I did find this strange and questioned my own understanding. Is it just a case of waiting to hear from them now then? They clearly don't have a clue what they are doing.

Hi, received this yesterday. Just to clarify, I didn't email but wrote to them and posted it signed for. I'll not be completing the Financial Statement. HF - Response - 090121.pdfApologies - pdf of it.

Hi guys, Not heard anything from the Court or from MS. Checked the Money Online and the it shows last doc as Defence. Assuming that this is now stayed?

Thx. Will print off, complete and post as per instructions. What do I put for reason for disputing as recommended on thread?

My apologies, it's ex New Day. I put Barclaycard by mistake. Images in PDF - all details removed. H&C Scanned Images.pdf

Hi, Unfortunately I have received a letter of pre claim from Howard & Cohen / Hoist for a Barclaycard debt. I defaulted on this card earlier this year due to my then lack of work and no income. It is not statute barred as it was taken out in 2019 online. Hoist claim the debt was legally assigned to them on 170720. Value of their intended claim is £979 Their letter is dated 26/11/20, envelope post mark is 03/12/20 and arrived 04/12/20. It gives 30 days to comply with their forms or pay the debt. Could someone give me a little advice re this please? Thanks BSII

Hi, Letter received from MCS today - thoughts on whether to check with Court. I've read some posts on here whereby these cretins have done this before and won because of the defendant not carrying on as normal without formal documentation from the court. Shall I continue as normal / phone the court for advice? "We confirm we have received your defence. We have referred the content of your defence to our client for their comments, we will come back to you as soon as we have our clients instructions. This may take some time, especially if our client needs to go back to the original creditor for information and/or documentation to respond to your defence. In the meantime, the matter has been placed on hold and no further action will be taken."

Submitted today. Directions next?

Thx Andy.

Hi, this is the amended and hopefully final defence. Would someone just give it a once over for me before it's ready for filing on MCOL. I'm doubting myself but as I recall I don't need to post to the Sols or Claimant, just submit online? Particulars of claim for reference only 1.By an agreement between New Day re Fluid Mastercard & the Defendant on or around 01/03/2019 ("the agreement") New Day re Fluid Mastercard agreed to issue the Defendant with a credit card. 2.The Defendant failed to make the minimum payments due. 3.The Agreement was terminated following the service of a default notice. 4.The Agreement was assigned to the Claimant. THE CLAIMANT THEREFORE CLAIMS 1. 1314.87 2. Costs 1. The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017. It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC 2. 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 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 3. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have in the past had financial dealings with New Day in which I can’t recall the precise details of any agreement and have therefore sought clarification by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request via signed for delivery which the claimant has failed to comply with. 4. Paragraphs 2 & 3 are noted .Although I do not recall receiving a Default Notice /Termination Notice pursuant to sec 87 (1) the Consumer Credit Act 1974. 5. Paragraph 4 is denied. The defendant contends that no notice of assignment pursuant to s136 Law of Property Act and s82 a of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 has ever been served by the Claimant as alleged. It is therefore not accepted with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to: a) Show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement and; b) Show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for and; c) Show the nature of the breach and evidence by way of a Default Notice pursuant to s87.1 CCA 1974. d) Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5 it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 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.

Just received this from MCS. "We have received your request for documents under the Civil Procedure Rule 31.14. We have sent your request to our client and will back to you when we have heard back from them. Our client may not have all the documents to hand, they may need to ask the original creditor for some of the documents so it may take some time for us to come back to you. We trust this is of assistance to you." As I recall it's the usual waffle from these cretins, are they not supposed to be in possession of documents before filing with MCOL?. I'll re-look at the defence as well. Thanks Andy.

Hopefully this is a little better. I know I have time but I now work for an airline and I'm away somewhere hot for 7 days. Just trying to get as much done in the time I have. DEFENCE 1. The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017. It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC 2. 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 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 3. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have in the past had financial dealings with New Day in which I can’t recall the precise details of any agreement and have therefore sought clarification by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request which the claimant has failed (will amend this if they do) to comply with. 4. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Claimant alleges that the Defendant failed to make the minimum payments due. 5. Paragraph 3 is denied. I have not been served with a Termination Notice or Default Notice pursuant to sec 87 (1) the Consumer Credit Act 1974. 6. Paragraph 4 is denied. The defendant contends that no notice of assignment pursuant to s136 Law of Property Act and s82 a of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 has ever been served by the Claimant as alleged. It is therefore not accepted with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to: a) Show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement and; b) Show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for and; c) Show the nature of the breach and evidence by way of a Default Notice pursuant to s87.1 CCA 1974. d) Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5 it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 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.

This is my defence so far, nicked from various other defences. Someone give it a once over for me pls. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR 16.5(3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. The Defendant notes the opening sentence referring to an agreement with New Day. The Defendant has in the past had financial dealings with New Day. The Defendant is unaware of what alleged debt the Claimant refers, having failed to adequately particularise its claim, the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Claimant alleges that the Defendant failed to make the minimum payments due. This is denied. The Claimant alleges the agreement was terminated following the service of default notice to the Defendant. This is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment from assignor or assignee pursuant to the Law of Property Act 1925 s136. The Defendant denies owing any monies to the Claimant or interest pursuant to the County Courts Act 1984. The Defendant is unaware of what account or contract the Claimant refers to, nor having received any default notice pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The defendant denies owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to: Show how the Defendant has entered into a legal signed agreement with the Claimant; and Show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed; and Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; To provide an original assignment in writing signed by the assignor at time of alleged assignment pursuant to the Law of Property Act 1925. On receipt of this claim the Defendant requested by way of CPR31.14 and a section 78 request for copies of any documents referred to within the Claimants particulars to establish what the claim is for within the 14 day period by way of signed for letter. To date they have failed to comply with the section 78 request and remain in default with regards to the CPR31.14 request. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected the Claimant prove the allegation the money is owed. On the alternative, if 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 1925 and Section 82a of the Consumer Credit Agreement Act 1974. The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the Pre Action Protocol. Failed to serve a letter of claim, pre-claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017. It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC. By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.

Just so I don't make a mistake - my defence needs to be submitted by 03/11/2020 by 4pm?