Jump to content

vint1954

Banned
  • Content Count

    4,549
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

vint1954 last won the day on February 7 2010

vint1954 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,431 Excellent

1 Follower

About vint1954

  • Rank
    Banned
  1. Here you go Dotty, http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Mercantile/2011/B3.html Hae you tried more coal in the Laptop! Usually works for me.
  2. The Brandon v Amex appeal, states that iregularities within the DN are NOT de-minimis
  3. There is a defined requirement for a valid Default Notice to lawfully terminate an Account whilst in default. Notwithstanding the matters pleaded above, the Claimant must under Section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 serve a valid Default Notice before they can demand early payment of sums not yet due under a Regulated Credit Agreement. I refer the Court to the recent ruling of HHJ Chambers QC sitting as a Judge of the High Court in Keith Harrison vs Link Financial Limited EWHC 2011 B3 where at paragraph 75 when addressing a default notice he stated……… The notice of enforcemen
  4. Couple of points that may help your WS, if you have pleaded them: In any event I can show the Court that on balance the documents relied upon by the Claimant do not satisfy the requirements of s78 and I will refer the Court to the case of Carey vs HSBC [2009] EWHC 3417 (QB) and also the Court of Appeal ruling in Devendra Kotecha vs Phoenix Recoveries [2011] EWCA Civ 105 which show that the documents the Claimant provided do not comply with s78 (1) and accordingly the Claimant is not entitled to judgment. There are a number of reasons why the documents produced by the Claimant do
  5. Your witness statement will be crucial. Have they fully complied with any s 78 request? Was this an application form? Was the DN complient?
  6. You could have gone on the disputed debt as well. It is filed now so just sit tight.
  7. Bev, Is the evidence that the court is waiting for, connected to your CPR request?
  8. What on earth do they mean " the defendant is put to strict proof" It is your defence, they have to prove the other way! It is not for you to prove. Idiots! ( them that is)
  9. Indeed will. Hopefully the judge will throw the SD out,as they have nothing else to go on. Judges do not like the SD system used as a means of debt enforcement.
  10. Will, Did the court suggest that they had not even received the SD application
  11. It appears that they have sent the SD to the wrong court.
×
×
  • Create New...