NB, you need to go to court and get an exparte injunction. See thread on this. It's easy and you will get more time..

Is there anything I should know about Wismayers JC??

Actually, the OFT asked for a copy of their defence to my claim because they found it interesting that Lbl solicitors would make such a statement...

Wismayers, surrey.

He, the underwriter, was not an officer of the Company held by the OFT. They use a group of about 40 underwriters. The OFT currently have the defence from Lbl to my claim, in which they "DENY that any findings of unfairness have resulted or that the OFT is capable of making such findings".

First, one would have to define the person who signed it, I suppose. He called himself an "underwriter", but the company refers to him in their defence as an "employee". He was empowered to make contracts. So one could argue he was a party. Have you been able to access lexis? Frustrated

Hi Tomterm8, I can get lexis and westlaw but can't find anything recent.. What does your second para mean? Frustrated

Ok, don't want to be a COMPLETE bore, but case law says: following Seal v Claridge (1881) 7 QBD 516, it was held that attestation must be independent of the bill of sale. This follows Freshfield v. Reed in that the party to an instrument cannot “attest” it. This statutory requirement to attestation is differentiated from and does not have the same meaning as to "testify". The term “attest” manifestly implies that a witness shall be present, to testify that the party who is to execute the deed has done the act required by the power; the object of which was, that some person should verify that the deed was signed voluntarily. So an employee cannot "attest" a BoS, as they can witness, say, other contracts. If lbl are going to use an antiquated draconian instrument, they have to get it exactly right. The attestation is also a statutory requirement, so the courts can't overlook this.. I will have to add this back to my claim

I've had a look around at case law on this and, without some express statutory provision there is no general requirement for witnesses to be independent of the person to whose signature they are attesting. But in this case there is statutory provision..

They took my car, so I got an exparte injunction to stop them selling it. The claim is for the return of my car and costs.

However, I DID put this in my original claim: "The Bill of Sale is signed by the agent, Mr XXX, as a witness. I understand that under the Bills of Sale Act that the document should not be signed by a beneficiary of the document they attest to or its consequences. I therefore believe the Bill of Sale is unenforceable." In their first defence Lbl replied: "While attestation of the bill by a party is not permitted (by s10 of the said 1882 act) this requirement is not infringed in the event of attestation by an employee" So, what does this mean?? Frustrated

V Happy to be wrong, because the underwriter signed my bill of sale, ...so I guess I should add that to my claim. Frustrated

Just to add to this discussion, I am not sure the BoS is invalid if signed by the underwriter. The act says: s10 Attestation The execution of every bill of sale by the grantor shall be attested by one or more credible witness or witnesses, not being a party or parties thereto . . . . . . F1 Annotations: Amendments (Textual) F1Words repealed by Statute Law Revision Act 1898 (c. 22) So I think that bit was repealed and therefore the underwriter can sign... please tell me if you think I am wrong. Frustrated

My reply above was to sequenci. Saintcouple, I will look at that.

Exactly! I think the purpose of "incidently" using a Cash Converter with almost every customer is a tenuous attempt to use a "premises" as per s67 and thereby deny customers cancellation rights. Because, frankly, had I had cancellation rights I would have used them. As there would appear to be no purpose in using a CConverters premises, I am hoping that the court would see that this is an attempt by lbl to bypass giving consumers their statutory rights. And if the purpose of using CConverters is just that, them the court should conclude that is unfair and a manipulative use of s67 to the detriment of the customer. I hope. Frustrated