Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


dad last won the day on March 9 2010

dad had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

428 Excellent

About dad

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Noddy, Your case was Small claims Track? If so I would just like to point out CPR 27: So if you appeal you will not have costs awarded against you, unless you behave unreasonably. Separately, You posted a case report of a permission hearing for the Court of Appeal. If there is to be a new Court of Appeal decision wouldn't it be worth applying for permission to appeal and ask for a stay until the CoA gives its decision. If you qualify for a fee exemption that choice wouldn't cost you anything and you can always reconsider when the law is clearer. Even if you went o
  2. Costa, It is quite common to be refused permission to appeal on paper and then be granted permission at the oral hearing (and even then succeed on appeal). At the oral hearing you need to contrast the difference between sections 176 and 176a. Under the judges version of the act you now have the absurd situation that if the default notice is served by email it is actually received almost instantaneously, but is expressly deemed by section 176a to be delivered the next day. However if the default notice is send by second class post it will not actually be received for up to four
  3. Daniel182, You need to find the credit agreement. The old Open+Direct (Which is the previous name for creation) only allowed the company to charge 'the reasonable cost' of letters. So your steps are to find a copy of the agreement. Check what the terms allow If it is 'reasonable cost' then write to Creation asking them to breakdown the cost in light of the OFT's report that any charge over £12 is unreasonable. HTH Dad
  4. Richard, I am sure you are in good hands, but can I draw your attention to CCA74 section 57 which seems to cover your situation and was not mentioned in the latest judgment. By my reading when you went back to the store the agreement had not been executed by the creditor and still at that time remained a prospective agreement. HTH Dad
  5. Hi Wycombe, As far as I am aware there is not a non copyright version of the judgment available on the internet. However the full title is: Orakpo (Respondent) v Manson Investments Ltd. [1978] A.C. 95
  6. UKSI 1983-1561 Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 Regulation 2(9): HTH Dad
  7. @PT2537: Paul, Isn't there a difference between 'accepting the credit token' and 'executing the agreement'? It seems to me that credit tokens require a two stage process (1) execution of a credit agreement; after which (2) acceptance of the credit token as per s66, only then is the debtor bound. Dad
  8. I thought that Rhodium's answer is very helpful and comprehensive and I only wish to add that it would be clearer if the extract included section numbers and or page numbers (for the dictionary). Dad
  9. PT, In this case I think it is important that you do not look at each account in isolation. You need to look at all the accounts the customer holds with a lender. Most lenders operate systems similar to TRIAD (google fair isaacs triad for more information), which some UK banks use, part of the purpose of these systems is to maximise the profits from each customer. Consider this scenario. Customer has an account with a £1000 overdraft charging 5% interest and presents a cheque for £100 which takes him £30 over his limit and is bounced. These systems can be programmmed to offer credit
  10. VJ, Aside from any Companies Act issues, the documents you have shown do not form a complete transaction. CP2 is the earlier document dated 2 January 2006. It assigns all existing debts from HFO Capital to HFO Services. HFO Capital then in paragraph 1.2 undertake to make further assignments of future debt purchases. CP1 made on 20th January 2006 records a future purchase of debts from Barclaycard by HFO Capital. To complete the transaction there needs to be a further assignment after 20th January 2006 from HFO Capital to HFO Services. Now I would not say that they have d
  11. Although not a binding judgment, it can be used as persuasive argument - remember how the banks used the berwick v lloyds judgment. You would need to know the details of the case ie names of parties and case number and have an approved copy of the judgment. Dad
  12. Hello Rhodium, I suspect that your question is posed in response to a post I made on Shakespeare62's thread. You should be aware that there are two types of privilege: 1. Legal Advice Privilege; and 2. Litigation Privilege. The difference between them is: Legal advice privilege covers communication between lawyers and their clients whereby legal advice is sought or given. As this site's rules make clear nobody on this site is giving anything other than general comment and sharing experiences. Therefore legal advice privilege could never apply. On the other ha
  13. I have been looking at this for a while for BRW, however the problem is that there are not 44 bars, but 64 bars - so I fear that Royal Mail were being less than candid in this response. Dad
  14. This CoA judgment on LiP costs is also useful to bring along. In short judge at trial awarded £120 LiP costs, the CoA raised this to just over £10,000. Wulfsohn, R (on the application of) v Legal Service Commission [2002] EWCA Civ 250 (8 February 2002) HTH Dad
  15. To Mischon de Reya and Mr X of Counsel: This thread exists exclusively to assist Shakespear62 in preparing his litigation against American Express. As such it is almost certainly protected by litigation privilege. The legal requirements for claiming litigation privilege are well established and are not in dispute. Communications between a solicitor or the client and a third party will be protected by litigation privilege where the communications are for the dominant purpose of obtaining legal advice in connection with, or conducting, litigation reasonably in prospect: Re Highgate Tra
  • Create New...