror laws, freedom of speech so I don't think this is really an issue. As we all know, the government were complicit with the OFT failure, they guided the OFT to take the course of action which could only lead to the loss of the case. I imagine the (alleged and hypothetical) conversation went something like Banks: Remember all that money you lent us? Would you like to see it again...? Government: Yes, it was hundreds of billions of pounds. The country is bankrupt. Banks: Well you won't unless you drop the charges case. Goverment: Oh bug*er. There is no point in trying to change policy at this stage. Or ever. The fact is that the banks are probably acting unlawfully in the current legal framework. They know it and we all strongly suspect it. There is no need for new laws. The CCA should be enforced on banks for OD's, the UTCCR needs to be enforced. The issue we all face is actually getting enough money to take them to court in the first place and having a sustained barrage of high profile cases so they cave. Then we need also to press more cases where the banks jump out of fast track to the ECHR and get binding judgements under article 6 as Govern have attempted, (in progress). I know a fair amount about how the Charity Commision works and generally they are only concerned with bent directors stealing money from the charity and there appear to be hundreds of them. They are quite busy there.There are costs associated with the audits required but I know someone willing to do that at much reduced rates. I can't personally see that there are any problems with challenging the status quo on financial matters, certainly no where near as contentious as anti terror laws and the RIP bills challenged by human rights charities. I think if we win the cases, the law will be clarified and there will be no need to do any sort of government lobbying. Just my 2p.

Would it be an idea to turn the organisation into a charity? I know a specialist in charity accounts. For - A little more trust that money donated and raised will be spent on the aims of CAG, I should add I have no qualms here but it does give some confidence to others. Ability to claim tax relief on donations at 20% giving an immediate boost to the existing finances. Ability to apply for funding usiing funding specialists. The chap I know also does this. There are a lot of EU social fund programs to support education relating to poverty. There is money around to set up social enterprise companies at the moment. A lot of it. It won't be here for long though as the government seem to want to ditch involvement with EU social funds etc even though it is our tax money coming back to us. Logic escapes me on that, but the money is there. To maximise the potential for grants, this should ideally be set up in a Tier One area like Cornwall. If set up as a limited company, this gives some distance from liability, though the trustees can be held responsible for debt, though insurance is available for this and should be offered to trustees to indemmify them. (Edited to add - this would protect individuals from massive costs should we go all the way and loose). The fact the banks would be in effect acting against a charity for the poorest and those in financial distress through the greed of their directors would make the publicity more unfavourable for a bank. Don't forget that there are new corporate responsibility laws that come into effect soon hopefully. See here for more details on this. Against Costs in running a charity are not small, there are audited accounts to consider, (again, the chap I know is qualified to do this). Solicitors needed to draw up your constitution. This can be expensive. I think there would need to be at least 2 full time members to run such an enterprise. I don't think realistically you could rely on unpaid workers as you would be in serious difficulties should they leave the organisation in the lurch. My partner and I have a good knowledge of promotion through media and social media for which we would be prepared to donate some time. Is there a facebook page for CAG? I would be willing to maintain one. Is there a Twitter feed? Again, I can do this. Press releases? I don't have time for these but someone could. A media area on the site? I mean a proper area with all the links to articles published in the media by CAG? Journalists like to bash banks so an easy to use resource of cases like the A&L human rights EU case would be great. None of this is meant to be a critisism, much may have already been considered and rejected for good reasons I am not aware of. One thing is sure. Without a properly resourced fighting group, we will never see our money and the banks will continue to bully the poor and vunerable. The government does not care. The British are too apathetic to bother. An financial education charity is both needed and would, I feel, gain popular support off the back of the fat banker debates raging in all the bars in the UK every night.

Downloaded the toolbar and making everyone I work with do the same.

Still wondering on this, I think I will take the approach of £5 per day for the entire amount over the period they "borrowed" from me. Then add an and/or section to the POC requesting the judges opinion of what he or she thinks is fair and reasonable with all the options. I am surprised no one has any thoughts on this though, at least it makes me feel slightly better when no one else has a clue either

Check my thread in this section for an approach. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/alliance-leicester/238421-disgruntled-cornwall-l.html Were the charges applied with 14 days notice? If the charges are prior to 2009, this is unlawful as 14 days notice is legally required. Test case was on a narrow point of law. I believe that the letters they sent out after this may be unlawful in that they are bound by BCOBS to not mislead customers in communictations and the letter they sent me contained such factual inaccuracies that this letter is an example of unlawful trading under the protection from unlawful trading act 2008, whereby any bank bound by a code of conduct that conducts a material breach of that conduct may be breaking the law. Put the account in dispute NOW by email, letter and fax if you like. The arrogance of the bank has left them open to unique paths of reclaiming not open to others. Don't let this get you both down. They are acting illegally and you CAN win.

OK, here's a question...as no one is looking at A&L threads much these days, as the A&L od is "interest free" and I can't find a contractural rate of interest for exceeding the limit like other banks have, started me thinking about how to calculate the APR for court. What the bank does is charge £5 per day you are OD. As the contract is reciprocal, I think I should be able to charge the same. Thing is, tried to calculate the apr based on £5 per day on one £25 charge. Per month this gives an APR, based on 150 in charges of.... 109,000%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!! So...how do I express the contractural interest? At 150 per month based on the £5 a day, (for all charges or for each charge) or, er, at the (my calcs) 109,000% compound interest and per charge or just the unit cost per day on all charges, i.e., £5 per day since the first charge flat rate. I have to admit, even I am staggered!!! But at £150 per month for a £25 charge, that is what the APR works out to. I think I need to lie down.... I am doing very well so far with A&L and want to try the reciprocal interest argument.

Just re read the post. The account is in dispute. This is your defense. I assume you wrote to them when they rejected your claim after the test case stating you want to continue to challenge the fees? Then the account is still in dispute. Go for this and the 14 day notice of charges then check the statements for charges while the account was in dispute, which you can reject. You have a good chance with this I think.