Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


21 Excellent

1 Follower

  1. The bit you are recalling with regards to the time available to Mr Brandon before Amex took any action was 21 days, as the HHJ Denyer says in para 34. There isn't anything that I can see regarding the actual threatened action to follow the notice. Para 36 "So there is a termination on 11 July and further, providing that if nothing happens in 28 days, details of Mr Brandon would be supplied to the credit reference agencies" and Para 37. On any view that letter seems to me to be an effective means of bringing the agreement to an end.
  2. DD - the Brandon ruling -which I'm reading at the moment - has the following included (paras 30 - 36) - Default notice dated 19th June/2007, allowing 14 calendar days from the date of the notice, therefore not including time for service - 11th July 2007 Amex sent a notice of cancellation "This letter serves as notice of cancellation of your account and credit card account agreement with immediate effect. All monies outstanding on the account are now payable in full". So it wasn't several months later.
  3. Agreed - if you make the point that an application to the court will be made if that CPR 31.14 is not complied with then you MUST follow through with that intention and make that application. If you do not do so and the deadline for the defence approaches then a two paragraph embarassed defence will have to be made, otherwise the claimant wins by default. That isn't a good position to en up in. If the claimant complies with the CPR 31.14 request the day before that deadline then that is actually worse than them not replying at all, since the defendant will have very limited time to put together the defence. The abuse of process in such cases is obvious.
  4. That is the way I read it as well. In my case the solicitors failed to comply with the CPR 31.14 request of the unallocated claim, stating that they didn't have a copy of the documents referred to in the PoC (which begs the question of how on earth can a claim be even issued on such a basis?). The creditor only partly complied with the s78 CCA request, providing a signed application form, lacking the prescribed terms and bearing a different date than the date stated in the PC, with separate T&Cs, just a couple of days before the deadline for me to submit my defence. I submitted an embarrassed defence, stating that the failure to comply with CPR 31.14 was such that I had not had sight of the documents on which the claim was made and seeking leave to file an amended defence should those documents be provided, whilst acknowledging the documents received in response to the s78 CCA request. Several weeks after that defence went in, and after another reminder letter from me about that non-compliance, the solicitors produced another copy of the same documents produced for the s78 CCA request. To the layman it appears wholly unreasonable to embark upon a claim without already having the appropriate documents in place, but after a year of dealing with this, it seems that isn't unusual in the slightest. Given the Carey case, which, on the face of it gives a huge amount of leeway in what is permitted to be produced for an s78 CCA request in terms of the information purpose, it becomes even more important to utilise CPR 31.14 before the AQ stage.
  5. Good point and nicely put - is there a succinct and "well known in the trade" expression of that concept anywhere accessible to a lay person?
  6. Thanks DD - that's definitely something worth pointing out. I'm quite happy to wait and see if the feller turns up on the day.
  7. Here's a question though - there's a witness statement from a geezer at HFC regarding how a CC is issued and how the agreements are executed. Is he going to be at the hearing, so that I can ask him questions?
  8. Cheers - I'll be sure to do all that, and to update the thread too.
  9. There is no reference to "T& C's overleaf". . That's what they claim but it could be anyone's T&C, from anytime. If they bring the original to court, as they have been instructed to, we'll see if that is the case. Both the application form and the T&Cs are fully legible single sheets. There's no sign of the printing of either one on the other and no reference t the latter on the former. When I posted them on here the consensus was that they were nowhere near compliant with the CCA Well I've done the best that I can, and addressed the points contained in the PoC based on lots of reading. It's going to be a case of pulling apart the arguments on the day now, since it's all been submitted. Of course they had the advantage of seeing my skeleton before they put theirs together, because they didn't comply with the DJs order for the date by which the skeletons were to be filed - she was pretty adamant about that at the SJ hearing. . The "guests" - if they are reading - have already got them. . However it'd take a while to anonymise the submissions and get them up there. It is a running account - credit card. They are claiming the entire balance as due - I agree that they are not entitled to "sums not yet due" and have argued that. I don't get the dancing llamas
  10. Not yet mate - just entering the final lap and enjoying reading Patricia Pearl's book, which is a great way to help CAG as well. I've been a bit remiss in updating this thread, because there was a big gap with nothing happening before Christmas - it's full steam ahead at the moment though, so I'll have to do something about that soon.
  11. Thanks GH I did read through the entire thread only yesterday evening and refreshed my memory on all the advice. The defence/ws/skeleton does centre around those elements, up front and the DJ has stated that original documents shall be brought to the hearing. There are several other strands as well. The claimant states that the application form, which is signed, by both parties, had the separate T&C on the back and that what has been produced is a copy of the microfiche record but that they don't have the original, and claims there is no requirement in law for them to retain that original.
  12. In the meantime, here's a link to that OFT thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?280644-The-End-Of-Defences-Claiming-As-We-ve-Known-Them-OFT-Guidelines-Oct.2010
  13. Hi Mate I should be able to get PMs, I haven;t changed any settings or anything. I'm about to go out shortly, but I'll be back later. ceers Notjoe
  14. Congrats on a fantastic result - justice has been done!
  • Create New...