Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About DonKichote

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Thank you DonkeyB, It looks like you may be right, although I did get the reference to National Debtline directly off CAG, and copied the quote from the ND reference page you gave. But although it may not be mandatory for the Court to grant a set aside, I would like to think there is a good chance if it is discretionary, and pursue my quest for firming up my s127 defence.
  2. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I think a set aside would be the easy bit, here is why: The default judgement says "You have not replied to the claim form..." Well, I did. I filed an acknowledgement of service within a week and can prove it. It follows that under CPR 13 the Court MUST set aside the default judgement as it breaches CPR 12. Further, according to National Debtline: "When must the court set aside the judgment?The court must set aside the default judgment if you: have paid the whole amount owed (including any interest and costs) before t
  3. RIGHT. The creditor allegedly supplied me with the agreement, original T&C and current T&C. The T&C I uploaded so far I thought to be the original T&C, as I was influenced by the font being the same as in the signed, hardly legible, agreement (first post). On closer inspection, the interest rate in them is current 29.9% rather than original 15.9% . I am now uploading a clearly reconstituted document which is intended to look like the original T&C combined with agreement, albeit it is unsigned. http://i1365.photobucket.com/albums/r756/isoceles1/mbna%20mast/TC1_zpsed8
  4. Alloyz1, there are parts of agreement I cannot read (some I can guess). Looks to me as there are no obvious errors in cross-referencing to T&C, apart from Data Protection (and phone numbers being different). It looks like the readibility is similar for you and me, clearly not totally readable. What defensive value would that be, in your opinion? Thank you Alloyz1
  5. Alloyz1, I am not talking about Data Protection. or the prescribed terms. I mean the required terms (other than the prescribed terms), i.e. T&C, and this I think is also part of the s127(3) unenforceability criterion, but not under s61(a) prescribed terms part, rather under s61(b) - required terms not embodied. Still section 61. It does not look like a minor technaicality, but a major breach similar to lack of prescribed terms, just under a different paragraph.
  6. It is borderline, and I would rather not rely on it in case the judge is eagle-eyed:) The prescribed terms (S61(a) I think) look ok, it is the required terms (T&C) under s61(b) that that are what is referred to on the NON-SIGNATURE side (the reverse) this is to COMPLY with S.189(4) 'embodies' the terms required by the Agreement regulations so that they must either be in the agreement OR in adocument referred to in it. You are absolutely right Alloyz1. Apart from the phone numbers, the orphaned Data Protection references further prove that the T&C a
  7. I can barely read it myself, it is only just readeable, with difficulty. Thanks for the pointer. This is the only side there is.
  8. Yes, and I think the only chance is to supply a good defence And all I can think of is the unenforceable agreement s127(3) defence, just need someone to make sure I state it correctly with reference to CCA Act and regulations. That is unless someone thinks there is an alternative.
  9. Yes, I am hoping to set aside and need a defence, the unenforceable agreement seems to me to be the best shot
  10. Ganymede, I received the claim from Northampton, made CPR request, got a reply, could not think of a defence, and let it go. The case got transferred to a court a long way away from me and next thing CO arrived, interim then final.
  11. Another attempt at uploading T&C, agreement is in first post http://i1365.photobucket.com/albums/r756/isoceles1/mbna%20mast/TampC1_zpsfdfcbd2e.jpg http://i1365.photobucket.com/albums/r756/isoceles1/mbna%20mast/TampC2_zps6bf25517.jpg http://i1365.photobucket.com/albums/r756/isoceles1/mbna%20mast/TampC3_zps138efb6e.jpg http://i1365.photobucket.com/albums/r756/isoceles1/mbna%20mast/TampC4_zps6cd4d6bc.jpg Ganymede, default CCJ issued in 2010, CO unopposed, no apps, no other thread
  • Create New...