You issue a Part 7 Claim

Well I guess we're on a collision course then to the High Court and the subsequent appeals on this one. Hopefully it'll end up in a COA or HOL ruling that they can't impose a default in circumstances where the agreement is unfair - after all the inability to enforce the agreement is the financial penalty the Creditors pay for breaking the law. To allow them to default the affected borrower is to mock Parliaments intention.

Well I guess we're on a collision course then to the High Court and the subsequent appeals on this one. Hopefully it'll end up in a COA or HOL ruling that they can't impose a default in circumstances where the agreement is unfair - after all the inability to enforce the agreement is the financial penalty the Creditors pay for breaking the law. To allow them to default the affected borrower is to mock Parliaments intention.

Its legally aided

It is being appealed and the case is listed for hearing at the Court of Appeal in October

Think its more to do with Unfair Relationships & probably multiple agreements. Bradley Say's appeal case is being heard by Court of Appeal in October.

Yes the 2009 edition does but I don't have it to hand. From memory it quotes a case and states that if you unreasonably oppose a request to amend a defence then you may be liable for costs of hearing to determine it.

Whats date of issue? Its 5 days from date plus 28 days

Yes

subbing

It is an offence to leave the scene without exchanging details. It must be reported as soon as is reasonably practicable or within 24 hours to a police station otherwise regardless of who is to blame you can be charged.

What on earth is going on here???? The decision will be handed down shortly - surely that is the time for post mortems to be held!

I am extremely saddened by the personalised attack on PT's motives for contributing to CAG. Particularly so because it is (edited) who I also had a lot of time for from the time when we were all exploring the unenforceabilty argument at the beginning. I hope it won't deter PT from posting because he among others help large numbers. I find it strange that because PT is in the legal profession that this is somehow seen to be a bad thing. If his firm helps some CAG members in cases where they are not knowledgable enough to help themselves on a no win no fee basis I cannot understand why he should be pilloried for it. Consumer credit law is a very specialised area and CAG members are lucky to have access to his firm through him. Except that I know of (edited) from old I would have thought the personal attacks were being carried out by a Creditor. CAG is fortunate that PT was prepared to provide information on complicated areas of laws he has run as cases in the Courts. I came under personal attack as well on CAG by contributors who didn't know the legal realities and I got tired of arguing with them and as a result I no longer contribute.

Good luck

The Judge clearly didn't think their defence would have a good prospect of suceess just a possibility of. If he had thought their defence had significant merit he wouldn't have ordered them to repay the £550

Good luck today

sub

They still have to produce the documentation. If it is illegible then they have a problem

Then the person who hasn't signed will not be liable at all. As to the person who has signed would need to see the agreement.

When was it taken out?

Are the arrears quoted and the other figures on th DN which you have blacked out accurate? Can you scan your actual agreement up?

congrats

The only interest rate quoted fro cash advance is APR - which is not the prescribed term.

can't see any agreement...................

I see what you're getting at. Yes £30 k is in breach. Creditor cannot argue unregulated agreement as they have entered into a regulated agreement with you.