Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Singaporesmoke

  1. I went to the court of appeal on a case that was originally for for £680. I had to do it all myself as although I was on very safe ground, i.e. the magistrate made an a55 of himself, i did not want the cost of a lawyer if it went south. Likewise, I asked for costs when I won and got nil awarded, despite spending fully 5 minutes doing an Al Pacino impersonation from Carlitos Way. Its hard work and the court system will give you zero assistance. You may well get £1 a week payment but ultimately you still have to pay c3k. It sounds like the DJ got it wrong and if the agreement is not in the prescribed form then it is not enforceable, as established in a higher court. You have to decide and there has to be a compelling reason for raising an appeal, such as a mistake in law. This forum would need to see the full transcript to give its view, at the end of it all, it is an opinion based platform, but within the relevant range of the legislation "CCA" and precedent - the highest court having sway, and a lower court CANNOT go against that. What some forget is that judges can be crap, or just human, and make mistakes.
  2. How did you go Copier? Thought you had the hearing this week. Hope it was good news for you. Cheers
  3. Not for everyone, but have you thought of appealing the decision? It has to be on a point of law but any Judge cannot go against precedent or legislation, unless they are a higher court, which this wasn't.
  4. The rule is simple. If its not in the WS then it shouldn't be allowed as evidence. In Denton, you can apply for relief if you have forgotten something but it has to be material. Judges can allow anything they like but as in my case, presenting proof of payment on the day of the hearing went down like a lead ballon. If the other side have presented something to the judge they have to allow you to see it and they have to apply for relief. Wilson is also a simple issue. If there are no true copies of the agreement in the prescribed form then the agreement is not enforceable. Keep that in mind. The other side in my case kept saying that they didn't need the agreement as I had admitted there was a CC in place and I had used it, which is utter nonesense. Don't fret. Did they present an agreement? if not, ride that wave all the way and even appeal it on that should it not go your way.
  5. Hi Copier. In a nutshell, as I had made several payments after the DN had been presented and I had a complaint in to BC about fees/Interest that shouldn't have been attached, my first stab in court was that the debt had been extinguished by agreement with BC and the DCA were punting it. Unfortunately, I didn't include the bank statements in my WS (I didn't have them at that point - genuinely) but the Judge was really prepared to admit late evidence, so they kind of "hung around" in suspension. When asked if I had any other defence, I launched in to the well trodden area of not having a true copy of the agreement in the prescribed form. Indeed, the copy presented as a pigs ear of an event put together by Stevie Wonder after a very large night on the gin. The judge ummed and ahhed a bit but I kept pushing the point that without the proper agreement it was unenforceable. Clever sods Cohen mentioned Carey and I countered that and then gave Wilson, which clearly states that if its not in the prescribed form its unenforceable. I was told that also should have been spelt out in the WS, quote the case, date, and Judge if you use it, and I would if I were you, although it looks like you might already be in play, so get prepared. Their argument to me on quantum was based on the fact that they didn't need an agreement as I had acknowledged that I had an account and had used the card. That needs shooting down if they try it. Its not the issue of whether you had an account of not, they are bringing the claim and have to prove it. If you made your application for a copy and they didn't supply, hammer that too. Bottom line is, Wilson spells it out but you have to make sure its clear what it is you are stating. Check out prescribed terms requirements. Good luck. Not easy but hang in there and you'll be fine.
  6. Thanks Andy and all at CAG. You can add another one to an impressive cv. I'll add a couple of other anecdotes too. Firstly, the Cohen rep, charming as she was, would have sold her mother for the price of a mug of tea. She hadn't read the notes/WS either and asked me before I went in if there was anything we should discuss. I said no but I did show her evidence of the payments. She was about to call HPH2 to take advice, I suspect probably to call it off. As it transpired, the judge came to her defence by not really allowing the evidence to be submitted. Secondly, the issue of First Class post v Second Class post was going nowhere. I had read that s7 Interpretation Act made clear ref to 1st class being +2 days and 2nd class +4 days and if not referred to as 1st Class post it is by default 2nd class. Might be BS or wishful thinking but that wasn't something I could draw on in court. It seems from having a gentle chat with Cohens that if you pick a specific issue and run with that rather than have 4 or 5, like I had. .. there is a better chance of arguing a point. Lack of clarity in all aspects of the Agreement won the day here - They don't have old copies of agreements, but be prepared to stand firm with "I don't recall ever signing an agreement", so how I can I contest a simulated copy etc. If anyone has any questions I'll be happy to answer where I can. Cheers.
  7. The verdict was in my favour thankfully. It was no shoe-in and I shall duly report some issues that will be of value for future court attendance in similar CC/DCA actions. Firstly, be aware.. . the judge ruled both sides in breach of not supplying WS on time. I actually called the court to ensure I was in time and they still got it wrong. The Judge said they shouldn't have given any response as its deemed advice. Hoist lost out big time as they didn't get theirs in to the court until 27 June and the LA for Cohen had no excuse. The judge said she kind of believed me, but it was still a breach but wasn't buying anything from Cohen simply stating "you're lawyers". Not very good ones apparently. So here are the explicit rules. 14 days before a hearing is 14 CLEAR days. It doesn't include the day of receipt. So, mine was today and I submitted on 23 June - 1 day late. You have to admit, 27th is a real pi55 take by Cohen and if I had been a day earlier it would have been a slam dunk. Take note. Further. Anything NOT in the WS isn't likely to get admitted. I thought I was being a bit smart by holding on to bank statements showing payments to BC and Mercers. The Judge was having very little of it and said it should all be in the WS, as she reads this the day before in prep - adding additional stuff is a big error, particularly if its really relevant. Paying them 2 grand was really relevant and I'm not sure it made any impact today. Regarding the non compliant agreement, the judge was behind the argument but Cohen chipped away at "the defendant agrees he has an agreement, so its really one of quantum". As per my WS I persisted with the issue of the agreement being in a prescribed format/s61/s127. As it happens, my court notes had Wilson V Hurstanger on it. Neither the Judge or Cohen had heard of it when we were stood down the judge took my notes into her chambers and asked if she could keep it. Could hardly say no could I! After banging away at the Agreement non-enforcement the Judge was getting bored with it. I introduced the defective DN and she really didn't want to know about that. Said as far as she was concerned it was not defective on the issue of dates and begrudgingly took notes on lack of Creditor details etc. After being stood down for 20 mins the judge gave her verdict. We got an earful again about breaches and threw Danton at us. Erred on my side on the WS being late. The Judge said in her opinion there was not a signed agreement and certainly not one with account details that were able to be tied to other documents. On that event alone, she found in my favour. As a passing note, she mentioned that if I am ever in court again and using precedent as evidence it needs the full case details (Wilson). Point taken. Cohen/HPH2 weren't represented by the guy who wrote the WS and although the "rep" did interject frequently the Judge did remind her that she was not a witness and therefore could not add to the WS - She mentioned that before discovering that their WS was very late. Pleased its done and in my favour as per my earlier line, its not a given in any respect. My WS needed to have more data and information. Live and learn. Have a good weekend everyone
  8. Actually..... one last question. I'm going anywhere with it, just wondering. How does it fit with data protection - the DCAs going to the OC and asking questions? On mine, they reckon they spoke to Barclays about my complaint and was told it was settled. It wasn't of course but should BC be passing out data?
  9. Thanks Andy and all the CAG team/contributors, your input has been excellent and thoroughly appreciated. I'll report back on the outcome ASAP. Cheers
  10. OK. In case someone is on the red eye, here is my first draft in respect of Fridays court appearance defence. Obviously interested in areas to sharpen it up and of course, rectify errors and add opportunities. Hoist Portfolio Holdings 2 Ltd defence.pdf
  11. Clear. Thanks again Andy. If of interest, I will post my defence on here prior to Friday and let you know how it goes.
  12. Ta. and.... why no Termination notice for me? Any thoughts on that Andy?
  13. Thanks. Another Q (similar) on the DN - the dates give 12 days, not 14. Is that a slam dunk non-compliance go and have drink type scenario that no ducking and diving by the litigant assistant can avoid?
  14. It wasn't. 23 Sept was the date. No worries. and your view on point1?
  15. Morning. I'm putting my defence stuff together now and have a couple of specific questions if you could give these your views. 1. On the T&C's if its proven that the these are false and unenforceable, does the court automatically call it to an end at that point? See the copy WS received - on their copy with my name & address on at point 2.1 it reads "fees will only be included where your agreement was entered into on or after 26 November 2010 or account was previously with Egg". As Egg didn't launch until 1998 and 2010 is 17 years after the alleged agreement it is clearly not the original or a "true" copy. I suggest it may even be fraud in them adding my details on a blank BC T&C. 2. If a DN is then duly "satisfied" does that set everything back to normal? I paid BC £500 in the month following the Mercer DN, defective as it was/is. So if the answer is yes, they would have to produce another DN. Thanks
  16. Whilst still on the DN, I am now of the opinion that this is defective - on these points; 1. Addressed to the company at a PO Box - not a biggie I agree 2. Quotes s87(i) not 87(1) - perhaps they win that on the de minimus rule 3. The period for rectification is less than 14 days. The date on the Mercers ltr is 8 Aug. It doesn't state it was sent 1st class so its deemed 2nd class (I have read that) so makes the effective date of 12 Aug. Date repayment required is before 25 Aug, i.e. 24 Aug means its 12 days in total. 4. The default may have been rectified - I am looking for evidence of this
  17. The interest is for the period from the original N1 to date, I believe. As for the £335.... just another example of their greed. Here's another. The assignment from MK to HPH2. I have found an identical one to the one they have sent in their WS, but with a date of 1/2/16. Robinson Way was sending letters before that. Have they realised the assignment didn't happen and backdated a letter to cover it?
  18. I don't know or remember TBH. My recollection, vague as it now is was that this plus a Visa and a couple of others got maxed (GFC) and I missed payment dates across the board. What seems odd, and something I ask for clarification on please, is assuming I made the £402.54 payment, does that then invalidate the DN? The reason I ask is that in June 2012, according to their copies, the bal was £7878, I must have paid something off it. Therefore, are they not obligated to issue another DN if the first one was satisfied? I have started to read Woodchester in the meantime.
  19. I don't. It looks like they don't have a firm handle on what point the DN should be assigned to a value. As per a few comments above over 12 months after the DN was issued the statement shows the balance to be £7878 and I understand that once the DN is issued there can't be other charges attached. What I would like to start to accumulate is the key points and work down. E.g. is the agreement, or lack thereof, the outstanding piece of evidence that needs presenting at court. Is the DN void (87 (i))? and addressed to a company (mine admittedly) at a PO box? The numbers not adding up seem to be a peripheral issue, i.e. its a few hundred adrift, so my view would be to sum up with "and the numbers are inconsistent throughout..."
  20. Interesting that point on authority - own knowledge or matters of which I have been advised by the Claimant. If it wasn't me in the chair I'd be thinking that if DJH turns up he wont have much to offer in terms of hard copy evidence.
  21. Page 1 is just the title page, it has the case number etc. Its here anyway. Also, just so I am clear, is the issue of the DN being sent to XYZ Ltd, PO Box99.. of any value to me in respect of the DN "not being served"? P1 1.pdf
  22. Thanks DX, as always, appreciated. I shall be donating, regardless of outcome.
  • Create New...