Jump to content

rainbow moon

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    216
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About rainbow moon

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Thank you guys, I still can't get my head around some of the things the judge came out with re not needing dn's at all, no need for noa's etc and accepting their pathetic ws but hey we got there in the end Thanks for the link foolishgirl, when I asked about costs it was mainly the court fees I was bothered about, I know I would have had to pay them if I had lost - just wondered if cohens have to pay them now that they have lost? I am perfectly happy to let the other costs go really - just glad to see the back of Cohens. I still haven't heard from the court so think a phone call to them to see what is happening or not may be the best way to go. Thanks again for all your help. Rainbow x
  2. Thanks donkey, I will post up what they have sent me in a tick, when you say not recoverable do you mean they can't claim from me or that I have to put a wasted cost order in? sorry this is my first court experience. Rainbow x
  3. Thanks fg, I did sit tight and I have now got a letter from Cohens saying that they are discontinuing the claim :-):-):-). I am so happy and could never have done this without all your help on here, a massive thank you to all. Do I need to do anything re court costs or will this be a bill that cohens now have to pick up? I haven't heard anything from the court just a letter from cohens. Thanks again Rainbow x
  4. Hi guys, just an update, I did receive the first court letter the day after I took into court but hey ho at least I had my stuff in by then anyway. The second has arrived today - would love to know what Cohens put in their letter to court and why I never received a copy! Just noticed the letter mentions the agreement dated 2010 Any advice on what to do next or just wait and see would be really helpful. Thank you Rainbow x
  5. Thank you both for your replies and thank you so much foolishgirl for making my ramble appear much more straightforward and easier to read . I will get it all sorted and take it into court tomorrow to make sure they receive it in time for Monday. I really hope all your hard work pays off and we can sink these clowns Thank you again Rainbow x
  6. Hi again guys, Having thought about what I have done up to now, I am struggling on the last paragraph as to what to close with or should I just leave it as is? Does anyone think it would be a good idea to include copies of case law with this submission as my judgle did not seem to know much about it although he claimed otherwise:( Thanks for any replies Rainbow x
  7. Right guys, this is what I have come up with so far, let me know what you think and please be gentle You may notice it contains a lot of your supplied threads for which I truly am thankful. Rainbow x Further to the hearing on at County Court C L Finance state on their witness statement that I entered into an agreement between myself and G E Capital Bank, this is untrue, the agreement clearly states that the agreement has nothing to do with G E Capital Bank, but, G E Consumer Consumer Credit Services. The company registration number shown on the agreement is also incorrect. At no time has this registration number ever been known as G E Consumer Credit Services. Indeed after checking Companies House, I am of the belief that these are two separate Companies. I would ask that C L Finance have to produce a correct Deed of Assignment to identify who is responsible for the agreement and also who actually assigned the debt. As of (todays date) I have received no paperwork from C L Finance despite strict instructions from the judge that this should take place so can only take this to show that C L Finance have no right to persue this debt. The copy agreement provided by CL Finance at court does not comply with CCA 1974, in particular S60(1) CCA 1974 where the regulations referred to are the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553). (The prescribed terms referred to are contained in schedule 6 column 2 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) and are inter alia: - A term stating the credit limit or the manner in which it will be determined or that there is no credit limit, A term stating the rate of any interest on the credit to be provided under the agreement and A term stating how the debtor is to discharge his obligations under the agreement to make the repayments, which may be expressed by reference to a combination of any of the following-- 1. Number of repayments; 2. Amount of repayments; 3. Frequency and timing of repayments; 4. Dates of repayments; 5. The manner in which any of the above may be determined; or in any other way, and any power of the creditor to vary what is payable ) The agreement that has been produced does not contain an interest rate although a figure has been handwritten on the top of the document. I have no idea what this figure is or to what it refers. I refer to the judgment Wilson and another v Hurstanger Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 299 which states: "33 In my judgment the objective of Schedule 6 is to ensure that, as an inflexible condition of enforceability, certain basic minimum terms are included which the parties (with the benefit of legal advice if necessary) and/or the court can identify within the four corners of the agreement. Those minimum provisions combined with the requirement under s 61 that all the terms should be in a single document, and backed up by the provisions of section 127(3), ensure that these core terms are expressly set out in the agreement itself: they cannot be orally agreed; they cannot be found in another document; they cannot be implied; and above all they cannot be in the slightest mis-stated. As a matter of policy, the lender is denied any room for manoeuvre in respect of them. On the other hand, they are basic provisions, and the only question for the court is whether they are, on a true construction, included in the agreement. More detailed requirements, which are designed to ensure that the debtor is made aware, so far as possible, of specified information (including information contained in the minimum terms) are to be found in Schedule 1 The court’s attention is drawn to the fact that where an agreement does not have the prescribed terms as stated in above, it is not compliant with section 60(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and therefore it is not enforceable by the court under S127(3) of the same Act. The Claimant has claimed for interest at some inexplicable rate. It is not referred to in Clause 7 of the agreement as stated in the poc. The agreement produced does not have a clause 7 & is not applicable anyway under The County Courts (Interest on Judgment Debts) Order 1991 (No. 1184 (L. 12)) Section 2 (3)(a) which sets out that this is the case where a claim is in relation to a debt regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. With regard to the Default Notice, I would respectfully ask if you would take a look at the precedents set by case law in respect of the validity issues raised. If it is felt that they do not apply in my case I would be grateful if you could set out your reasoning for me so that I may use this record should I decide to appeal.
  8. Thanks for the replies, yes it is right he has told both of us to send in all details - no need to go back to court - he did stress to cohens sols though that they must send correspondance to both the court and me. I will have a go at drafting something in the next few days and will post up for you to have a look at/correct. Thanks again to all of you. Rainbow x
  9. Hi guys, thanks for sticking with me, I haven't done anything about this yet other than a lot of thinking - not that thinking about it has done much good :-| I have another week and a bit to go before I have to take anything back to the court, I have heard nothing at all from cohens surprise surprise. The judge did say he would look at both our paperwork and we would not need to attend again - he wanted to keep the costs down for cohens - he will make his decision and let us both know this by post. I feel hopeful that on the day he would not let cohens try and pull the wool over his eyes so to speak trying to con him into believing the company and the number were ever connected - I don't know how they are going to get around that one, other than that I am really stuck at the minute. I can understand him asking cohens to prove the link just not how I go about backing up my defence - may need some help with this if you have any advice I would be really grateful. Rainbow x
  10. foolishgirl, I think the reason he mentioned the 1983 regs was that capital bank and cohens/cl finance could not collect on the agreement if they hadn't actually got the right to do so. If I decide the agreement is between me and g e consumer credit which is what is states, then they do not have the correct paperwork in place to claim the debt as theirs. I think he would try to help them out as much as he can but he is struggling with the agreement being before the regs changed. Knowing cohens they are going to try and find a way of gelling the two together somehow As far as the numbers are concerned, there is no way these companies have ever been linked to one number - the agreement is wrong, it is just how I manage to get that across to the judge. Rainbow x
  11. Hi Guys and thank you for your replies so far, I am feeling a bit deflated today, it took a lot to stand up to them yesterday and for the judge to completely dismiss all my evidence was a bit of a slap in the face after all my and your hard work. I am under so much pressure with everything else here I was just hoping that this would be one less thing as it seemed such a good case against them. The copy of the agreement is on the first page of this thread, it does state the agreement if between ge consumer credit and myself, the problem came about as the judge spotted that the witness statement provided by cohens on the second of their paragraph 2 (don't think they can add up either it stated I entered into a credit agreement between g e capital bank ltd. Where it gets interesting is that on the agreement, just below the signature in the box headed use of personal information it states signed on behalf of g e consumer credit svs - reg in england then the number which after much searching we managed to make as 1456283, this number has never been g e consumer credit but was ge capital. G e consumer credit is 3927500. I have scrawled on my notes non compliant of 1983 regs but can't remember exactly why I put that must have been something the judge said at the time. Cohens solicitor tried to bluff her way around it stating she could help the judge and clear this up as one of the photocpied statements she had states G E money is a trademark of general electric company and a trading name of g e capital bank reg ind england 1456283 - the judge said no this did not help. After leaving the hearing the solicitor came flying back to me with a fresh fax from cohens to state that g e consumer credit was a trading name of g e capital - she asked if I was willing to go back in so the judge could maybe sort it, I said yes knowing full well that this didn't explain the company numbers being different which for once the judge agreed with me and said it wasn't good enough. Cohens really have shot themselves in the foot by offering a copy of a certificate of incorporation on change of name that g e capital is now incorporated under the name santander cards signed at companies house on 27/5/09 but the number is 1456283 - crikey hope that lot makes sense to you guys. Thank you all for sticking with me I do appreciate it so much Rainbow x
  12. Well back from court and what an interesting couple of hours. Cohens solicitor did turn up so was prepared for a battle, she asked if she could talk to me prior to the hearing so I said yes, she said she just wanted to intoduce herself and tell me what would happen in the court room which she did, then she asked me if I had any questions for her - I just asked if she had brought the originals with her as asked for on the court order - she said no so I thought hey this is going my way so far. We went into court after being told the judge was going over the papers first, as soon as we went in, he spoke to solicitor saying that for my benefit, not being in the legal prof, he would go over what would happen explaining he would talk then the solicitor then I would get a chance but we were not to talk over each other at any time. He then said after looking at the papers he was of the opinion that one of us was in the right and one of was wrong. I then had to listen to what the solicitor said waiting for my turn. Have to say I went in confident with all the ammo and within the first few moments of the solicitor speaking it was obvious that they were closing ranks. Everything I said, he dismissed, the fact that the originals had not been produced yet had been asked for on the directions his answer - they can't produce the originals if they don't have them can they? I noted that it did say if they couldn't produce them then the claim may be struck out - his reply may not will. I queried the validity of the dn re days not dates, he said his understanding of the law meant that this was acceptable and get this - in his eyes, as I owed the money in the first place a dn wasn't needed it just speeded up the process of recovering the money I questioned them about the deed of assignment from g e money to santander and then to cl finance, he said it wasn't needed from ge, I have received the one from cohens - I said with all due respect without the proper procedure being followed how did I know they have a legal right to collect this debt - his best line yet - this is a firm of solicitors you are dealing with and you can trust that they will not lie to you :eek: . Then came the agreement which had been supplied a s a copy again, when I asked for the original he said most companies don't keep originals so a copy would have to do. Then he tried to read the small (really small and illegible) print on the copy so I thought I have got them on this point - if it is illegible then surely that means it is enforcable? The judge asked us if we could read certain things on the agreement as he couldn't, he asked the usher to find a magnifying glass at one bit. This is how it went on all through every point no matter how I tried to push referring back to the credit acts was dismissed. BUT then the judge spotted something on the agreement, the agreement says it is an agreement between me and ge consumer credit services but the companies registration number on the agreement has never belonged to ge consumer credit it belongs to ge capital bank ge consumer credit has a completely different number. This put cohens solicitor into a panic as the judge pointed out that as it stood cl did not have the right to sue me on the agreement. Now comes the hard bit, he has given us both 21 days to send a submission to court - me to inform them of who I thought the agreement was between and the solicitors the time to place a link between the two companies which would make the agreement enforceable. They have to send me a copy of whatever they come up with and he will then make a judgement based on these findings. I feel like it is hanging by a thread as it is obvious as he is one of the you have had the money and I don't care with whatever info you come up with you will pay, so would really appreciate any help with this. He did mention to the solicitor if the agreement was unenforceable it maybe wort trying for an enforcement order but as the agreement was taken out before section 127 and before 2007 he didn't know if he could make one - advice needed on that please as I have no idea. The solicitor did try and play for extra time citing kids and easter hols meaning I would probably need more time - so sweet and caring I thought - I smiled sweetly back and said no . Sorry it is such a long post but thought it would help others soon to go through the process just what you are up against - other than the delayed outcome and judge the waiting was the worst part and it isn't as scarey as I thought it would be - any pointers on what to submit back to the court would be most gratefully received. Thanks again Rainbow x
  13. Foolish girl, I can't thank you enough for all the help and support you have given me on this case. I am now trying to get to grips with all the info you have supplied and hope I can do us both proud tomorrow - just wish I could go now and get it over with Thanks you again and I will let you know how I get on in the morning. Rainbow x
×
×
  • Create New...