I'm by no means an expert Pedross - I think the accolade should go to "Bachs Rescue Remedy"!!! Mamma always told me, "you're not just a pretty face." Now I really must stop before I start congratulating my self!!! There's still a war to be won and I'll be calling on you all once again!

Oh, just one comment DJ made in relation to Amex v Brandon. " Why does he (assume HHJ whatsisname) think that these companies go to all the trouble of issueing d/n's if in actual fact they don't really have to get it right or at least not stick to the rules?"

-------------------------------------------------------- I will stop now, you get the gist of the matter! HFC are still sticking to the old t&c's would have been on the back, customer would have signed yaddah, yaddah. Oh and of course the d/n did not come in the envelope exhibited!! DJ has basically said prove it but has also warned us that he is worried for us in terms of costs implications should we procede and not win. Guess we'll just stick to the relevant points of law as we have done so far and pray that the Brandon appeal gets the result it justly deserves. Huge thanks again to all concerned- you know who you are and please stick with us to continue the fight. x (Please be aware that I will probably delete this a bit later - you never know who just might be looking in! Wouldn't want to upset anyone would we! Hope it made you smile. )

Oh Sagittarius, what can I say!! - I used your summaries of the Carey & McGuffick cases to great effect. The judge was speachless - you could almost see the the thought baloon above his head saying - Whoah, she's just contradicted me, hhmmnn me thinks this woman might just know what she's talking about!!!!! As I said, will elaborate later. Special thanks.

Thankyou. Wishing you success in your case.

Thankyou humbleman. I am not able to scan but the t&c's I have are exactly those that robcag and SB100 have displayed on their HFC threads. If you have reason to believe these may belong to HSBC, then that would be VERY good news!

SJ APPLICATION DISMISSED. CASE STAYED PENDING OUTCOME OF AMEX CASE (Though DJ didn't see it's relevance & sols for claimant said didn't think claimant was intending to rely on it any longer!!!) Will elaborate later, it wasn't all 'plain sailing'. Beware DJ's patrol these forums too.!!!! Well done everyone BIG kisses to all concerned. First battle won, now on with the war!

Thankyou LB and very best wishes to you too. I hope that you (and others) will benefit from the wonderful help afforded to me here. Night, night all. x

All done! Again, huge thanks to all that have helped me thus far. What would I have done without you?!

Sagittarius - thankyou so much for your concise response. You have been extremely helpful. Pedross - thanks for stopping by again. You are correct concerning the wording on the D/N, hadn't thought of it like that. Humbleman - August '94 - any particular reason?

Sorry Josie, Final question - Do we ask for adjournment as soon as we arrive or only when we go through to the judge? Excuse my ignorance!

Assume you mean no later than ? Thanks again for all your help.

But he's so convinced it's 1st class, I even went to double check my 'big S' Josie, just to confirm, adjournment just because Restons confirmed elsewhere that they intend to rely on Amex case or to include the late submission of new WS and for that witness to be called as DD suggests? DD - Thanks as always for your submissions.

Well, no response to my request for an adjournment but............... Guess what's just come through the fax machine - a WS from an HFC employee - allegedly.(An External Agents Audit and Process Manager!) More 3rd party heresay then - in the words of bankerrhymeswith : "Would a External blah de blah, be involved with licking stamps to send out application forms and would they get involved with opening envelopes when they came back?!" Was he even there in 1994? So, first question is, can they use it tomorrow - they obviously decided that Miss Tipping's sworn statement wasn't good enough!? This 'latest' WS confirms they "cannot produce the original or actual copy of the agreement" but "is able to provide a reconstituted 'copy' (within the meaning of the Act)" and "It is denied that the Bank is now under an obligation to do so. The Bank relies on Reg3 of the CCA (Cancellation Notices etc) Regulations 1983 which inter alia provides that any copy document can omit various information including signature boxes and dates. I am satisfied that this is an accurate reconstruction of the agreement which the Defendant signed" "The bank has inserted the name and address of the Defendant" "The document exhibited.......has been obtained from other credit agreements for the same GM credit facility signed by customers at roughly the same time. I can therefore confirm that the t&c's which applied to the Defendant's card are the t&c's at exhibitxxxx". He then goes on about what the account set up procedure was, how OH would have completed an application form and signed the agreement. and last but not least - "I confirm to the Court that I have specifically checked with the Bank's systems and can confirm this Default Notice was sent to the Defendant by way of first class post" (So why have I got an envelope with a big black S in the corner then? Copy sent recorded del. to Restons yesterday.) I note no mention of the Amex case , assume we still go for adjournment? All and any comments most welcome.

I know humbleman, but I guess "every little helps" as they say.

http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/...7_Judgment.pdf For those of you defending wholly unenforceable agreements it might be worth printing out the judgment to get the Judge's attention. I know it is something we already knew but it could save you time and waffle. Let the Barrister they send argue against a recent Supreme Court Judgment! LOL See at 12: 12. The Act and the Regulations distinguish between ‘prescribed terms’ and ‘required terms’. In the case of an agreement predating 6 April 2007 such as the agreement which is the subject of this appeal, by section 127(3) of the Act a failure properly to include a prescribed term in the agreement renders the agreement wholly unenforceable, whereas a failure properly to include a required term merely means that the agreement is enforceable only by court order under section 65(1) of the Act. With thanks to Ruprecht for bringing this to our attention. Think I might have a copy of this at the back of my bundle?!

Hello 'Angel No2' ! Are you any further forward with this? Halifax continue to send me monthly statements, adding interest etc, so as in your situation, they really don't appear to think that they have terminated the account. Have not had any other contact from them or their DCA's since February! I note on their last statement, there is a little note about pilfering monies from any other accounts held with them!!!

Josie, to say you're a little star is an under statement and that little word 'thankyou' is said from the heart.

Well, to coin a phrase, "it ain't over 'til the fat lady sings" so lets hope it's the 'right fat lady' singing at the Court of Appeal.

Agree Wycombe but does the possibility of this decision being upheld in the Appeal Court even bear thinking about?

Thankyou for that information Josie. Assume we can request a stay actually at the SJ hearing on Wednesday?

Hi Supa, The above was received from Restons on Saturday in response to WS declaring that I had proof D/N was not sent 1st class as they have sworn. (They have been alerted to this fact months ago!) The fax this morning was a transcript of the case referred to. Apologies for not being able to post a copy - as it's a fax it's not easily legible. Thanks for the link - I could very nearly almost recite that verbatim!

Any volunteers to tell that to the Judge!

Could do with someone far more 'saavi' than me to take a look at this judgement and advise the implications - PLEASE Happy to post case no. on live forum if allowed!

I have re-read this judgement over and over and in my opinion, both judges concerned dwell on the fact that Brandon never denied he had the money and quote "American Express is a very large and respectable operation, almost all of whose business must be regulated by the Act. It would be absurd to suppose that it was not aware of the need to comply with a well known requirement........." !!!! Thought they were to supposed to adhere to simple facts of law and not discuss their personal thoughts as to probabilities!