Court Hearing 25th Feb...Help Please **WON** CASE STRUCK OUT

[lottery-loser]

Originally Posted by mrmarmite

the problem is the judge is not fully inversed in the CCA 1974. claimant solicitor sussed this out and used it to his advantage "missleading the judge" by saying that a fixed agreement is nothing like a running account agreement, when in fact there is very little difference between them,

have you started your own thead yet? if so post the link please

No I haven't, I posted in another one as my problem was very similar to the one there (HFC & Restons) but i'm not sure if that's quite the done thing! I've also read your thread re your mum and HFC. THey seem to have sent much more sympathetic letters than i got (not that their words mean much in the end...)

[mrmarmite]

they all unique cases are all require individual responses, yes i agree they all along the same lines BUT there are differences,
example for 1 is if your account is with a DCA some dca's just need a nudge whilst others need a kick in the head, it's all unique, hence you really need to start your own thread, it dont work by doing letters to 1 dca that true Caggers know full well just wont work.

[illonavamp]

Originally Posted by lottery-loser

Phew! What a fascinating thread! I started reading as I just got the court form today and couldn't stop till I go to the end. Best of luck ilonavamp; you deserve it. That judge and solicitor should be shot at dawn for their cronyism. Te judge is supposed to be impartial and take into account that you're not a legal expert. Pah! Fingers, eyes, legs all x'd for you!

Thankyou but stop, as I'll start blubbing again and I'm supposed to be sucking it up and be a toughy.

Anyways, pt/tom, I've printed off the defence pasted (the most recent) here. I hope I'm not being cheeky BUT I've taken out points 2 and 3 - these were talked about and argued last time and I think mentioning it again might only inflame the judge - rightly or wrongly. And the whole point I'm trying to make is that, as I've been told, REGARDLESS of what number's on it or what 'type' of agreement it is, it MUST have certain minimum terms.

I've also taken out one or two points made regarding the default notice - namely the sentences it is supposed to contain (because it does, actually, I checked!) I've just left in there that 14 days was not allowed, - once the agreement is judged dodgy I can get the default removed on that basis - (i.e. that there IS no valid agreement in place). I don't want to start introducing too many points I'm not too bothered about at this stage - I don't want it to end up looking like I'm stomping and saying 'and it's crap, so nerrrrr' - the bits I am bothered about right now is the 127(3) part as I've mentioned.

I've re-numbered, spell-checked, indented quoted, highlighted case law names etc etc. It's very purdy.

In fact thinking about it I should save that sucker right now, my luck we'll get a power cut.

OK, N244 now and I should be set.

What a lurvely way to spend a Sunday!

[illonavamp]

N244 completed as per #159, ty Tom.

[pt2537]

Originally Posted by illonavamp

I've also taken out one or two points made regarding the default notice - namely the sentences it is supposed to contain (because it does, actually, I checked!) OH No i think you are wrong , the default that you posted on your photobucket page does not have the required statements in the required form, they must be underlined and in bold and they are neither on your default, they must as statements of protection be given prominence and they are not and as such provide you an excellent arguing point . not least because an invalid default with all the points i pointed out could have their claim thrown out of court on its own, by weakening it you weaken your case

I've just left in there that 14 days was not allowed , - once the agreement is judged dodgy I can get the default removed on that basis - (i.e. that there IS no valid agreement in place). I don't want to start introducing too many points I'm not too bothered about at this stage - I don't want it to end up looking like I'm stomping and saying 'and it's crap, so nerrrrr' - the bits I am bothered about right now is the 127(3) part as I've mentioned.

Sorry to sound harsh


BUT DO YOU WANT TO WIN? or DO YOU WANT TO LOSE

there is a fine line between success and failure with this kind of litigation and the default points give you case added strength, by removing them you weaken your position

i understand the reasoning behind removing the points 2&3 from the start but the default arguement was built upon my analysis of your documents and their failings

i hop[e you seriously reconsider as you are taking away so very key points from the defence

[tomterm8]

i'd kind of suggest you listen to what paul says.

[pt2537]

What you are saying with the default notice is not as required by law, therefore its invalid

a judge could say that since the 14 days have now passed and you didnt remedy the breach you cannot rely upon that failure

so what would you now fall back on? if you have removed the arguement i put forward youre in trouble as the judge could decide the default is valid if you go with what i have raised hes got NO room to move he has to look at the fact that it is non compliant

this adds to your case, by removing it you are giving them a helping hand. why do that? its rather silly

now i can help you with advice but i cannot make you take the right decision that is your and only your choice

but i dont want to sound arrogant but i feel my track record on the CAG speaks for itself, i had a case where i helped with, and i wrote the defence and the DCA didnt even wait for the case to be transferred to the local court they gave up and ran away

its your call, but i wrote that defence to help you


regards
paul

[mrmarmite]

we trust in Pt2537

[Lula]

we certainly do, supports a crap footie team but he knows his stuff when it comes to this stuff

[illonavamp]

OK, I'll re-do it tomorrow at work then and hand it in Tuesday, my mistake sorry.

[mrmarmite]

Originally Posted by Lula

we certainly do, supports a crap footie team but he knows his stuff when it comes to this stuff

Save our oatcakes ?????? lmao

[mrmarmite]

Originally Posted by Lula

we certainly do, supports a crap footie team but he knows his stuff when it comes to this stuff

he's not a saint supporter is he????????????? ( and no i dont do footie either)

[pt2537]

Hi Sam

no problems, i just didnt want you to remove something which could swing the judge to your line of arguement

also, dont forget, when you are making amendments that take out sections of the defence you need no only to renumber the paragraphs but also the references within some of them

for example

12. Notwithstanding point 11, The agreement must be signed in the prescribed manner to comply with s61 (1) CCA 1974, if the agreement is not signed by debtor or creditor it is also improperly executed and again only enforceable by court order

if youve taken out two paragraphs then it will not only impact on 12. but also the referecne within

ive seen a few people make this mistake.


try not to be too disheartened by my comments above but like i said theres a fine line between success and failure

regards


paul

[mrmarmite]

so if i get what PT is saying, ANY modifications made to defence, you MUST tripple check that any references made to another part of your defence MUST coinside so point point 12 refers to point 11, you need to check that it does refer to point 11 not point 10.

cover ya rear end, look after No 1. and bear in mind it already obvoius their solicitor trying to pull wool over judges eyes,

check everything and then do it again, I have helped as much as I can and now PT on scene to further help you, this can be nailed easily if everything is correct.