Jump to content

chez262

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    200
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About chez262

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Thanks Gaston, I very much appreciate your information. The last thing I want is to go into this with any form of false hope and I certainly don't want to be blinded by an emotional view. Is there any form of alternative to 'unfair relationship' in hire agreements or do hire agreements leave the debtor with no protection at all? I guess this answers your final point above, had I of known I had no protection and was signing a 'financial' agreement where I owned nothing I most definately wouldn't of entered this agreement. I didn't need the goods for the business, it was more of a long term investment to the business once I owned it and it was paid off. In hindsight I'd of never of got it as it was never going to be mine anyway. I will take your advice and not use non starting technicalities. Thanks again, much appreciated. C
  2. Hi Gaston, Yes that is I unfortunately. I am starting to understand that the chances of a DJ recognising the contract as being regulated, or afforded the benefits of the act being slim to none and I appreciate what your saying about the fact that the guarantee can therefore not be regulated. However, the guarantee signed is presented as regulated therefore it must stand for something, even a claim of unfair relationship should it not? Is that then not like saying 'you shouldn't commit a crime, but if you do it doesn't matter there is no consequence'? Again, I totally understand your point on the misrepresentation of the agreement and your correct, had I of continued with the same actions then the goods would of been repossessed and sold. However, my actions were based on the understanding that the kit was indeed mine and that I had paid over half of the 'finance' and therefore they required a court order. Had I of not been misled into believing I was signing into a finance agreement I think I would have acted completely differently when I received the termination letter. Then again, do I just accept the fact that I was naive enough to believe what they told me over what the contract actually said and put it down to an expensive lesson learnt, afterall isn't this how a DJ would see things? These 2 points above are a contradiction in my view... On the latter point I should accept what the contract says as opposed to anything misleading but on the former point, I should disregard what the contract says as it is just misleading but untrue.
  3. What I'm trying to establish is whether I have a case based on anything other than just technicalities? By technicalities I mean no default notice, wrong default notice, wrong calculations etc. I know cagers are very dubious of these defences now and for good reason. By anything other I mean, the 'creditors' behaviour. Like for instance, telling me I would own the goods at the end of the agreement but they terminated so I own nothing! Granted I had a late payment (by 3 weeks) but does this justify demanding an extremely high sum of £12000 I quite clearly couldn't pay as a one off payment? The claimants demanding the total sum ramaining on the balance of the agreement but I was never informed I actually only owed that sum minus the cost of the goods. I explained my situation to them and they asked me to write in for a payment relief. They apparently sent the response of 'NO' to the burnt down property (based on the SAR), I never received it leading to a DN and another TN. Giving me an unregulated agreement (on regulated paperwork) with the relating Guarantor agreement being regulated! Arguing the agreement is not regulated but not relying on the first termination (the one without the DN). Instead using the Third DN and TN. No communication with my solicitor for 8 months after numerous emails sent requesting information. This was after it had been to trial without me and I was trying to have it set aside for this reason. Leaving me to sit around twiddling my thumbs! First communication regarding the case was when they applied for a CO, next was to hear they had sold the debt on. The new claimants informing us they would be challenging the set aside application. Only to accept it 2 days before the hearing! When it went to trial the first time (without us knowing), one defendant received a judgement (out of four). The CO was for two of the defendants that didn't receive the judgement. Once my solicitor raised this, the court issues the other three judgements. Eight months after the first! They sold the goods five months after taking receipt of it from me even though they have a buy back agreement with the supplier, claiming in their reply that it was damaged and missing parts... This is a lie! Do I have to just accept that I am the debtor therefore I should expect this leaving me fighting a losing battle or can these actions be defended? I understand a lot of it is probably based on my naivity but does the judge not take this into consideration? Please help, I only have a week!
  4. Thanks Gaston, it was both the supplier and the finance provider who told me the goods would be mine. I was initially told by the supplier that I could pay for the goods via a financial agreement. Then I received the agreements to sign which said Hire Agreement, so I called the finance provider and spoke directly with the Manager because of my concern and he confirmed it by saying the goods would become mine at the end of the agreement. (They are still proceeding with this type of finance now). When I contacted my solicitor at the very beginning, he told me it was unregulated but that the guarantor contract was regulated. It is this I want to challenge (regardless of the fact that I'm unhappy I signed an agreement warning me I was entering into a regulated agreement next to the signature strip). He also said these type of cases are judged only on whether the defendant is prejudiced, surely if this is the case then other factors will have to be take into consideration? Like behaviour? I am aware that the judge could rule out technicalities like the one you describe, but is this all he will do? What about the recent high court judgement that favoured the debtor on grounds of harassment? I understand this is not a harassment case however doesn't it prove that the judge doesn't only look at technicalities or am I way wide of the mark here?? Thanks.
  5. Thanks Andy, I thought as much. I'm told by my solicitor that if I successfully defend the case then it will only be for technical reasons. He continues to state that "this is one of those actions where the court will be asked whether because of "technicalities" you have any (or some) liability. The action in fact relates to a hire agreement and not a credit agreement and there is a significant number of differences. Amongst other things, you would never acquire title in the equipment and, whilst you might have been told by the supplier that you would obtain title, the agreement clearly states (for example underneath your signature) that "The goods do not become your property". The fact that you signed the agreement will more than likely be construed by the court as evidence that you were aware of the terms and conditions of the agreement, or at least that you ought to have been aware." He goes on to say that the T&Cs clearly state that I was required to make monthly payments and if I didn't there would be consequences. I do not want to disregard or disrespect my solicitors views and/or opinions but surely the claimants behaviour has to be taken into account. The company in question told me the machine would be mine, they still do make these claims to potential customers purchasing similar products and using this method of finance to do so. Is this not taking advantage of my 'normal person' status? Can this not be taken into account as me being prejudiced by their actions? Or is not solicitor right in saying it doesn't matter how they act, what I signed is what I signed? Thanks again.
  6. Can someone please confirm whether cases are only looked at from a technical perspective? My understanding, based on the latest high court case which went in favour of the debtor on harrassment grounds, was one that other issues can be taken into consideration by the judge when at trial. Am I wrong? Thanks.
  7. Andy, My defence has been going on since 2009, firstly they went to court without me receiving a court date at which I was given a judgement. The creditor then ignored all communication from my solicitor in regards to applying to have it set aside so my solicitor held out. In which time they proceeded to sell the debt to another company whom is now the claimant. The now claimant agreed at the last minute to my set aside application. They now want me to settle on their terms at their proposed cost which is more that the orignal cost and I've already had to pay my solicitor £3000+ already. My defence is basically Termination after 3 weeks missed payment. No default, no warning, nothing. It gets complex from here as the contract is over £25000 but the agreement is on regulated paperwork. There is another contract (guarantor) which is also on regulated paperwork but has no clause of relieving it of the act. At the time, I asked for payment relief after the termination as I couldn't pay £12000+ in one payment immediately which they requested in the termination notice. They never responded to it and then I received a default notice and termination notice a few months later. Then the same again a further month later. They also told me, and I have a witness and addition information that I was entering a Hire Purchase agreement but in fact it was a Hire agreement (which I only found out once I got a solicitor). They went on to sell the equipment so the final cost was £6500 plus what they say is interest but my defence disputes this. They claim they have already spent £7000 on court fees etc, with an additional estimate of £12000 if it goes to court. I've already spent £3000 plus the estimated further £7000 if it proceeds to court. My solicitor says 'he would like to think the judge would throw it out' but he can't be certain as it's judge lottery. I don't know what to do next as I can't continue to pay my solicitor who want money on account to go to the CMC. Regards, C
  8. Hi Andy, many thanks for your reply. Yes I am indeed the defendant. My solicitor has asked me for instructions on how to proceed with settlement in order for him to decide how to proceed with this matter. He is also asking for a lot of money on account, which quite frankly I can't afford as I've already given him over £3000. I am contemplating going this alone but I'm unsure of my required involvement in a CM Conference. One thing is for certain, I do not want to settle on the creditors terms leaving me in a worse off situation then before without challenging this as I feel very strongly about my defence. Will I be required to put forward my defence in the CM Conference? I've never been to court before Thanks again.
  9. Can anyone advise please? Anything would be most appreciated! Thanks.
  10. Hi, I have been informed I have a Case Management Conference coming up next month in regard to my case linked below, http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?302745-chez-s-HP-agreement-problems I don't know what this is or what I should prepare for this. Can anyone help please? Thanks.
  11. I just can't afford to pay them anymore... I'm starting to feel like they are robbing me as much as the claimants! They haven't got a clue and never give me a straight answer. They are more renowned for defending the claimants in these situations so in all honesty I don't think they really want to defend me but they were the only firm I knew who were actually willing to get involved with the CCA legislation. They charge 200 an hour for what you yourself claim to be 'wrong' information so far!! I'm not going through this to try and capture them out in the CCA loop hole mistakes sometimes made by creditors. I just really feel like I've been conned into something which not only did I think was a finance agreement but there now appears to be no benefits to me as there are to the claimants and I'm actually only renting equipment! How can a court of law see this as justice? Rant over, apologies
  12. Yes it is clause 10 which I was later shown by my solicitor. It is also he who informed me the guarantors had not signed any agreement with this clause in it therefore contract 2 is regulated? I'm totally bamboozled with all this.
  13. I have attached a clearer view of the terms and conditions. I'm not sure how it will affect my case if it does make comment to Unfair Terms and Contracts or SOGA, my apologies. Thanks. Admiral T&C.pdf
  14. Many thanks for your empathy Elsa, sometimes I feel like I'm going off my head! It was my landlord who ended up being a dodgy man and refused to go through the building insurance to repair the damaged property which left my business to deplete and eventually fail as without the repair I couldn't trade. This is just a rebound of that which I can deal with but it is the guarantors whom I am fighting for. I took the risk entering the business world whereas they just backed me up!
  15. Agreement 2 is the guarantee for agreement 1. Only one item was 'purchased'. We signed this agreement as consumers with the intent of using the equipment in a business! If they want the benefits of this being signed as a business then they should of made us equal and allowed us to sign as a business. We then wouldn't be in this mess by owing the money as consumers! This contract is a sham and I only hope I can show this to a court of law.
×
×
  • Create New...