Nemo dat quod non habet means that one cannot sell more than one owns now im really confused

been a long day and im clearly missing something, but what has linford got to do with this donkey?

in this case, the latin Nemo dat quod non habet springs to mind

an application would be for an order compelling disclosure. The party mentioning a document in its statement of case ought to allow inspection of that document, given that they have signed a statement of truth too So, if they cannot provide the documents they have pleaded in their statement of case, then you will need to see this document before you can formulate a defence as it seems the agreement is central to this matter

Assignment law in the UK is governed by inter alia the Law of Property Act 1925 in a nutshell. For an assignment to be legal and not one in equity, there must be notice of that assignment, it doesnt matter who gives notice (assignee or assignor) but what matters is notice is given. I dont wish to get involved in the debate as to who is right and who is wrong, i am just correcting one point set out above

not always, it would depend upon the order entered, as to what happens next

If they are assignees under a Legal assignment, then they can bring proceedings in their own name, and if the assignment is not legal then they would rely on equity, they may be required by the Court to join the original creditor to proceedings. I do not see that there is any requirement to serve a default notice if the contract is enduring when it is transfered to the new company, it would be absurd if this were the case, such as in the case of Monument when it sold its accounts to Barclays, did they default all the customers before they assigned the accounts? it is very much the same scenario, Also a creditor can restrict credit without the need for a default, they can set your credit limit to 0 any time they choose Also they dont need a default notice to seek to recover the arrears , this is a point often missed by people who bang on about default notices, just because there is no default notice they can still sue for outstanding arrears So, to summarise, each case turns on its own facts. It depends on what basis they say they are not responsible under the CCA. This is an argument often run by Cabot, however, the OFT have made it very clear that they view the Creditor as the party who the rights have been transferred to. That seems entirely right as the 1974 Act states that you cannot contract out of the act.There is also the Crutchley vs Go Debt case, which seems to support this view.

so the matter is not currently in court?

yes, Penelope Wilson did succeed, the wiki article is incorrect evidently from the Lords own Judgment As for the agreement here? that is a question of fact for the Court to decide on the evidence and the Defence raised by the Defendant in the course of proceedings. people on these forums quite often and incorrectly say that this is unenforceable, it is for the Court to decide r eally, so i cannot answer im afraid.

Erm what is the source of your information that Wilson was in the High Court? from the House of Lords judgment She lost, and appealed to the Court of Appeal, there were two hearings in the COA and then the case went to the Lords

hold on your in the Small claims track, hmm, they may struggle on costs then, if you amended as Part 27 does not allow costs unless there is unreasonable conduct. There is the CAB who can refer you to the Bar Pro bono department for legal help there is also the Community Legal Service which assists with legal aid I cannot advise on whether or not you will get such aid

Oh dear, Im sorry, i place my head in my hands and wonder who advised this, Wilson never made it to the High Court. Also, the fact there are issues with the Claimants claim may not help you here, as their case may be flawed but could still proceed, as they may well have pleaded the facts sufficiently to succeed. Your Defence on the other hand from what i read here will struggle. These forums are not the place for defending litigation any longer, there are too many arm chair lawyers who think they know it all and know FCUK all, you are i would assume going to need to amend and amend quick smart too, but this is something that will need doing properly and not fudged like it seems has happened here

if you are correct, then the glaringly obvious error is that the "amount of credit" is incorrect by £4.00 therefore Wilson v FCT ought to come to your aid here, but one ponders whether you pleaded this point in your defence correctly

how much was borrowed? because i seem to be unable to work out the amount of credit

yes and regulated only, as a breach of the TCC regs can only occur with an agreement regulated by the 1974 Act

you can amend but the CPR dictates the requirements as to amendments, You would most likely now face liability for the opponents costs in amending the Defence however, as the general rule is the party amending pays the other parties costs.

forget what the agreement states at the end of the day, the fact it says optional is worthless and a point often followed on these forums to say that there is no argument. As to whether or not the PPI is optional we need to look at what was said at the time, what was supplied to you in regards text to read, the PPI policy etc, case such as Wollerton v Blackhorse are relevant here , so it Yates v Nemo. It is never a straightforward run on these cases, it would seem however that you have been somewhat lead up the garden path with this case and the Defence to it. I again suggest reading London north vs Meadows

i can raise easily 20 judgments from our firm, that show wilson is helpful

wilson deals with a schedule 6 breach, and no post is not correct in the slightest Law is about applying the law to the individual facts of each case, i spent 6 years at uni learning how to read law and invested a great deal of time and money doing so which is why i now work for a leading CCA law firm. The breach you are alluding to on its own would entitle you to a section 127 (1) and (2) remedy unless the amount of credit is misstated or the repayments are wrong in any way, this is the ratio of wilson, the prescribed terms must be accurate However, if a charge for credit ( see regs 4 and 5 Total Charge for Credit Regulations 1980) is badged up as Credit itself, then this is fatal as by common sense the credit will be misstated, as a charge cannot be credit It is a complicated area of law, and hence why i asked about the PPI being conditional or optional as the PPI has the power to render the agreement unenforceable if it ticks all the boxes that is

i must be missing something a breach of schedule 1 agreement regs is not fatal and therefore can be remedied?

but if the charge is a charge, and interest is charged upon it and they fail to state the interest calc properly that would NOT be a fatal irredeemable breach, rather one that could be remedied on application for an enforcement order

http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2009_0217_PressSummary.pdf

interest can accrue on a charge for credit see SPML vs Walker which went all the way to the House of Lords

Is there any issue surrounding the PPI being conditional? see London North Securities vs Meadows Court of Appeal If the insurance was a charge for credit and not credit itself then you would have a fatal unenforceablity if the charge for credit is included within the Credit

i would hope not case law has really no place in a defence in normal circumstances, as a defence is the facts which you intend to rely on at trial. Case law normally goes in your skeleton argument