Hi everyone, O/H has been made bankrupt for an alleged debt that he know nothing about. Quick Timeline oif Events.... May 2006... Alleged debt was 1st brought to his attention by way of a B136(CO) after an ICO was granted in April 2006, application to register a *Restriction against O/H's B.I. in our property *[Restriction = Solely owned debt on jointly owned property], it further stated that a Copy of the ICO had been sent to them by the applicant should He wish to see it. The B136(CO) was the first time the alleged debt was brought to his attention. June 2006.... Solicitors letter re: the non payment of the alleged debt, within the 1st paragraph I was disgusted and appalled that the alleged debt had already been the subject of the Courts on 3 separate occasions, none of which O/H had any prior notification or documentation of. It was stated that the alleged debt was the subject of a Judgment by default obtained @ NCCBC by way of a MCOL, No prior knowledge therefore No defence submitted, and judgment granted, it was then stated that an ICO had been granted in April 2006 @ Epsom County Court, once again this was obtained by default, as no prior documentation/ notification was received. Neither myself nor my O/H has seen any documentation as at todays date for the above 2 court claims, although a COPY of the ICO was sent to the Land Registry Dept . The letter then stated that a FCO had been obtained, whereby I noticed that the FCO had only been obtained 5 days before this letter, once again this was obtained by default as no defence was entered, The FCO was obtained at Epsom County Court, whereby it stated on the order , upon hearing the solicitor for the claimant, and there being no appearance by the defendant therefore No Notice of Objection filed. There would not be any appearanvce by the Defendant as the defendant was totally unaware of any court action taking place neither did he have any knowledge of the alleged debt. I replied in writing to the solicitors, and stated that neither myself nor O/H acknowledged any debt owing to themselves or their clients,I stated that I was appalled sgusted to learn that the alleged debt had already been the subject of 3 court claims of which each one was granted by default, no prior documentation or notification of the alleged debt had been received by O/H. I finally requested that before any discussion of repayments would be entered into, i requested signed valid documentation re : the alleged debt be produced as soon as possible, as he does not acknowledge any debt with their clients or themselves and trust that this request will be given a speedy response. Until the production of the requested documents are received, The alleged debt is disputed and will remain as such until the production of the requested documents. June 2006, up to and including October 2006, I played letter Ping Pong, requesting on various occasions that the requested documentation re: the alleged debt be produced as the debt was still in dispute as far as I was concerned until the production of the said documents were produced. I did find that the alleged debt was for a credit card with the Associates Capital Corporation. This confirmed that the alleged debt did not belong to O/H. Nov 2010.. Stat demand dated as above but date was a Saturday, the demand was not personally served or was not sent by registered/recorded delivery, It had been posted through letterbox, but I am uncertain of the date it came. Upon reading the SD I noticed quite a few inaccuracies stated, eg: incorrect Claimant , incorrect Court Claim No entered, stated that payment was due immediately, and to the extent the sum demanded was secured. I had not seen any documentation re the Judgment or the ICO, so would not know exactly what the judgment had stated. I also noticed that the reference No: was entirely different to the one used prior to the SD. I naturally assumed that with all the inacuracies that the SD was a tactic in order to come to some arrangement of repayment, as far as I was concerned no production of the requested documents had been complied with therfore the debt remained in dispute . I then received a bundle of papers dated 1st April, they had come by normal postal service, on opening the letter, It was from Different Solicitors acting for a dufferent claimant, than what was entered on the B136(CO), and which were still registerd with Land Registry. Anyway cutting a long story short, Incorrect claimant and solicitors obtained BO May 2011, notified by Solicitors letter enclosing copy of B/O dated June 2011. O/R visit whereby explained incorrect claimant and solicitors obtained BO, but the alleged debt had been in dispute since June 2006, and had not produced any valid documentation re ownership of the alleged debt. I had received No NOA, No Default Notice, No valid documents, No Notice of change of solicitors , of which 3 had been used. Wrote a letter to Solicitors (3) stating that the debt had been disputed since 2006, with requests for documents on various occasions being totally ignored, therefore I enclosed the £1 fee and requested documentation re S77,78,79 of the CCA 1974 Act, and stated that the requested documents be produced within the time allowed, I also stated that a copy of the letter and the appropriate fee had been sent to 1st Credit Ltd. Letter in reply bfrom solicitors stating a hand signed document be sent to them stating that discussion could go ahead with my O/H, therefore they were not able to honour my request and returned the fee. they also stated correspondence would be with the I/P. Letter in reply to my CCA request from 1st credit Ltd, was by way of Connnaught Collections, stating in reference to my cca request, they reminded me that a judgment had been obtained in 2005, and would be relying upon the judgment rather than the original agreement, that they now confirm that they have requested from Original Creditor, and will forward these as and when they arrive. A final response after intervention by FOS in Sept 2012, 18 mths after B/O for the production of valid documentation re the alleged debt, met with a final response Letter dated October 2012 with a different ref No and from 1st Credit Ltd, stated 2005 judgment obtained, , that they had purchsed the Account from associates Nov 2003 and were the legal owners, stated a NOA had been sent(disputed) and that a FCO had been obtained Jun 2006 @ Epsom County Court, (obtained by default,) and then stated that a B/O against me had been obtained MAY 2011. August 2011, state thay received my cca request, whereby they requeste the documents from O/C, and are sorry at the amount of time this is taking, but as stated in their previous letters they are relying on the judgment not the agreement which they have not got in their possession. That said they have now paseed the debt to connaught Collections to collect the amount overdue. The alleged debt is not stated upon O/H Credit ref, there is no solely owned debts showing at all. After researching the CCA 1974 and the companies involved x3 and the solicitors x3, I have come across legislation by way of 127(3) pre 2006 agreements, and also the "Wilson V first County Trust Ltd" where it is stated that " If No written agreement exists, then the RESPONDENT was in error when it stated that a liquidated and legally enforceable sum was due at the time the BP was issued. Lord Nichiolls of Birkenhead in The House Of Lords para 29... states The Courts Powers under S127(1)are subject to significant qualification in 2 types of cases. [1st type].. is where S61(1)(a), regardig signing of agreements, is NOT COMPLIED with.In such cases the Court shall NOT make am enforcement order unless a document whether or not in the prescribed form containing all the prescribed terms was signed b y the debtor. S127(3) Thus signatures of a document containing all, the prescribed terms is an essential prerequisite to the courts power to make an enforcement order. In the case of Dimond V Lovell [2000] UKHL,27 Lord Hoffman said at page 1131; "Parliament intended that if a Consumer Credit Agreement was improperly executed then subject to the enforcement powers of the court the debtor should not have to pay. Summary of.." Wilson V First County Trust Ltd"(2003) UKHL 40.... The wilson case made it clear that in the event of NO acceptable Consumer Credit Agreement then the Creditor COULD NOT RECOVER monies owed under ordinary contract Law regardless of whether they could prove the debt existed or not--- This was the decision of the House Of Lords and should therefore be bindiing in this court.... I am still disputing the debt as no solely owned debt appears on ny credit ref document dated June 2011, but if all else fails the CCA Law regarding agreements pre 2006, states NO agreement No Debt.# I have their Final Response Letter stating That they are NOT IN POSSESSION of the agreement, and are reying on the judgment instead, which was obtained by an Abuse of the Requirements of the Civil Procedure rules CPR Paragraph 7.3 of Practice Direction 16 says .. 7.3.. where a claim is based upon a written agreement (1) a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement should be attached to or served with the particulars of claim and the ORIGINALS should be available at the hearing. However another Practice direction states... A copy of the Contract document does not need to be attached if the claim is made by MCOL.... HOWEVER, the requirement to produce the ORIGINAL IN COURT IS STILL VALID... All The above were valid researched information that I was going to use in my application for an annullment, on the basis of it should have never been allowed, re no original documentaion, being the secondary point. the First point was that the alleged debt does not belong to myself, No acknowledgement of debt or claimant by me. After arguing with the O/R re disputed debts and the I/P for errors that were made re the DPA within the letters that were sent , whereby it was stated that they were small admin errors... "Identity fraud springs to mind "............ but after critisising their errors , I THEN RECEIVED A LETTER STATING THAT ALL STAFF WITHIN HER OFFICE HAD BEEN TOLD NOT TO DISCUSS ANNULLMENT AS THE BANKRUPTCY WAS GOING AHEAD. I AM A DISABLED MOTHER GRANDMOTHER, AND HAVING RESEARCHED INTO THIS STILL tHINK THAT THE BANKRUPTCY SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN MADE, AND THAT the DCA's and solicitors Involved (well aware of the CCA Legislations) have conspired to DEFRAUD myself and my O/H of our family home. WHICH THE i/P AND SOLICITORS HAVE OBTAINED A COURT ORDER FOR VACATION OF THE PROPERTY BY 19th March, as the amount of Equity is near to £100.000, with a nominal £20,000 left to pay to our mortgage company. The Majority of the Mortgage payments since 1997 to 2009 where paid by my O/H by way of her Monthly Health related benefits consisiting of High Rate Mobility Allowance and DLA payments . I feel that the O/R should have looked into all this when told about the disputed debt, and there being no valid agreement in their possession, the DCA'S INVOLVED HAVE COLLUDED AND CONSPIRED KNOWING FULL WELL THAT THE DEBT WAS UNENFORCEABLE IN LAW AND THAT THEY REALLY DID NOT HAVE A CLAIM ON THE PROPERTY. i HAVE TRIED EVERYWHERE i CAN IN ORDER TO GET THE BANKRUPTCY ANNULLED BUT EVERYWHERE I GO FOR ADVICE AND HELP, AFTER SEEING ALL THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTATION FROM 2006 TO PRESENT DAY, THEY STATE THAT THE CASE IS Far to complex for them, and I should really be looking for a specialist solicitor dealing in Consumer Law and CCA 1974, 2006 acts. The I/P are escalating their duties and have also vastly uncreased their price, which if it rises anymore will almost certainly mean the Loss of My home through the Deceipt and corruption used by the DCA/s Involved, WHO WERE FINED A TOTAL OF £50,000 IN 2009 FOR THEIR "UNFAIR COLLECTION ACTIVITIES, AND VEXATIOUS ACTIONS, WHICH HAS CAUSED ME SEVERE DEPRESSION , AND A DRASTIC DETERIOTION TO MY HEALTH. hAS CAUSED MY FAMILY A VAST AMOUNT OF UNDUE STRESS AND IRRITABILIY THE ABOVE ACTIONS HAVE COMPLETELY TAKEN OVER MY LIFE SINCE THE BANKRUPTCY ORDER WAS MADE, i AM NOW GETTING DESPERATE AS TO WHAT ACTION ITAKE AND WHERE i CAN GET THE SPECIALIST HELP NEEDED, AND WOULD HOPE THAT IN VIEW OF EVERYTHING THAT HAS NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH, OR QUESTIONED, AND i FEEL THAT THE COMPANIES AND SOLICITORS INVOLVED SHOULD PAY WHAT EVER IS OWING SPECIALIST HELP NEEDED ASAP Idid inform the OFT re the DCA's deceitful and vexatious actions of the DCA's conspiracy to defraud knowing full well that the debt was not legally their/s and which they had no claim on whatsoever