and on the reverse.......photocopied of course.........

The plot thickens................

Right. when i got to court i overheard the petitioning solicitor talking to another sol talking about my case (she didnt realise who i was). saying that a lot of people are using this unenforceable argument and whilst there is some validity to it the courts are beginning to get tired of hearing it. also she said that all she needed to do wa to go to county court and get an enforcement order. The process server was there too and whilst i disputed i had been 'served' the process servers statement said she had served me at my previous address. the registrar did not ask any questions to the process server and seemd happy that he process had been followed. i asked if i could see the SD and if i could have it put aside now and was told no. I briefly argued that the amounts claimed are in dispute and that there were a variety of numbers being bandied around in the statements and therefore i could not admit any debt. In her directions the registrar then told the solicitors that she needed to get the numbers correct in the next statement. I interupted (not good) and said i had requested the SAR. The solicitors said that i would have bene sent monthly statements so that was unneccessary, and the registrar agreed and told her she could give a summary. They have 14 days to file new statement then evidence is 'closed' and we wait for a new date. the registrar told me i should have legal representation for the next hearing but as far as she was concerned if the sols got the numbers right then i would be made bankrupt at the next hearing. NOT HAPPY no leeway seemd to be given for the Litigant in Person and the registrar wasnt even aware i had filed a second statement.

thanks

Hearing adjourned for Amex to get their figures correct. Despite my arguing (poorly admittedly) they only have to show a summary of the amount due. Registrar didnt even read my statement. applicant to file a statement in 14 days, i am not allowed to respond. will post a bit more later after parents evening

Bad News.....

The new regulations under CCA 1974 that came into force on 1st oct 2008 ? I was about to challenge the agreement. Does this change anything?

Thanks

i sent this before i found this forum

message deleted

They have also included the following letter which i will delete from here after you acknowledge reading it Viscount

They have not filed other conversations and letters i have sent only the ones they think are incriminating for me!

when i made that phone call i hadjust received a letter from the land registry that 'someone' was petitioning to make me bankrupt and that was now noted on the deeds. I called the land registry who gave me the courts number and case number. I calle dthe court who gave me the solicitors details and informed me it was AMEX. I called the solicitors and asked why they were making me bankrupt, as it would affect my ability to earn. I also asked why this was back with amex as i understood it was now with Link Financial and i had made paymenst to Link.

I did put the following in my opposition DEFAULT NOTICE The Need for a Default notice Notwithstanding the above, it is also drawn to the courts attention that no default notice required by s87 (1) Consumer Credit act 1974 has been attached to the petition. It is denied that any Default Notice in the prescribed format was ever received and the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that said document in the prescribed format was delivered to the defendant Notwithstanding the above points, I put the claimant to strict proof that any default notice sent to me was valid. I note that to be valid, a default notice needs to be accurate in terms of both the scope and nature of breach and include an accurate figure required to remedy any such breach. The prescribed format for such document is laid down in Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) and Amendment regulations the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/3237) Service of a default notice is a statutory requirement as laid out in sections 87,88 and 89 Consumer Credit Act 1974. Section 87 makes it clear that a default notice must be served before a creditor can seek to terminate the agreement or demand repayment of sums due to a breach of the agreement. therefore without a valid default notice, I suggest the claimants case falls flat and cannot proceed and to do so is clearly contrary to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 Failure of a default notice to be accurate not only invalidates the default notice (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain and Co - [2001] GCCR 2255) but is a unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the court enforcing any alleged debt, but give me a counter claim for damages Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119 They havent mentioned default notices in their statement....................

They could have put any number down for what they claim I owe

here is a whatif what if the judge accepts the credit card unenforcabilty argument. but agrees the charge card is owing.....would the current BP be valid or would they need to do another for the new amount?

they have supplied t&c's for both cards (on seperate pieces of paper of course) I still maintain they have produced no valid agreement between myself and them even the charge card, all they have produced is the invitation. Surely to be bound to the terms of the charge card i would have to sign the T&C's in much the same as a credit card?!"

alleged debts

If the judge rejects everything else can i argue that their repayment terms 1/2 now then 3 monthly instalments are unreasonable. also they are implying that because i cant pay my debts immediately i am insolvent.....well i wonder how many people could pay their debts immediately.

They also filed this. It was the first time i called the solicitors after receiving a letter from the land registry.

the court said i cant file another statement as the file is going before the registrar on monday.