Jump to content


Registered Users
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About LordSuggs

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Sorry - should have posted the whole sentence. Scan attached.
  2. Trial date set for 15th July. Claimant must file the application by 17th June. I'll update when I hear back.
  3. Done. Going to post to both the Court and Shoosmiths in the morning. Thanks so much for your help.
  4. Cheers Andy - just a quick point on the last sentence - the Judge confirmed the need for the Notice of Arrears and said she was concerned by the lack of paperwork - the Claimant's rep ummed and ahhed a bit but I don't recall them making any firm statement that they didn't have them.
  5. Ok I've removed those 3 paragraphs and put in one about the T&Cs. Tidied it up a bit WS Draft 3.pdf
  6. OK thanks - I've removed what was in 4 and 5 and inserted your paragraph. This is a Fixed Term Credit Agreement, as stated in the WS. The only thing I can find on a breach in the T&Cs is a list of charges in the event of breaking the term of the agreement to cover costs and this: 3.1 We may refuse to make the loan available or if you have already received the loan demand repaymeny of the ful amount you owe us if *you fail to pay on its due date any amount payable to us under this agreement or *you fail to comply with any of the other terms 3.2 "Before demanding early repayment under clause 3.1 we will send you a Default Notice under the CCA" Do I need to lay out the process of the Notice of Sums in Arrears as in Pts 7-9 or is it too much detail?
  7. Understood. That was in point 18 of their first WS - screenshot attached
  8. I'm almost certain they were arguing in Court that there wasn't a breach, but it's not in either of their WSs. I've merged points 6 and 7 to take account of this. I've also put the Notice of Arrears in points 7 - 9 and tried to cover all the specifics the judge raised. WS Draft 2.pdf
  9. I've put together my first draft. I couldn't find much similar text from previous posts on the forum so I've winged it a bit but tried to keep a story flow to it - Background - Default Notice - Arrears - Time Period - Summary. I also couldn't find any argument to counter the Bassano v Toft tickbox point given that the loan was signed in 2006, so I've left that off. Thanks again for the DN clarification, Andy - it was incredibly illuminating. WS2 Draft.pdf
  10. Ah I see now. Thanks Andy that *really* clarifies the issue and cuts through their smoke and mirror routine. I'll add this into my draft defence when I'm back home tonight and post it up. Much obliged.
  11. Post 94 containing their original WS from last year. Point 18. This is almost verbatim what they said in Court Post 148 contains their latest WS (Point 3) "This would have meant that the agreement was due to end on or around December 2013. Therefore there was no actual requirement to either a) terminate the agreement b) demand earlier payment from any sum. The money was due in any event under the agreement and there was in fact no actual requirement to serve a default notice on you. We therefore do not consider that the absence of a default notice has any impact on our client's claim"
  12. Hi - I'm working to finish my first draft of my defence today. Trying to get my head around 86/87 so apologies if I've missed something obvious here. The claimant made the point in their WS and in Court that a default notice is not applicable: "The duration of the loan was a maximum of 84 months from 6 December 2006. This would have meant that the agreement was due to end on or around 6 December 2013. Therefore, there was no actual requirement to terminate the agreement or to demand earlier payment of any sum. If the notice is not valid the limit of the claimant's claim can only be the value of the loan payments and interest due up to the date of the court hearing - Woodchester v Swain 1999 which in this case is the full sum due" I'm trying to tally that with Sec87 - Service of a notice on the debtor or hirer in accordance with section 88 (a “default notice ”) is necessary before the creditor or owner can become entitled, by reason of any breach by the debtor or hirer of a regulated agreement (a)to terminate the agreement, or (b)to demand earlier payment of any sum, or ©to recover possession of any goods or land, or (d)to treat any right conferred on the debtor or hirer by the agreement as terminated, restricted or deferred, or (e)to enforce any security. So they're saying there's no breach as this situation isn't covered in a) or b). Is non payment of debt/instalments covered in any of the other 3 categories?
  13. OK thanks for the pointers guys. Will work on that this week and post up when done. Much appreciated.
  14. I did attempt that point about the previous District Judge but I fumbled it a bit. Yes, the onus is on me to provide a detailed defence of why I feel the claim is unenforceable by 4th Feb, then the claimant can respond to it. Interesting on the irrelevancy of case authorities - not sure why - she asked for that when the claimant seemed a bit stumped on how to reply to the arrears point, saying she was concerned at the gaps in the paperwork. Wow that's pretty clear on 86b. Do you think there's anything further worth adding about enforceability of the tickbox agreement, or is that now moot and just fully focus it on default notice/lack of arrears notification?
  15. Back from Court. Did not go quite how I thought it would: Judge breezed past the point on why the stay should be lifted and said she could see no reason why it shouldn't be, despite the previous judge's statements. She then jumped straight into the main reasons of my defence, namely the unsigned agreement and the lack of a default notice. The 'tickbox' agreement - the claimant brought up Bassano vs Toft 2014 EWHC327 which found that an electronic signature was sufficient proof of the agreement by the signee. The judge agreed with him that this was sufficient despite the points I reiterated. The default notice: The claimant maintained that as the original agreement ran it's course, a default notice was not required. At first it seemed as if the judge was going to agree, but I cited section 87 of the CCA and she sat reading for quite a while. She said as the last £1 payment was made in 2009, clearly there had to be a breach of the agreement, which then falls under sec 87, but also under sec 86 the debtor was obligated to issue the defendant with a notice of arrears and the sums involved. Neither were provided by Egg to the claimant which means that 86d could be in affect. So I have just over 2 weeks to pull together a particularised defence on this basis and why the loan is unenforceable and said it had to be quite detailed. She requested that if either of us could find any other case authorities that would be helpful as she noted that it does appear that there are noticeable gaps in the claimant's paperwork and would like to see if this has been raised previously. Once submitted, the claimant would have the chance to respond before it being fast tracked to trial, with costs reserved. The last thing the judge said was that given the costs, she strongly advised me to get legal advice on this matter. So it was a bit of a rollercoaster hour in which at times I felt slightly out of my depth. But interested in any thoughts on where this currently is and if there are indeed any other case authorities specifically on the sec 86/87. Thanks
  • Create New...