It's been quiet for a little while, but I've now received Notice of a Case Management Conference to take place in about a week. 30 minutes has been allowed for this conference. What exactly takes place at this conference, what do I need to prepare and what should I expect? Many many thanks!!

Hi Adamski, sorry about that, the jpgs were too big to upload so I zipped them up. I've now created pdfs as well, hope these are easier for you! Best regards, agonynine agreement.pdf sale_of_debt.pdf witness_state.pdf

Thanks guys for your support, here is the witness statement, the credit agreement and the sale of debt letter in a zip file. Sorry for the delay as I had to get the scanner down from the loft. Please let me know your thoughts. How do I write to the Court to invite them to strike out the claim, as the documents are invalid? I'm not sure what it would be called! Many thanks, agonynine First Nat.zip

Ok, this is all starting to move again....... I received an Order from Willesden Court on the 18th September stating the following, "Upon the Courts own motion. The Court has made this order of it's own initiative without a hearing. If you object to the order, you must make an application to have it set aside, varied or stayed within 7 days of receiving it." "It is ordered that Claimant do by 4:00pm 8th October 2008 serve on the Defendant: a) A copy of the agreement the subject matter of this action. b) A statement of account since inception of the account. c) A copy of any notice of assignment and in default the claim be struck out." So, 8th October was a few days ago, so I started to think that maybe they hadn't complied, but 'lo and behold', I received some documents from Link this morning, dated 8th October, standard post! This included; 1. a witness statement from a Link Team Manager, 2. a copy of the First National Credit Agreement, 3. a vague Statement of Transaction Date, Transaction Description, Transaction Value, and Balance 4. another copy of the "Sale of Your Debt" letter purporting to be a Notice of Assignment Nothing new to me in the documents, I've seen these all before. However, the basis of my case is still the following, as outlined in my draft directions: # Default Notice compliant with s87 (1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) as amended, and strict proof that said document in the prescribed format was delivered to the Defendant, # Deed of Assignment compliant with the Law of Property Act 1925, and identifying the Claimant as having a legitimate right of action i.e an absolute deed of assignment granted with the Defendant’s approval, # Notice of Assignment from the Original Creditor , with proof of service of the same compliant with s196 of the Law of Property Act 1925. None of these things have been met, the only reference is in the Witness Statement where the Original Creditor (OC) "did serve Default Notice upon the Defendant dated xx/xx/2003, advising of the breach and the required remedial action. The Default Notice was not complied with and the OC filed a Calling-In Notice upon the Defendant". I've never seen the Default Notice or this Calling-In Notice! Where do I go from here? In my eyes the Judges Order for a valid Notice of Assignment has not been met as it's not from the OC, but how do I raise this with the Court? And how do I raise the other concerns that I have again? :-? Many thanks for all your help!

I've not heard a thing so far, no news is good news

Good thinking Batman! Thanks for pointing me in that direction, I'm interested to see responses. agonynine

It's Asset Link Capital (No1) Limited, they seem to be affiliated to Link Financial in some way. Can't wait to deal with No2 and No3! Thanks for your confirmation that it looks ok!

Thanks pt2537, that gives me some hope that this absence of a default notice could be a stumbling block for Link. My N150 needs to be sent to the court tomorrow, so I'm in a last minute panic that I've covered all the right points...... this sort of thing is all new to me and very daunting, I can just picture myself clamming up in court I suppose my case differs from the thread you linked to in that there was no default notice at all for me. Could Link just suddenly conjure one up, despite me asking for it from them on numerous occasions? That would be my big fear, although I suppose they would need to prove that it had actually been delivered to me. One thing I keep forgetting, with regards to their 'assignment', and it appearing to be equitable ("assigned to them the benefit of the debt" etc), do they really have the legal right to launch this claim against me? I've read elsewhere that it needed to be an absolute assignment. And does a Notice of Assignment need to come from the Original Creditor, because I definitely don't have one of those (although I have plenty of cr*ppy "Sale of Your Debt" letters from Link!) Many thanks to all for their help and advice! agonynine

Thanks Adamski, if you could find that thread it would be great to read. My S.A.Rs to the DCA and OC state that the account was not paid, and I can't find anything to the contrary from S.A.R.ing the accounts we'd normally use to pay this sort of thing. My wife and I both recall sending payment for this, but either it didn't arrive or wasn't cashed. The complete lack of correspondence from the OC at the time (no letters, no default notices etc), and the fact that the OC started another loan with us not long after, incorrectly made us think it was all paid off.....

And here are the relevant parts of my N150....... Section I: Other Information If the court is in agreement, the defendant respectfully requests that special directions may be given as per the attached draft order. The defendant proposes these directions in mind of the Overriding Objectives, and in particular the duty of the parties to help the court further them. The issues outlined below are the crux upon which this claim rests, and the proposed directions identify these issues and will allow them to be assessed in advance of the hearing so that this claim may proceed justly and expeditiously. Without production of the requested documents, I am at a disadvantage and am unable to serve a proper defence. Failure of the claimant to supply the requested documentation will make the case much harder for the court to deal with as without production of the requested documentation the courts ability to deal with the case will be inhibited. Draft Order for Directions The Claimant shall within 14 days of service of this order send to the Defendant and to the Court: Copies of the Credit Agreement and any documents referred to within it which complies with the consumer Credit Act 1974 and all subsequent regulations, which the claimant seeks to rely upon, and which includes the prescribed terms contained in schedule 6 column 2 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553), Default Notice compliant with s87 (1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) as amended, and strict proof that said document in the prescribed format was delivered to the Defendant, Deed of Assignment compliant with the Law of Property Act 1925, and identifying the Claimant as having a legitimate right of action i.e an absolute deed of assignment granted with the Defendant’s approval, Notice of Assignment from the Original Creditor , with proof of service of the same compliant with s196 of the Law of Property Act 1925. Copies of any statement or other documents relied upon If the Claimant fails to comply with this order, the claim will be struck out without further order. The Defendant shall within 14 days thereafter file and serve the following An amended defence sufficiently particularised in response to the documents supplied by the claimant If the Defendant fails to comply with this order, the Defence will be struck out without further order. How does this look, have I missed anything? I'm planning to post this on Monday so your feedback before then is greatly appreciated!

Here is the defence I submitted....... IN THE NORTHAMPTON (CCBC) COUNTY COURT CLAIM NO. xxxxxxx BETWEEN ASSET LINK CAPITAL (NO1) LIMITED CLAIMANT - and – ME Defendant Defence 1. I xxxxx of xxxxxxxx, am the Defendant in this action and make the following statement as my defence to the claim made by Asset Link Capital (No1) Limited. 2. Except where otherwise mentioned in this defence, I neither admit nor deny any allegation made in the Claimant’s Particulars of Claim and put the Claimant to strict proof thereof. 3. I am embarrassed in pleading to the Particulars of Claim as it stands at present, inter alia:- The Claimants’ Particulars of Claim disclose no legal cause of action and they are embarrassing to the Defendant as the Claimant's statement of case is insufficiently particularised and does not comply or even attempt to comply with the Civil Procedure Rules, in particular part 16 and practice direction 16, in particular paragraph 7.3 as the Claimant has failed to supply a copy of the written document which forms the basis of this claim. In this regard I wish to draw the courts attention to the following matters; a) The Particulars of Claim are vague and insufficient and do not disclose an adequate statement of facts relating to or proceeding the alleged cause of action. No particulars are offered in relation to the nature of the written agreement referred to, the account number of the agreement, the method the Claimant calculated any outstanding sums due, or any Default Notices issued or any other matters necessary to substantiate the Claimant’s claim. b) A copy of the purported written agreement that the Claimant cites in the Particulars of Claim, and which appears to form the basis upon which these proceedings have been brought, has not been served attached to the claim form. c) 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. 4. The Claimant has failed to set out how the figures which they claim are calculated nor do they set out the nature and scope of any charges contained within the figure claimed. 5. The Claimant has failed to also attach a copy of the Default Notice which they claim has been served under s87 (1) Consumer Credit Act 1974. 6. The courts powers of enforcement in cases relating to Regulated Credit Agreements under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 are subject to certain qualifications being met with regards to the form and content of the documentation, in particular the Credit Agreement and the Default Notice. Therefore these Documents must be produced before the court and must comply with the relevant sections of the Consumer Credit Act and the regulations made under the act, I will address these requirements later in this defence. 7. Further more the Claimant has failed to attach a copy of the Deed of Assignment and proof of posting for the Notice of Assignment which is required to comply with Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925. 8. Consequently due to the Claimant’s failure to supply all the documents required under the Civil Procedure Rules and the fact that the Claimant has failed to sufficiently particularized the claim I deny all allegations in the Particulars of Claim that I am indebted to the Claimant in any way an put the Claimant to strict proof thereof. 9. I will now look at the important issues relating to this case which must be brought to the courts attention. The Request for Disclosure 10. Further to the case, on 28/03/2008 I requested the disclosure of information pursuant to the Civil Procedure Rules, 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, 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. 11. The Claimant acknowledged my request under the CPR in a letter dated 09/04/2008, and received 12/04/2008, but I have not received all of the documentation requested. Attached to the letter was a copy of the Credit Agreement and a copy of a “Sale of your debt” letter. As a result it has proven difficult to compose this defence without disclosure of the information requested, especially given that I am Litigant in Person. 12. The Claimant is therefore put to strict proof that a document which is legible and Compliant with the Consumer Credit Act and subsequent Regulations made under the Act exists. The Credit Agreement 13. The Agreement referred to in the Particulars of Claim relates to a Credit Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Under the said act there are certain conditions laid down by parliament which must be complied with if such agreement is to be enforced by the courts. 14. Firstly, the agreement must contain certain 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). 15. 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 16. If the agreement does not contain these terms 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. 17. Notwithstanding point 18, 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. 18. 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). 19. 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. 20. With regards to the Authority cited in point 21, I refer to LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD in the House of Lords Wilson v First County Trust Ltd - [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul) paragraph 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." 21. Therefore it is submitted that without production of a correct Credit Agreement no enforcement order should be made as this would be unjust and against the rulings of the House of Lords and also against the Consumer Credit Act 1974 which was enacted clearly to offer a certain level of protection to consumers. The Default Notice 22. Notwithstanding the matters pleaded above, the Claimant must under section 87(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 serve a Default Notice before they can demand payment under a regulated Credit Agreement. 23. It is neither admitted or denied that any Default Notice in the prescribed format was ever received and the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that said document in the prescribed format was delivered to the Defendant. 24. Notwithstanding point 25, I put the Claimant to strict proof that any Default Notice sent to me was valid. I note that to be valid, a Default Notice needs to be accurate in terms of both the scope and nature of breach and include an accurate figure required to remedy any such breach. The prescribed format for such document is laid down in Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) and Amendment regulations the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/3237). 25. Failure of a Default Notice to be accurate not only invalidates the Default Notice (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain and Co - [2001] GCCR 2255) but is a unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the court enforcing any alleged debt, but give me a counter claim for damages Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119. The Assignment of the debt 26. I require the Claimant produce the Deed of Assignment to show that it is indeed valid and compliant with the Law of Property Act 1925 and that the Claimant has a legitimate right of action. Further more I require the Claimant produce a Notice of Assignment from the Original Creditor and disclose proof of posting per s196 LoP Act 1925 for delivery of the Notice of Assignment. 27. I refer to W F Harrison & Co Ltd v Burke and another - [1956] 2 All ER 169 where it was held that the Notice of Assignment was bad because the date of the assignment was wrongly stated therein and, therefore, the legal right to the debt under the hire-purchase agreement had not been assigned effectually at law within s 136(1) a of the Law of Property Act, 1925 and put the Claimant to strict proof that the assignment has been carried out correctly. 28. If no correct Deed of Assignment and correct Notice of Assignment can be produced it is requested that the court strike out the Claimant’s case as the Claimant will not have a right to bring this action against me in their name. Unlawful Charges 29. In respect of that which is denied, during the period in which the Account was operating the Claimant debited numerous charges to the Account in respect of purported breaches of contract on the part of the Defendant and also charged interest on the charges once applied. The Defendant understands that the Claimant contends that the charges were debited in accordance with the terms of the contract between itself and the Defendant. 30. The Defendant contends that: a) The charges debited to the Account are punitive in nature; are not a genuine pre-estimate of cost incurred by the Claimant; exceed any alleged actual loss to the Claimant in respect of any breaches of contract on the part of the Defendant; and are not intended to represent or related to any alleged actual loss, but instead unduly enrich the Claimant which exercises the contractual term in respect of such charges with a view to profit. b) The contractual provision that permits the Claimant to levy such charges is unenforceable by virtue of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999) and the common law. 31. Accordingly I put the Claimant to strict proof that every charge made to the account was valid and lawful. I aver that any Default Notice sent would have included these charges. Conclusion 32. I respectfully ask the court to use its case management powers to order the Claimant to disclose the information requested within this defence document as it is vital to allow me the opportunity to defend this action properly and would be unjust and totally unfair to allow this action to continue without allowing me the opportunity to view all the documents which form the basis of this claim. 33. I further ask the court consider striking out the Claimant’s case as it fails to comply with part 16 and practice direction 16 insofar that no documents have been supplied and fails to show any consideration to the overriding objective to allow the court to deal with this case justly. 34. In addition, if the Claimant cannot produce a Credit Agreement in the prescribed form signed in the prescribed manner by debtor and creditor, the court is precluded from making an enforcement order under s127 (3) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and it is requested that the court use its powers under section 142 Consumer Credit Act 1974 to declare the agreement unenforceable and strike out the Claimant’s case accordingly. 35. Alternatively, I respectfully request a stay in proceedings until such time as the Claimant complies with the requests outlined in point 12 above or until the court orders its compliance with the same. I will then be in a position to file a fully particularised defence and counterclaim and will seek the courts permission to amend my statement of case accordingly. 36. In addition 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 is alleged to have commenced in 02/12/2000 the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is the relevant act in this case. Statement of Truth I xxxxxx, believe the above statement to be true and factual Signed Date

Good luck Gorooji, I'm in a similar boat with an N150 to complete by the middle of next week....

To cut a long story short I compiled a defence based on several excellent examples on these forums and sent it to Northampton CCBC the day before it was due. Link then had 28 days in which to let the CCBC know if they were intending to proceed..... I rang Northampton last week and was told that the case had been stayed as no response had been received from Link. Fantastic I thought, until I received an Allocation Questionnaire yesterday morning It's funny how these companies can be late when dealing with the courts, but if we were to do it I'm sure we'd be in trouble! Anyway, I now have to complete my N150 Allocation Questionnaire, I'll keep you all posted!

Hi MR2Phil, Glad you're making good progress with this, sounds like you may have them on the run! Your thread has been particularly useful for me with my recent problems with Link Financial..... I've started my own thread at http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o....ncial-dca.html, and would greatly value all advice and experience! Many thanks and good luck! Agonynine

Thanks everyone for the advice, all had gone quiet until earlier this month when I received a Claim Form via Northampton CCBC through the post. Very worried now as timelines are short! Defence needs to be in by 13th April... Particulars of Claim were as follows: The Defendant(s) are indebted to the Claimant under the terms of a credit agreement dated 17/10/2000, and assigned to the Claimant. The Agreement is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The agreement provided that interest would be payable before and after a judgement. The right to proceed for subsequent interest is reserved. Default occurred in payment and the loan was called in under S.87 Not a lot there to be honest! I have filed my Acknowledgement of Service stating my intention to defend in full and sent a letter to Link requesting further information under CPR, but haven't had anything back yet. I've been looking at this http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/122165-help-received-court-claim.html to get an idea of how to prepare my defence but have a few questions still... Are they allowed to charge me interest on the account even though it has defaulted and been sold on, and if so at what rate, and from when? I read Rory32 in a separate thread stating, “To transfer the rights and responsibilities of the debtor and creditor (e.g. interest rates) this would require an absolute deed of assignment. This can only be granted with the debtors approval.” In their initial "Sale Of Your Debt" letters to me, Link mentioned that First National has "assigned to them the benefit of the debt", is that an absolute assignment? If I received no communication from Link at all until April 2007, are they only technically allowed to charge me interest from that date (assuming it was deemed a correct assignment)? I’ve not received a Notice of Assignment from First National or from Link, only the "Sale Of Your Debt" letter from Link stating that the account was sold to them. What documents need to be supplied to me for this sale to be legally correct? I've received no Default Notice from either Link or First National, and neither SAR included copies of this. I've read that the claimant must under section 87(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 serve a default notice before they can demand payment under a regulated credit agreement, so this may also be an avenue to pursue..... I never received anything on my credit file for this until I told Link there was nothing on my file, silly me! The copy of the CCA I have looks OK to my eyes as it has all the prescribed terms but I will scan and post it for your eagle eyes All thoughts most appreciated