Jump to content

bustthematrix

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    1,041
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by bustthematrix

  1. Looks like this's what's happened in your case!
  2. Well done. Sounds like a great result! Are you happy with it?
  3. Do you know the basis on which you can reclaim any of the charges? I say this because it answers your question...
  4. Hi SB Remember, it's much safer to make your defence robust and multi-layered. Don't hang it all on the defective DN argument but incorporate as many solid facets as you can CCA, CPUTR, DPA, OFT Guidance etc... The more breaches you raise the better. And a 'win' doesn't just mean the judge rules in your favour, it's also when the lender decides to withdraw or settle before the hearing or perhaps after the first hearing if there's more to the case...
  5. Hi SB Here's to hoping the posting will be more suited and helpful to you going forward.
  6. All the best...and well done for posting their defence too.
  7. OK, this is all well and good, and very useful to be aware of these developments. But where did the judge say he would have found in the Defendant's favour and on what basis??? What, in his learned opinion should the Defendant have pleaded that might have been more favourably decided? Surely part of the value of these initial losses is to help identify the arguments that don't work so that those coming behind don't repeat them?
  8. Well done, I wish you the very best. I'm surprised by the lack of comment from other's though? Have you had any contact from Capi since starting your claim?
  9. The Op will want to weigh this vs the strength of his current defence. Is the defence based on the fact that the debt no longer legally exists e.g. statute barred or is it just unenforceable? Are the charges+ interest etc large enough to warrant claiming. All this has to be weighed up...
  10. As others have already suggested, a possible approach would be to deny valid execution and therefore enforceability. Within that context, a full refund claim for unlawful charges can be made. However, imo, a charges refund claim, though a seperate exercise would invalidate a straightforward denial that no debt exists. Personally, I think alleging that no debt exists just because the lender has failed to execute properly is shaky ground (though some appear to get away with it?). Whereas the truth often is that the lenders' execution is so poor and record keeping so incompetent that they ca
  11. Contador You obviously know something about this and appear to have looked into it at quite some depth. However, imo, your posts do not seem to offer any ways forward??? Maybe it's just how I've read them but what are your thoughts on how this debate can be moved on, if at all, in the favour of the consumer?
  12. Hi Nicklea No, not seen this one. Do you mind posting a link to it please? Thanks
  13. Very well done Fireprism. Knowledge of your progress will encourage many. Do you have a thread to follow. I think the ponts you made above are the knub of it - people need to really know what their points are. The problem is, people are only just starting to get to grips with the points they can use and how to argue them. There's been a fair bit of contradiction and confusion as to what can and cannot be used going forward. Many are simply confused and have given up thinking there's barely a case going forward.
  14. I note your points but you seem to be ignoring the prescription of accuracy and correctness for DNs.
  15. I'm sure you've read Woodchester v Swayne & Co [1998] EWCA Civ 1209 (14 July 1998 )
  16. Hmmnnn, never be claimant on the less clear CCA and unenforceability issues. The CCA was setup to protect so it has little that can be used to 'attack'. CPUTR has a little bit more. When talking about reclaiming refunds of credit card/loan/mortgage arrears fees and charges though, this advice changes.
  17. I have to say, I'm firmly in the other camp! Though a contract is a binding agreement, there's no reason why it cannot be broken by either party - there'll just be damages for doing so. It can certainly be ended prematurely - especially if both parties agree. Under the CCA, the DN is there to allow for lawful termination under the CCA. A bad Notice followed by termination which is accepted, provides for a prejudiced termination, not just an invalid termination. It therefore gives rise to a counterclaim for damages - this is already case law. ...but you obviously probably don't see it
  18. Absolutely not. Be aware that judges do come from the ranks of the legal profession so it is only 'natural' (though not acceptable) that they look after each other. I really hope someone who knows the ins and outs of how to 'manage judges' and get things put on record etc will come along and comment on what some of your options are? You may perhaps be able to request the original friendly judge back or get something in writing as to why the judge has twice permitted this 'on the day production' of new submissions, without prior notice to you, and yet not penalised the other party yet deal
  19. Hi SB Just not sure it's that cut and dried - that the judge can just say that without making an order about it - maybe you were just being taken advantage of? Your judge is a lady right? Would she have said that had you had legal rep? I don't know but I doubt it, just doesn't seem right. I know Judges seem to be able to use more discretion for Small Claims hearings than in the Fast or Multi-Track. We'll see.
  20. SB, cases regularly get stayed in lower courts pending the outcome of a case in a higher court which has direct impact. Bank charges claims were a classic illustration of that. Also, as decisions come out in relevant cases, lawyers and sometimes judges even, seem to have no problem pulling in precedent and persuasive authority from newer relevant rulings (just look how they all jumped on the McGuffick, Carey etc bandwagons...). I'm sure you can do it as well, just don't know how. Suppose you can pretend to be hard of hearing as well (lenders and their reps often do) and just go ahead and file
  21. Hmnn, interesting post Nicklea. At first reading, the judges comments seem to suggest that a bad or 'defective' DN can be remedied by the service of a 'good' or non defective DN. After which presumably, lender can then bring enforcement action? I think there are not a few problems with that though. The main one being that of can the DN be remedied AFTER termination of the agreement? Or the reliance upon the bad DN by the debtor which causes them to change their behaviour in some way? How can a good DN ever be correctly served again after the original agreement, as initially specified
  22. Car, can you please comment then, on why Loan and Credit card companies can't use the same argument (not that I want them to, just want to pick your brains if that's ok ) for their own default fees? It appears they still currently issue refunds to claimants whilst banks don't. Thanks
  23. Thanks DX As long as one understands what they're doing and can explain it I suppose!
×
×
  • Create New...