Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Docman last won the day on September 19 2011

Docman had the most liked content!


1,906 Excellent
  1. sam Does the documentation now attached to the WS match the .pdf of the CCA you posted in April 2008. If so, I can't see the paragraph numbers and can't see the interest and repayment terms. Also if an interest rate is on the papers attached to the WS check that it is the same as the interst rate shown on your credit card statements. In my HSBC case, they took ages to ask for the stay to be lifted and then went to an SJ. In all they sent in three versions of the unsigned CCA but like yours it quoted a VISA agreement for a Matercard and had three different rates of interest. I pointed out the errors but DGs just ignored me and didn't withdaw until their barrister tried to put together the papers for a full trial. He realised they didn't have a case and backed down paying my costs. Best of luck for tomorrow.
  2. sam I noticed you are away from home looking afer your mother. Are yo still intending to go to the hearing on 26th (This Thursday?). doc
  3. Pipster Typical behaviour fromHSBC/DGs I'm afraid. But if you keep at it, you will succed. I did and after nearly 3 years, they backed down 2 days before the full trial before a proper judge. They didn't have much option, no CCA, wrong T&Cs filed and no DN. Sound familiar. You may get the skelly some time in the New Year. In the meantime I suggest you try to draft your own skelly. Cheers Doc
  4. This is another example of HSBC/DGs being sneaky with claims and costs. They pursued me for £15k for over 2 years but 2 days before the full hearing, they withdrew the claim in full. Initially, they tried the argument that both sides should bear our own costs. My solicitor had told DGs that since they admitted they did not have a signed agreement, the Court could not grant judgement and because of this, he insisted that HSBC meet our costs and remove any comments with the credit reference agencies. In the end, we agreed that HSBC would pay £1,000 of my costs (half the total) and remove the credit references. My solicitor advised that as both sides had instructed barristers, attending the court hearing to ask for the balance of £1000 would have cost additional £2000 and since HSBC had withdrawn the claim in full, he thought the Court wouldn't be too pleased at a hearing to argue over costs if I had had over £15k of a credit card debt written off. There was never any suggestion that HSBC would try to pass on the 'debt' to another agency or DCA. I had a couple of other cases a couple of years ago where the DCAs eventually discontinued. In those cases, I was a LiP and my total costs were in the region of £900 for each case. Both tried the 'no costs' approach but again I negotiated a reasonable outcome and accepted their offers of £750 and £600. Both debts were removed from my credit file and no further claim has been made. The rules about discontinuance are fairly straightforward. The side that discontinues is liable for the other side’s costs unless both sides agree otherwise. The discontinuance operates from when the Notice is filed at Court which means the case ends EXCEPT as to the issue of costs. The side that is not discontinuing can ask the court within 28 days of the Notice being filed for costs. In one of the two cases above, one DCA wouldn't be reasonable at first so I filed an application for costs (additional £75 fee) and then asked for £750 in settlement instead of the £600 I had accepted from the second DCA. In short, solicitors play hard ball when it comes to costs (it’s 'their' fee) and so you should do likewise. I suggest you respond to HSBC/DGs by telling them you do not accept their view that there is no liability and that you never agreed that £100 could be retained. Tell them that if they don't pay you the sum of £100 forthwith, you will make an application for your costs to the court on a full indemnity basis. Hit the ball back HARD!
  5. onlyme Where you go from here depends on how much fight you have in you. The DJ is wrong in her interpretation of the Carey case. It only applies in relation to S77/78. The statute and case law are quite clear on that point. HHJ Waksman reviewed all the existing legisation and most of the case law and concluded they didnt help in the particular circumstances of the issues before him which were in relation to the provision of information. Once the Order is sent to you, you could ask the Court to set aside the Order on the grounds that the Court had mis-directed itself as to the law. You will need to set out your reasons attached to an application on form N244. I would also question the impression of bias (a) because the claimant thought they could nominate a particlar judge and (b) the little chat after the hearing. Both give the impression, rightly or wrongly, of bias. If you want to do something, could complain to the Office of Judicial Complaints about the judge's conduct. However, as the OJC won't investigate until after the end of your case, you could have a long wait. What may be more beneficial would be to copy your complaint to the senior judge (usually a Circuit Judge) overseeing the county court just after you have made your set aside application. On the other hand, you may not want the hassle and are prepared to accept judgment against you.
  6. McB A trip down Memory Lane here for some of us!! Liability Orders are issued by the local Magistrates Court and technically form part of the criminal justice system as opposed to normal debt recovery through the County [ Civil ] Court. It would therefore by up to local Magistrates to enforce the original Liability Order. However, the Council would have to (a) demonstrate the Liability Order was made in the first place by producing a copy and (b) overcome a little problem of Section 9 of the Limitation Act 1980 which states "9 Time limit for actions for sums recoverable by statute. (1)An action to recover any sum recoverable by virtue of any enactment shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued." You may ask when the cause of action accurred. In my view, the best the Council could argue was that would be six years from when the original Liability Order was granted, not when the Poll Tax was originally levied. I assume you are way past that date now. Any one got a different view? Doc
  7. Jimmy I am not absolutely certain but a 'deferred funding' agreement sounds like it should be some form of credit agreement and therefore subject to the Consumer Credit Act. Is there any chance you can post up a copy of the agreement without your personal details? Doc
  8. I see CB's comments about the DN and agree but where have HSBC come up with using Carey to recontruct the DN? Are you getting confused between the Default Notice and the credit agreement?
  9. Have HSBC/DG's admitted they cannot furnish a copy of the signed credit agreement? Have they tried to 'recontruct' the Agreement? Can you post up a copy of the agreement you hold after removing your personal details?
  10. Hi post If this is what I think it is, the book is a rather large 2 volume tome. Most firms of solicitors and barristers chambers would buy ONE or possibly TWO copies depending on how flush they are. It is quite expensive. Local libraries don't stock it but have you tried the law library at your nearest university. They may allow you access to read the reference copy, especially out of term when there would be less pressure on the library. I asked my old uni library and they sent me an access card even though ut nearly 20 years since I was there and I didn't study law.
  11. Hi Cheeky For the moment, leave the issue of your ex to one side. Remember, revenge is a dish best served cold, not when you are in the midst of a stressfull action. First of all, make sure you acknowledge service of the claim form. If this came from the Northamton Bulk Centre (as appears to be the case) you can do this electronically. The instructions and password are contained with the claim form. Next you need to gather information about the credit agreement. S78 of the Consumer Credit Act used to be a way of getting a copy of the signed agreement. However, due to a court case in 2009 [Carey v HSBC] the law now allows creditors to reconstruct a credit agreement in response to a request under S78. Such a reconstuction of course will not contain the signature of the cardholder. Once a creditor starts a legal action though, he needs to produce a copy of the original signed agreement to prove his case [the Proof Purpose]. A copy of the credit agreement should have been attached to the claim form if the agreement is mentioned in the Particulars of Claim. Some 'clever' lawyers are now drafting Paticulars of Claim that don't actually mention the credit agreement, and then try to argue they don't have to produce a copy to bring the claim. That is why everyone needs to see the exact wording of the Particulars of Claim (less any identifying details such as the amount) that are in the form. Once the wording is availale, advice can be given as to the wording in your request for documents. Doc
  12. tedney A bit old I know for a response but an old case of mine has raised its head again. Basically, my bank sued me for my overdraft after we had a disagreement in 2005. We corresponded for over a year but I could get anywhere with them. The correspondence went dead for a further year during which time the bank unknown to me bounced my direct debits twice a month for 4 months, charging £30 each time. At the start of 2007, they started a legal action against me to recover the overdraft which had grown due to the charges (I had moved banks in 2006). Not only did I file a defence but I also countereclaimed for the charges. We went through the Court hoops (fast track) but 3 days after being served with the court's order to disclose documents etc, and eight months after the start of the OFT v The Banks case in 2007, the bank made a 'without notice application for a stay until the end of the OFT case. Needless to say the court rolled over and granted the stay. I tried to get it lifted but all the Deputy District Judge would say when refusing my application was that 'it had come down from on high' that these cases were to be stayed. I just left the court in disgust. Well, that was nearly four years ago and nearly two years since the Supreme Court gave its final judgement. To be fair, I had almost forgotten about the case but the bank have now written to me saying they will lift the stay on the grounds that following the Supreme Court's decison, I have no defence (wronlgi I might add). Even if the bank win,I intend to continue my defence all the way using S140 of the Consumer Credit Act (Unfair relationships). I may end up in the Court of Appeal. Do you or any other Caggers know of any other cases where a defence/counterclaim has continued post the OFT decision? Doc
  13. Hi becky As DonkeyB has suggested, the figures for 'Accurred Interest' and 'Administrative Charges' ad up to just over £100, the amount you have alledgedly paid. Even a child can see through HFO's smokescreen. I would also ask HFO to specify and detail what 'administrative charges' have been incurred and also what period the accurred interest covers. You sholud then be able to show that the interest and charges are a fiction and that make you own claim that the only reason the figures are there is to balance the alledged payment of £100.
  14. cups Tesco Personal Finance plc was a joint 50/50 venture between Tesco and RBS until a couple of years ago when Tesco bought out RBS. TPF also goes under the name of Tesco Bank but it is the same company that would have agreed to the Tomli Order. However, according to press reports, they same to be having some IT problems. I suggest you write back, enclose a copy of the Tomlin Order, and basically tell them you will not respond to any more of their silly letters. Keep up the payments on the Tomlin Order though.
  15. Bevvyboy Your amended defence will have to go on the grounds that HSBC have not produced a signed copy of credit agreement which contains the terms required by the Act. The case of Carey v HSBC only applies where a cardholder (debtor) requests a copy of the agreement from the lender under the conditions laid out in S78 of the Act. It does NOT apply where a lender is taking legal action to recover a debt. The lender still have to prove there was an agreement [the Proof Propose as outlined by HHJ Waksman in the Carey case]. If the agreement was entered into prior to 6 April 2007 S127(3) of the Act clearly states the court cannot enforce a credit agreement unless a document containing the prescribed terms was signed. If there is no signed agreement pre April 2007, then HSBC cannot win. That said, our District Judges are not expert in all areas of the law (Deputy Disrict Judges can be even worse.) Where they are not familiar with the law, judges tend to follow the 'advice' from the barristers enganged by creditors. Not surprisingly, these barristers tend to lead judges to believe that the Carey judgment allows a 'reconstruction' in place of a signed agreement. Where HSBC required to file an Amended Particulars of Claim? If so, can you post up what they are now claiming. If not, can you type out the words from the original Particulars of Claim? Doc
  • Create New...