1. do you have an official letter from the court or a look alike letter from the dca. 2. have you written to the dca asking for a copy of the original cca with the fee, have they sent this or a letter saying they have not got it. if they have not got a copy or have failed to comply with a request to supply the cca they will have a hard job in court. your normally given 28 days to file acwknowledgement to the court with your defence/payment proposals. if this debt was in dispute the dca should not have taken any action

Bump

yes i was, i have already smacked both wrists and stood in a bowl of cold water, the doctor said im much better now,but i wont be able to play the piano

dont talk to them on the phone never ever let them have a direct debit they have control over direct debits standing orders you control. do not be scared into offering more than you can comfortably afford its better to offer less and keep the payments going than offer more and then fail to make a payment. they cannot take you to court if you are making payments no matter how small, they may try and say they do not have to accept. this is a group of shoe menders (co**lers) have a look here. Debt collection guidance for consumer credit licence holders and applicants request a statment from them check for absurd charges The costs and fees charged by the Bailiff depend upon the type of debt. County Court Judgement No charges for signing a walking possession agreement. A fee for the issue of a warrant to seize goods. The creditor pays the fee and it is added to the debt. The amount depends upon whether the judgement is from a normal county court or a bulk centre county court. Amount of Debt County Court £125 or less: £15-£20 More than £125: £35-£40 Council Tax and Community Charge The Bailiff visits the premises but does not gain entry: 1st visit - £20 2nd visit - £15 The Bailiff gains entry, lists and takes "possession" of the goods (the goods are not necessarily removed): Debt less than £100: £20 Debt more than £100: 20% of first £100 4% of the next £400 2% of the next £1500 The bailiff makes one attendance with a vehicle and intends to remove goods (where the bailiff has previously gained entry, listed, taken "possession" but not removed the goods): Reasonable costs and fees: Around £50. The bailiff removes and stores goods: reasonable costs and fees. The bailiff takes walking possession of the goods (the debtor has signed a walking possession agreement): £10.00. Fines There is no proper regulation of the bailiff's charges, except that they are reasonable and not disproportionate to the size of the debt. never believe anything they tell you until you get it checked out (they have been known to lie:rolleyes: ) be strong dont let them scare or intimidate you (they will try) good luck

DEBT COLLECTION - UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES Communication 2.1 It is unfair to communicate, in whatever form, with consumers in an unclear, inaccurate or misleading manner. 2.2 Examples of unfair practices are as follows: a. use of official looking documents intended or likely to mislead debtors as to their status e.g. documents made to resemble court summonses b. leaving out or presenting information in such a way that it creates a false or misleading impression or exploits debtors' lack of knowledge c. those contacting debtors not making clear who they are, who they work for and what their role is d. unnecessary and unhelpful use of legal and technical language e. failing to provide debtors or creditors with information on status of debts e.g. not providing requested balance statements. False representation of authority and/or legal position 2.3 Those contacting debtors must not be deceitful by misrepresenting their authority and/or the correct legal position. 2.4 Examples of unfair practices are as follows: a. falsely claiming or implying they are bailiffs or, in Scotland, sheriffs officers or messengers- in- arms b. falsely stating that bailiffs or, in Scotland, sheriffs officers or messengers- in- arms are going to be sent c. falsely claiming a right of entry d. misrepresenting status by naming businesses, premises or web-sites or using a logo to falsely imply government or other public body status or backing. Page 8 4 Debt collection guidance November 2002 e. misleading debtors into believing they are legally liable to pay collection charges when this is not the case e.g. when there is no contractual provision for charging in the credit agreement f. falsely implying or stating that civil proceedings will be taken, that civil action has been started or that a court judgment has already been obtained g. falsely implying or stating that debtor’s goods will be seized h. falsely implying or stating that failure to pay a debt is a criminal offence or that criminal proceedings will be brought i. referring to bankruptcy proceedings where there is little chance that such action will be pursued or where balances are too low to qualify for such proceedings j. pursuing third parties, e.g. relatives of deceased debtors when they are not liable. Physical/psychological harassment 2.5 Putting undue pressure on debtors or third parties, e.g. relatives, is considered to be oppressive Examples of unfair practices are as follows: a. contacting debtors at unreasonable times and at unreasonable intervals. Comments are invited on whether OFT should specify what we consider to be reasonable. If so please give us your views on what constitutes reasonable times and intervals b. pressurising debtors to sell property or to raise funds by further borrowing c. pressurising debtors by using more than one debt collection business, either one after another or at the same time, resulting in repetitive and/or frequent contact by different parties d. pressurising debtors to pay in full, in unreasonably large instalments, or to increase payments when they are unable to do so Page 9 Office of Fair Trading 5 e. making threatening statements or gestures which suggest harm to debtors f. disregarding claims that debts have been settled or are disputed and continuing to make unjustified demands for payment g. disclosing debt details to third parties, (especially neighbours relatives or employers), unless legally entitled to do so h. acting in a way likely to be publicly embarrassing to the debtor either deliberately or through lack of care e.g. sending open correspondence to a shared post box. Deceptive and/or unfair methods 2.6 Dealings with debtors are not to be deceitful and/or unfair. 2.1 Examples of unfair practices are as follows: a. contacting people speculatively by e.g. addressing correspondence 'to the occupier' when there is doubt as to whether they are the debtor in question b. obtaining details under false pretences e.g. leaving a note at a suspected debtor’s home telling them to phone to arrange a suitable time and date for delivery of a package. When they call, they are asked to confirm their personal details and are then sent payment demands for a debt c. refusing to deal with appointed third parties, such as Citizens Advice Bureaux d. contacting debtors directly and bypassing their known appointed representatives e.g. in an effort to deal with someone in a weaker position e. failing to refer on reasonable offers to pay by instalments f. not passing on money collected within a reasonable time and failing to keep and provide details of payments made. Comments are invited on whether OFT should specify what we consider to be reasonable. If so please give us your views on what would constitute a reasonable time g. where a debt has been bought, failing to establish the details of the debt history resulting in debtors sometimes being wrongly pursued. Page 10 6 Debt collection guidance November 2002 Statute-barred debts 2.7 The Limitation Act 1980, which applies in England and Wales, sets out time limits for bringing various kinds of legal action. These are known as limitation periods. The limitation period for debts, i.e. the point at which they become statute barred, is 6 years from when the debtor defaulted on or later acknowledged the debt. If debtors are aware of their legal rights then in practice the debt is unenforceable as they can apply to have the claim struck out. Different legislation applies in Scotland and Northern Ireland. 2.8 We invite your views on the following: a. Is it unfair or improper to pursue such debts? For example, what if no contact with the debtor has been attempted for several years or the debtor has frustrated all attempts to make contact? b. Should the processes involved in collecting such debts differ from the normal processes (e.g. more time/leeway provided to debtors)? If so, in what way? c. Do you have any views on the fairness of pursuing debts which although not statute-barred have not been pursued or chased for a considerable time e.g. should they not be pursued if no contact has been made with the debtor for say a couple of years? d. Do you have any experience of this issue? If so please provide us with a summary of your experiences. Charging for debt collection 2.9 We have stated in the past that we consider it to be an unfair business practice to charge for debt collection when there is no contractual provision to do so. 2.10 In order to determine our future position on this issue we invite your views on the following:- a. Under what circumstances, if any, is it fair to charge debtors for collection of debts? b. Do you have any experience of this issue? If so please provide us with a summary of your experiences and/or any examples you may have. Page 11 Office of Fair Trading 7 Debt collection visits 2.11 Is it unfair or improper for a debt collector to visit a debtor e.g. at their work or home? What if the debtor refuses to answer written correspondence or answer phone calls? Would debtors find it beneficial to talk to someone about their situation face to face or are they more likely to be embarrassed or intimidated? 2.12 We invite your views on the following:- a. Under what circumstances, if any, is it fair to pay personal visits to debtors? b. If visits are appropriate, what safeguards must be in place? c. Do you have any experience of this issue? If so please provide us with a summary of your experiences and/or any examples you may have. Page 12 8 Debt collection guidance November 2002 Debt collection guidance for consumer credit licence holders and applicants hell i could make the whole thing red the whole thing here

keep the council informed, also the bailiff cannot make you pay by getting a loan or borrowing money, i am at work at the moment but when i get howm ill post the regulations for you

i was pestered by a dca and i got fed up with so i called them 16 times in one day, each time they answered i asked to speak to the head moron, gave them a taste of their own medicine. what i have now done is written to all the dca's who ring me and notified them i have a data logger 6200xs that records all my telephone calls incoming and out going and any calls they make to me will be their permission allowing me to record their calls. and how many calls have i had since this? = none zero not one (for now)

this should be covered under the direct debit guarantee, if the you have not been notified in advance that the payment was due out, contact the bank and get them to reverse the payment, ask them if they will reverse the charges as well, if they wont (which is likely) there is a wealth of information on here about claiming the charge back

my dog (a boxer) is as useless as a wooden leg on a fish, when it comes to protecting if she isnt asleep and snoring she is eating and dribbling. my sign says beware of dogs owner

and thats what i meant, sorry long day late night

Lord Lucas asked Her Majesty’s Government: Whether a bailiff who repeatedly charges for work that has not been done commits a fraud within the meaning of Sections 1 to 5 of the Fraud Act 2006; and, if so, which sections of the Act apply; and whether it would be right for the police to claim that such an action is a civil and not a criminal matter. [HL2743] 20 Apr 2007 : Column WA94 The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): A bailiff or any other person who dishonestly charges for work that has not been done will be committing an offence under the Fraud Act 2006. Section 1 of the 2006 Act contains the new general offence of fraud. One means by which this offence can be committed is set out in Section 2, on fraud by false representation. This section applies where a person dishonestly makes a false representation and intends, by making the representation, to make a gain for himself or another, or cause a loss to another, or expose another to a risk of loss. It is also possible that, where a bailiff repeatedly charges for work that has not been done, this conduct will amount to fraudulent trading either under Section 9 of the 2006 Act or under the provisions on fraudulent trading in company legislation.

if you have been served by the court the notice of issue, you need to file an ackowledgment of service stating you intent to defend, you may then submit as evidence your cca request and their failure to produce. however if you have paid anything towards this debt or accepted this debt as yours, having no cca may not work in your favour. i would send the information as soon as you are happy it is all complete bare in mind that you normally have 28 days from the date you were served notice to submit a response.

i would have thought he could travel back in time to when he was clean therefore not need you to bath him

this bit is alright Although it would not be appropriate for Government to influence the outcome of an investigation by the OFT, which is an independent body, the Government would like to express the Government's strong support for the principles of fairness and transparency which the OFT is applying so reading between the lines the goverment knows the banks are doing wrong but will let everyone else sort it out

the bits in red should help to calm your nerves by not producing the cca that they are supposed to have before even contacting you they have lost by going to court they have hung themselves you just need to pull on their legs a bit till they squeak I am writing with reference the above disputed account, after seeking advice I wish for you to supply the following. 1. A signed true copy of the deed of assignment of the above numbered account that you allege exists. 2. You must supply me with a true copy of the alleged Consumer Credit agreement. This is my right under your obligation to supply a copy of that agreement under the legislation contained within sections 77(1) or 78(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 – and your obligation also extends to providing a statement of account. You are notified that you are obliged to supply these documents, whether you are the original creditor or not. Non-compliance with my request is criminal offence under the above act and will result in a report being submitted to the relevant statutory body. As you are aware a credit agreement which is not properly executed and signed by the customer is unenforceable under the CCA regulations and therefore is a complete defense to any court claim that is issued. Take note at this stage, that any legal action that you may contemplate in the intervening time, will be both vigorously defended and contested. As this debt was in dispute when it was sold/assigned to you, I understand that neither you, nor the original provider, should be pursuing me, nor perhaps you would clarify under which legal grounds you feel you are acting in continuing to pursue. Until such time you provide a copy of the executed Agreement, under the terms of the CCA 1974, please note that this debt remains unenforceable. I look seriously upon your Company harassing me and I have on hold at the present time a complaint pending with the Financial Regulator. You have been advised by me of the situation to date in correspondence, and at the very least you are fringing on criminal proceedings. Also, you have broken other sections of law especially you have contravened section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 and again this will be part of the complaint referred to above.

aha clear as mud

Some one have a look and let me know what you think Dear Sir/Madam Hearing date: 28th September 2007 I understand that Cobbets Solicitors, on behalf of their client National Westminster Bank plc, are requesting an order to stay my action, until resolution of the bank's proceedings with the Office of Fair Trading. I respectfully request that any such request for a stay be denied. In addition to requesting a stay, the Bank appears to have failed to submit the required paperwork as directed by the Court. The claimant relies on the following grounds. 1. Object to the defendants conduct a. Defendant has breached the directions order to supply a defence by the 20th July 2007 b. Defendant has failed to supply skeletal legal argument by 12th September 2007 As the court is probably aware this conduct is not confined to this case but is followed without exception in hundreds of similar claims involving the same Defendant. With greatest respect it seems the defendant does not think the CPR or any court orders apply to them. In view of the above I would ask the court to consider striking out the defence under CPR 3.4 (2) © on the basis that the Defendant has breached Civil Procedure rules and a court order, or under CPR 3.4 (2) (b) on the basis that the Defence is an abuse of process. 2. The amount of money involved This is a very large sum for me but a negligible sum for the Defendant. It is of no consequence to the Bank that I may be deprived of an opportunity to resolve my dispute for possibly a further year, as they already have my money and in any event they are under no financial pressure to resolve the case fairly and speedily. I on the other hand I am extremely anxious to have my case determined as speedily as fairness permits and the comparatively low amount of money involved, so far as the Bank is concerned, does not warrant the resolution of the dispute being delayed further. 3. The importance of the case My case is very important to me, though given the commercial strength and power of the Bank, of relatively little importance to them. With billions of ponds profit made each year the amount of my claim is nothing to the defendant, but to me means, I will no longer have a suspended possession order hanging over my head, and I will be able to provide for my family without constant money worries. Nor can the Banks fairly argue that all of a sudden the principles as a whole are important to them so that all claims against them must be stayed, as they seek to do in the OFT case. This is not an argument which lies with them to make, given their approach to cases like mine. The Banks’ strategy to litigation of this kind is almost without exception, to put in a defence and settle shortly before the trial. It is very rare when the Banks bother to argue any defence (as we have seen in this case). In other words, they treat cases like mine as another commercial decision. They have never sought to see a case through, take it to appeal if necessary and seek to establish certainty over the principles they assert are so crucial now, they necessitate a stay of all claims. I am told and believe that not one case out of the 100 given in evidence today has been taken to trial. The Bank has always settled. If these issues were so critical to them they were at liberty to see their arguments through in a case, take it to appeal and seek certainty on the issues in an appellate court in the normal way. Only now do they seek to do so, but in a way which involves the suspension of all the hundreds of cases against them. 4. The OFT Test case There now appears to be some doubt that the oft test case will go ahead at all. However, if and when the case goes ahead, the judge will not be asked to rule on whether bank charges are legal or fair. Instead the judge will have to decide whether the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations apply to them. The OFT believes typical bank overdraft fees come under these regulations, that they are unfair and that it (OFT) therefore has the power to order changes. The banks argue that the charges are a core feature of their current account business and so they are not covered by the regulations, they are fair and that the OFT has no powers in the matter. If this test case does go ahead, and if the High Court ruled for banks, in that it is not for the OFT to set a fair level, then the entire episode would have turned into a non-event. The judge will not decide on a fair level because the plaintiff does not ask the court for such a decision. In this particular scenario those whose hearings have been stayed would have been delayed for nothing The Oft and the Fsa only agreed to the waiver providing Banks/building societies will have to comply with a number of conditions set out by the FSA in the waiver, including. Banks and building societies will have to conduct a filtering process to ensure that cases of genuine hardship are still dealt with during the waiver period. I believe my claim should continue on the grounds of financial hardship, if at this late stage (nearly 5 months into the claim) despite ignoring the court, the defendant is successful in its application for a stay, I will appeal on these grounds and provide evidence to support. At least 100 claims have been brought against the defendant this year involving similar issues. This is evidenced by a sample list of settled claims, which is attached. Despite flatly denying its customers complaint in the preliminary stages then subsequently always indicating an intention to defend, then filing a defence, then an allocation questionnaire, then breaching any directions, the defendant has compromised each and every such claim in advance of the hearing, usually following unnecessary and protracted litigation. The defendant purports to settle these claims without liability for ‘costs’ or ‘commercial’ reasons, yet for example on many occasions previously, as the court may already be aware, it has gone to the expense of setting aside default judgments only to settle the claim shortly after. The defendant continues to spuriously defend claims only to subsequently settle them, flagrantly breaching multiple court orders and provisions of the CPR as it does so. Many County Courts now consider the litigation tactics employed by banks in these cases as an abuse of court process and are regularly striking out their defences as a result. Therefore I submit that to stay this claim at this late stage is wholly unjust and would have the obvious effect of favouring a defendant notorious for its wilful refusal to comply with court orders and the litigation process in general. I, the Claimant and applicant, believe all facts stated to be true. Signed dated

hi subscribed, as my case is similar to yours except its for a stay hearing by conference.

hearing reference defence application for stay 28th september i am to attend hearing to take place by conference call???? just gathering info for hearing

ok i have recieved the following today. take notice that the defendants application will take place on 5th december 2007 at 12.30. (my case is on 4th october) when i should attend, 30 minutes has been allowed for the defendants application. the hearing of this case will take place by way of a telephone conference time estimates for hearings must be accurate under hmcs guidlines total time allocated is 15 minutes this equates to 5 minutes preperation time for the dj and 10 minutes for the telephone hearing. then in a seperate envelope i recieved from the court take notice that the hearing will take place on 28th september at 12.15 when you should attend. 15 minutes has been allowed for the hearing. now i need to prepare documents why i feel the application should be denied. anyone know of any templates already written that would give me direction please

its much more fun going into the branch, make a noise and a fuss, took me less than 10 minutes i came out with £440.00 in cash if they have taken further back than this time claim that too good luck

go into the branch and at the top of your voice (or loud enough to be heard by all) say you have stolen my benefit money that is against the law and i want it back. youll get it very quick

wait till the court tells you i recieved a letter from cobbets they faxed the court asking for a stay but when i contacted the court the lady said they failed to fax the fee as well .

question the fees for a start Costs and Fees The costs and fees charged by the Bailiff depend upon the type of debt. County Court Judgement No charges for signing a walking possession agreement. A fee for the issue of a warrant to seize goods. The creditor pays the fee and it is added to the debt. The amount depends upon whether the judgement is from a normal county court or a bulk centre county court. Amount of Debt County Court £125 or less: £15-£20 More than £125: £35-£40 Council Tax and Community Charge The Bailiff visits the premises but does not gain entry: 1st visit - £20 2nd visit - £15 The Bailiff gains entry, lists and takes "possession" of the goods (the goods are not necessarily removed): Debt less than £100: £20 Debt more than £100: 20% of first £100 4% of the next £400 2% of the next £1500 The bailiff makes one attendance with a vehicle and intends to remove goods (where the bailiff has previously gained entry, listed, taken "possession" but not removed the goods): Reasonable costs and fees: Around £50. The bailiff removes and stores goods: reasonable costs and fees. The bailiff takes walking possession of the goods (the debtor has signed a walking possession agreement): £10.00.