Help Cout date and CCJ with charging order!!!

[unclebulgaria67]

You really need to obtain specific advice from a solicitor or debt advisor.

 

Have a look at the National debtline info on charging orders.

 

National Debtline England & Wales | Debt Advice | Factsheet 15 Charging Orders In The County Court

 

The failure of RBS to deal with the SAR within 40 days is a side issue and will not help you in court. You would have to make a complaint to the ICO.

[Undercover-Elsa]

Also have a look here, Worsteve:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/203298-guide-charging-orders-orders.html

 

Elsa x

[Worsteve]

Hello everyone

 

well today was my adjourned court hearing. The first was because the claimants solicitors shied off 2 days before the original hearing....

 

I met the claimants solicitor outside of court before the hearing and they stipulated that they were instructed by their client to dismiss the information about the SAR as this had all happened after the judgement. I explained that I had a few points to raise about Faulty DN's as well as the failure of the company to produce an SAR. I was told they would push to dimiss this as this was not originally stipulated in my application to set aside N244. (My bad). I mentioned that as I was here it and was unaware and ignorant of the court procedure I would plead my case nontheless regardless of the outcome.

 

I entered the court and the judge referred to my application to set aside and said it was basically worthless. I told him I had been educating myself on case law and had what I believed to be strong grounds to set aside the CCJ. He dutifully chastised me for not sticking to court procedures, however, if I had anything to show I may produce it. I produced my 2 original Signed DN's and mentioned that they were faulty. At which point he stopped me and warned me that to proceed would likely end in a very expensive set of court fees likely to be in excess of the loan and that a lot of people lately had fallen foul of the Internet and websites claiming all of this. I thanked him for his advice and he duly retracted stating he had not given me any. He then asked the claimants solicitor if they had seen my grounds for set aside. They responded by saying yes and thought it had no grounds.

 

The judge turned to myself and said that what he wanted to see was evidence to show that I had grounds to set aside, using case law. I mentioned I had. He then asked the claimants solicitor if they were able to spend 15minutes with me (very kindly I thought) to see if I had a valid case. We both agreed and retired to a meeting room. I had written down the case law ((Woodchester v xxxxxx) forgive me I am a little fuzzy after the hearing) and showed that a faulty DN rescinds the contract. I mentioned that the date was out by 1 day assuming 2nd class post and said that I would hold RBS to PROOF OF CLAIM that they posted it 1st class. Otherwise the court would assume that it was posted 2nd class.

 

They then asked me if that was the only issue with the DN. I said no. There was a paragraph missing stipulating the requirement of the DN to hold information about the OFT. Since there was not extra paperwork with the DN and it was not stipulated on the DN, I was not aware that I needed to ask for it.

 

They then asked if there was anything else I had to show. I said that I had not received any Termination Notice. (I did not elaborate on this as I this was a grey area for me and I will require help with this when I put my defence forward).

 

The claimants solicitor then asked if they could speak to there client in private and I duly obliged....after all I am a gentlemen;).

 

40 minutes later they came out and asked if they could have a copy of the faulty DN. I obliged. They then came out of the meeting room and instructed to me that since they were unable to 'find' the documentation they sent out to me....they were willing to set aside the CCJ!!!!!!

 

GOBSMACKED

We returned to court where the judge asked if we had made any progress and I basically did not say much. The claimants solicitor stated that they had been instructed to set aside the Judgement for the timebeing. The judge asked why and they informed the Judge that they had been unable to locate any paperwork pertaining my claims. They then asked that all costs of the case would be born by myself, to which he replied 'I don't think so. This matter is in dispute now and we will decide who pays the costs at its completion.'

 

The Judge then told me to file my defence in particular detail before the 14days and the claimant to respond 20days after that. He told me that failure to do so would grant the charging order again as I would be in Default. He instructed me to read a particular case where the claimant did not need to produce an original document. I thanked him for his help and said that as I already had the original signed DN's I would be happy to give a copy to the claimants solicitor.

 

So there you have it! Without talking about anything else, the DN's and lack of Termiantion notice frightened the daylights out of the oppositions Solicitor, who may I add, went into court with a bright red face. Honestly.

 

It is not over. I have won round 1. I now have to prepare my defence within 14 days. The CCJ has been set aside. Good. If I had not spoken to everybody here, I would have a charging order against my property right now and awaiting an order for sale. THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU. I cannot express that enough. I will be picking your brains about my defence with DN's and Termination Notices soon. Today however, I will relax and let the stress wash away.

 

You are all brilliant people and my gratitude shines out to you all.

Thanks

[cerberusalert]

[Laura Cooke]

Credit to you

[MandM]

Nice one.

 

Do you have a full copy of the DN regs?

 

M

[supasnooper]

Well done.

 

What was the case the judge referred you to where the claimant did not need to produce an original document ?

[cerberusalert]

Nice one.

 

Do you have a full copy of the DN regs?

 

M

 

Here you are.

6. Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983.pdf

[Worsteve]

Hi everyone

 

I have a copy of the regs already many Thanks. It was here I was pointed to take a look at page 8, under General (10a) it should contain;

 

A statement in the following form;

 

"This Notice should include a copy of the current Office of Fair Trading information sheet on Default. This contains important information about your rights and where to go for support and advice. If it is not included, you should contact us to get one."]

 

So as well as the above, my dates are wrong. Their sols stated that if they could remedy the dates then I would not have a case. I told them that I would hold them to proof of claim that they posted the documents 1st class, otherwise the court MUST assume that it had been sent 2nd class. They told me that they could not find any paperwork pertaining to my claim?!!!!!! The judge was not too happy with that and the court case he told me to study was the HSBC and CASEY, case. I told him as I had the original DN's I was more than happy to give a copy of them to the claimant which I did.

 

But it was the DN's that shook their solicitor. I mentioned that I had not had a Termination Notice, and I suspect that they will use that to simply re-issue another non-defective DN? However, where does that leave me as I was taken to court with a faulty DN and they asked for the full sum of the loan? A little clarification on that point might ease my mind a little please

 

Thanks everyone. Round 1 to me. The DN's are powerful things.

Thanks Thanks and more thanks!!

[Pinky69]

Well done . No 3 in wins using DNs and terminations and the word will be getting round to the banks and DCAS. CAG rules!! and the brave people going to court to fight the good fight.!

[cerberusalert]

But it was the DN's that shook their solicitor. I mentioned that I had not had a Termination Notice, and I suspect that they will use that to simply re-issue another non-defective DN? However, where does that leave me as I was taken to court with a faulty DN and they asked for the full sum of the loan? A little clarification on that point might ease my mind a little please

By asking for the full amount they have terminated the agreement and cannot issue another DN. In effect what they tried to do by trying to obtain a CCJ is supercede the original agreement.

[Worsteve]

By asking for the full amount they have terminated the agreement and cannot issue another DN. In effect what they tried to do by trying to obtain a CCJ is supercede the original agreement.

 

Thank you cerberusalert. I can go to bed now feeling more relaxed about what was stated. I was unsure of this point on 'Termination Notices' and I know the claimants solicitor was 'disturbed' that there client was unable to provide any documents pertaining to my case. 'They' went into court, completely afraid and embarassed (Forgive me...I am a people watcher......I like to read people..) to go before the judge. I can now build a defence around the DN knowing that they have 'Terminated' the agreement.

 

Again...to everyone here....Thank you. Without your education and genuine feeling for your fellow man, I would be going to bed tonight, with a threat to my family home.

 

There is, a pint in any pump of a pub all of you choose, from me to you all anytime you wish. I will repay your kindness and help.

 

Thank you.

[diddydicky]

with regard to post 33- also important to include the fact that not only was the prescribed text missing from the DN - but that the leaflet referred to was also not included so that you were non the wiser

[MandM]

Hi Worsteve

 

Hi everyone

 

I have a copy of the regs already many Thanks. It was here I was pointed to take a look at page 8, under General (10a) it should contain;

 

A statement in the following form;

 

"This Notice should include ....................

 

The important part on which you need to put your emphasis is a little further back on page 1 >>>>>>

 

(2) Any notice to be given by a creditor or owner in relation to a regulated agreement to a debtor or hirer under section

87(1) of the Act (which relates to the necessity to serve a default notice on the debtor or hirer in accordance with section

88 before taking certain action by reason of any breach of the agreement by the debtor or hirer) shall contain--

(a) a statement that the notice is a default notice served under section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974;

(b) the information set out in paragraphs 1 to 3, 6 and 8 of Schedule 2 to these Regulations; and

© statements in the form specified in paragraphs 4, 5, 7[, 8A] and 9 to 11 of that Schedule.

 

This statement then encompasses the further statements, but it quite clearly states SHALL CONTAIN, which in the mind of my judge left absolutely no room for doubt.

 

 

The judge also asked whether or not I felt that the exclusion of the prescribed statement left me at a disadvantage. In your case DD has pointed out that very thing further back in the thread. Base your arguments around that.

 

M

[Worsteve]

Hello Everyone

 

well I am addressing my circumstances once again after having a few dys off! According the ruling of the judge;

'The Defendent is to send to the claimant and to the court a fully particularised defence, setting out in clear terms each and every allegation relied upon in defence of the claim by4pm 31/03/2010 and in default the defence do stand struck out and the original judgement shall be reinstated. List for a case management conference (not by telephone) on the irst available date after 4th May. Claimant to file case summary & draft directions (agreed if possible) to be filed three clear days before. All costs reserved'

 

My understanding of this is making clear the points of defence and sending it to the judge and claimant.

Is there any particular format this should be in?

Should I keep pressing them for my SAR which I re-requested 2 weeks ago? If so, what can this tell me? In court, their solicitor, said that they could not find any paperwork pertaining my case...........

Should I send the bank aletter accepting 'Termination of the agreement?

Also, should there name and address be on the 'Top' of the DN?

 

I read this article and seen it all set out as here;

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/224300-mandm-egg-loan-mandm-7.html#post2490262

 

Can I go for a strike out under CPR 3.4(2)(a)

 

As I see, it, I have 2 counts of a faulty DN. The first are the dates (though that could be challenged by an affadavit saying it was posted 1st class). The second is the missing of the prescribed text and the standard OFT forms. Since they effectively terminated the agreement by going to court and requesting full payment of the amount then they cannot simply resend a new DN.

 

As ever, thanks to one and all here!

p.s. apologies for any misunderstandings I may have. I am reading and reading and reading.......

Edited March 22, 2010 by Worsteve

[gh2008]

are the original Particulars of Claim anywhere on the thread.

 

This order requires you to answer them fully - if you don't then they will reinstate the judgement against you without a hearing.

 

Need the POC to be able to answer them

[Worsteve]

Hello GH2008

 

Please forgive my ignorance. I am assuming that the Particulars of Claim are the reasons I challenged the CCj in the first place? If so I can write them in brief here;

 

1. The Default notices supplied by the Claimant are dated Wednesday 7th January 2009, to allow service in line with the statutory requirements mentioned in points 2 & 3 above, 4 working days were required to allow for 2nd Class postage. Thus the Rectify date should be 14 calendar days from Wednesday 14th January, namely Tuesday 27th January 2009, not Monday 26th January as stipulated in the Default Notices. I hereby put the claimant to strict proof that any Default Notice sent to me was valid and allowed the statutory 14 days to rectify the breach.

2. The Act also sets out via Section 88(10A), that the Default Notice must contain ‘A statement in the following form --‘ as here; “This notice should include a copy of the current Office of Fair Trading information sheet on default. This contains important information about your rights and where to go for support and advice. If it is not included, you should contact us to get one.” Since this information is not on the Default Notice, I was not aware the I should contact them to get one and one was not enclosed in the original paperwork.

These were the 2 reasons I originally challenged the CCJ. It went to court late as I have only recently become aware of this site. The Original CCJ was applied to me in June 2009.

Does this help? :-| If not, feel free to chastise me on my ignorance of the lawful terms. I will learn faster that way.

Many Thanks

[gh2008]

POC are what they wrote on the N1 form - that's what you've been ordered to answer - but you can add the other bits as well

 

BUT the defence MUST answer the allegations put forward in the POC first

[Worsteve]

POC are what they wrote on the N1 form - that's what you've been ordered to answer - but you can add the other bits as well

 

BUT the defence MUST answer the allegations put forward in the POC first

 

Okay! Just dug out My N1 Claim Form. Their POC are as follows;

 

The Claimants claim is in respect of monies due pursuant to an account maintained with the claimant and the claimant claims 1. £25,053.64

 

I guess that this officially means that they have terminated the agreement, even though they did not send me a termination Notice. And that means that they can now only claim for the arrears on the DN as the DN is Faulty?

 

There. I am starting to get onto the right track again!

 

Hello Guys'n'Dolls

 

I have been through my paperwork and found this Notice. I am not sure what it is but it was released later than my first DN. I have been reading the CCA 1983 on DN and Termination Notices and I see there are 2 Schedules. I just want to make sure that before I put in my defence that I am applying the right Schedule to the right Notice. Can you take a look at it and give me your opinion please?

 

DNjan2010001mod.jpg picture by Worsteve - Photobucket

 

DNjan2010002.jpg picture by Worsteve - Photobucket

 

Many Thanks

[supasnooper]

Hello Guys'n'Dolls

 

I have been through my paperwork and found this Notice. I am not sure what it is but it was released later than my first DN. I have been reading the CCA 1983 on DN and Termination Notices and I see there are 2 Schedules. I just want to make sure that before I put in my defence that I am applying the right Schedule to the right Notice. Can you take a look at it and give me your opinion please?

 

DNjan2010001mod.jpg picture by Worsteve - Photobucket

 

DNjan2010002.jpg picture by Worsteve - Photobucket

 

Many Thanks

 

 

These are not Default Notices served under s87 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 but just a default notification that creditors are now required to send out when the account lapses into arrears........and I'm not too sure that CMS can issue such notices.

 

The schedule you require is this one -

 

Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 SI 1983-1561

Consumer Credit Enforcement Default and Termination Notices & Regulations 1983 1561.pdf

[Worsteve]

These are not Default Notices served under s87 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 but just a default notification that creditors are now required to send out when the account lapses into arrears........and I'm not too sure that CMS can issue such notices.

 

Many Thanks Supasnooper.

I am writing out my defence this morning. As far as I can see, I can only maintain that I have 2 Faulty DN's. The judge stated quite clearly, that I was to study case law and only back up what I had with that otherwise I would have nothing. I have the Woodchester v Swain case to apply, so I will give it my best shot. I don't know if there is a particular format, and GH2008 mentioned that this was my defence against the POC (which I learnt about yesterday thank you GH2008). So if you can all tear it to pieces when it gets posted I would be eternally grateful.

 

Even if they can only claim the arrears, of about £1200.00 then I would consider it an outright win.

 

Thanks again!

 

Oh and here is the original N1 Form for you to peruse!

 

 

http://s827.photobucket.com/albums/zz199/Worsteve/?action=view&current=OriginalN1form001mod-2.jpg

 

Regards

 

Hi Supasnooper

 

this will really show my ignorance here but since i don't know I might as well ask. I am trying to quote from the Reg's you sent through, however, I don't know which paragraph refers to Sect 87 or 88 and I don't know what the Sect 88(1) bit in the Brackets represents?

 

Here is my first draft of my defence. Please feel free to pull it apart at your leisure ;

 

1. Invalid Default Notice’s non-compliance with s87/s88 CCA 1974

2. Failed to Terminate the agreement. They cancClaim only for arrears.

Point 1

“Under the Interpretation Act 1978 Section 7, it states:

 

 

2. Practice Direction

Service of Documents - First and Second Class Mail.

 

With effect from 16 April 1985 the Practice Direction issued on 30 July 1968 is hereby revoked and the following is substituted therefore.

1). Under S7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 service by post is deemed to have been effected, unless the contrary has been proved, at the time when the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.

2). To avoid uncertainty as to the date of service it will be taken (subject to proof to the contrary) that delivery in the ordinary course of post was effected:-

(a) in the case of first class mail, on the second working day after posting;

(b) in the case of second class mail, on the fourth working day after posting.

"Working days" are Monday to Friday, excluding any bank holiday.

3). Affidavits of service shall state whether the document was dispatched by first or second class mail. If this information is omitted it will be assumed that second class mail was used.

4). This direction is subject to the special provisions of RSC Order 10, rule 1(3) relating to the service of originating process.

 

8th March 1985

J R BICKFORD SMITH Senior Master

Queen's Bench Division

1. The Default notices supplied by the Claimant are dated Wednesday 7th January 2009, to allow service in line with the statutory requirements mentioned in points 2 & 3 above, 4 working days were required to allow for 2nd Class postage. Thus the Rectify date should be 14 calendar days from Wednesday 14th January, namely Tuesday 27th January 2009, not Monday 26th January as stipulated in the Default Notices. I hereby put the claimant to strict proof that any Default Notice sent to me was valid and allowed the statutory 14 days to rectify the breach.

 

Point 2

 

1. 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). Which states;

 

(2) Any notice to be given by a creditor or owner in relation to a regulated agreement to a debtor or hirer under section

87(1) of the Act (which relates to the necessity to serve a default notice on the debtor or hirer in accordance with section

88 before taking certain action by reason of any breach of the agreement by the debtor or hirer) shall contain--

(a) a statement that the notice is a default notice served under section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974;

(b) the information set out in paragraphs 1 to 3, 6 and 8 of Schedule 2 to these Regulations; and

© statements in the form specified in paragraphs 4, 5, 7[, 8A] and 9 to 11 of that Schedule.

 

2. The Act above, sets out via Section 88(10A), that the Default Notice must contain ‘A statement in the following form --‘ which states;

 

“This notice should include a copy of the current Office of Fair Trading information sheet on default. This contains important information about your rights and where to go for support and advice. If it is not included, you should contact us to get one.” ---------- Since this information is not on the Default Notice, I was not aware the I should contact them to get one and a copy was not enclosed in the original paperwork.

 

3. It is submitted that the above Default Notice served s87(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 failed to comply with the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561).

 

4. For a Creditor to be entitled to terminate a regulated Credit Agreement where there is a breach, demand repayment in full or take any legal action to recover any monies due under the Agreement, a creditor must serve a Default Notice under section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 which

 

states:

 

Section 87. Need for Default Notice

 

(1) Service of a notice on the Debtor or hirer in accordance with section 88 (a "Default Notice ") is necessary before the creditor or owner can become entitled, by reason of any breach by the Debtor or hirer of a regulated Agreement -

(a) to terminate the Agreement, or

(b) to demand earlier payment of any sum, or

© to recover possession of any goods or land, or

(d) to treat any right conferred on the Debtor or hirer by the Agreement as terminated, restricted or deferred, or

e) to enforce any security.

 

5. The wording must make it clear that no variation is acceptable. Therefore it cannot be dispensed with as a De Minimus issue.

 

6. I note that the regulations do not allow any variation in the form of these statements and therefore it is suggested that where the statements are not as laid down in the regulations the Default Notice is rendered invalid as a consequence.

 

7. In the case of Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain & Co - [1998] All ER (D) 339 in the Court of Appeal, the Court addressed in some detail the issue of the contents of a Default Notice and should the notice fail to comply with the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) it would render the Default Notice invalid I quote the comment of KENNEDY LJ: "This statute was plainly enacted to protect consumers, most of whom are likely to be individuals" the judgment appears to confirm the consumer credit legislation made under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 as plainly enacted and set out to offer protection to the consumer. Therefore it is suggested that the failure of the Claimant to set out the Default Notice in accordance with the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) could unduly prejudice me as it failed to allow the required time to remedy the alleged default.

 

8. The Claimant went to court asking for the full amount as stated in the particulars of claim on the N1 form, and as such Terminated the agreement.

 

9. The Claimant’s failure to issue a valid Default Notice must surely prevent a right of action and would make any termination of the Agreement unlawful, as statute provides the procedure that must be followed. Since the Claimant has failed to adhere to statutory procedure it is averred that the Claimant does not have a right of action, and can never now have a right of action having terminated the Agreement unlawfully.

10. Furthermore, the Arrears Total outlined cannot be accurate, as the Balance on the Account was at least partly comprised of Unlawful Charges plus additional Charges and interestadded unlawfully whilst the Account was in Dispute. Therefore, the Arrears claimed cannot be accurate, as they are themselves calculated using a Total that was itself inaccurate.

 

11. This is at all times an Agreement Regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. There is no provision in the Act that allows a large financial institution to terminate an Agreement that is in alleged default or breach simply by giving notice to the Consumer. Section 98(6) makes that quite clear. The Creditor must follow the steps outlined in Section 87 and Section 88 if they are to lawfully Default and Terminate, and enjoy the benefits of Section 87.

 

12. Finally, an invalid Default Notice cannot be remedied by simply issuing a new Default Notice. The Claimant may not serve a second effective Default Notice in prescribed form post-termination of the agreement. Any such second default Notice will necessarily state a date by when I would be required to comply after which in default the agreement would terminate. The second Default Notice would therefore contain the fiction that the agreement endured when that cannot be the case, as it was terminated on 21st July 2009. Terminating the agreement on the back of a defective Default Notice, simply confirms the undeniable truth that Termination of the agreement by the Claimant was carried out in the circumstances which then prohibited them from enjoying the benefits of Section 87, namely the opportunity to seek early payment of a sum that was, prior to termination, only payable in the future.

 

BUMP......Any takers on my defence statement? I want it posted this week so it arrives early.

 

Just found out that my SAR (posted 9th March) by recorded delivery....did not get delivered and is lost........ I'll have to do it again..!

 

Bump!

Any takers on my defence statement? Also I have listed my N1 form which shows a very vague POC. Can I use this to my advantage at all? Here it is again.

OriginalN1form001mod-2.jpg picture by Worsteve - Photobucket

 

It basically states this:

 

"The Claimants claim is in respect of monies due pursuant to an account maintained with the claimant and the claimant claims 1. £25,053.64"

[cymruambyth]

You say they have failed to terminate agreement, therefore can only collect arrears. If they have failed to terminate, they can re-issue a correct DN

[gh2008]

Have a read on here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/224300-mandm-egg-loan-mandm.html I think that thread has got just about everything you could need.

 

You are starting a quite serious and difficult fight - you need to be fully aware of the risks if you are not fully prepared for the case.

 

Have you considered worst case scenario?? - best?? - most likely??

[Worsteve]

You say they have failed to terminate agreement, therefore can only collect arrears. If they have failed to terminate, they can re-issue a correct DN

 

Thanks cymruambyth

 

I agree with your comments, however, they took me to court and the court issued a CCJ against me. They then went for a charging order against my house. I sent in an N244 form to Set Aside the judgement. When I went into the court I showed them that I had faulty DN's. The claimant then agreed to set aside the judgement as they were unable to produce any paperwork on my case. So my CCJ was overturned and I am now back at the beginning. My understanding is that since they went to court and asked for the full amount with court costs and interest, they have terminated the original agreement by asking for monies not yet owed. Because of that, they cannot now simply re-issue a new Default Notice.

 

I am hoping that someone can take a look at my defence as it only centres around the Faulty DN. Having read other post on here, I think I might be able to add further credence to my case with the POC being somewhat 'vague' opn my original N1 form as well. I am endeavouring to get my defence completed by tomorrow and posted recorded delivery. (I have lost so many thins in the post lately, I want the time to remedy the situation if they do not receive it in time!!!!)

 

Many Many Thanks for your comments.

 

Have a read on here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/224300-mandm-egg-loan-mandm.html I think that thread has got just about everything you could need.

 

You are starting a quite serious and difficult fight - you need to be fully aware of the risks if you are not fully prepared for the case.

 

Have you considered worst case scenario?? - best?? - most likely??

 

Hello gh2008

 

I did not choose the fight. They were getting paid monthly on a Debt Management company, and went for the full amount in court using a CCJ and going for a full charging order on the property. They then went to court and the judge overrulled the original CCJ. I don't want to do this and fight these people. I am a happy chap in an unhappy body right now, but here I am. I have the faulty DN's, and that is it. I have to go to court with these, and state my defence. If they rule against me, I have nothing with which to pay them. I currently have £100,000 on unsecured loans and cards currently. A few thousand extra will not change my circumstances. Please understand that I appreciate your comments entirely and thank you for giving me the heads up on this.. I don't take this lightly at all. as I am sure you are aware, it is a very painful way to be living your life. Normal if you were a solicitor however!! I want to have my defence filed early so I can enjoy my coming weekend without the stress and painful thoughts hanging over me and preventing me from smiling.

 

Thanks again GH2008. As always, greatly appreciated to one and all on here. Without your help, so many people would be mired without hope. Thanks

[cymruambyth]

Sorry, I'd forgotten everything in your thread, so I agree it can probably be considered terminated!!!

I will try and find the information that I have been given on DNs and court and will post ater today if no one else has posted.