This is the statutes and cases i was thinking of using please correct me and add to them . 1.The Consumer Credit Act 1974 2.SI 1983/1569:Consumer Credit (Prescribed Periods For Giving Information )Regulations 1983 3.SI 2004/3237 Consumer Credit (Enforcement Default And Termination Notices)(Amendment) Regulations 2004 4.Wilson &ANR v Hurstanger Ltd -[2007] EWCA Civ 299 5.Wilson &ANR V Secretary of State for Trade and Industry- [2003] UKHL 40 6. Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain & Co. [1998] All ER (D)339 7.Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society-[1996] 4 All ER 119 8.Francis Bennion Quotation

Thanks for advice SFU but it is not well done me it is well done to you guys on CAG oops and gals .I haven't heard a thing from sols so i will have to carry on as though i will be going to debate on the 17th.

Thanks for the advice SFU if they do accept the grand then i will make sure i get them to agree to it.But whatever they come back with i will certainly run it by you.

Thanks for all the advice very much appreciated.Sorry i haven,t been on for a while , just a quick update received a letter from their sols asking to do a deal to save further costs blah blah so i phoned and told them no deal on the loan and i offered a grand for the lot so they said they will get back to me this week.

how did you get on at debate George?

Hi SFU thanks for replying regarding, default charges i have the loan accounts ie all the payments but there are no charges in there so either they dont charge for a default or they haven,t defaulted me and since they haven,t produced a DN then that seems more likely.I have been looking for threads regarding creditors going to court without issuing a DN but can,t find any they all seem to be about invalid DN.Do you no of any? and also what are their prospects if they don,t have one?Regarding the debate am i correct in assuming the record is closed and all that will be debated is the written pleas?

Could you expand on this Paul

Had my options hearing on friday they asked for a continuation so they could respond to my rule 22.1:confused: i asked for dismissal due to lack of DN judge gently reminded me that was something to argue at debate.He then asked if that is what i wanted to do i agreed so we go to debate on May 17.He never told me what if anything he requires regarding case law statutes etc.Does anyone know if RBS charge for a default notice regarding a loan?, i know they charge 30 quid for a default on an overdraft.

Hi George i see your options hearing was on the 22nd so the "record" would be closed so how did the pursuers get these docs into probate:confused:

This is the "true" copy they supplied

This was the initial writ

I will write out my arguments this week but as usual all help will be appreciated from you guys

Handed my rule22.1 note in on monday clerk nearly gave me a heart attack said it was late and i would have to ask the judge for permission to lodge it:confused: explained it wasn,t an adjustment but a rule 22.1 he then said it was fine

do i need this for the options hearing?

this is my adjusted defence meant to put it up earlier

in the causa 10The Royal Bank of Scotland plc,36 St Andrew Square,Edinburgh EH2 2YB Pursuers against First Named Defender and Second Named Defender 　 　 　 1. Admitted. 2.The pursuer states that "the defenders jointly and severally obtained loan facilities from the pursuers on a personal loan branch account numbered xxxxxx This is admitted The pursuer states that "as at 10th november 2008 has drawn on the said account to the extent £xxxxxxx which is the sum sued for in crave one.The said sum is repayable on demand" This is denied. It is explained that this agreement is regulated by the consumer credit act 1974. The pursuers have failed to send the defenders a default notice which they are required to do under section 87/88 of the cca 1974, since they have not complied with this they are not entitled to demand payment. The pursuers claim to have produced a "copy of the loan agreement entered into by the defenders ". It is explained that the pursuers have produced a reconsrtuction of an agreement,since this document does not have the defenders signatures on it, it cannot be claimed to be their agreement and as such under section 61(1) this agreement has not been properly executed. Since it has not been properly executed this brings us to section 65(1) of the act which states "an improperly executed regulated agreement is enforceable against the debtor or hirer on an order of the court only" and since this agreement is regulated by the cca 1974 then section 127(3) applies it states "the court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1)if section 61(1)(a)(signing of agreements)was not complied with unless a document(whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60 (1) )itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or the hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner). It is explained that at the time of applying for the loan the pursuers added ppi to the loan.The defenders at the time stated they did not require ppi only to be told "they would not get the loan unless they took ppi.The defenders asked if the ppi was cancellable but do not recall what answer was given, so they felt they had no choice but to accept the ppi.The defenders sent a letter to the bank complaining about the mis-selling of the ppi and the bank canceled the policy but refused to refund what had already been paid. The defenders do not recall signing the agreement, contrary to section61(1)(a), nor where they given a copy of the agreement at the time of "signing" or within 7 days of signing contrary to section 63(1)(2) of the cca 1974.There is case law to support this and i refer the pursuers to the judgement of TUCKEY LJ in the case of Wilson +1 v Hurstanger Ltd(2007)EWCA Civ 299. It is explained that the defenders have twice tried to obtain documents regarding this case by way of a Subject Access Request (both letters and replies supplied and lodged in process) both requests have been refused by the pursuers citing "data protection" though they are happy to produce several years worth of bank statements without much concern for data protection. 3. The pursuer states "the defenders jointly and severally obtained loan facilities from the pursuers on an advantage gold account now numbered xxxxxx This is denied It is explained the defenders have never had an advantage gold account numbered xxxxxx The pursuer states "that at 10th November 2008 has drawn on the account to the extent of £xxxxxxx which is the sum sued for in crave two the said sum is repayable on demand". This is denied. It is explained that the defenders have never had an advantage gold account then the said sum cannot be repayable on demand.The pursuer avers that they produced a copy of the application form for the said account and claimed the second named defender opened the account on or around June 1995. The pursuers documents are almost illegible, the first document appears to be an application form with a date of 24 September 2002 on it,since the pursuer avers this is an application form from 1995 (and it clearly is not)then it should not be admitted into probate. The other three documents are almost illegible and appear to have no relevance in this case and as such should not be admitted into probate.The pursuers also state the account was transfered into joint names on or around 21 February,they have not provided any documents to prove this happened. 4. Denied PLEA IN LAW 1. The pursuers have failed to comply with the following sections of the consumer credit act 1974 . 77(1), 87/88, 65(1)63(1)(2),,61(1), 61(1)(a),60(1),as there is no signed agreement the pursuers are in breach of section 61(1)(a) and therefore the account can only be enforced by order of the court ,section 65(1) however section 127(3) specifically prevents the court from making an enforcement order under section 65(1) and therefore the defender craves the court to dismiss the pursuers application and for the court to use its powers under section 142 of the same act to declare the purported agreement unenforceable. 2.Accordingly given the pursuers averments are irrelevant et separatism, the action should be dismissed. 3.The defenders deny the sums being claimed as due an the resting owing decree should not be granted as craved. IN RESPECT WHEREOF 　 　

how is this ? i take your point with the bullets SFU but i want to keep it in a similar style to theirs so they can,t get it thrown out like Georges.Thanks to both of you for the help greatly appreciated

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE OF THE BASIS OF PRELIMINARY PLEA In the cause THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC,36 St Andrews Square Edinburgh EH2 2YB Pursuers Against FIRST NAMED DEFENDER And SECOND NAMED DEFENDER The defenders wish to insist upon their preliminary pleas numbered 1,2 and 3 for the following reasons: As stated in condescendence 2 the pursuers have failed to produce a valid default notice or an enforceable credit agreement The pursuers mis-sold ppi At the time of signing this alleged agreement the defenders were not given a copy nor received it within the required 7 days The defenders do not recall signing the purported agreement and the pursuers have not shown that such a compliant agreement exists. In condescendence 3 the pursuers aver that they have produced an account application dated 22nd June 1995. This is lacking in candour as it is clearly dated 24th September 2002, more so the documents produced are barely legible. For these reasons the pursuer’s averments should not be admitted to probation as they are wholly inconsistent and lack candour. In all the circumstances the Defenders wish to insist upon their preliminary pleas. IN RESPECT WHEREOF Signed........................................................................... 26th February 2010

point taken both of you will re-do it now

Hi all this is my proposed rule 22 note any advice, comments most welcome

SHERRIFDOM OF GLASGOW AND STRATHKELVIN AT GLASGOW SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE OF THE BASIS OF PRELIMINARY PLEA In the cause THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC,36 St Andrews Square Edinburgh EH2 2YB Pursuers Against FIRST NAMED DEFENDER And SECOND NAMED DEFENDER The defenders wish to insist upon their preliminary pleas numbered 1,2 and 3 for the following reasons: as stated in condescendence 2 the pursuers have failed to produce a valid default notice or an enforceable credit agreement also the pursuers mis-sold ppi and at the time of signing this alleged agreement the defenders were not given a copy nor received it within the required 7 days also as the defenders do not recall signing the purported agreement the pursuers have not shown that such a compliant agreement exists. In condescendence 3 the pursuers aver that they have produced an account application dated 22nd June 1995, this is lacking in candour as it is clearly dated 24th September 2002 and also the documents produced are barely legible. For these reasons the pursuer’s averments should not be admitted to probation as they are wholly inconsistent and lack candour. In all the circumstances the Defenders wish to insist upon their preliminary pleas. IN RESPECT WHEREOF Signed........................................................................... 26th February 2010

subbing

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

:d:d:d:d