im sorry but i whole heartedly disagree with buzby the quote above was from a judge of the High Court of Justice, in a case which i have the judgment on and which shows that the courts are quite prepared to find for the debtor, and i have many judgments in the same vein, just look up beachcomber60 , Klg80, etc, their cases were won on the basis of statutory non compliance and minor statutory breaches, the fact is, it is how you prepare your case and present it thats key, having a good barrister in your corner is key to winning in my opinion

i have no idea what happened there, i was typing the text to go with it, and the link just posted on its own, spooky Angel have a read of that post i made, and follow that through to the end of the thread, it may assist.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?241827-Legal-Action-how-to-start-off.-IMPORTANT-IF-YOURE-BEING-SUED&p=3240221&viewfull=1#post3240221

yes i agree

A very useful post, which if i could edit my posts i would include within the first postings in the appropriate spot X20 made a very very good post here and has set out the "next step" when the lender fails to disclose adequately

no, this is a good thing as we can debate the rights and wrongs of things please leave it there, it will assist others

the legal arguements were more complex than i am setting out here, and the evidence i had to put forward was conclusive, i had the luxuary of a client who had an MBNA agreement with ALL the original documents from start to finish, and i was able to bench test whatever was produced against this clients papers. plus i had witness evidence from the client and also i was fortunate to have been in the High Court to hear MBNAs solicitor give evidence on their procedures, so i was also able to show further problems for the claimant, it was not a straight forward s78 argument

sorry but that is horrendously incorrect the creditor can threaten and bring legal proceedings under a breach of s78, what he cannot do however is obtain a judgment,charging order or make the debtor bankrupt, and of course falls foul of the rule in Henderson v Henderson if he fails at the first hurdle

its hard to say due to confidentiality issues, but there was non compliance with s78, there was a material deficiency in the terms and conditions produced, both the original ones and current ones the current ones post dated the assignment, which was not possible that is all i can really say

its a shame you didnt get advice on this, you could have got them on an unless order, which would mean they must disclose and if they didnt then the claim is dismissed i fear you have lost a golden opportunity

so did the judge accept disclosure was required? did he or she make any order compelling disclosure? this is sooo important, i dont see how you can defend when there is no documents on which the Claim is based. im pondering a strike out to be honest

im really lost here did you set out in your application that you made a request under CPR 31.14 and that CPR 31.15 says 7 days for compliance and in the event of non compliance then the Claimants claim is in difficulty per Expandable vs Rubin? The judge may well be correct here, if you are not grasping the basics of the rules, then you will face an uphill struggle i expect your defence is going to be hard to do given you have no documents to plead against

ok, so did you include within your application, directions for disclosure? and if not why not?

okay, i dont want to sound rude here, but a couple of simple questions arise Have they sent you any reply under the s78 request? was the s78 request accompanied by a one pound fee? have they sent you any documents requested as a response to a written request made under the Civil Procedure Rules part 31.14?

no they form one document the reply to defence comes first, then the Defence to counter claim follows you would normally set out a subheading for the Defence to counterclaim

ok, im not sure what the general people think the purpose of the disclosure provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules are meant for, but if you have the documents mentioned in the parties statement of case, then you can answer the Claim surely? you have their pleaded case, you have the documents mentioned in it then you have everything you need to formulate a defence in accordance with CPR 16.5 so i do not see why you would be worried?? what would you be worrying about? please can you explain?

thanks CB much appreciated

all i can say to that is, about time, and they werent when i checked last time round Thanks shadow,

dam it, then i need my name changing to STEVIE WONDER cos i cant see the ones which hundreds have asked for to be stickied infact, DX100UK said ( and i know its not the case but hey ho) the site team dont handle stickies but only Admin do, so, one asks a direct question to you shadow, where is the embarrassed defences thread? where is the CPR 31.14 vs 31.18 thread which would undoubtedly provide many with help and avoid the mess-ups which have occurred on here recently??? where are they? they arent stickied despite many many asking for them sigh

31.14 you mean? and im sorry but at the moment, im having real difficulties in feeling kind and helpful towards this site, i would if a simple question was answered that i have asked over and over. However, i am drafting something for another site at the moment, so if someone were to copy it then so be it

cheers bust, I have seen a few people wait and wait and wait for a reply, and then get default judgment against them, the rules are clear and easy to follow they say 7 days, so on day 8 AFTER the Claimant receives the request if he hasnt complied you get on his back straight away The point is, and i keep banging on about it, but if you file a dog doo doo defence because you dont have the documents, then apply later to amend when disclosure occurs, the rules say the party amending pays the costs of the other party so here comes a nice costs order for £2-3k There is case law, such as nomura vs granada,expandable vs rubin, which says a party bringing a claim founded on a contract cannot object to disclosing it if its mentioned in its statement of case. If the party doesnt have the contract on which the Claim is based then one ponders how it can sign a statement of truth saying the facts of its claim are true if it dont have that document in its possession Contempt of court springs to mind for starters. the rules are there to be used, i have never had a default judgment against my client following these procedures, but i am never frightened to apply when the time frames run out.

going back to the Citi credit agreement the PPI misselling, there is a very helpful checklist on john pughs website, which details what a solicitor should look at and questions which should be asked. It would be a good starting point, i cant post a link, as the heavy hand of moderation has removed many links to his website it seems, despite him being A) a cca barrister B) a public access barrister C) a barrister who works on CFA basis but id look there first. And then look at London North Securities vs Meadows, Woolerton v Blackhorse, Yates v Nemo and also look up Beachcomber60 on here, as his case was also won on credit being wrongly badged as a charge for credit. it is far easier in my opinion to attack the PPI if it was a condition of the loan, than going at the multiple agreement

thought id best post over here too, so im subbed to the thread,

well i would first need to ask, if the PPI was truly optional ,just because its badged as such dont mean it is, there are a lot of issues to investigate. IF the PPI was not optional then one could argue the credit is incorrect and a charge for credit is included in the credit. Also the fact that the PPI hasnt been stripped out may well allow an argument under s18 CCA 1974 that the repayments are not correctly stated for each part of the credit that would be where i would look personally

in what respect? is there any thing specific you want me to comment on? and yes, the lack of PMs in frustrating, alas i fear Lord Lucan will be found before i get an answer as to why i cannot PM anymore