Update - its been a while:wink: ... I submitted my AQ on time to the court...but lo and behold FU were late submitting again !!! (bloody cheek) I received a notice from the court that they had until the 12th Aug to submit... I heard nothing until this.....
and the cocky buggers also sent this along with their LATE AQ
Asking for a summary judgement
Attached to the AQ was their Witness Statement
After much deliberating with my best pal Postie, this is his reply which will be sent recorded delivery to both the court and FU solicitors tomorrow.
FINANCE U LTD
MR AND MRS xxxxxx
FIRST WITNESS STATEMENT OF MR xxxx AND xxxxxxx IN RESPONSE TO THE CLAIMANTS APPLICATION TO LIFT THE STAY IN PROCEEDINGS AND SUMMARY JUDGEMENT
I, MR xxxx AND MRS xxxxxx MAKE THIS STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO THE WITNESS STATEMENT RECEIVED FROM THE CLAIMANT, MR GRAHAM ALEXANDER HUMPHRIES.
THE FIRST WITNESS STATEMENT RECEIVED FROM MR HUMPHRIES IS IN ERROR ON FACTUAL OCCURANCES IN RELATION TO THIS CLAIM.
IN PARAGRAPH (4) OF THE CLAIMANTS WITNESS STATEMENT, IT IS STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS HANDED BACK TO THE CLAIMANT VOLUNTARY. THIS IS INNACURATE.
THE VEHICLE IN QUESTION WAS IN FACT REPOSSESED BY THE CLAIMANT USING THE SECURITY OF THE BILL OF SALE.
THE DEFENDANTS PUT THE CLAIMANT TO STRICT PROOF THE VEHICLE WAS RETURNED VOLUNTARY AND WITH THE DEFENDANTS FULL AGREEMENT.
THE DEFENDANTS REQUIRE WRITTEN CONFIRMATION FROM THE CLAIMANT THAT THE VEHICLE WAS EITHER VOLUNTARY SURRENDERED OR THE AGREEMENT WAS VOLUNTARY TERMINATED BY THE DEFENDANTS.
THE DEFENDANTS REQUIRE A COPY OF THE VEHICLE CONDITION REPORT SIGNED BY THE DEFENDANTS PRIOR TO SURRENDERING THE VEHICLE TO THE CLAIMANT.
THE DEFENDANTS REQUIRE AN EXPLANATION AS TO WHY THE CLAIMANT HAD TO APPLY AND PAY D.V.L.A FOR A DUPLICATE REGISTRATION DOCUMENT IF THE VEHICLE WAS RETURNED VOLUNTARY.
THE DEFENDANTS ASKS THE COURT TO INSPECT EXHIBIT (1)
THIS DOCUMENT IS AN ENFORCEMENT NOTICE SERVED UNDER SECTION 76 (1) OF THE CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1974. THE CLAIMANT ALLEGED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DISPOSED OF THE VEHICLE IN CONTRAVENTION OF CLAUSE (4) THE TERMS UNDER THE BILL OF SALE ON WHICH THE VEHICLE WAS SECURED.
THE DEFENDANT ASKS THE COURT TO INSPECT EXHIBIT (2)
THIS DOCUMENT SENT FROM THE CLAIMANT IS A DEFAULT NOTICE SERVED UNDER SECTION 87 (1) OF THE CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1974. THIS DOCUMENT IS INVOKING CLAUSE (4) AND IS DEMANDING IMMEDIATE PAYMENT ON THE OUTSTANDING BALANCE ON THE VEHICLE.
THE CLAIMANT REQUESTS CONFIRMATION THAT THE CLAIMANT HAS IN HIS EMPLOYMENT A STAFF MEMBER CALLED "PETER THE BALIFF", AND THAT PRIOR TO THE REPOSESSION OF THE VEHICLE, THIS STAFF MEMBER HAD STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS REPORTED STOLEN TO THE POLICE.
THE DEFENDANTS CLAIMS THAT DUE TO POINTS (9) TO (13), THE AGREEMENT HAD BEEN DEFAULTED, TERMINATED, AND THE VEHICLE REPOSESSED UNLAWFULLY.
THE DEFENDANT MAINTAINS THAT THE BILL OF SALE IN WHICH THE AGREEMENT IS SECURED IS NOW INVALID. THE BILL OF SALE IN QUESTION AND THE CREDIT AGREEMENT WAS SIGNED AND WITNESSED BY THE SAME PERSON FOR THE CLAIMANT, A MR BERNARD SULLIVAN.
SEE EXHIBIT (3) AND (4)
THE CLAIMANT QUOTES FROM THE JUDGEMENT
Nine Regions Ltd (Trading as Logbook Loans Ltd) v The Office of Fair Trade 2011 UKUT 280 (AAC) (13 JULY 2011)
The Attestation Issue was framed as follows:
"Is a bill of sale rendered void under sections 8 and 10 of the Bills of Sale Act (1878) Amendment Act 1882 in circumstances where its execution by the Appellants’ customer, i.e. the grantor, is attested by the employee of the Appellants who negotiates, agrees and signs on behalf of the Appellants, the credit agreement between the customer and the Appellants?"
For the above reasons I would give the answer "Yes" to the Attestation Issue.
THE DEFENDANT REQUESTS THE COURT TO REJECT THE CLAIMANTS APPLICATION TO REMOVE THE STAY ON PROCEEDINGS. THE DEFENDANT WAS UNDER THE SAME TIME SCALE REGULATIONS TO RETURN DOCUMENTS TO THE COURT AS THE CLAIMANT, AND THE CLAIMANT MUST ACCEPT FULL RESPONSABILITY FOR NOT FOLLOWING CORRECT PROCEEDURE. THE CLAIMANT HAS FAILED TO SEND THE DEFENDANT A COPY ON WHAT GROUNDS IT WISHES TO CONTEST THE STAY IN PROCEEDINGS.
IN POINT (10) OF THE CLAIMANTS N244 APPLICATION NOTICE FOR LIFTING THE STAY,NO INFORMATION HAS BEEN ADDED TO SUPPORT THE CLAIMANTS APPLICATION, AND THE DEFENDANT HAS BEEN PUT AT A DISADVANTAGE.
THE DEFENDANTS STATES THAT THE CLAIMANTS APPLICATION TO REQUST SUMMARY JUDGEMENT AS WELL AS REQUESTING LIFTING THE STAY IN PROCEEDINGS IS UNWARRANTED DUE TO THE ISSUES CONTAINED IN THIS WITNESS STATEMENT, IF THE COURT DECIDES TO CONTINUE WITH THE SUMMARY JUDGEMENT APPLICATION THEN THE DEFENDANT REQUESTS A HEARING TO DECIDE SUCH MATTERS. THE DEFENDANTS REQUESTS THE COURT TO REJECT THE CLAIMANTS APPLICATIONS.
THE DEFENDANT CLAIMS THE FACTS IN THIS WITNESS STATEMENT ARE TRUE AND CORRECT
DATED THIS DAY 05/09/011
EXHIBIT 1 IS ON POST 406
EXHIBIT 2 IS ON 454
EXHIBIT 3 WILL BE THE CREDIT AGREEMENT
EXHIBIT 4 WILL BE A COPY OF THE BILL OF SALE
Pretty good me thinks