Welcome Finance **WON**

[postggj]

Thanks

[postggj]

Again Thganks

[postggj]

[postggj]

[postggj]

Above Is My Revised Poc For You To Take A Look At And Give Your Oppinions
I Have Also Enclosed A Default Notice Ref The Car Finance
Its Obviouse It Is Wrong Ref Total Ammount Payable
Wondering To Use This In My Claim Many Thanks

[postggj]

[steven4064]

Hi postggj

Happy Chrismas

PoC looks OK to me (but it would, wouldn't it) PAra 5 has gone a bit strange and I still don't understand why para 6 is there.

[postggj]

may i ask what is dubiouse about paragraph 6
acceptance fees are on the agreements
wilson covers this dosent it, or am i missing something
should it be wilson v first county trust
my point is on both agreements welcome have added acceptance fees before calculating interest,
any thoughts on the default notice
many thanks and merry christmas

[postggj]

error

[postggj]

.Notwithstanding the above, for the Claimant to have the right to demand payment of the sums owed under a regulated credit agreement service of a Default Notice pursuant to s87 (1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 is required


.Notwithstanding I put the claimant to strict proof that any default notice sent to me was valid. I note that to be valid, a default 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)

.Should a Default Notice served under s87 (1) fail to be accurate and contain the correct amount payable or any terms required under regulations it invalidates the default notice (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain and Co - [2001] GCCR 2255) this would also mean that termination of the agreement would be unlawful and would not only prevent the claimant enforcing any alleged debt, but would also give rise to a potential counterclaim for damages where damage occurs to my credit rating (Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society - [1996] 4 All ER 119)

[postggj]

my point being the default notice shows total ammount payable under the agreement is 1800,510.00
this is obviouse incorrect
comments please

[postggj]

127(3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a)(signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner).

23. The courts attention is also drawn to the authority of the House of Lords in Wilson-v- FCT [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul) which confirms that where a document does not contain the required terms under the consumer credit act 1974 and the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) and Consumer Credit (Agreements) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI2004/1482) the agreement cannot be enforced

24. With regards to the Authority cited in point 23, I refer to LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD in the House of Lords Wilson v First County Trust Ltd - [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul) paragraph 29

" The court's powers under section 127(1) are subject to significant qualification in two types of cases. The first type is where section 61(1)(a), regarding signing of agreements, is not complied with. In such cases the court 'shall not make' an enforcement order unless a document, whether or not in the prescribed form, containing all the prescribed terms, was signed by the debtor: section 127(3). Thus, signature of a document containing all the prescribed terms is an essential prerequisite to the court's power to make an enforcement order."

[postggj]

i have poached this exelent poc from pt2537
would like your ideas stephen on where to put it in my claim along side yours if needed, ref wilson case, and what to deleate from the poc i have posted
again if you please comments on the default notice
need to get this two the court this friday by 4pm

if pt2537 would like to comment ,the more the better
many thanks

[steven4064]

The POC should be as simple as possible and just state what you are claiming and the grounds for claiming it. Para 6 is not dubious or incorrect - it just doesn't relate to anything you are claiming

I don't think the other stuff is necessary but you could put it in the relevant place. It might be worth sending the court and defendant a copy of Wilson

[pt2537]

Originally Posted by postggj

i have poached this exelent poc from pt2537
would like your ideas stephen on where to put it in my claim along side yours if needed, ref wilson case, and what to deleate from the poc i have posted
again if you please comments on the default notice
need to get this two the court this friday by 4pm

if pt2537 would like to comment ,the more the better
many thanks

Hi

I tend to agree with Steven,however, you need to set out what you claim why and any authority which you rely upon in brief. the more in depth stuff comes from witness statements and skeleton arguments

BUT, with regards to the default notice , the figure required to be paid to remedy the breach is the important one here, is that figure correct or incorrect? if its incorrect then it flaws the default notice per Woodchester and Swain


the stuff youve used was from my defenses to actions brought under flawed CCA's so it may not in its raw form be useful to your case so bear in mind

Regards

paul