Jump to content


BankFodder BankFodder


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by king100

  1. I think it comes down to the Judge and his perceived idea on what is an exact copy or not. I laid it out simply and all the details was in my WS and SWS. It was a rubbish CCA and 6 months before I took the card out. All down to probabilities.
  2. they set out their position in regards to the case reading off the witness statement, when it came to my turn I stated that these cannot be considered exact copies of my agreement as per my witness statement and SWS. I enquired about the 2 copies and they stated that one was when i took out the agreement and the other was when i defaulted. I enquired about the APR differences and stated that that APR on statement was different to the 2014 agreement so how can I say that the 2009 agreement was true exact copy of my agreement if the 2014 is not correct. I argued that the 1st copy from 2009 was 6 months later than when I took the account out and Barclays have numerous agreements in place. Also that 2009 print out is a stock CCA that Hoist use and is the closest one they could find to my agreement time. I agreed that they could take my name and address, copy and paste onto an agreement as long as that agreement is true exact copy of my original agreement. The judge asked me if i denied the account, I said i dont deny but it is whether it is enforceable in court. The ruling was that in all probability this was a copy of my agreement. It all came down to the Judge and his opinion that this could have been it.
  3. That the agreement was a true exact copy of my original agreement. He said he had to weight up all probability and that it was. Will get the decision in the post
  4. I asked if she had it and she said yes. Then she said that she was asking to have it thrown out as directions were clear to have witness statements within 14 days of court case.
  5. They have sent someone do i need to check if they have supplememtal witness statement? If they dont shall i gove her a copy? She did want to talk but declined it.
  6. Application for costs should reach the court at least 24 hours before the hearing. Surely not as not sure what way the judge will rule.
  7. The amount, which may be allowed to a self represented litigant under rule 45.39(5)(b) and rule 46.5(4)(b), is £19 per hour. Correct?
  8. Cheers Andy Is there any capping on costs, as this has taken pretty much a good 20+ hours of my time, what is the standard cph that you can claim?
  9. Joebloggs72 I have just been through the same with Hoist so can shed some light in what will probably happen. My court case is this Friday. You will send off CCA letter. they will respond with a we are looking into it and will send you required documents to you. They wont appear even if you state you want them within 14 days. You will file your defence, they will acknowledge it and will gather their witness statements. You will file your witness statements on time, but will probably get theirs after the 14 day deadline, it will be the same rubbish they send out, relying on Carey v HSBC and have some random CCA agreement. Andyorch and Dx will help you massively, your in good hands.
  10. Ok, all printed off and sent. Court date Friday, any relevant info I should know on what to say and what not to say? What if Judge asks me if this is my debt. I guess the question is not whether it is my debt my whether it is enforceable. If I lose then I pay their costs, what happens if I win, do they pay mine, and should I have that handy to give at time of judgement. If I lose can I appeal?
  11. ok so if i jusy print off the 1st page then would that suffice? Its 59 pages long..... Im printing off 1st 3 then last page for summary
  12. like that? https://www.mishcon.com/assets/managed/docs/downloads/doc_2412/BBA.pdf
  13. Best place to get the case laws from? http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/105.html&query=phoenix+and+kotecha&method=boolean
  14. cheers will print and send off today. I assume 1 to the court and one the sols.
  15. ok need to send off today is the above additional ok to add in? Does it make sense?
  16. Additional Arguments In relation to the reconstituted agreements in the case Kotecha v Phoenix the obligation under Section 78 to supply a document which sets out the original terms, including the original terms as to interest rates. In this case the claimant has sent two separate CCA agreements with two different APRs, standard rate of 19.9% on the 2009 agreement and 23.9% of the 2014 agreement. Which ones does the claimant which to rely on, and which one is a true reflection of the defendants agreement. If the claimant is supplying not one but two agreements then they themselves do not know which one is true copy. on the right lines?
  17. I being the Defendant in this case will state as follows; I make this Supplemental Witness Statement further in support to my previous witness statement.. 1.I submit this Supplemental Witness Statement due to receiving claimant sending their disclosures and witness statement late, this I fell was to disadvantage me, even though I had requested these documents, in my request, which was acknowledged on the xx/09/2016.(Cover Letter) Exhibit 1. My letter requesting documents. Exhibit 2.Letter from Robinson Way confirming request of documentation mentioned in particulars of claim dated xx/09/2016 within 14 days, of which none was produced. 3. In the claimants witness statement Section 3, marked "DJH1", they claim to rely on a reconstituted agreement. In fact they have produced 2 reconstituted agreements, one from 2009 and the other 2014. Neither of these match with the date as mentioned in Section 2 of their witness statement xxth March 2010 when the credit agreement was entered into. This in turn cannot be considered a true accurate version of the agreement. A reconstituted agreement must be an exact replica of the executed agreement less signatures, and the reconstituted agreements that the claimant are relying on in court are simply invalid and does not comply with the CCA 1974 in either the giving of information pursuant to the section 78 or the requirements required for enforcement under section 78.6 (b). 4.The claimant is relying on Carey v HSBC, in that case Carey was a claimant not a defendant and the judge HHJ Waksman made judgement with regards to complying with a section 77/78 requests and not in regards to its enforcement.Also in relation to the reconstituted agreements in the case Kotecha v Phoenix the obligation under Section 78 to supply a document which sets out the original terms, including the original terms as to interest rates. As in this case the claimant has disclosed two separate reconstituted agreements with two different APRs, standard rate of 19.9% on the 2009 agreement and 23.9% of the 2014 agreement.It is therefore respectfully requested that the court consider this in view of any judgment and that neither can be relied on to be an exact copy of the executed agreement. It is therefore my contention that the claimant is still in default of my section 78 request and prevented from seeking any relief. STATEMENT OF TRUTH The contents of my statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. Signed Dated
  • Create New...