Jump to content


HFC/Restons **WON**CASE STRUCK OUT


Bug
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5400 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 384
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Okay ... I could do with getting a few things clear in my head before tomorrow's hearing.....

 

Restons stated in their letter that they intend to rely on s3 of the CC Regs 1983 which relates to the omission of certain things from the copy agreement....

 

.... it's too 'wordy' and I don't understand how they can rely on this.

 

The way I see it is that they are trying to wriggle out of their obligation to provide a LEGIBLE copy of the agreement. Legible or not the agreement should still contain the prescribed terms (I appreciate the fact that it's illegible so I can't say if they're there or not...

 

I understand that I have s2 to rely on with respect to legibility.

 

Do you think I'm approaching this correctly? As far as I can tell the gist of s3 is the provision of signatures?

Link to post
Share on other sites

180. Power to prescribe form etc. of copies.

— (1) Regulations may be made as to the form and content of documents to be issued as copies of any executed agreement, security instrument or other document referred to in this Act, and may in particular—

 

(a)require specified information to be included in the prescribed manner in any copy, and contain requirements to ensure that such information is clearly brought to the attention of a reader of the copy;

 

 

 

(b)authorise the omission from a copy of certain material contained in the original, or the inclusion of such material in condensed form.

 

 

 

 

(2) A duty imposed by any provision of this Act (except section 35) to supply a copy of any document—

 

(a)is not satisfied unless the copy supplied is in the prescribed form and conforms to the prescribed requirements;

 

(b)is not infringed by the omission of any material, or its inclusion in condensed form, if that is authorised by regulations;

 

 

and references in this Act to copies shall be construed accordingly.

 

 

 

 

Hi Bug, that is section 180, well the important parts of it

 

they will no doubt be reliant upon s1 of 180, however, s2(a & b) are equally as important as they set out that while it is the case that a Signature can be omitted from a copy for the purposes of compliance with a request made under the Act, the copy must be as set out by the regulations , it must contain the prescribed terms etc

 

for the purpose of Court enforcement

 

the DOCUMENT MUST BE SIGNED no exceptions

 

so the document must be legible and in the prescribed form and contain the prescribed terms and as stated above, be signed

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, got it. It looks like they will be trying to argue one section of an act while I argue the other - I just need to try to keep the judge focused on MY side of the argument!

 

Thanks for your help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck bug...

 

looks like i will be going down a similar road very soon with the same duo restons/HFC...

 

AND i will be needing HELP, hope all goes well 2morrow...

 

Best wishs. G

Thanks for caring... G

 

It's never as bad as it seems...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks goorooji ... as far as HFC/Restons go, we're not the first and sad to say we'll be far from the last, just needs more of us to fight back!;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone, not long back from the court....

 

Three parts to the judge's order:

 

1. The claimants application for summary judgment be dismissed

 

2. The defendant's application to strike out the claim be granted

 

3. CLAIM STUCK OUT!!!!!!

 

Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy, oh boy......

Edited by Bug
typo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone, not long back from the court....

 

Three parts to the judge's order:

 

1. The claimants application for summary judgment be dismissed

 

2. The defendant's application to strike out the claim be granted

 

3. CLAIM STUCK OUT!!!!!!

 

Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy, oh boy......

WHOOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOOO RESULT

 

im really pleased for you

 

great result

 

im glad i can now change the thread title to WON

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks PT for all your help and encouragement and the time that you put in..

 

....one thing that did make me smile was the judge saying he was 'extremely impressed' with the way the application to strike out was put together - soooo glad I did it!

 

I would like to thank everyone who helped me with this from start to finish - keep up the good work!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Bug :)

 

I can't say how pleased I am for you, especially considering the bum deal you got with your other case, so WELL DONE and CONGRATULATIONS!! :D:D

 

Another HFC/Restons case bites the dust! :lol::lol::lol:

 

Cheers

Rob

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another HFC/Restons case bites the dust!

 

haha, I haven't been able to wipe the smile off my face yet!

 

Thanks Rob - I now have this overwhelming urge to help others do the same ... you can't thrash Restons enough really, can you? :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

haha, I haven't been able to wipe the smile off my face yet!

 

Thanks Rob - I now have this overwhelming urge to help others do the same ... you can't thrash Restons enough really, can you? :D

 

You certainly can't thrash them enough, especially considering they are cocky enough to claim in some cases that the defendant is acting unreasonably by placing an unfair burden on poor old HFC by having to produce agreements etc. And then there's their other sob story of defendants using "website-based" assistance which is obviously bugging (excuse the pun) them! :lol::lol:

 

So I hope you're reading this Restons, to put it mildly, stuff you! :lol::lol:

 

Cheers

Rob

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, they gave me the whole 'unfair burden' bit ... biggest load of bull ever .... always worth putting up a fight when they are so blatantly out of order ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great result Bug and Paul !!! fantastic work WELL DONE !!!!

 

Thanks 42man ... just put a fizzy beverage in the fridge to chill!! :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

May I also add that Bug was paying every month and on time with the payment plan.....and still would have been if Restons/HFC hadn't been completely unreasonable and shown the heavy hand....

Link to post
Share on other sites

May I also add that Bug was paying every month and on time with the payment plan.....and still would have been if Restons/HFC hadn't been completely unreasonable and shown the heavy hand....

 

Absolutely. They said it would take 11 years to pay off and their clients weren't satisfied with that....:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

No probs....

 

He started by saying that there were two applications to deal with and asked if either the sol for Restons or myself had any objection to them both being heard this morning ... both of us said 'no' of course.

 

So he said he would deal with their application for summary judgment first. The sol talked about how the case had come about (usual pre-amble stuff) and how I had been paying it etc, etc. He referred to the huge bundle of statements from HFC in front of him..

 

Judge: 'Yes, I have that too. Isn't there a witness statement to back these up? They could refer to anything. I really don't think that the application for summary judgment will be able to go any further without any evidence...'

 

Sol: 'I think I have the same documents, no, nothing about a witness statement'

 

Judge: 'Umm...right I'll deal with Mrs (Bug)'s application to strike out. Well I have to say that I'm extremely impressed with the way the argument in this application is put together. Your application concerns this illegible application form ... sol, have Restons files another form which is legible?

 

Sol: 'No sir'

 

We discussed the ins and outs of the CCA s60, 61, 127 plus s3 of the 1983 regs. I read the relevant sections to the judge. He made some notes and made a few comments about not being able to understand what Restons thought they could rely on.

 

Judge: 'Mr (sol) 'Do you have anything to say?'

 

Sol: 'Well Mrs (Bug) has been paying and so by definition there is an admission of the debt'

 

Me: 'With respect to the court and to yourself, Mr (sol) that isn't what is at issue here. The krux of this case is that Restons have brought the matter before the court where clearly they had no right in law to do so - they are attempting to enforce a totally unenforceable agreement, well, application form'

 

Judge: 'Mr (sol), any further comments?'

 

Sol: 'No sir, I have nothing else useful to say'

 

Then the judge summed up and threw the claim out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...