difficult to advise really. Id say if the judge erred then you ought to have appealed the decision. I think this case makes things clearer now

Is finally here http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Mercantile/2011/B3.html Enjoy any questions please ask away and i will try and answer them

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

good huh Lmfao

ah, that is a very tricky question to answer Initially we applied for an injunction only, but the case progressed, twisted and turned etc, and we ended up repleading due to the Defendants defence and counterclaim. So yes s78 was one of the limbs but not all of them

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Mercantile/2011/B3.html will make uncomfortable reading for Link, Are there any issues within that case that you identify with your own case?

personally i think its a very good judgment,

oh and of course, Tritel, Chitty, Goode, Lloyd and Guest cant seem to find something in any of them that supports your view really

Well the trouble is Mouldy, you and a few others scattered over these forums seem to belive what you say, however, i see no judgments in your favour, However, when i look at my files, i see Arrow Global vs Devlin which went to appeal, i see Harrison vs Link Financial, and of course the case of R vs Kettering Magistrates Court exparte the MIB all of which seem to take me to the conclusion i reach. So, please provide me with a case authority which centres on these issues, as it seems you must have one at least surely?

yes, but with respect, the Courts are loathed to allow the "filthy debtor" to avoid their debts on technicalities, how many more adverse judgments do we need to reaslise that However, Our clients judgment comes out tomorrow, and his debt is no more, and what's more the Court was absolutely scathing in its view on the creditors conduct, actions, comments, etc, and i can say with some certainty that the DCA and the original creditor will be hanging their heads. It was because our client had, and we had too, engaged the OC with correspondence and got their silly replies in return When it came to court, who do you think looked silly? when His Honour asked, why didnt you reply to this letter? why did you write taking no notice of that letter, why when the Claimant said this did you do that etc As i said, things move on, approaches move on, if the people on these forums dont move with them then they are at risk of being left behind

Er, no, You only need to see the recent judgments ive posted on another site, to see that the issue of unenforceability is still live. I think that you ought to write back and advise them that their assertion that your son is ignoring them is incorrect and that if they would care to address the issues raised in his correspondance and advise why they believe the agreement is enforceable, then he will discuss the matter with them further, however until such time as they answer his points he cannot move forward

maybe, but it ought to be replied to, It seems that the Courts expect you to do more than just ignore the opponent nowadays if you want some kind of relief from the courts The landscape with regards to CCA litigation is moving on, and its a shame that sometimes these forums tend to become stuck in the past

One thing that has come out of the High Court case, and the many County Court cases that i have been involved in, is that you should not ignore the opponent if you are going to look for assistance from the Court. All the cases i have had, where the person has referred to the debt as "alleged" or written i do no acknowledge any debt has drawn harsh criticism from the Courts. Whereas the cases where the customers have engaged with the opponent and set out the valid basis of their arguments, have been dealt with much more favourably by the Courts.

The judgment being handed down on monday may help you here, as it seems that MBNA have overstepped the line as they did in the case we took before the High Court. There may be an argument to have the court refuse the enforcement order. My hands are tied until the judgment is handed down

Discontinuance on the back of a dodgy DN may well have been a commercial decision, firms do not want adverse judgments against them nor more importantly do they want costs ordered against them or Appeals. So those may well have been in their consideration on the back of this. We took a debt purchaser to the High Court and placed them in circumstances where they could not discontinue as we were the Claimants. we ran our arguments and succeeded on them, certainly in respect of the default notice. When the judgment comes out it will be more clear,

I posted this on another site, and im sorry to say that i cannot see how the repudiation arguments can ever succeed, i have searched all the legal databases that i have, such as Westlaw, Lawtel, Lexis Nexis and no where can i find any authorities for this which fall within the area of Regulated credit agreements. If someone can show me a judgment concerning a CCA regulated agreement that has succeeded with the repudiation argument on the debtors side, then i will consider my view but til then im sorry but it remains as stated

nah part 18 can get you answers, i did a thread on 31.14 vs part 18 it may well assist here

quite right but what must be made clear also is that the party amending is liable for the costs of the other party that is what the White Book says on costs, so if you file an embarrassed Defence then you are at risk of costs.

sorry iu dont know whats been going on with this forum, I couldnt post and one post i made took about 30 minutes to appear, i didnt mean to be harsh but i wanted to try and get some help to you, in case i was unable to post. I think the s78 request is an idea, but if there is no agreement i think they will not be able to comply, Id also consider whether or not you did ever sign an agreement and if you didnt then you must plead this in the Defence expressly.

I do not think that they can comply with s78 if there is no agreement, I was going to try and assist with a defence but i am having difficulties posting on here, and therefore it is going to prove fruitless to even try, If you were to try and PM Debtcontrol im sure he would not object to sharing the Defence which we drafted for him and which you could maybe utilise? It succeeded in his case so should assist you

it is somewhat evident by your posts that you do not care what his honour says, however, it doesnt matter what you think or care at the end of the day because when presented with a binding authority the lower courts will undoubtedly follow it sorry but thats life, There is plenty of protection for the consumer, you need to open those eyes and see it.

Ok, Firstly, Mould does indeed say directly that that is his view. I do not believe he is correct. The reason for this is that the High Court has handed down a draft judgment which will be formally confirmed on Monday 28th Feb 2011 that says a bad notice can be remedied, and no enforcement can occur on the back of a bad notice. That also is backed by the R vs Kettering Magistrates court Ex Parte the MIB. This case confirms that s170 limits sanctions to those provided for expressly by the CCA itself. So it seems that the creditor can reissue a compliant notice and then terminate the agreement

well, it resulted in a lot of money being irrecoverable, but thats all i can say for now, til monday

McGuffick said that steps within s87(1) could constitute enforcement, so id argue that termination is step that is not available with a bad notice that seems to be the judges view too

yes, i know, these repudiation arguments really ought to have been put to bed with Brandon, Woodchester, Rankine v Amex etc If there were a valid argument, we would have had case law on it by now, however, now we will have a clear indication from the High Court that no enforcement can happen on the back of a bad notice and that a bad notice can be remedied.