you cannot just slap a entry on someones credit file saying they have "out of the Blue" missed 6 payments, when the original default occured months ago. the creditor refuses to accept the courts judgment and order, and is threatening to sue again and put these people through another gruelling court battle. The creditor was not the original party to proceedings, it was an assignee, the OC has taken the debt back from the Claimant and has restarted recovery proceedings. The court found they did not have to pay, Lord Hoffmans judgment in Dimond is very clear on these consequences in these circumstances.

You need to look at the notice you have, find the faults with it, and then plead them inthe defence. You need to make sure that you are saying .....................This notice is bad.....................and heres the reasons why..........................and as a result the High Court in Harrison said no enforcement is possible per para 75 of HHJ Chambers QCs judgment That is how i would approach this. Also look at the amount claimed, if the amount is incorrect, the notice will be bad, if they are demanding the full balance for example then this is not permitted.

Actually, your information there is quite wrong Caro This matter has been to the Court, a judgment handed down which releases the Debtor from his obligations as a clear declaration was given under the Courts powers in s142 CCA 1974. With respect, i think we should clarify that the OFT fact sheet clearly refers to s77-79 breaches and not the irredeemable unenforceability which occurs for more serious breaches of the 1974 Act. In this case, the Creditor CANNOT sue Beachy as its already been to court, to do so would in effect be a insult to the court and an attempt to challenge a competent court through the back door, it would be an abuse of process. Likewise, demanding payment where there is a judgment setting out that the debt is unenforceable by breach of s61(1)(a) leaves the creditor in hot water, this is not a s78 breach here but more serious. Any default registered now is defamatory and incorrect, this is a matter for the Court to resolve, ive already had counsels opinion on the matter

But the Creditor CANNOT terminate on the back of a bad notice. That is the whole point, the statute PROHIBITS it. You need to read s87(1) you will see that see that the creditor must serve a notice before he can become entitled to terminate. The word entitled in a statute for the protection of consumers by the provision of information clearly shows that they cannot step outside of this and seek a common law remedy. In any event the common law does not override the will of parliament. The only law that can attack the will of parliament is european law and it can do so because of the European Communities Act 1972!! there is case law which confirms that the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is not defeated by common law either. Also Thre are now a number of judicial decisions which the Mould clearly is unaware of, as the Court have, following Harrison dismissed Claims where the notice was bad, citing that no enforcement can be attempted in dependence on a bad notice. I do not believe the moulds arguments will work, i do believe that when faced with that defence Restons will file for summary judgment

Injuntion injunction and er injunction with sanctions which lead to the CEO of GE going to prison for breaching it is the way to go

No i think the OP ought to seek disclosure, I think at least the template ought to be provided.

It seems previous posts have been removed, however, as i said in those posts, obtaining disclosure is the key if there is no default notice provided. There is provision in the CPR for a party to seek specific disclosure for example. Also one could utilise CPR Part 18 to ask questions concerning the default notice and ask through correspondence for example if the bank uses a generic template for its default notices. If the bank does, then there should be no problem with the bank disclosing a copy of its template. Of course if it refuses then one should take issue with this and become very suspicious as it would be fair to say that in all likelihood that the template would have issues and that would be the only reason i can see for refusing to print a copy from the system. I accept you cannot check the figures if a copy is printed from a template, but you can check the form and content requirements The burden is on the Claimant and it is the Claimants to discharge after all, if he refuses to produce his evidence then he deserves to lose his case

have we all forgotten the Ferguson v British Gas case ? Maybe worth a refresher as it seems on all fours with this current case.

yes, i was just pulling your chain so to speak

well yes, common sense suggests that you wouldnt issue a "default notice" unless there was a breach lol

or to exercise the termination aspect of the agreement

Yeah i agree there, but id add that id ask the Court to vary the order to a certified true copy which the creditor ought to be able to satisfy.

Quite, Post when i say a certified true copy, what i mean is they could use the template and populate the data onto it from their systems, and then sign to certify that this document is a true copy of the original. The agreement, wont need to be signed, unless there is a dispute over the actual signing of the agreement. Many DJs now accept that unless the debtor puts forward a positive assertions that he never signed an agreement then the DJ will accept a reconstitution backed by witness evidence from the bank or creditor.

but they can certify a copy as being a true copy most banking systems will provide a system wide template. Simply produce that and certify it as a true copy!!!! whats wrong with that? the Debtor is entitled to see the documents which underpin the Claim against him. I would pull them apart if they tried that approach on any of my cases, as its nonsense to suggest the creditor need not produce the notice or a true copy of it

and if the contention is that woodchester gives the entitlement of the arrears, ive been able to distinguish on the facts as woodchester was a Hire agreement which had been brought to an end by repossession of the goods. The contract could not endure even if it wanted to, whereas a credit card is entirely different.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Mercantile/2011/B3.html Para 75

and whats more, I am unaware of any authroities which allow for reconstitution of a default notice, Carey never went that far and the law of evidence has not been altered by any statutes to the best of my knowledge. The creditor ought to certify as a true copy the documents which they intend to rely upon, if they wont then their evidence is at risk

well, that now depends on the Harrison Judgment. A number of District judges have dismissed claims up and down the country because the notice was not compliant. The Judge in Harrison said "No enforcement can be taken in dependence on a bad notice"

Part 18 questions may well assist here. Also if they dont have the original why dont they provide a template that was in use at that time to ensure the statutory content is there

But As per carey, if the Debtor is able to put forward a positive assertion that there was no signed agreeement, and is able to give details as to the circumstances when the agreement was executed then the bank will need to address in its evidence this point. It may be that only producing the signed agreement satisfies this provison Also lets not forget para 7 of the Court of Appeal in Kotecha!!

Amendments to statements of case 17.1 (1) A party may amend his statement of case at any time before it has been served on any other party. Taken from the CPR itself

gutted? you can send an updated defence and ask the court to serve the amended one as opposed to the first one if your quick courts will not deal with them today anyway

that is how i set out the breaches of s78 in respct of default notices now this is taken from a successful defence which was dealt with before a County Court. It is not nor should it be taken to be advising the OP as to what to write, it is merely for guidance of the issues that need to be addressed. Also in respect of penalty charges I hope these excerpts assist

If this is right, what peter says, that the agreement was a Hire Purchase agrement and the default was bad, then you need Chartered Trust vs Pritcher as the authority to support you as well as Harrison I too havent read the thread from the start

CPUT regs are not directly enforceable by the consumer, but need to be enforced by the regulators such as OFT as i understand it