HELP! - Stayed court claim being pursued by Cohen Howard

[DISTRESST]

Hi Everyone

i would really appreciate some help please, as Cohen is pursuing a court claim which was stayed by the court last year as they never complied to my defense.

A credit card debt being chased by Cohen, was received with a claim form Northampton court..
I applied the three step process with my defence online to the court, I sent the CPR 31.14 and the CCA request.

They totally failed to respond within any time frame required, and I was hoping that would be the last of them! But after nearly one year I received a letter from Cohen requesting that I withdraw my defense and contract to a payment plan!

They sent me a copy of the CCA contract, default notice, letters of assignment, CC statement etc The CCA agreement was just a badly scanned single a4 copy
They are giving me 14 days to respond or else they will refer back to their client for further instructions with view to progressing the claim.


Their statements show that no payment was made since ****, its just a few months till the full 6 year period...
Please can someone advise me on what to do here, on how to proceed, and what are my options?

[DISTRESST]

Also, why would Cohen be asking me to 'withdraw my defense'?

Help

[jaguarsuk]

Morgan Stanley Dean Witter ended up being bought out by Barclaycard I believe, so that may be why the letter refers to them.

[DISTRESST]

Morgan Stanley Dean Witter ended up being bought out by Barclaycard I believe, so that may be why the letter refers to them.

Ok, I wasn't aware, thanks

[DISTRESST]

Any input on the best way to proceed from here on my case anyone ?

[Diana M]

I note the Default Notice was issued by Mercers who were not the creditor at the time.

Di

[DISTRESST]

I note the Default Notice was issued by Mercers who were not the creditor at the time.

Di

Thanks for your prompt response.
I will follow through with some docs shortly

[Diana M]

Thanks for your prompt response.
I will follow through with some docs shortly

Okay, but please don't redact them.

Di

[pt2537]

I note the Default Notice was issued by Mercers who were not the creditor at the time.

Di

But the notice does contain the name and address of the creditor so could be argued to comply with the requirements of the Regulations.

[pt2537]

The agreement is exactly the same one which Cabot relied upon in Cabot v Patterson. Its incomplete, and looks to me to have legibility issues for starters.

If youve made a request under s78 (1) Consumer credit act 1974 for a true copy, what they have provided does not appear to be anywhere near compliant.

[pt2537]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13349239

That BBC interview i did has some details on the right hand side about the patterson matter. It was an interesting case which Cabot lost, and the agreement was declared unenforceable for pretty much the same reasons as in this case which i dealt with http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2012/19.html

[Diana M]

But the notice does contain the name and address of the creditor so could be argued to comply with the requirements of the Regulations.

Although Mercers Debt Collections Ltd had ceased trading (dormant company) at the time.

Di

[Diana M]

Thanks for your prompt response.
I will follow through with some docs shortly

Got them.

Di

[pt2537]

Although Mercers Debt Collections Ltd had ceased trading (dormant company) at the time.

Di

Of course, but the old argument used to be that the notice didnt contain the name and address of the creditor which has been sorted it seems on that notice

[Diana M]

Of course, but the old argument used to be that the notice didnt contain the name and address of the creditor which has been sorted it seems on that notice

I wasn't referring to the 'old argument', I was referring to a current argument (dormant company).

Di