..

they are definately regulated, but due to the OFT determination the strict rules regarding form and content arent. Anyone more knowledgable care to give their point of view?

anyone?

Well actually i disagree and so do many others on some of the posts here. Here's my statement of evidence.... Halifax have yet to provide a witness statement that was due on 5th June and havent disclosed any documents and these were also due 5th June... Does anyone know where i stand on this? I have wrote to the court to pre empt that any late evidence should be inadmissable. Claim Number:8QT93542 In the Birkenhead County Court Between: XXXXXXXXXXX (Claimant) and Bank of Scotland Plc T/A Halifax (Defendant) ________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE & SKELETON ARGUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE CLAIMANT ________________________________________________________ REASON FOR SUBMISSION OF THIS STATEMENT AND ITS INTENDED USE; 1. I, xxxxxx, the Claimant in this case, make this statement of evidence and outline my skeleton arguments from my own knowledge or experience, excepting for where reference is made to specific documentation contained within the exhibits attached where this statement is made in support of said documentation. 2. This statement is submitted by the Claimant (a litigant in person) and outlines its case in claim against the Defendant. 3. It is intended this statement will expedite the upcoming hearing and elucidate and clarify the issues that appear to the Claimant to be hampering the speedy and equitable resolution of this case. BACKGROUND TO THE CASE; 4. The Claimant admits that it has held an account with the defendant since 2004, with an account number of xxxxxxxxxxx. 5. The agreement is alleged by the Defendant, inter alia, to be enforceable against the Claimant. 6. The Defendant denies that the agreement can be argued to be a Consumer Credit Agreement, pursuant to s.8 and s.13 CCA 1974, or said to be regulated by that Act, for the reasons stated in this document. The Claimant will outline its contention that the agreement is unenforceable under the Act and, therefore, the Defendant cannot seek enforcement via the Court. The Claimant will then outline the reasons he believes that the Defendant has unlawfully Defaulted and Terminated the account. PART 1: CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1974 PRE-LITIGATION CORRESPONDANCE; 7. During March 2008, the defendant claimed that the claimant owed an amount equal to £1999.94 as he was overdrawn on his bank account. 8. The claimant wrote to the defendant on 22 Sep 2008 requiring a copy of all personal information the defendant stores on the claimant under the powers given to him by means of a data protection act subject access request. On the 9 Oct 2008 the claimant received a standard response that included account statements dating back to 2004 but no further documentation. 9. This response has not met the requirements of such a request. The Claimant avers that this failure on the part of the Defendant results in the Claimant being unable to submit complete particulars of claim to the Court and alters the balance of the parties in these proceedings in favour of the Defendant, in that the Claimant is not aware of the full Defence – and supporting documentation – that the Defendant intends to rely on at the forthcoming hearing. Without this information, the Claimant is unable to respond to the Defendants Defence in full. The Claimant would ask the Court to take this failure in to consideration when giving weight to the Defendants submitted Defence statement and supporting evidence, should such statement and evidence be submitted. 10. The Claimant wrote to the Defendant on 20 Sep 2008, making a request as per the obligations outlined under s.78 CCA 1974. This request was sent by Royal Mail First Class Post with Recorded Delivery - Royal Mail confirms receipt of this request on the 22 September 2008, which gave the Defendant twelve working days from receipt of the request, to provide said documentation, as stipulated in Regulation 2 of the Consumer Credit (Prescribed Periods for Giving Information) Regulations 1983. The deadline to comply with the request was, therefore, 8 October 2008. 11. The Claimant outlined his reasoning for the Overdraft agreement being regulated by the CCA 1974, in that the agreement is “running account credit” within the terms of s.10 CCA 1974. 12. In the defendants defence, it states that although the bank received the request on 22 September 2008 it appears the letter was ‘filed without action’. 13. The matters outlined in paragraph 12, appearing as statements from a Creditor, are binding on the Defendant under s.172 CCA 1974. 14. The Defendant, having failed to fully comply with the Defendants s.77/s.78 CCA 1974 request, (as outlined in paragraph 10, above, in that; no statement or statements of account having been supplied at that time and in that the full requirements of s.78(1)(a), s.78(1)(b) and s.78(1)© having not been met at that time also) are in default of that request. The Defendant, therefore, is unable to enforce the alleged agreement against the Claimant (s.78(6)(a) CCA 1974) and has since committed a criminal offence due to its continued default in providing said information. (s.78(6)(b) CCA 1974) The defendant has since issued a copy of the account terms and conditions for the time and believes this satisfies section 78. I draw the courts attention to section 78. This has not been satisfied rendering this alleged debt unenforceable. 15. The Claimant wrote to the Defendant, in a complaint letter (as detailed in the defendants defence), highlighting several issues outlining his reasoning for believing that the alleged agreement is unenforceable under the CCA 1974. The Claimant further requested that the credit bureau information recorded against him by the Defendant be removed as such Default, without a properly executed regulated agreement, would be unwarranted and unlawful, as only a correctly executed regulated agreement can be Defaulted and Terminated under s.87 and s.98 CCA 1974. The Claimant further relied on provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 within that letter to support his argument. 16. The claimant seeks further clarification on the evidence that the Defendant relies upon to say that the Claimant had consented to such processing of his data, as no such agreement had been properly executed that contains such express written consent. Indeed the account was downgraded by the defendant without consent or any agreement by the claimant. This in itself is a breach of contract and renders the agreement null and void. The claimant alleges this was for the banks benefit as the latter account charges higher interest rates. 17. The Defendant has further supplied a copy of the alleged terms and conditions of the Claimants Account as varied, in his amended particulars of claim dated 28 May 2009. 18. The Claimant avers that such terms and conditions have no bearing on the alleged Overdraft agreement between the parties, as these alleged terms and conditions are in relation to the Current Account, not the Overdraft agreement between the parties or lack thereof. 19. In the alternative, where it is held that these terms and conditions do relate to the overdraft agreement, which is denied, the Claimant puts the Defendant to strict proof of the Claimants agreement to such terms by submitting original signed and certified evidence of such agreement taking place. THE COURTS ORDER TO PRODUCE THE SIGNED AGREEMENT; 20. The Deputy District Judge Grant ordered on 08 May 2009 that the defendant disclose all relevant documents particularly the document referred to at clause 20 of the amended particulars of claim. The document referred to is a signed agreement for the account. 21. The Defendant has failed to comply to this specific order. Namely, the following documentation is missing; a. A true copy of the executed agreement. 22. The Claimant avers that this failure on the part of the Defendant results in the Claimant being unable to submit complete particulars of claim to the Court and alters the balance of the parties in these proceedings in favour of the Defendant, in that the Claimant is not aware of the full Defence – and supporting documentation – that the Defendant intends to rely on at the forthcoming hearing. Without this information, the Claimant is unable to respond to the Defendants Defence in full. The Claimant would ask the Court to take this failure in to consideration when giving weight to the Defendants submitted Defence statement and supporting evidence, should such statement and evidence be submitted. FAILURE TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF OVERDRAFT AGREEMENT; 23. The Defendant, in it’s responses to the Claimants requests for information, has failed to provide any evidence of the Claimants agreement surrounding the provision of the alleged Account Overdraft, as required by the CCA 1974. 24. The agreement was allegedly made before s.15 Consumer Credit Act 2006 came into force - therefore, by way of s.11 Consumer Credit Act 2006, those sections otherwise repealed by s.15 Consumer Credit Act 2006 remain in force. 25. To help clarify these matters, this is an extract from a Court case (Coutts & Co v Gabriel Oscar Alan Sebestyen [2005] EWCA Civ 473.) and is part of the summing up by the Judge in relation to the effect on overdrafts and the function of the CCA in such circumstances; “The Defendant provided an overdraft on the account; The agreement was a regulated debtor-creditor agreement within the meaning of s.8 and s.13© of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, providing for 'running-account credit' within the meaning of s.10(1)(a) of the Act (in effect, a revolving credit); and That, as such, it was subject to the requirements of Part V of the Act (including the requirements as to documentation set out in sections 57 to 63 of the Act) save and in so far as it was excluded or exempted from such requirements. 26. Section 65 in Part V of the Act provides that an "improperly executed" regulated agreement is unenforceable by the creditor without a court order. It is common ground that a regulated agreement is "improperly executed" for this purpose if the requirements of sections 57 to 63 have not been complied with. Section 74 of the Act provides for the exclusion of certain agreements from Part V. It provides as follows (so far as material): "74. – (1) This part …. does not apply to – (b) a debtor-creditor agreement enabling the debtor to overdraw on a current account, … (3) Subsection 1(b) … applies only where the OFT so determines, and such a determination – (a) may be made subject to such conditions as the OFT thinks fit … (3A) …. in relation to a debtor-creditor agreement under which the creditor is …. a bank …. the OFT shall make a determination that subsection 1(b) above applies unless it considers that it would be against the public interest to do so. THE DETERMINATION: The Determination (which is signed by the Director of Fair Trading) is made under section 74(3) of the Act. I set it out in full: "1. Under the powers conferred upon me by s.74(3) and (3A) and s.133 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, I, the Director General, being satisfied that it would not be against the public interest to do so, hereby revoke with effect from 1st February 1990 the Determination made by me in respect of Section 74(1)(b) and dated 3 November 1983 and now determine that with effect from 1st February 1990 Section 74(1)(b) shall apply to every debtor-creditor agreement enabling the debtor to overdraw on a current account, under which the creditor is a bank. 2. This Determination is made subject to the following conditions:- (a) that the creditor shall have informed my Office in writing of his general intention to enter into agreements to which the Determination will apply; (b) that where there is an agreement between a creditor and a debtor for the granting of credit in the form of an advance on a current account, the debtor shall be informed at the time or before the agreement is concluded: - of the credit limit, if any, - of the annual rate of interest and the charges applicable from the time the agreement is concluded and the conditions under which these may be amended, - of the procedure for terminating the agreement; and this information shall be confirmed in writing. © that where a debtor overdraws his current account with the tacit agreement of the creditor and that account remains overdrawn for more than 3 months, the creditor must inform the debtor in writing not later than 7 days after the end of that 3 month period of the annual rate of interest and charges applicable. In this Determination the terms 'creditor' and 'debtor' shall have the meanings assigned to them respectively by Section 189 of [the Act]. The term 'bank' includes the Bank of England and banks within the meaning of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act 1879 as amended." 27. The Claimant avers that the OFT Determination applies in the current proceedings and that the Defendant has failed to satisfy the conditions laid down to benefit from such Determination, the effect of which is that the Defendant must be able to show that the agreement complies with the form and content requirement of Part V of the CCA 1974, specifically s.60 and s.61 of the Act. 28. The Claimant avers, therefore, that the Defendant is in default of the Claimant’s request to provide those details required by the OFT Determination. Accordingly, the Defendant is “in default” under s.78(6) CCA 1974 and the Claimant respectfully submits that this prevents the Court enforcing this debt until the default is rectified as per s.78(6)(a) CCA 1974. The Defendant has also committed an offence under s.78(6)(a) CCA 1974. 29. The Claimant, therefore, puts the Defendant to strict proof of; a. The contractual agreement between the parties in relation to the Overdraft, which allows the defendant to force the claimant to request an overdraft facility and which terms and conditions were included as part of that agreement; or b. Where no such agreement can be provided, the agreement between the two parties as to the overdraft facilities provided to the Claimant at the time of application of said overdraft; or c. Where no such agreement can be provided, copies of original signed and certified documentation sent to the Claimant that complies with the OFT’s Determination, issued in relation to overdrafts on Current Accounts, as outlined in paragraph 24, above; or d. Where no such documentation exists, the Claimant puts the Defendant to strict proof of the existence of an agreement that is in all ways compliant with the form and content requirements of Part V of the CCA 1974, as amended. 30. The Claimant is prepared to swear on oath at trial that such an agreement was not issued at the time the agreement was made with the Defendant and, accordingly, puts the Defendant to strict proof of said issue and receipt of that Notice by the Claimant both when the account was opened and when the Defendant decided upon it’s own back to ‘downgrade’ the claimant’s account. 31. As no agreement has been provided that complies with the requirements of the CCA 1974, or any documentation that allows the Defendant to rely on the OFT’s Determination under s.74 CCA 1974, the Defendant cannot seek to rely on enforcement in the form of a Termination Notice, Default Notice, or other, as the requirements of the CCA 1974 has not been met. The Default of this account is therefore unlawful and inaccurate. Furthermore, exhibit 5 is strict proof that the defendant has unlawfully defaulted the account under section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. This embarrasses the claimant as the defendant clearly states in their amended defence, section 16, that ‘the claimants account is not regulated by the consumer credit act’. How can a default notice pursuant to the above act be issued on a agreement that is not regulated by the said act? The matters outlined in paragraph 31, appearing as statements from a Creditor, are binding on the Defendant under s.172 CCA 1974 32. The Claimant further also makes reference to a case heard in the House of Lords which outlines the Courts powers in such circumstances, Wilson v First County Trust Ltd [2003] UKHL 40, which is binding authority in this case. In particular, the Claimant makes specific reference to this judgment. EFFECT OF FAILURE TO INFORM CLAIMANT THAT ACCOUNT WOULD BE DOWNGRADED 33. Failure to inform a customer of changes in conditions, or in this case change of account altogether not only invalidates such account, (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain & Co NLD 14 July 1998) but is an unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the Court enforcing any alleged debt, (Wilson v First County Trust Ltd [2003] UKHL 40, Wilson v Robertsons (London) Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 1088, Wilson v Pawnbrokers [2005] EWCA Civ 147) but would also give the Claimant a claim for damages in the sum of £1,000. (Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119) 34. The claimant suggests that the reason the defendant did this was to charge the claimant higher rates of interest and was a profit making move. This interest ( £536.69 to date) is unenforceable by virtue of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, the Unfair Contracts (Terms) Act 1977 and the common law. Goods and Services Act 1982. 35. Further, under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999: "5. - (1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer. (2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term. (3) Notwithstanding that a specific term or certain aspects of it in a contract has been individually negotiated, these Regulations shall apply to the rest of a contract if an overall assessment of it indicates that it is a pre-formulated standard contract. (4) It shall be for any seller or supplier who claims that a term was individually negotiated to show that it was." Schedule 2 also includes such clauses, to define examples of unfair clauses, as: "(e) requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation;" "(i) irrevocably binding the consumer to terms with which he had no real opportunity of becoming acquainted before the conclusion of the contract;” “(j) enabling the seller or supplier to alter the terms of the contract unilaterally without a valid reason which is specified in the contract”; “(m) giving the seller or supplier the right to determine whether the goods or services supplied are in conformity with the contract, or giving him the exclusive right to interpret any term of the contract." 36. The account itself was unilateral in contract. The Claimant had no opportunity to negotiate the clause, or indeed any of the contracts provisions as when the account was downgraded the claimant wasn‘t informed of this. The claimant particularly draws the court to section 4,j underlined above. 37. Accordingly the Claimant puts the Defendant to strict proof that the claimant was party to this renewed agreement and agreed to any of its terms or conditions. 38. Having entered no lawful contract with the Claimant, (the alleged agreement having always been invalid from inception) the Defendant is now, and has always been, processing the Claimants personal data unlawfully, without having a legitimate interest in such processing, which is in contravention of the Data Protection Act 1998. 39. The Claimant considers that the amount of the agreement is unenforceable under consumer law and that, knowing this to be the case (that is that there was no basis in law to attempt to recover any money under the agreement), it is against both the spirit and letter of the law that a creditor should be able to continue to process data, and distribute that data, including allegations of bad faith, (that is, a Default, arrears, or other adverse information) regarding a credit agreement rendered unenforceable by law. (Wilson v First County Trust Ltd [2003] UKHL 40) 40. It is further averred that by updating the information with the Credit Reference Agencies, the Defendant is continuing to process this data knowing that it is incorrect and inaccurate. 41. The information at the Credit Reference Agencies expressly states that the Defendant is the Creditor, and is the data controller for the purposes of the Data Protection Act 1998. 42. It is respectfully submitted that a debt rendered unenforceable by the express will of Parliament should not be enforced by any means whatsoever, and that the protections under the CCA 1974 should protect the Claimant against unfounded allegations of Default or arrears made by the Defendant. The attention of the court is drawn to Wilson v Robertsons (London) Ltd [2005] EWHC 1425 (Ch) thus: “What the 1974 Act does is put in place a bright line over which the parties, and in particular the lender, must not step…” 43. The Claimant contends that the Wilson v First County Trust Ltd [2003] UKHL 40 ruling is intended to have the effect that Creditors, such as the Defendant in the present case, who does not have enforceable Consumer Credit Agreements are not to be allowed to intimidate, harass and effectively blackmail debtors into paying monies that they do not have to pay by, for example, threatening to blacklist the Credit Record (and therefore, reputation) of debtors. The financial penalty for a lender not complying with the legislation is that they lose the right to any monies not already paid, including both the principle debt outstanding and any interest due on it. The law lords further considered the issue of unjust enrichment but decided that it was appropriate for the creditor to be financially penalised in this way. 44. It is the contention of the Claimant that at all relevant times the credit agreement has been improperly executed, and that there is not, nor has ever been, any lawful obligation to repay monies to the Defendant, and that as a consequence any allegations that such an obligation exists are unfounded, inaccurate and unlawful under Data Protection Act 1998. IN THE ALTERNATIVE; 45. In the alternative to that already stated above, which is denied, where it is held that the Defendant is processing the Claimants data correctly and accurately within the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998, the Claimant will further plead as follows; a. At no time did the Claimant grant permission, either expressly or implied, for the Defendant to arbitrarily extend that permission to store, process or disclose any personal data beyond the cessation date of the contract; and b. It is the Claimants contention that the Defendants perceived right to arbitrarily choose to extend the length of that contract without the Claimants knowledge or agreement would be unlawful and unenforceable under the provisions of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999) the Unfair Contracts (Terms) Act 1977 and; c. The Defendant has failed to provide the Claimant with any evidence to prove agreement to such terms in perpetuity, and it is therefore the Claimants contention that the Defendant is in breach of both the contract itself (if any exists) and the Data Protection Act 1998 by the its continued disclosure of personal data to third parties after the termination of such agreement or consent – namely, the 3 major Credit Reference Agencies, amongst others; and d. The Claimant, therefore, puts the Defendant to strict proof of the contractual agreement between both parties in relation to the agreement, inter alia, allowing the Defendant to store, process or disclose any personal data of the Claimant beyond the contractual termination period and to which terms and conditions were included as part of that agreement, both originally and as modified during the life of the agreement, if applicable; and e. No admissions are made by the Claimant as to the incorporation of any term into the contract between the Claimant and the Defendant purporting to entitle the Defendant to store, process or disclose any such personal data. PART 4: THE CLAIMANTS REQUEST FOR A COURT ORDER 46. In view of the arguments in this document, the Claimant respectfully seeks that the Court; a. Determines the rights of the parties to the alleged Consumer Credit Agreement and seeks a declaration from the Court under s.142 CCA 1974 that the debt is unenforceable and that any application for an Enforcement Order under s.65 CCA 1974 will not be entertained, either now, or at any future time; b. Issues an Order, pursuant to the Courts powers contained within s.14(1) and s.14(3) Data Protection Act 1998, that the Defendant immediately blocks, erases or destroys those data and any other personal data in respect of which he is the data controller and which contains an expression of opinion which appears to the Court to be based on the inaccurate data and order the data controller to notify third parties to whom the data have been disclosed of the blocking, erasure or destruction. c. Costs at the discretion of the court I, XXXXXXXXXXXXX, the Claimant in this case, believe that the facts stated in this document are true. Signed: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX (Claimant) Dated this, the 4th day of June , in the year two thousand and Nine. Documents attached in support of this statement 1. Pre-litigation letter dated 19/07/2008 2. Original section 77-79 request for agreement 3. Copy’s of bank statements 4. Subject Access Request 5. Default notice Let me know what you think guys!

bump

can anyone help on this?

also... surely if this account has no agreed overdraft then any payment the bank agrees to make that puts it into a negative balance then forms a fixed amount therefore is subject to the CCA including section V?

yes they are chasing me. They have recorded derogatory information on my credit bureau and defaulted the account. I have read teh terms and conditions and it doesnt say they can downgrade the account at anytime neither have they stated this in their defence. The bank say that I must claim the money back from the fraudster that put the money into my account, not easy when they are untracable! Also the DJ at the allocation hearing ordered the defendants to issue me with a copy of the agreement, all they sent was a list of the terms and conditions that applied at the time my account was opened in 2004. "Overdrafts are normally not subject to part v elements of the Act governing form and content of an agreement. This is because the OFT has issued a Determination under Section 74(3) of the Act excluding overdraft agreements from the need to comply. As a result of this there is usually no written agreement that a consumer can request under Section 78 of the Act. However, I should note that any Bank wishing to avail itself of the benefit of the Determination must notify the OFT of its intention to do so and is required to provide information to the prospective debtor. Specifically, the creditor must provide, in writing, at the time the agreement is concluded or before details of the credit limit if any, the annual rate of interest and any charges available, and the process for terminating the agreement" So would the bank need to prove it has complied with the determination? As im pretty sure it hasnt. Any other routes would be really helpful. Thanks.

Andy - it was a buyer who gave me too much money for an item they bought from me, look it up, its fairly common. No they havent reimbursed me or i wouldnt be going to court would I? I am sure I just wanted to get views from people with experience of this type of thing... Regardless of teh circumstances I bring u back to my first post... My argument is: 1. They downgraded my account without telling me and without getting a signature. They have therefore broken Data Protection Act as have no signtaure allowing them to release my information to credit reference agencies etc... This also means I have not agreed to any of the terms and consitions of the account. 2. I have requested a copy of teh original agreement and they have been unable to provide proof of this. So im assuming that although it isnt subject to cca they still need some kind of signed agreement for a court to make me pay any money back?? Am i right in what i say and is there any other arguments I could try? - these are regadless of circumstances, can you or anyone else answer this simple question? Thanks.

have i spoke to my bank? im taking them to court as they arent exactly understanding lol My account didnt have an overdraft at the time... A transfer was made into my account, i withdrew some of this and forward it on, minus the money for my laptop. The transfer was then found out to be fraud so they reversed the transaction leaving me overdrawn by 2k even though i didnt have an overdraft facility. Is that what u mean?

I was the victim of an ebay [problem] where someone bought something and i had to forward on further funds. And then the money transferred was found to be fraudulent so they downgraded my account and left me overdrawn by just shy of £2k the balance is now over £2500, the £500 is purely interest. There havnt been any charges at all. Any help will be greatly appreciated

Really hope somone can help... I am currently taking halifax to court over an overdraft. When i originally opened the account it was a standard current account. They then downgraded it to a cashcard account without my knowledge and without informing me at all. Cashcard accounts dont have overdraft facilities. However, i now have an unauthorised overdraft on this account of £2500!! They are saying it is not subject to cca regulations which i gather it partially is altho doesnt have to comply with the strict guidlines of signatures etc... My argument is: 1. They downgraded my account without telling me and without getting a signature. They have therefore broken DPA as have no signtaure allowing them to release my information to credit reference agencies etc... This also means I have not agreed to any of the terms and consitions of the account. 2. I have requested a copy of teh original agreement and they have been unable to provide proof of this. So im assuming that although it isnt subject to cca they still need some kind of signed agreement for a court to make me pay any money back?? Am i right in what i say and is there any other arguments I could try? My hearing is due very soon and any further help would be much appreciated. They have been unwilling to budge on this one and are still saying i must pay the original overdraft plus over £500 in interest they have charged me. Thanks, maddog79er

well i filed it on monday morning, called today to check if its been rcvd and they said they have a weeks backlog to get through! How convenient for HBOS!! Well I have the preliminary hearing tomoz so i'll update ya when its finished... im hoping they will try and settle... i can hope i guess

I guess i'll just go and file it tommorrow anyway, there isnt any fees so I guess I have nothing to loose.

I tried but the nice lady said she's not a legal expert neither am I lol

yes, a preliminary hearing date was made but then i filed for an amendment to the Particulars of claim and to change the name of the defent from halifax plc to hbos plc. I then received a letter form the court stating - It is ordered that:- the claimant do have leave to amend the defendants name etc... under cpr 23.9. I wish to confirm that the claim in this case has been re-issued and will be posted to teh defendants tomorrow the date of service eill therefore be the 7th november. Thanks,

re-issued sorry not reserved lol

yes. It was allocated to teh small claims track. However, i amended the particulars of claim and changed the name of the defendant so the claim was re-issued. Date it was served was 7th Nov. so 14 days would end tomorrow. They already filed a defence but if the claim is reserved do they need to do it again or can i go to the court tomorrow and file a judegment by default? I called teh court and they said they havent received a further defence or acknowledgment of service for an extension. Help is really appreciated. Thanks.

ok.... really thanks for the help????????????????????????

???

anyone?

I have now recived a letter through the post informing me of a preliminary hearing date. Is this good or bad news? any help much appreciated.

i have filled in that form now and handed it back into the court requesting the name of the defendant be changed due to an administration error. They say there shouldnt be a need for a hearing to get it changed. So can anyone give me any legal points on this? am I right to fight this? and can I win?Im getting really nervous now. They still havent sent me a copy of my agreement and they are now in breach of the consumer credit act.

hi Martin, Thanks for your advice. I guess I felt as though I had read enough and felt encouraged enough to go ahead, obviously a mistake! I'll get one of these forms sorted asap. what happens then? Thanks again.

thanks leon