Jump to content

hungrybear

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    1,324
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by hungrybear

  1. You might also add what they view as the legal definition of 'correct signature' which as far as I can see is a nonsense term.
  2. did you not take it straight up the police station when it arrived - I would have
  3. well actually and technically they could take the windows back if no-one has paid for them. If it is your house in your name then you have given tacit agreement to the supply and installation and would be liable for the payment.
  4. perhaps you could rely on cpr part 5.3: Signature of documents by mechanical means 5.3 Where any of these Rules or any practice direction requires a document to be signed, that requirement shall be satisfied if the signature is printed by computer or other mechanical means. - If that is good enough for court documents then it should be good enough for an ignorant pain in the bum like 'what's not in your wallet'.
  5. My confidence as you put it comes from me following car2403's advice, read the whole of the links in this post: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/233665-help-about-claim-received-2.html#post2647816 - esp. read the whole of the top one, I've used it to see off two overdrafts.
  6. never mind phoning get black horse to sat why they gave it back in writing and get we buy any car to say why they took it back in writing. one of them is telling prokies but you need it writing
  7. oh i like that. SHORT application form! load of tosh - would you like the details why or are you happy with your assesment?
  8. send an lba under section 10 of the DPA and then take them to court if they dont sod off and/or go after them for harassment / get a civil restraining order. that'll shut 'em up
  9. Ok so your defense to this - which incidentally is not fully particularized - is that The defendant avers that the contractual basis of any arrangement with the claimant is not stated and that the particulars of claim do not give any lawful cause of action. Consequently the defendant proposes that the court consider striking the claim in accordance with cpr 3.4.2(a) the alleged account is a regulated debtor/creditor agreement as defined in sections 8 and 13 of the cca and is running account credit as defined under section 10 of the CCA. Coutts v Sebastyen See post #11 The defendant puts the claimant to strict proof of the contractual basis of this account in accordance with the determination of the Director of the OFT dated 1 feb 1990 The regulated agreement was not defaulted in accordance with section 87/88, as amended 1983, or at all. The defendant avers that without a valid default notice under section 87(1) in the format prescribed in section 88 then the claimant was not entitled to terminate the agreement The agreement was unlawfully rescinded at the time of termination under sections 76/98 and a such there can be no lawful cause of action. - that's it in a nutshell, needs more 'fluff' though. However, I can only advise, the choice is yours. Nick: whilst I agree with offset etc in theory I think that as in stands and from what I have been told there is a pretty good stab at seeing this off.
  10. do the POC refer to a default notice and/or the termination notice?
  11. They have terminated the od under 76/98 - admission that it is a cca agreement, which you could prove anyway BUT they never defaulted you under 87/88 from what you are telling me. This would constitute unlawful rescission of a cca agreement meaning that they would be untitled to claim sod all off you. I say would because it all depends on IF they did default you.
  12. cpr 3.4.2 would be good to bring to the attention of the court I agree
  13. I have always worried about the advise of someone who likes the word bazooka. I do hope you have kids though with that quote, it COULD be the only thing that saves you - and yes I have two which is why I ask in the desperate hope that you can be saved. (sorry, way off topic but I believe the OP has them spark out now:D)
  14. yep thats part of the point it is a section 12 multiple agreement so as you say jim there's lots of mileage in this for lots of reasons
  15. I make it - to be fussy 47p second; 61p first. Which I would assume is a 2nd class franking machine issue. Which would make it perfectly legal to not get it until Thursday. BUT Are we not missing the major point and distracting Janice from the fact that there is no enforceable agreement? And dont we actually want it dealt with on Wednesday but just to have the I only just got their documents, here's the envelope, to further turn the screw. If we get too clever there is a danger of a stay, esp. with the wrong trainee junior deputy judge. - a legal scenario for you Kim, they give you some money - as in gift - they then decide that they want it back and so they fill out a form but you say no thanks I'm happy with the gift thanks very much and dont sign the paperwork. Get the legal situation?
  16. ....or untrue guests:eek:. - search engine is amazing though I googled a term and the top answer was a cag post 20 mins before!
  17. First class would be deemed delivered Tuesday under section 7 of the interpretations act 1978 which is the applicable law - 2 working days and saturday dont count!
  18. what about Public Schoolboys? Oh, Hello Donkey, hows tricks! ....and the word of the day is disingenuous (2 eyes in your head and 2 ewes in a Welshman's wellies) - hope you read that before cagbot descends! Actually I hope they do turn up, just to prove how daft they are. You never know you might get the man himself - is there a rutherford?
  19. Posty Actually if the letter is dated the 11th then even if posted that day it would not legally arrive until tomorrow - I think you two got crossed between date on the letter and post mark. Kim (and please be really called Janice!): So basically I could knock together a couple of bits of paper, sign 'em H. Bear and ask you for money? that is what they are saying if you think about it.
  20. ok robbo's is easy: I am not aware of ever commencing any home shopping account let alone the one to which you refer. EITHER send me legally enforceable proof that there is any debt I need to acknowledge or recognise or sod off. Of course if you wish you can refer the matter to the courts and I would be more than happy to allow a DJ to tell you the same thing. As for capquest you are in danger of letter tennis. I suggest ONE more letter along the lines of this does not constitute an enforceable CCA, if you think it does then take me to court else I cannot see any reason to correspond with you again because I do not recognise the alleged debt to which you refer. (personally I would get that strong because if you give them ANY latitude it just encourages them). I would not get involved with the prescribed terms etc etc in your response, they know. Just be blunt - court or bog off. In my experience in this situation they bog off.
  21. It's nice that none of the options are 'you will receive an N1 POC from Northampton which will allow you to enter a defence' I've had this letter, clearly the bottom option is the one that they think makes the whole thing legal.
  22. Is this because you are an international sex god and your photo is copyright:D? In theory they do put photo's on the computer system. If you want to make sure they get rid then when your contract ends their permission to process any data relating to you end, so to be sure send them a notice to cease and destroy under section 10 of the dpa - I know for a FACT that several couples have a single membership that they both use -I also know for a fact that my photo never went on the system
×
×
  • Create New...