Urgent Help Needed Robinson Way/ **CLAIM STRUCK OUT**

[pstanf10]

HELLO

 

 

I recieved a court paper from robinson ways solicitors a while ago, and didnt know what to do so i spoke to a friend who suggested i send a cpr letter to them which i did. The only letter i have had back is from the sols saying they are requesting the paper work which i still havent recieved, and my defence has to be in on tuesday before close of business, i dont know what to put i was searching for some kind of holding deffence on the internet when i can across this site i was wondering if someone would be kind enough to help me

 

 

the poc are

 

 

the clamiant claims outstanding monies due and payable by the defendant under a credit agreement wherby the defendant agreed to repay with interest the value of the credit obtained.

 

 

and the clamaint claims

1.the sum of 2117.09

2.interest pursuant to s69 of the county court act 1984 at the rate of 8.00% from 1 8/12/2002 to date here of 2066 days is the sum of 958.62

3.further interset is accuring at the daily rate of .46 4

.costs

 

this account defaulted over 6 years ago and i have been making monthly amount of roughly 15pm upuntil recedntly due to redundancy they stopped cus i just couldnt afford it so it is my fault.

 

cant remember if it was a credit card or a loan yes there would have been loads of charges applied to the acount but probably 6 and half years ago as that when i got into trouble and couldnt afford the original payments.

 

i did acknoledge the claim and i sent the cpr request on the 2/09/2008

 

 

please please could someone help.

pstanf10

[42man]

I presume you have had nothing back in response to the CPR request ?....

 

Have a look here, this is a 'usual' defence when the CPR hasn't been responded to...

 

Have a good read of the forums and of what is being said here...

 

In the xxxxxxxx County Court

Claim number

 

 

 

 

 

Between

 

 

xxxxxxxxxxx- Claimant

 

and

 

 

- Defendant

 

 

 

Defence

 

1. I xxxxxxxxx of xxxxxxxxxxxxx am the defendant in this action and make the following statement as my defence to the claim made by xxxxxxxxxxxx

 

2. Except where otherwise mentioned in this defence, I neither admit nor deny any allegation made in the claimants Particulars of Claim and put the claimant to strict proof thereof.

 

3. The Defendant is embarrassed in pleading to the Particulars of Claim as it stands at present, inter alia: -

 

4. The claimants' particulars of claims disclose no legal cause of action and they are embarrassing to the defendant as the claimant's statement of case is insufficiently particularised and does not comply or even attempt to comply with CPR part 16. In this regard I wish to draw the courts attention to the following matters;

 

a) The Particulars of Claim are vague and insufficient and do not disclose an adequate statement of facts relating to or proceeding the alleged cause of action. No particulars are offered in relation to the nature of the written agreement referred to, the method the claimant calculated any outstanding sums due,or any other matters necessary to substantiate the claimant's claim.

 

b) A copy of the purported written agreement that the claimant cites in the Particulars of Claim, and which appears to form the basis upon which these proceedings have been brought, has not been served attached to the claim form.

 

c) A copy of any evidence of both the scope and nature of any default, and proof of any amount outstanding on the alleged accounts, has not been served attached to the claim form.

 

5. Consequently, I deny all allegations on the particulars of claim and put the claimant to strict proof thereof.

 

 

 

The relevant Act of Parliament in this Case

 

6. Firstly I will address the issue of which Act is relevant in this case, in case it is suggested that the claim falls under the Consumer Credit Act 2006, it is drawn to the courts attention that schedule 3, s11 of the Consumer Credit Act 2006 prevents s15 repealing s127 (3) of the 1974 Act for agreements made before s15 came into effect. since the agreement would have commenced prior to the inception of the Consumer Credit Act 2006, section 15 of the 2006 Act has no effect and the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is the relevant act in this case.

 

7. For the avoidance of any doubt I include the relevant section of the 2006 Consumer Credit Act (Except taken from .../content.aspx?LegType=All+ Legislation&title=consume r+credit+act++2006&search Enacted=0&extentMatchOnly =0&confersPower=0&blanke t Amendment=0&sortAlpha=0&T YPE=QS&PageNumber=1&NavFr om=0&parentActiveTextDocI d=2459360&ActiveTextDocId =2459451&filesize=643

11 The repeal by this Act of-

 

(a)the words "(subject to subsections (3) and (4))" in subsection (1) of section 127 of the 1974 Act,

 

(b)subsections (3) to (5) of that section, and

 

©the words "or 127(3)" in subsection (3) of section 185 of that Act,

has no effect in relation to improperly-executed agreements made before the commencement of section 15 of this Act.

 

 

 

8. Therefore the Consumer Credit Act 2006 is not retrospective in its application and has no effect upon this agreement and the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is the act which this agreement is regulated by.

 

 

The Request for Disclosure

 

9. Further to the case, on xx/xx/2007 I requested the disclosure of information pursuant to the Civil Procedure Rules, which is vital to this case from the claimant. The information requested amounted to copies of the Credit Agreement referred to in the particulars of claim and any default or termination notices, a transcript of all transactions, including charges, fees, interest, alleged repayments by myself and payments made by the original creditor. Also any other documents the Claimant seeks to rely on, including any default notices or termination notice,.

 

10. To Date the claimant has ignored my request under the CPR and I have not received any such documentation requested. As a result it has proven difficult to compose this defence without disclosure of the information requested, especially given that I am Litigant in Person ( a copy of the request is attached to this Defence marked XXXXXX).

 

 

The importance of a copy of the credit agreement and its production before the court.

 

 

11. Under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 there are certain conditions laid down by parliament which must be complied with if such agreement is to be enforced by the courts.

 

12. Firstly, the agreement must contain certain Prescribed terms under regulations made by the Secretary of State under section 60(1) CCA 1974, the regulations referred to are the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553).

 

13. The prescribed terms referred to are contained in schedule 6 column 2 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) and are inter alia: - A term stating the credit limit or the manner in which it will be determined or that there is no credit limit, A term stating the rate of any interest on the credit to be provided under the agreement and A term stating how the debtor is to discharge his obligations under the agreement to make the repayments, which may be expressed by reference to a combination of any of the following--

1. Number of repayments;

2. Amount of repayments;

3. Frequency and timing of repayments;

4. Dates of repayments;

5. The manner in which any of the above may be determined; or in any other way, and any power of the creditor to vary what is payable.

 

14. It is submitted that if the credit agreement supplied falls foul of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) in so far that the prescribed terms are not contained within the agreement then the court is precluded from enforcing the agreement. The prescribed terms must be with the agreement for it to be compliant with section 60(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974. In addition there is case law from the Court of Appeal which confirms the Prescribed terms must be contained within the body of the agreement and not in a separate document.

 

15. I refer to the judgment of TUCKEY LJ in the case of Wilson and another v Hurstanger Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 299

"[11] Schedule 1 to the 1983 Regulations sets out the "information to be contained in documents embodying regulated

consumer credit agreements". Some of this information mirrors the terms prescribed by Sch 6, but some does not. Contrasting

the provisions of the two schedules the Judge said:

 

 

"33 In my judgment the objective of Schedule 6 is to ensure that, as an inflexible condition of enforceability, certain basic minimum terms are included which the parties (with the benefit of legal advice if necessary) and/or the court can identify within the four corners of the agreement. Those minimum provisions combined with the requirement under s 61 that all the terms should be in a single document, and backed up by the provisions of section 127(3), ensure that these core terms are expressly set out in the agreement itself: they cannot be orally agreed; they cannot be found in another document; they cannot be implied; and above all they cannot be in the slightest mis-stated. As a matter of policy, the lender is denied any room for manoeuvre in respect of them. On the other hand, they are basic provisions, and the only question for the court is whether they are, on a true construction, included in the agreement. More detailed requirements, which

are designed to ensure that the debtor is made aware, so far as possible, of specified information (including information contained in the

minimum terms) are to be found in Schedule 1."

16. If the agreement does not contain these terms in the prescribed manner it does not comply with section 60(1) CCA 1974, the consequences of which means it is improperly executed and only enforceable by court order.

 

17. Notwithstanding point 13, 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.

 

18. Therefore the claimant must provide a copy of the agreement compliant with the regulations as laid out in points 10 to 16 of this defence to have any right of enforcement.

 

The courts power of enforcement

 

19. The courts powers of enforcement where agreements are improperly executed by way of section 65 CCA 1974 are themselves subject to certain qualifying factors. Under section 127 (3) Consumer Credit Act 1974 the requirements are laid out clearly what is required for the court to be able to enforce the agreement where section 65(1) has not been complied with

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).

20. Further more 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.

 

21. With regards to the Authority cited in point 16, I refer to LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD in the House of Lords Wilson v First County Trust Ltd - [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul)

28.........I should outline the salient provisions of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Subject to exemptions, a regulated agreement is an agreement between an individual debtor and another person by which the latter provides the former with a cash loan or other financial accommodation not exceeding a specified amount. Currently the amount is £25,000. Section 61(1) sets out conditions which must be satisfied if a regulated agreement is to be treated as properly executed. One of these conditions, in paragraph (a), is that the agreement must be in a prescribed form containing all the prescribed terms. The prescribed terms are the amount of the credit or the credit limit, rate of interest (in some cases), how the borrower is to discharge his obligations, and any power the creditor may have to vary what is payable: Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983, Schedule 6. The consequence of improper execution is that the agreement is not enforceable against the debtor save by an order of the court: section 65(1). Section 127(1) provides what is to happen on an application for an enforcement order under section 65. The court 'shall dismiss' the application if, but only if, the court considers it just to do so having regard to the prejudice caused to any person by the contravention in question and the degree of culpability for it. The court may reduce the amount payable by the debtor so as to compensate him for prejudice suffered as a result of the contravention, or impose conditions, or suspend the operation of any term of the order or make consequential changes in the agreement or security.

 

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. The second type of case concerns failure to comply with the duty to supply a copy of an executed or unexecuted agreement pursuant to sections 62 and 63, or failure to comply with the duty to give notice of cancellation rights in accordance with section 64(1). Here again, subject to one exception regarding sections 62 and 63, section 127(4) precludes the court from making an enforcement order.

 

30. These restrictions on enforcement of a regulated agreement cannot be sidestepped.....

And further more

36. In the present case the essence of the complaint is that section 127(3) of the Consumer Credit Act has the effect that a Regulated agreement is not enforceable unless a document containing all the prescribed terms is signed by the debtor.

 

49. ".............The message to be gleaned from sections 65, 106, 113 and 127 of the Consumer Credit Act is that where a court dismisses an application for an enforcement order under section 65 the lender is intended by Parliament to be left without recourse against the borrower in respect of the loan. That being the consequence intended by Parliament, the lender cannot assert at common law that the borrower has been unjustly enriched.

 

 

50. This interpretation of the Consumer Credit Act accords with the approach adopted by the House in Orakpo v Manson Investments Ltd [1978] AC 95, regarding section 6 of the Moneylenders Act 1927 and, more recently, in Dimond v Lovell [2002] 1 AC 384, another case where section 127(3) precluded the making of an enforcement order. In Dimond's case the restitutionary remedy sought was payment of the hire charge for a replacement car used by Mrs Dimond. The House rejected a claim advanced on the basis of unjust enrichment. Lord Hoffmann observed that Parliament contemplated that a debtor might be enriched consequential upon non-enforcement of an agreement pursuant to the statutory provisions. It was not open to the court to say this consequence is unjust and should be reversed by a remedy at common law: [2002] 1 AC 384, 397-398.

22. Since the judgment of Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead clearly sets out that without a credit agreement the claimant's case cannot succeed.

 

23. Therefore I respectfully request that the court order the claimant produce the original signed agreement before the court to show the form and content of it and that it complies with the regulations referred to in this defence, otherwise the courts powers of enforcement are surely limited in these circumstances.

 

24. Further more the defendant requires clarification on the status of the original agreement, the defendant requires the claimant provide a certified copy of the original agreement. If the document is no longer in existence the defendant requires certification of destruction and furthermore the defendant will call into question the validity of any purported copy of the said contract where the original has been destroyed. The defendant will require production of details as to when any copy was made and what medium the copy has been stored on along with clarification of who has had access to the document and also require written clarification that any copy document produced is authentic.the defendant notes that the Civil procedure rules also require the original documents to be made available under practice direction 32.

 

25. The defendant is under the belief that in the case of Rankine v Barclays Bank Plc [2005] on appeal from Stafford County Court the issue of the loss original or destruction of the credit agreement was central to the case and the defendant is under the belief that the outcome of the case was that where the original agreement could not be produced the claim could not succeed and that the appeal was successful.

 

26. Should the claimant be unable to produce the original agreement signed by both debtor and creditor and containing the prescribed terms, I request that the court uses its powers under section 142 Consumer Credit Act 1974 and declare the agreement as unenforceable.

 

The Need for a Default notice

 

27. Notwithstanding the matters pleaded above, the claimant must under section 87(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 serve a default notice before they can demand payment under a regulated credit agreement.

 

28. It is neither admitted or denied that any Default Notice in the prescribed format was ever received and the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that said document in the prescribed format was delivered to the defendant.

 

29. Notwithstanding point 27, 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).

 

30. Failure of a default notice to be accurate not only invalidates the default notice (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain and Co - [2001] GCCR 2255) but is a unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the court enforcing any alleged debt, but give me a counter claim for damages Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119.

 

Conclusion

 

 

31. In view of matters pleaded, I respectfully request the court give consideration to striking out the claimants case pursuant to part 3.4

 

 

(2) The court may strike out a statement of case if it appears to the court -

 

(a) That the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending

(b) That the statement of case is an abuse of the court's process or is otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings; or

© That there has been a failure to comply with a rule, practice direction or court order.

 

32. If the court considers it inappropriate to use its case management powers, it is requested that the court order the claimant to produce the original documents before the court. Without production of the requested documents the case can not be dealt with justly and fairly, and will severely prejudice my rights to a fair trial.

 

33. As laid out in point 23 the defendant requires that the claimant provide the requested information and proofs and authenticities. The defendant requests that the court order that the claimant supply the information requested.

 

34. Having instigated these proceedings without any legal basis for doing so, having failed to provide sufficient information required under the pre-trial protocols in order to investigate this claim, or indeed to provide a reasonable time period to investigate this matter, and having failed to investigate a dispute as required by the OFT Debt collection Guidelines I believe the Claimant's conduct amounts to unlawful harassment under section 40 of The Administration of Justice Act 1970. Furthermore, the Claimant's behaviour is entirely vexatious and wholly unreasonable.

 

35. I respectfully ask the permission of the court to amend this defence when the claimant provides full disclosure of the requested documents.

 

 

Statement of Truth

 

 

I xxxxxxxxxxx, believe the above statement to be true and factual.

 

 

Signed .....................

 

Date

[pstanf10]

thankyou for your help 42 man

 

yes your are right they have not sent any of the info requested in the cpr request.

 

will the court be understanding that i am holiday from the 28thsept -14 th oct and not issue in there favour in this time

 

 

pstanf10

[surfaceagentx20]

Nope and in any case your defence is probably due before your holiday starts if you acknowledged service on 2 September.

 

Did you acknowledge saying you would defend all or part of the claim?

 

In any case, by the sound of things your time for filing a defence is running out fast. Is the claimant the original creditor? If so, do you have a copy of the agreement or the default notice if you have received one?

 

x20

[pstanf10]

thanks x2o for your reply yes i acknowleged the claim and have till tuesday to submit a defence, the question i was aking once the defence is in and the other part have seen it and issue there reply to it will they go straight ahead and issue a ccj or will they wait till i return from my holiday.

 

no its not the original creditor robinson way supposdley brought the debt in 2002 so i have no copy of any agreements or default notices but have requested them under cpr.

 

thanks

[surfaceagentx20]

Thanks for confirming the position. In which case your defence is a piece of cake and looks like this:

 

1 The Particulars of Claim neglect to disclose a cause of action.

 

2 If the Claimant claims payment of outstanding monies due from the Defendant under a contract made between the Claimant and the Defendant, the Defendant denies the formation of such a contract.

 

I BELIEVE THAT THE CONTENTS OF THIS DEFENCE ARE TRUE.

 

Signed:

 

Dated:

 

The court will not be issuing CCJs in this case for some while. Get this defence in and enjoy yourself. I take it the case was issued out of Northampton? If so, whilst you're sunning yourself, Northampton will send a copy of your defence to the Claimant asking whether they wish to continue with the case. They will have 28 days within which to reply.

 

If they say:

 

no thanks - case closed

 

carry on - case gets transferred to your local county court who will then send out a questionnaire to you. exepct that in about one month's time.

 

nothing - then case get's stayed until you or the opponent decides to move the case along again.

 

x20

[pstanf10]

can someone please clarify if the below makes sense in my defence ( it was copied from this post)

 

thanks

 

7. For the avoidance of any doubt I include the relevant section of the 2006 Consumer Credit Act (Except taken from .../content.aspx?LegType=All+ Legislation&title=consume r+credit+act++2006&search Enacted=0&extentMatchOnly =0&confersPower=0&blanke t Amendment=0&sortAlpha=0&T YPE=QS&PageNumber=1&NavFr om=0&parentActiveTextDocI d=2459360&ActiveTextDocId =2459451&filesize=643

[42man]

This is just a weblink referring to the Consumer Credit Act regulations that demonstrate that the new guidelines that came out aren't applicable to your case as it is a pre 2006 agreement....

[pstanf10]

hi

I sent my defence into the court by the date and recieved, a letter back saying they had recieved it and passed it on to the sols, but in the meantime i have recieved a letter from the sols saying

 

 

Further to your defence filed at the NCC, contents which have been noted.We enclose herewith a copy of the agreement and notice of acting

 

we look forward to hearing from you in due couse

 

signed horwich farrelly

 

 

i have scanned in the docs below but i dont know how to respond could someone please help thanks

 

pstanf10 - Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

 

many thanks pstanf10

[42man]

It is a little small....does it have any of the prescribed terms ?

 

CCA RULES FOR PRESCRIBED TERMS

CONSUMER CREDIT ACT

8.2 What if prescribed terms are missing or incorrect?

 

s127(3) provides that the court may not make an enforcement order unless a document containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor – see Q1.21.

 

If therefore any of the prescribed terms is missing, or incorrect, the agreement is not enforceable against the debtor, and the court is precluded from making an enforcement order.

 

 

8.3 What are the prescribed terms?

 

The prescribed terms specified in Sch 6 are as follows:

 

* amount of credit – see Q8.

 

* credit limit – see Q8.5

* repayments – see Q8.9.

* rate of interest – see Q8.6

 

Sch 6 was not amended by the 2004 Regulations.

IS MY AGREEMENT ENFORCEABLE( Via section 127(3) CCA1974)

PRESCRIBED TERMS FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTIONS 61(1)(0) AND 127(3) OF THE

CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1974 Taken from sced.6(1983/1553) regulations

(If you just want to find out, skip the bits in between the stars it’s just some extra information)

 

**What do we mean by unenforceable?

In the Consumer Credit Act section 127 there is a provision for making an agreement unenforceable if it does not contain certain pieces of information.

Subsections 1,2,3,4 state which pieces of information these are, and everything mentioned there must be included within the body of the agreement, if one is missing the agreement is unenforceable.

 

How does unenforceable differ from enforceable with a court order only?

When an agreement is unenforceable it means that the court or the judge cannot make a ruling on it. The court cannot make it enforceable.

When an agreement is enforceable only by ruling of the court it means that the agreement can be stopped by the debtor but the court has the power to re-instate it and allow the credit to continue to enforce.**

 

The Prescribed Terms are these

 

A Amount of credit

A term stating the amount of credit

 

B Repayments

A term stating how the debtor is to discharge his obligations under the agreement to make the repayments, which may be expressed by reference to a combination of any of the following-

(a) Number of repayments;

(b) Amount of repayments;

© Frequency and timing of repayments;

(d) Dates of repayments;

(e) The manner in which any of the above may be determined; or in any other way, and any power of the creditor to vary what is payable.

 

C Rate of interest

A term stating the rate of interest to be applied to the credit issued under the agreement

D Credit limit

This may be a term or the manner in which it will be determined or that there is no credit limit.

--------------------------

 

Which of these applies to you depends on the type of agreement you have?

 

For a Running Account (credit card) agreement

 

BC and D Apply

 

For a Restricted Use Debtor Creditor Supplier

• Where the dealer is the supplier and the creditor is the one providing the finance.
  
• The money can only be used for the purpose it is given.
  
• There is no interest on the purchase (the cash price is the same as the total price)
  
• And there is no advance payment
  

A is applicable

 

For a fixed Sum Credit Agreement

A conventional credit agreement with none of the above restrictions

 

A and B apply

 

For a Hire Agreement

 

B is Applicable

 

This paper only covers section 127(3) of the Act agreements can also be unenforceable by contravention of sections 1 and4 this will be the subject of the next paper.

Please note that these Prescribed terms where not changed in any way by the 2004/1482 Ammendments although the form in which they appear on the agreement was. Subsection127(3) was repealed on the 6th of April 2007 so that unenforceability due to 127(3) will only apply to agreements executed before that date.

[pstanf10]

Hi

 

thanks for taking a look at this for me,

 

all the application states is at the top its a priority application fotm and that it is a credit agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974, theres a tickbox about protection cover, and on the right is just about the data protection act, nowhere does it state credit limits, repayments or interest rates/aprs.

 

should i write back to the solicitors or wait for the court to issue an allocation questionnaire?

 

thanks

[pstanf10]

hi

 

is it possible somebody could look and answer my qustion on post 11, i still havent heard anything from the court.

 

thanks in advnce

[pstanf10]

Bump

[creditcardmug]

Hi

 

thanks for taking a look at this for me,

 

all the application states is at the top its a priority application fotm and that it is a credit agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974, theres a tickbox about protection cover, and on the right is just about the data protection act, nowhere does it state credit limits, repayments or interest rates/aprs.

 

should i write back to the solicitors or wait for the court to issue an allocation questionnaire?

 

thanks

 

No, wait for the AQ, if you havent heard anything 33 days after the court sent your defence to the other side, phone the court for an update.

[pstanf10]

hi

 

well on thursday i recieved an allocation qusetion n149, that had been sent out on the 28th october giving me till the 14th nov to get it back to the court,

 

im not sure how to fill in section G, or if i should be filling in the form at all as they sent me some docs which i have posted on this thread,but know one has advised if they comply with the consumer credit act

 

im getting scared now not sure what to do.so if someone could help i would be most gratefull.

 

thanks

 

 

pstanf

[42man]

Here are some threads on AQ's until another cagger adds/helps

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/11644-allocation-questionnaires-guide-completion.html

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/131499-directions-n150-n149-allocation.html

[creditcardmug]

Hi, just looked at your agreement, i cant read it, can you?

 

However its almost the same as mine, which has no prescribed terms either and is Unenforceable.

 

Have you ever had a Default Notice? if so can you post it up (very important)

 

Has the case been transferred to your local court? Was it in norhampton originally?

 

Need answers to these to help with AQ

[pstanf10]

hi yes it was orginally northampton now been moved to my local

 

Yes i can read the agreemet they sent and it dosent have what people have said i should have,yes the account was defaulted in roghly may 2002 only know that cus i had obtained a credit report but its no longer showing now as 6 years have passed.

 

thanks again for your help

 

forgot to say could email u the aggrement if it would help

Edited November 10, 2008 by pstanf10
missed text

[creditcardmug]

hi yes it was orginally northampton now been moved to my local

 

Yes i can read the agreemet they sent and it dosent have what people have said i should have,yes the account was defaulted in roghly may 2002 only know that cus i had obtained a credit report but its no longer showing now as 6 years have passed.

 

thanks again for your help

 

forgot to say could email u the aggrement if it would help

 

No theres no need to email agreement, but have you had an actual DEFAULT NOTICE, the thing is they cant do anything without a valid one, and most of them are invalid, thats why i said post it up.

[creditcardmug]

Dont think they can claim the s69 interest either, others will confirm.

[pstanf10]

HI

 

they may have issued a default, but i cant remember as its over 6 yrs ago, but they didnt send me a copy when i did the CPR request.

[creditcardmug]

Suggest you follow the instructions here for the "Directions" "and Other Info"

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/131499-directions-n150-n149-allocation.html

[pstanf10]

i sent my allocation questionaire back 2 the court,and yesterday recieved a letter from the court saying unless the claimant files an allocation questionaire by the 4th december the case will be struck out.

 

my question is it normall for the claimant to have to fill in a allocation questionnaire cus i thought it was only the defendant.

[creditcardmug]

Hi again, both the claimant and the defendant have to fill in a AQ, the judge then looks at both, and makes an order for directions, which both parties must adhere to

 

The claimant must pay a fee to file his AQ, where the defendant does not.

 

This is where a lot of weak cases fail, because the claimant doesn't want to waste money on a case he cannot win.

 

Any more questions get back.

[42man]

Any news on this stan ?