Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Paragraph 18 – you are still talking about Boston stolen items. About time this was fixed??? Paragraph 19  In any event, the claimant's PS5 gaming device was correctly declared and correctly valued. The defendant accepted it for carriage and was even prepared to earn extra money by selling sell insurance in case of its loss or damage. New paragraph 20 – this the defendant routinely sells insurance in respect of "no compensation" items (a secondary contract contrary to section 72 CRA 2015) new paragraph above paragraph 20 – the defendant purports to limit its liability in respect of lost or damaged items. This is contrary to section 57 of the consumer rights act 2015. The defendant offers to extend their liability if their customer purchases an insurance cover for an extra sum of money. This insurance is a secondary contract calculated to exclude or limit their liability for the defendants contractual breaches and is contrary to section 72 of the consumer rights act 2015. New paragraph below paragraph 42 – the defendant merely relies on "standard industry practice" You haven't pointed to the place in your bundle of the Telegraph newspaper extract. You have to jiggle the paragraphs around. Even though I have suggested new paragraph numbers, the order I have suggested is on your existing version 5. You will have to work it out for your next version. Good luck!   Let's see version 6 Separately, would you be kind enough to send me an unredacted to me at our admin email address.
    • i think theres been MORE than amble evidence of that and am astonished that criminal proceedings haven't begun.
    • Yep, those 'requirements' not met to shareholders satisfaction seem to me to be: 1. Not being allowed to increase customer bills by 40% (of which well over 50% of the new total would NOT be investment) 2. 1 plus regulators not agreeing to letting them do 'things in their own time (ie carry on regardless)
    • As already mentioned freely available "credit scores" are fairly useless. All lenders have their own "credit scoring" system, that for obvious reasons they don't divulge. And they're "scored" differently to the freely available ones. As soon as they could, we've always encouraged our two children to use credit cards responsibly... Pay off in full, etc, to generate good history. It's paid off. At quite young ages, they have both obtained loans for cars, mortgage and their credit card limits are through the roof. Personally, I have shifted debt around a lot on credit cards (even financed a house purchase once at 0% 😉) and I've only ever been refused a credit card once, sorry twice by the same company, over many years. They must have something very different in their lending criteria. You're a tight one, Mr Branson.
    • Hi DX - quick question, what is the bank likely to do when they get my letter of change of address ? also what is the worst they can do? thanks J1L
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Tactics for dealing with Next Directory Court claims


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4252 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS GUIDANCE IS RELEVANT FOR AGREEMENTS ENTERED INTO BEFORE 6TH APRIL 2007

 

Next Retail T/A Next Directory are notorious for failing to ensure that as a matter of procedure they obtain a signed credit agreement which complies with the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

If you never signed an agreement with Next, then you have a complete defence to any claim they may bring against you and in some cases you could sue them for declaratory relief.

 

Interestingly, Next seem to be raising the "you dont deny having the goods" argument more and more, while on the face of it, it would seem like they are right and are entitled to recover their monies, actually it couldnt be further from the truth.

 

What they are implying is that you have been unjustly enriched by having goods that you do not have to pay for. This cannot be so, the House of Lords declared such in the leading case of Wilson and First County Trust Para 46-49 of Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead's Judgment

 

 

Restitution

 

46. Before considering whether section 127(3) is compatible with article 1 of the First Protocol I must digress to deal with two preliminary matters. The first concerns the legal consequences of section 127(3). When a regulated agreement is rendered irredeemably unenforceable by section 127(3), the lender is unable to enforce the agreement. But does he, quite apart from his (unenforceable) rights under the agreement, have a restitutionary claim against the borrower in respect of the money lent? The parties to the agreement intended the money would be repayable in accordance with the terms of the agreement. Inability to enforce the terms of the agreement does not inevitably carry with it the consequence that the borrower may simply keep the money. Retention of the money, it is said, would be unjust enrichment, for which the appropriate remedy would be an order that the borrower repay what was never intended to be other than a loan. Reliance was placed, by way of analogy, on the decision of the Court of Appeal in Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council [1994] 1 WLR 938. There a bank paid money to a local authority under an interest rate swap agreement, which was held later to be outside the local authority's powers. The local authority had been unjustly enriched and the bank was entitled to a restitutionary remedy.

 

 

47. A secondary question also arises: if the lender does have a restitutionary claim, is that a matter to be taken into account when considering whether section 127(3) is compatible with article 1 of the First Protocol?

 

 

48. I can deal with these two questions quite shortly, starting with the latter. I am in no doubt that a lender's restitutionary remedy, if he has one, is a matter to be taken into account when considering whether section 127(3) is compatible with article 1 of the First Protocol. The adverse consequences of an alleged infringement of a Convention right cannot sensibly be assessed other than in the round. The real position of the claimant is what matters. If in practice a lender can ameliorate the immediate and directly adverse consequence of section 127(3) by resort to some other right or remedy readily available to him, that is a matter to which the court must have regard. I cannot accept the contrary arguments addressed to the House.

 

 

49. I consider, however, that there is no relevant restitutionary remedy generally available to a lender in the circumstances now under consideration. 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. That would be inconsistent with the parliamentary intention in rendering the entire agreement unenforceable. True, the Consumer Credit Act does not expressly negative any other remedy available to the lender, nor does it render an improperly executed agreement unlawful. But when legislation renders the entire agreement inoperative, to use a neutral word, for failure to comply with prescribed formalities the legislation itself is the primary source of guidance on what are the legal consequences. Here the intention of Parliament is clear.

 

 

 

Above is the paragraphs concerned with unjust enrichment

 

So, me o'le mates at Next dont seem to have such a strong argument when you consider the above case

 

 

Moving back to the issues of enforceability

 

 

If you never signed an agreement with Next, then section 61(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 was never complied with, as a result the agreement (if there actually was one) is improperly executed as defined within section 65(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

I always make a request for the agreement from Next, they normally write back saying "we cannot locate a copy of your agreement but heres a true copy of what you would have been sent" which in my view means we dont have one, but you will already know that anyway if you never signed one wont you.

 

If there never was a signed agreement it is clear that s127(3) prevents enforcement and will provide a complete defence to any such claim that Next would seek to bring against you

Edited by pt2537
Link to post
Share on other sites

so, if Next sue you, what options do you have,

 

Well, personally, if you know you never signed an agreement, then it is not something that i would allow to go to trial as it is merely a waste of the courts time.

 

I would strike them out and seek summary judgment on the claim, but that is just my personal view and should not be taken as authoritive or legal advice

 

Grab a N244 application notice

 

in box 3

 

An order (a draft of which is attached) that Summary Judgment be granted in favour of the Defendant pursuant to Part 24 CPR and/or the claimant's claim be struck out because the claimant has no real prospect of succeeding on the claim and there is no other compelling reason why there should be a trial.

 

If the claimant wishes to rely on written evidence, he must file and serve copies on each party at least 7 days before any hearing date set by the court.

4. tick yes,

 

5. at hearing

 

6. 1 hour

 

7 self explanatory

 

8.District

 

9. Claimant

 

Ok Draft order

 

 

IN THE XXXXX COUNTY COURT Claim No:

 

 

 

 

BETWEEN:

 

 

[ ]

 

Claimant

and

 

 

[ ]

 

Defendant

 

 

 

draft/ORDER

 

 

Before District Judge sitting in the............. County Court on the ..... day of .....................2009

 

 

UPON reading the Defendant’s Application Notice dated [ ] and the witness statements filed by the parties

 

AND UPON hearing the Claimant and Defendant

 

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

 

1.The Defendant be granted summary judgment and the claim is struck out.

2.The Claimant do pay the Defendant’s costs of the claim, summarily assessed in the sum of £[ ] within 14 days of the date of this order.

 

 

 

dated 2009

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok now for the witness statement in support of the application for SJ

 

 

On behalf of: Defendant

Witness: [Initials and surname]

Number: [1st] [2nd]

Exhibits: [“ABC1”]

Date:

IN THE XXXXX COUNTY COURT Claim No:

 

 

 

BETWEEN

 

[________]

Claimant

and

 

[________]

 

Defendant

 

 

WITNESS STATEMENT OF [NAME]

 

I, [NAME] of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX will state as follows:

 

1.[i am a [state occupation or, if none, description, e.g. housewife, retired …] [and the defendant in these proceedings][i am a director of the defendant company and am authorised to make this statement on its behalf]. I make this witness statement in support of the defendant’s application for summary judgment.

 

2. The matters referred to in this witness statement are within my own knowledge, except where I have indicated otherwise. Where any matters contained in this witness statement are not within my own knowledge, I have stated the source of my information.

 

3. There is now produced and shown to me a bundle of documents marked “XXXXX 1”. The exhibit XXXXX1 contains copies of the documents to which I refer in this witness statement

 

4. The Defendant did hold a Next Directory account with the Claimant , the account was a regulated account which was regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Claimant failed to ensure that the Defendant signed an agreement before credit was granted to the Defendant or at all.

 

 

5.on or around the XXXXX the Defendant wrote to the Claimant requesting that the Claimant supply a copy of the credit agreement. the Claimant confirmed that there was no signed agreement, a copy of the letter is attached exhibit XXX 1

 

 

6. It is common ground between the parties that there never was a signed agreement and therefore it is clear that section 61(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 was not complied with. The sanction for non compliance with s61(1) CCA 1974 is that the agreement cannot be enforced without an order of the court.

 

7. However, the fact that the Defendant did not sign an agreement in accordance with s61(1) CCA 1974 means that section 127(3) CCA 1974 would operate. The account was opened before 6th April 2007 and therefore even though section 127(3-5) has been repealed by the Consumer Credit Act 2006, the repeal is not effective for agreements entered into before 6th April 2007 as set out within schedule 3 section 11 Consumer Credit Act 2006

 

8. Accordingly the provisions of s127(3) confirm that no order for enforcement can be made and therefore the agreement is rendered unenforceable, confirmed by Wilson v First County Trust [2003] UKHL 40 and the Claimants claim must fail.

 

 

9. i believe that the claimant has no real prospect of successfully bringing the claim and there is no other compelling reason for a trial and therefore i ask the court to grant the relief sought.

 

10. as a residual issue, it seems that the Claimant is avering that the Defendant has been unjustly enriched by recieving goods or money on the back of an unenforceable credit agreement. this matter is swiftly dealt with by reference to Lord Nichols of Birkenheads Judgment in Wilson and FCT as refered to above. Para 46-50 of the judgment confirms that where the court finds that an agreement is unenforceable, it is not unjustly enriching the debtor , the consequence was clearly the intention of Parliament and therefore it is clear that the argument put forward by the Claimant that the Defendant has had the goods and should pay lacks any real merit and is not able to succeed

 

11. I therefore request that the court grants the defendant summary judgment in the terms of the draft order attached to the application notice dated [ ].

 

 

 

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.

Signed ________________________

Dated ________________________

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, the above witness statement is ONLY A SUGGESTION!!!!!!

 

you would need to ensure that it is correct as you will be signing a statement of truth and if you knowingly sign this knowing that the contents are not correct you are in a world of trouble with the court!!!!! so read, check, understand what it says and if you are not sure, ASK!!!!!!! Do not fudge it up for the sake of seeking CLARITY

Link to post
Share on other sites

if you decide that the SJ application is not the way to go,

 

then

 

you can obviously defend the action.

 

the actual defence is something that really cannot be templated in my view as each claim is different, but a basic defence that i would use if i were being sued is something along the lines of

 

 

1. it is admitted that the Defendant held an account with the Claimant

 

2. the account was a consumer credit account and was running account credit as defined within s10 Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

3.It is denied that the agreement under which the account operated is enforceable against the Defendant for the reasons set out herein

 

4. the Claimant failed to provide the Defendant with a credit agreement before credit was extended and todate the Defendant has not signed a credit agreement with the Claimant therefore section 61(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 was never complied with and any agreement is improperly executed as defined by s65(1) CCA 1974 , if the Claimant rejects this contention then the Claimant is put to strict proof of the signed credit agreement which complies with the Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

5. according to section 127 (3) Consumer Credit Act 1974 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).

 

6. therefore, as defined within s127, the agreement is unenforceable and the Claimants claim should fail accordingly

 

7. the Claimant appears to contend that the Defendant has been unjustly enriched. the Defendant denies this is the case and recites paragraph 5 above. in addition the Defendant refers to Para 46-50 of Lord Nichols of Birkenheads Judgment in Wilson and First County Trust [2003]UKHL 40

 

 

8 . The Defendant asks that the court exercise its powers under CPR 3.4(2) and strike out the Claimants claim as it discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim and has no prospect of success at trial

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys,

 

I think that from my point of view, the quicker you dispose of a claim with no merit the better.

 

Also if you kill it quick, you wont be allocated to any track so they can be screwed for costs too as even if the debt is small claims material, until its allocated its open to costs

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great thread!

 

What about accounts opened after the 6th April 2007? Mine was opened in November 2007. They have admitted that they cannot locate a signed agreement (and they never will because I never signed it), but they have said:

 

"Turning now to your comment that in the absence of a signed credit agreement, a debt cannot be legally enforced. We maintain that we are entitled to ask a court to consider the evidence in any case, and make a judgement accordingly. We fully reserve our right to do this. The debt remainsenforecable with consent and we are not in a position to write this off.

In conclusion I must inform you that we do not agree that you have grounds to dispute the account.

This letter acts as our final response and I have enclose a copy of the Financial Ombudsman Service letter, which details how to contact them should you remain dissatisfied."

 

If they don't have a signed agreement, then surely they cannot take me to court?

 

Any advice welcome, as I'm not sure what to do next.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
  • 1 year later...

Hi

I was taken to court a few years ago by Next and currently pay £10 a month off the debt, i'm pretty sure I never signed a cca, is there anything I can do about this now? I have a ccj from Next.

thanks

Lisa x

Pinklisar

:p:razz:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...