Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder

kaz3571

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    101
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About kaz3571

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. This goes back to 2005 and was not an online tick box so should be fine.
  2. Hi, Had the self same letter from lowells yesterday for jd Williams debt. Last payment 5.5 years ago. I did s71 for agreement around 3 years ago as I knew an agreement was never signed. Today the court papers came through. What I received 3 years ago for the agreement was a blank agreement with my details filled in biro by jd Williams and a letter telling me to sign and return. I laughed, then sent all the template letters to them to stop processing my data stop harassing me etc etc. Then I received a nice letter telling me what I owed and how many payments it would take to pay, then at the bottom " The absence of an executed agreement will affect our ability to pursue this matter through the courts, but not our right to seek payment through our normal collections methods, short of court proceedings". Perhaps they should have sent this to carters/lowells before he issued proceddings.
  3. well thanks for all the replies my heart says i should appeal but my head says swallow hard and pay (its not a huge amount anyway) my worry is the many people i have read on here and probs other sites where it is being quoted that an original is required in court when this is not the case as the old addage goes ITS A LOTTERY.
  4. This was for a loan account not a credit card so terms wernt varied at any point. Also i argued practice direction 16 that where based on written agreement the original must be produced. the judge dismissed this from his stupid law book saying another statuate surpassed this and if theyd made a mistake it didnt matter. please dont ask exactly what he quoted because to be honest i was out of my depth by that point.
  5. I pushed the point very hard and even read out the paragraph that wakesman was dealing with sec 87 req and explained what i thought was a sec 87 req (pay 1 quid for a copy of agreement) then stated that cabot were not sueing on sec 87. but the judge said words to the effect that if wakesman decided that a reconstituted doc was ok to satisfy sec 87 then it also ment it was ok for the court becase it was basicly the same. i pushed very hard and someone more experienced and better clued up on all the laws may well have got further but i think he had already decided. as for what cabot had it was just a microfiche copy (posted somewhere at the beginning of this thread) with everything but the amount payments interest etc unreadable. they also admitted to the judge that their understanding was that the oc's practise was to microfiche the agreement and destroy the original at an early stage so the original was not available (in his words common practise). As for signing well that is on the copy and i never accepted nor denyed signing but stated that this was not the arguement whether i signed but it was for cabot (who were not the oc) to proove they have the right to collect as lets face it anybody with a computer could make an agreement like they supplied. kaz
  6. hi tastethediff no i did not recieve the noa they said they had sent. this was in my defence that no noa was recieved apart from a redacted one in the claim. the defence aske for proof of service as required by law of properties. this never got me anywhere as the judge said at the last hearing as long as cabot prooved that it was not a modifying agreement then i had no defence. today i went with the where is the original agreement line of attack as i felt sure this would be the best line of attack the judges opinion seemed to be that i was trying to split hairs so dont think pushing the nao fact would have bore any more fruit.
  7. baby bear so am i i feel that i presented a good case today and argued with the judge that his interpretation was wrong to no avail. most on here are in the same boat trying to learn all about the law in a very short time. most are not legally savvy but feel they have enough understanding to present a good case. Unfortuneatly when stating my arguements the judge was flicking through law books and the wakesman ruling and countering what i said with stuff i hadnt researched and knew nothing about. I know he was wrong but he wouldnt have it.
  8. well my defence was a real mish mash but i like most have no real understanding of the laws and processes. however i believe i offered a very good case today on the wakesman ruling and the fact that the original should be available in court inn order to recieve judgment. it is my belief that this judge had already decided that his interprtation of the ruling was correct and it didnt matter what i said to change his mind. morons soliciter nevre said a word cause he could see the way it was going.
  9. yes i did i pointed out it was dealing with sec 78 requests the fact it was a debtor bringing the action against creditor the fact wakesman said copy and terms must be legible (which we all agreed mine wernt apart from the main bits and sig) and the fact that the creditor would need to hunt for the original to prove in court this was offere to me in my thread. however the judge was having none of it he had all ready made his mind up that his interpretation of the ruling was the correct one and gave the judgement kaz
  10. hi to the guests they donyt bother me really if any are from cabot/morgans then as this judge once said th them hi gungading while he was squirming that was well worth the journey.
  11. thanks andy thats what i wanted to hear. as for the result some you win some you loose but this obviously has implications for many people on here pinning their hopes on the original agreement not being available. It is said that the wakesman ruling changes nothing on the huge threads on the subject but i now beg to differ (maybe depending on which judge you get). the fact is this judge has awarded a ccj on a unlegible microfiche copy of agreement and even less legible t & c's even after morgans mongrel admitted the practice of the banks was to micro the agreement and destroy the original.
  12. thanks andy will the court then determine a payment plan. obviously i wish to protect my house from these vultures as with the judge lottery they can get away with anything
  13. i need some help now with how to proceed with paying. judge said i have 28 days and have to make arrangements with cabot to pay. he said they send form and tell me what to pay but i thought court would means test me as a single parent ????
  14. hi please see my thread here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...-V-Cabot/page3 i have lost this case today cabot admitted the original was destroyed all they had was an mosly unreadable copy the jadge said due to wakesmans ruling it was all they needed. i argued that wakesman only dealt with a sec 78 req for copy of agreement but he was having none of it. he said if wakesman ruled that a copy was all that was needed for sec 78 req thren that was all that was needed in court. Good luck to all the people on here that are pinning their hopes on the original agreement not being held as i believe many of them will now lose. kaz
  15. hi please see my thread here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?228617-kaz3571-V-Cabot/page3 i have lost this case today cabot admitted the original was destroyed all they had was an mosly unreadable copy the jadge said due to wakesmans ruling it was all they needed. i argued that wakesman only dealt with a sec 78 req for copy of agreement but he was having none of it. he said if wakesman ruled that a copy was all that was needed for sec 78 req thren that was all that was needed in court. Good luck to all the people on here that are pinning their hopes on the original agreement not being held as i believe many of them will now lose. kaz
×
×
  • Create New...