Thanks Ben. So the rules just don't apply at SPO stage, as it is at the original repossession hearing that any objections would need to be aired? yeats

Hello all, this thread is good news. However, does the protocol apply to cases where there has been a Suspended Possession Order granted? Or can they go still go straight for the jugular if they have one? yeats

I'm bumping this for you - good advice needed.

Thanks Trojan. We are not trying to get money back for the cover, they are asking us to pay for the whole year as we neglected to inform them that we no longer required their cover. We just need to know where we stand legally and the strength of our position if they decide to take it to court. We need to know if they can renew for the whole year without a signed agreement and if they can hit us for the 12 months payment, or until they cancelled the agreement. Thanks Trojan, maybe you can help with this as you seem to know your stuff.

That's exactly it Craig. We don't mind paying for the two months before we cancelled, but don't really want to (or can afford to) pay for the whole year twice. We just need to know where the law stands with this so we can point to this when we offer to pay for the time before cancellation. Thanks

Thanks Craig. No, there has not been any claims in the two years we had the policy. Does this mean they can legally renew a policy on a verbal instruction without then seeking a signature? And then ask for the whole amount without a clause in the contract?

Evening all. I have some involvement with a local football club and we are having some threatening letters from an Insurance Company that provided us with Public Liability Insurance last season. We verbally agreed to a renewal policy for this season, but were automatically covered by our County Board and so never made any payments for the current season. They are now demanding the whole payment in full (from March 2010 - March 2011) and we only want to make a payment for the two months that we neglected to pay for and did not inform them of the cancellation (change of secretary led to some confusion). They are stating that a signature is not required for Insurance renewals and also that once the renewal is in place, early cancellation is met with a demand for the full amount. Where do we stand? I thought that a verbal agreement was only temporary and had to backed up with a signed copy asap. I can not see any clause in their policy for early cancellation either. Thanks in advance.

Good Luck Shakey.

Thanks Diddydick, very useful. The DN is invalid. It's one of those "14 days from the date of this letter" jobs. This is the permission to appeal hearing - is there another chance after this then? At the CCJ hearing, they argued (successfully to the point that the DJ told me I would be wasting the court's time if I even put forward my DN argument) that this is not a default case! It's an Amex running credit agreement, so definitely is.

I take your point about the re-run diddydick. What would be the point ordering a re-trial when the outcome would be the same? But I think what should be done if I present a poor case is that the costs for the last hearing and the appeal should be wiped, as they should not have been allowed to be added to the CCJ total and are one of the reasons why I decided to appeal. This would constitute a part success for me, as these costs were added in the 24 hours before the hearing. Do you think that could be argued if all else fails?

I suppose the question must be what will the DJ do about it? Can he ignore the two CPR indiscretions and back the CCJ if my other argument fails? If so, what is the point of the CPR if they may be broken, seemingly at will? yeats

Thanks for all your input. Sounds like it is a side issue then, more than a reason for the CCJ to be set aside. I was hoping it would be more than that. I can kind of see the point about the trial bundle, as I can argue against it at the appeal anyway, but thought that the costs awarded (with CPR being very clear on this) should invalidate the CCJ, as the amount on the CCJ must subsequently be wrong. yeats

Thanks Pat.

Bumping!

Thanks. It's not so much that anything is missing, more that the CPR have been totally ignored by firstly the other side and secondly the DJ when allowing the trial bundle and costs sheet. I realise that I didn't object, but surely the appeal must succeed due to the ignorance/non-compliance by the other side OR the DJ? After all, I am a LIP and the CPR should protect the likes of me from this sort of hijacking. What is the best way to argue this in court? yeats

Evening to you all. I would like to hear your opinion of the importance/irrelevence of broken Civil Procedure Rules and their subsequent importance at a permission to appeal/appeal hearing. I recently had a CCJ hearing go against me and appealed the decision, culminating in a permission to appeal/appeal hearing next week. Part of my appeal is down to the fact that the other side did not follow CPR relating to costs and the trial bundle. They did not get either in to the court in time (filed on the morning of the hearing) and I subsequently lost, with the full costs awarded against me. I knew that costs must be submitted at least 24 hours before and the trial bundle at least three days, but due to the ignorance of the DJ over the DN and, well just about everything, did not challenge at the time due to shellshock. How relevent do you think this will be at the permission to appeal hearing? I should have thought they would be extremely important as they are Civil Procedure RULES, but thought I would post up and see if anyone has experienced different. Thanks in advance, yeats

Thanks vjohn, I'll try and post up the docs. tomorrow. No witness statement yet, it's awaiting case management conference.

Hi all. I have to file my defence regarding a CCJ claim on an account sold by BCard to CL finance and need a little help with a couple of things. The first is that the account has been bought(reference: Account sale Agreement) and the claim filed in the wrong name! It's only one letter out (they have omitted the letter at the end of my name, turning it into the French equivalent), but I don't think they can do this? Has anyone any experience/case law/CPR for this? The second is that their dates seem to be all over the place. The Notice of Assignment is dated Feb 09, but the Account Sale Agreement is dated March 08! I also have letters demanding payment from BCard dated July 08! So I think that the dates on the Account Sale Agreement are wrong? Can anyone advise over this please? I have the usual "agreement", DN and non-compliance with the CPR issues, as well as an unfulfilled Court Order, but need help with the above. Thanks, yeats

If they have managed to find the original, then surely they would be in hot water for putting forward the false agreement as the "original". The DJ would be able to tell the difference between a years old document, having already seen one of these comics. It will be the same DJ won't it?

I've seen one of these and would be amazed if that is what they have handed over. I must admit to being extremely surprised that it hasn't been "lost in transit", as they know how competent Shakey is and that he is deadly serious. What are they playing at?

MDR have taken to sending their documents by Courier on the final date to bump up costs, so it may turn up tomorrow. Can't wait to see what happens.

Agree with DD. There is no reason why the people who decided to defraud the courts and bankrupt people with huge costs should not be hauled in front of a Judge. Serious crimes.

This seems to be splitting caggers, as it would be difficult to prove that they knew it was a forgery. Personally I can see both sides, but think it would be difficult to prove they knew they were dealing with reconstructions. We all know that they know, but proving it would be a different matter, especially if it takes an expert witness to prove so. But what about the lies these "top" and very expensive Solicitors are happy spinning regarding the DN? They obviously KNOW that the DN's are invalidating the claim, but argue (and often succeed in persuading the DJ) that they are not needed in running credit agreements and that the "14 days from date of this letter" is notice enough, KNOWING full-well that this is BS. Surely they should be brought to book over their deception?

Great work Shakey. They deserve everything they get and you are the one to give it to them.

All the best for tomorrow Shakey. Look forward to reading this thread again tomorrow. yeats