Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


robcag last won the day on October 1 2012

robcag had the most liked content!


668 Excellent

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Interesting discussion on Restriction K COs here (long thread).
  2. Never say never, but all quiet ATM.As you know if you've read my Defence (both SJ and Amended Defence), part of the argument I put forward was that the overdraft came about with the tacit agreement of NW; i.e. by NW allowing me to overdraw on my account from time to time and for me to pay it back, and me gradually increasing the amount borrowed.As I see it, on the 'balance of probabilities' that is a perfectly feasible argument. It seems the judge at the Summary Judgment hearing was willing to weigh that possibility against NWs argument that Facility Letters would have been automatically sent.
  3. A bit late, but an update to the DCA question; I just ignored it and heard nothing further. AFAIK (I only check Noddle - i.e. CallCredit), no default was lodged by NW with the CRAs.
  4. Thanks for your comment DB, but I have to admit my knowledge is pretty limited. That probably goes for a lot of people on here, but two (or many!) heads are better than one, and the combined efforts of CAGgers more often than not gets results. Rob
  5. Perhaps you are a bit hard of hearing and would find a conference hearing difficult, if you get my drift. Rob
  6. Apologies if I've given the impression of mis-understanding default matters. What I've done is used the term (too) loosely. All I was trying to do was give another example of where a second DN could be lawfully issued as that is what the main thrust of the thread seemed (to me) to be about. Rob
  7. Whilst I would agree that it is always possible that an agreement could be found I don't think it is very likely given NWs track record. A reconstituted agreement could only satisfy a s77-78 request, they are perfectly aware that it wouldn't do them any good in court (if they were silly enough to go to court with one). Upon receipt of your F&F offer the ball will be in their court, if they choose to hit it out that's their choice. Rob
  8. Or the default situation in the original DN was rectified by paying the arrears demanded within the specified time. Rob
  9. Firstly, IMHO, it is highly unlikely the application and separate 'General Conditions' are linked, because; They have taken the trouble to describe where the sections referred to in section 8 (signature area) of the application can be found on the form. i.e. they refer to sections of the application headed "Your Information" and "Keeping You Informed" and tell you exactly where to find them on the sheet. They also say " ... Sign it only if you want to be legally bound by its terms."; but they don't bother to say where those terms are so it can be assumed that they can only be referring to the contents of that application sheet. Why did they not say "... terms contained within the section headed 'General Conditions' "? If the documents are not linked then I'd say several prescribed terms are missing. Referring to the prescribed terms, I quote from elsewhere; I think you are right that even if they argue the 2 documents are linked, they have failed to state the interest rate. I think they have also failed to state the credit limit or how it will be determined. Rob
  10. I've not had a proper examination of those terms, just a quick look so I won't comment on their contents. However, these must be an exact copy of the terms, if any, which were presented to your friend with the application at the time it was signed in order that it can be argued that they form part of the alleged agreement. Does she remember if that was so, or does she have a copy of the original tucked away somewhere? Rob
  11. I agree with citizenB, there should be more than that, and there's no reference to terms overleaf/attached/enclosed. Looks unenforceable to me. Rob
  12. I just read your PoC - they seem somewhat generalised and vague; Although they haven't mentioned anything about agreements but have referred to the 2 sums as 'accounts', it is a fact that the loan is subject to an agreement in it's own right, and the 'agreement' for the overdraft (should) be in the form of the 'Facility Letters'. So at a guess you could ask for those under CPR 31.14 but you will probably need to ask for the 'Diary Event History' under CPR 18. I don't think it would do any harm to ask for the agreement and letters under the same CPR 18 request to give them less wriggle room. Maybe Andy would be able to offer more learned advice! Rob
  13. Probably not relevant here if you can show the debt is SB as soon as you think, but do you still have the envelope the DN was delivered in as there is a slim chance that they have not allowed sufficient time for service? This would only be if they used 2nd class post and the postmark shows a date of 17th Oct or later. Rob
  • Create New...