Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

1 Follower

About enslaved

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Full Balance. 'It does not matter, the claimant never terminated until 3 monthes later, you did not pay anything in that time, where as you had plenty of time to pay you did not. Therefore S87 is not relevant'. Argued until Judge got angry. Truth is this was always going to be the outcome, Judge kept saying 'this can't be right!'. Nice young man from top firm of barristers was silent. " I hope you have some point of law that will counter this, Mr ******** so we can put this to bed" Enter , argued that the Judge was wrong to ignore statute law and Swaine was a higher court.
  2. But in swain photocopier was taken away so agreement was enforced. Argued that taking away time to pay by demanding full balance was enforcement. Argued for 3 hours Mcguffick was covered extensively in my skeleton. 2 further DN's sent in past two weeks neither valid. Judge just brushed away these and said 'so, they can issue another one tomorrow it's not relevant'. the case is 8 july I still have not got a valid DN! There going to get judgement without ever serving a valid DN:confused: as they don't have time to serve another. judge used Para 33 & 34 verbatim. So
  3. Hi PT Hope your well How long is not long and can I do anything about it.
  4. No The Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notice Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) were scrutinised, thats how he agreed prescribed terms are missing.
  5. should add it was an appeal heard at thesitting as a judge of the high court, (£$%*). To avoid confusion this judge was at the AMEX v Brandon not my case.
  6. Section 87 is not relevant! Handed a copy of the above case at court today. Judge agreed that DN was received 4 days after date to comply. Prescribed terms were missing. That it did not comply with S87, but S87 was not relevant. Maybe one of the lawyers/solicitors on this site can post up the case. Swayne & co overturned. Need to get drunk
  7. This has been going through the courts since the middle of 2008.
  8. Sorry forgot to thank you lexis, thank you.
  9. Thanks, yet again DD The slimebags after being pointed out the relevant statues and case law have now sent another DN. Guess what, 4 days short. They realised their mistake and so the claimants Solictor sent another........;-) This is getting beyond a joke Application on the way, me thinks Many Thanks......again
  10. Hi All What do you think of this reply regarding a dodgy DN? I quote; The purpose of s.87 Notice is to remind the debtor or hirer that s/he is in breach and to give him/her the opportunity to remedy it (if capable of remedy). A conclusion that service of the Notice is a procedural requirement which exists independently of the cause of action arising does not undermine that purpose, particularly since the commencement of proceedings is a step taken with a view to enforcement, rather than constituting enforcement itself (see also McGuffick v RBS [2009] EWHC 235 (Comm) for an analogous dec
  11. I have in my POC and witness statement used S9(4) charges for credit, S60, S61, S65, S127(3),(memory) and more, it's on the other computer. I can post it up tomorrow. I do not know if I have the ability to argue the above, where as I feel confident about the DN.
  12. I suggest the insurance really cost 612.13. the PPI 3,950 - the commissions. The other commissions would be recouped from the interest off this one part of the agreement. Cpr 31.14/.15 request for disclosure of the Insurance documents and request to see the originals, plus disclosure of the documentation of the further £700 commission. I was told they did not exist. All I had was one 'insurance summary' and one 'insurance policy summary', which was not a policy, ie; no name, no policy number, just meaningless paper you could download from the lenders website. Went to co
  13. Hi The loan agreement was properly executed. The commissions appear nowhere in the loan. The PPI was 3,950 Supplier recieved commission of 2,237.87 Broker, (I did not know I had one) recieved 1,100 for PPI A further commission of 1,050 paid to broker for loan (20,000) A later disclosed commission of 700 as an overrider. I have tried to find legal rep for over a year, I do qualify for legal Aid, (but cannot find a sol for civil legal aid). Not one of my enquiries has even led to discussion of this case. I do not think the Claimants sol would consent to any defence
  14. Hi PT The claimants have been made aware of this, it is not in my pleadings as witness statements have already been exchanged. I would need to enter this via N244? It is more like a skeleton, I was not sure of the best approach via the N244
  • Create New...