Here's my skelly so far. I will work on my schedule of costs now. Eagerly await constructive comments. Skeleton Argument - CAG.doc

In respect of gh's earlier post, does anyone know which part of these Acts/Regulations I should be referring to: and does anyone know where I can find the quote gh is thinking about:

Thanks for this gh. Would you have a look at my skelly for me later on?

I'm flattered that I'm so popular! Just sending you a PM BTW.

I'm working on my Skelly. Do I have to file this at the Court before the hearing tomorrow or can I take it with me or fax/email it over? Do I also have to email a copy to the Sols in advance of tomorrow

Can either I or the Claimant request an adjournment in advance (today) due to the weather?

Very heavy snow here now. What happens if I get to the Court tomorrow but they don't due to the weather?

Thank you so much gh for the time you've taken on my behalf. Yes, I too feel this is a very interesting and important case for CAG. I will be working throughout today and tomorrow on this and will be posting up regularly my thoughts and findings.

Thanks Gh. I've PM'd Babybear and thanks so much for your help. Am I right in saying I need to put a skelly together too? I thought you didn't have to do this for small claims?

Have had to load it as separate pages, but hopefully it is in page order: http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv213/pumpkinhead50/Mint%20Loan/Skel1.jpg http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv213/pumpkinhead50/Mint%20Loan/Skel2.jpg http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv213/pumpkinhead50/Mint%20Loan/Skel3.jpg http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv213/pumpkinhead50/Mint%20Loan/Skel4.jpg http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv213/pumpkinhead50/Mint%20Loan/Skel5.jpg http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv213/pumpkinhead50/Mint%20Loan/Skel6.jpg http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv213/pumpkinhead50/Mint%20Loan/Skel7.jpg http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv213/pumpkinhead50/Mint%20Loan/Skel8.jpg http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv213/pumpkinhead50/Mint%20Loan/ChittyExcerptPage1.jpg http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv213/pumpkinhead50/Mint%20Loan/ChittyExcerptPage2.jpg http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv213/pumpkinhead50/Mint%20Loan/CCAExcerpt.jpg Please bring this thread to the attention of any other top Caggers who might be able to offer advice/thoughts.

STAND BY - I've received skeleton argument from Sols re my case this Tues. Am just scanning in and will post up shortly. Please read and advise asap.

The big day is fast approaching - next Tuesday. Any last minute advice, guidance much appreciated.

Here's a thought ..... How about I write to the Sols asking whether it is their claimant's case that any part of the agreement still subsists? Worth a shot?

Here is the Claimant's WS. All the docs in their Bundle are already on here and include the DN, the TN, my letter accepting their repudiation, their amended POC, my amended POC, the agreement & T&C. A statement of account and of arrears are the only new docs. I'm wondering if it is para 15 that makes the Sol want open disclosure of the content of my WP letter. Para 16 seems to be harping on the moralistic approach maybe?? http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv213/pumpkinhead50/Mint%20Loan/WS1.jpg http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv213/pumpkinhead50/Mint%20Loan/WS2.jpg http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv213/pumpkinhead50/Mint%20Loan/WS3.jpg

Thanks for all your input. I will post up the WS shortly although it doesn't really say much or anything new. So far, I've replied to the Sols telling them that before I give further consideration to their request I want a better understanding of their reasons for making it and that I want to establish exactly why they want certain comments contained in my WP letter made available to the Court. I doubt they will tell me much but we'll wait and see. I too don't think Brandon is relevant here and if it did surface at the trial I would request an adjournment/stay as appropriate. Let's also remember that the DN they sent me contained other mistakes, it isn't just about them not allowing sufficient time to remedy. They also failed to include a whole "required" paragraph and the Office of Fair Trading sheet on default. In answer to Pumpytums thoughts that they could be saying that it was I who ended the agreement and so must pay the balance as per the clause in the T&C of the agreement, I don't think this would stack up. From my point of view the order of events was that: I defaulted They sent me a DN which I identified as invalid I did not remedy the breach Not realising at the time that the DN was invalid, they subsequently terminated the agreement in writing and demanded the balance I wrote advising them of the invalid DN and accepted their rescission of contract Game over and they lose the right to claim sums not yet due Undercover Elsa has three suggestions: a, b and c of which she hopes it is "c". I think it's more likely to be "a" and that they are going to try to outweigh the CCA with the moral approach of "you borrowed the money didn't you and we should be paid it back." We have seen a lot of judgements made in the claimant's favour purely on this moral basis. We know it's not right and I can only hope that I argue my case well enough from the CCA point of view on the day. Diddydicky wonders what "the other matters" might be in the Sols original letter as this might give a clue. To remind you all this letter said: I think we can see from this that if I were to select option "b" from Pumpytums choices, I would make the claimant very happy but I am unlikely to oblige. My overriding feeling is that they do not believe the invalid DN is an issue for them, but I can't see why it shouldn't be. Any further thoughts?

Yes, that's my thinking too. Their bundle is tiny in comparison to mine. The only "new" document that I haven't seen before is a witness statement from someone who works at RBS. The rest of the bundle consists of documents I've seen before, they've sent me or I've sent them etc. My thought is that it must be something to do with the Witness Statement or possibly their amended POC. I note one of the paragraphs in the Witness Statement by the RBS worker says that she understands it is the Defendant's case that the agreement is at an end. Is she perhaps making reference to my without prejudice letter here? Is it worth me posting up the WS?

An interesting development. Those who've been following this thread may remember that back in early Oct (see post 82) I received a letter from the Sols saying amongst other things that they felt my pleadings were equivocal and asked me to confirm whether I believed any part of the agreement was still in effect. I replied to the negative. However, my letter contained other matters and so was sent under a without prejudice heading. Both parties have now submitted their bundles prior to the hearing just before Christmas. Upon receiving mine, the Sols have written asking me again to confirm whether it is my case that any aspect of the agreement still subsists as the only response they’ve had from me regarding this was received in a without prejudice letter. I suspect there must be some sort of problem on their side, but am not sure what it might be. Anyone have any suggestions?

If the Right to Cancel bit should have been included, should it have been on the agreement itself or would it have been acceptable for it to be on a separate doc?

I think the agreement was cancellable as it was signed away from trade premises and I know that the Distance Marketing Regs applied to it. Not 100% sure what you mean gh by Rights and Remedies statement, but think you mean the box headed "Important Read This Carefully" which is included on the agreement. Other Caggers help/views appreciated esp as gh is away at present

Need some help with query related to the original agreement as I prepare my amended defence. It was for a a fixed sum loan agreement. I'm checking that the agreement contains the prescribed terms and enforceability etc. The agreement does not contain a statement of my rights as (possibly) required by the Consumer Credit Agreements Regulation. The bit YOUR RIGHT TO CANCEL Once you have signed this agreement, you will have a short time in which to cancel it. The creditor will send you exact details of how and when you can do this. I need to find out if this type of agreement should have included this statement. I've been reading the CCA and am finding it difficult to understand what it says. I think the agreement would be classed as a fixed sum unrestricted debtor/creditor agreement. If this is the case, should the "Your Right to Cancel" bit have been included on it? This agreement was for a loan applied for over the phone, so it was covered by the Distance Selling Regs - does this make it exempt from requiring the Your Right to Cancel bit to be on the agreement document itself? I understand there are certain circumtances in which the creditor does not have to put the box in explaining rights, but I can't understand even after referring to the CCA or the Agreement Regs whether my agreement would have been exempt. Here it is http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv213/pumpkinhead50/Mint%20Loan/MintLoanAgreementSide1.jpg I've only included the front of the page, there isn't anything relevant to it on the reverse. Urgent help needed please.

Quick question as I start preparing my amended defence. Can I prepare a totally different defence if I want to or must I use my original defence as the foundation document and highlight pieces I wish to delete, amend or add? Reason for asking is that the Claimant's amended POC was a copy of the original POC but marked up to show what they wished to delete, add or change.

Yeah - tell you what - fighting consumer credit battles is better medicine than anti-depressants. It has really boosted my self-esteem and made me a much stronger person. I've even amazed myself with how I've been handling all this. It must be true that what doesn't kill you, makes you stronger!

Personally, I'm always very aware of the risk of others trying to manipulate emotional responses. Looking at the behaviours of others from a psychological perspective can be very enlightening and definately enables you to operate from a more strategic base. I suppose some might call in natural cunning!

Yep, you did make the comment to me. I'm certain I could have quoted almost verbatim from a lot of the documents I had with me and I have spent ages reviewing, reading, researching and most importantly reaching a real understanding of what this is all about. Within my own line of work I already knew that preparation is often the key to success. I won't be posting anything up that will benefit the other side, but I might like to mess with them a little!!

Thanks Gh. I've been following the Invalid Default Notices thread which I see you've been busy on today, so follow your last point very much. I shall ponder whether or not to put in another SO App - In one sense I almost want to have a full hearing but if there is a good opportunity to get their claim struck out, apart from another £75 I guess don't have much to lose by trying. We shall see. Without wishing to appear immodest and accepting that it was only an App hearing, today wasn't half as bad as I'd imagined. I feel positively fired up now!