Making things clear - court claim

Making things clear.

Good evening members

I like many others have been using the 3 letters approach to alleged debts for a few years, for friends/family and also myself.

3rd Party Debt Collectors fold very easily, often after letter 1.

What I am seeing more often now is the companies who have purchased the alleged debt and are actually taking County Court Business Centre (CCBC) action.

When a Claim Form is received acknowledgment needs to be done within 14 days from the date of issue.

Then we need to send a CPR 31.14 – or CPR 18 depending on the amount being claimed.

We also can send a SAR.

What I would like to really concentrate on is how we go about writing a proper defence and finally what we need to say in court itself to have a good chance of winning!

The 3rd letter requests again the following:

This is the documentary evidence I require and request, along with documentary evidence
that you have purchased an outstanding balance with the full rights, benefits, title and
interest in their entirety from xxxxxx(OC)

1. A true copy of the Original Agreement, I cannot accept a photocopy.
2. A copy of the contract signed by both parties.
3. Verification of your claim (sworn affidavit or hand signed invoice in accordance with the Bills of Exchange Act 1882).
4. Validation of the alleged debt (actual accounting).
5. A signed statement that you are in possession of the Original Agreement, and that this
Agreement has never been sold or traded in any way. If you are not in possession of the Original Agreement, I require to know why not, and also where it is now.
6. A signed statement that no insurance claim has or will be made in respect of this claim.
7. A signed statement that the Original signed Agreement did not create the credit thereby
making me the creditor.
8. The Deed of Novation signed by all three parties.
9. A true copy of the Notice of assignment and Documents of Title. Also a copy of the sale agreement, executed as a deed.
10. A true copy of any default notice.


1. It seems the Original Agreement in many cases is actually being received, albeit not always 100% clear.
2. I am right in saying this is referring to a contract between Me/us & The Debt Purchaser? Or between the OC & the Debt Purchaser?
3. I can never remember anyone confirming they have received sworn affidavit or hand signed invoice in accordance with the Bills of Exchange Act 1882.
4. I & others have received alleged account statements.
5. Has anyone ever received a signed statement?
6. Has anyone ever received a signed statement to the insurance claim question?
7. Has anyone ever received a signed statement regarding me/us being the creditor?
8. Has anyone ever received a copy of the Deed of Novation?
9. Same applies
10. Same applies



………………………………………………………………………..

So with the above in mind, which are the request we keep banging on & on about in court?

Personally I feel that question 2 & 8 could be the answer --- ????

One last point to mention: It is known that the alleged debt for example £2000 is sold on for a fraction of this amount. Surely if we go to court the Debt Purchaser MUST confirm what they actually paid, otherwise they are committing fraud by claiming a greater amount for us to repay??

Can we accuse them of fraud in court, therefore forcing them to reveal exactly how much they paid for the alleged debt??

A long post I know but hopefully if will help myself and others.



Ps- there no updates as yet to my other running post on here

Hi janloot,
I understand where you are coming from . It takes very little research to find how the
(fraud) system works .what are standard banking practices,who is in fact the creditor.
That is the reason I put them in the letters. Unfortunately because the claimant chooses
to ignore all of those points, no one follows up on them and just lets them go.

My thinking is for example, with the post 2007 accounts the OC can supply reconstituted docs.
This judgement is based on a presumption ,Why then are we not also making a presumption
regarding these banking practices ? Remember a Presumption stands at law unless evidence
is provided to prove otherwise.

The way i have researched it, if you're provided a reconstituted version of the original agreement, then it can satisfy the Credit Act.

This is why I personally believe its too risky and one dimensional to argue about seeing the agreement and thats that. I myself do not want to rely on that argument alone, especially if they have produced account statements - which could seem to be enough confirmation in court that you accepted credit and benefitted from it, as per contract law.

I would only mention the Bill of Exchange Act if the matter under dispute actually concerns a bill of exchange. I can't think of many consumer debt issues that would. Where do you see the relevance?