Lloyds TSB Credit Card - Claim form received

[spiritgirl59]

Hiya Michael

 

Chris is right.

 

My case should not have been fast tracked either but it was, despite me battling hard to get it to the small claims, and as you know I then agreed a Tomlin Order due to the Judge telling me that if I lost I would have to pay around £4,000 in legal costs

 

I personally felt it far better to come out of the situation having agreed repayments I could afford (not repayments they wanted) than ending up with a huge bill for their legal costs if I lost. I felt I got a decision I was happy with in the end as there was no way I could have risked a bill for £4k.

 

The beauty of the Tomlin Order is that the interest is stopped, and you can ask for your agreed repayments to be reduced or increased in the future, depending upon your personal financial circumstances.

 

Rooting for you, whatever you decide to do.;-)

 

Best wishes

SG x

[mcuth]

Hi SG

 

Thanks - appreciate everyone's advice

Am sure there are decisions to be made a little later down the line, but for now I'm going to let it ride a little

 

Cheers

Michael

[mcuth]

Ok, here's my re-amended defence, going off today - left a lot of stuff in, but added some more after all the previous arguments:

 

1.The Defendant’s original Defence (filed and served on 4th December 2007) and Amended Defence (filed and served on 4th December 2007), are withdrawn and replaced in their entirety by the Re-Amended Defence below.

 

2.Save as is otherwise pled by the Defendant hereafter, the Defendant denies all allegations made in the Claimant’s Amended Particulars of Claim in their entirety.

 

The Re-Amended Particulars of Claim

3.The Claimant is claiming the sum of £5879.74. There is a discrepancy between the amount of the Default Notice as supplied in the Amended Particulars of Claim and the sum claimed in the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim – the Default Notice is in the sum of £5868.72.

 

4.In the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim, the Claimant makes no reference to fulfilling its obligations under s64 Consumer Credit Act (1974) and is put to strict proof thereof.

 

The Agreement

5.The Claimant has filed and served a copy of the Agreement being relied on in these proceedings, which is annexed to its Re-Amended Particulars of Claim dated 6th June 2008.

 

6.Throughout the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim, the Claimant relies upon the supplied Agreement being regulated by the Consumer Credit Act (1974).

 

7.The Agreement is headed “Application form and Agreement” and the first paragraph commences with “If your Application is accepted by our signature above and we send you a card, then this will form the agreement made between you, the Principal Cardholder and us, Lloyds TSB Bank plc……”.

 

8.The Agreement is unsigned by Lloyds TSB Bank plc and is therefore unexecuted. The Defendant therefore respectfully submits that the Agreement cannot be relied upon as an executed Credit Agreement and it remains as an Application Form.

 

8.1For the sake of ease and consistency, the document is still referred to as “the Agreement” in the remainder of this Re-Amended Defence – however, this does not constitute any acknowledgement that the document is a valid, executed Agreement under the Consumer Credit Act (1974).

 

9.The Agreement has a section entitled “YOUR RIGHT TO CANCEL” which states: “Once you have signed this agreement you will have for a short time a right to cancel it. Exact details of how and when you can do this will be sent to you by post by us.”

 

10.District Judge xxxxxx’s Orders of 18th March 2008 directed the Claimant to supply documents as per the Draft Order for Directions attached to the Defendant’s Allocation Questionnaire of 2nd January 2008 – this included “Copies of the Credit Agreement, and all documents referred to within it….” (Defendant’s emphasis). As demonstrated in paragraph 9 above, within the Agreement there is clear reference to a separate document detailing cancellation rights – this document has not been supplied, nor, as per paragraph 4 above, do the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim make any reference to the Claimant fulfilling its obligations under s64 Consumer Credit Act (1974).

 

11.Without prejudice to the foregoing paragraphs, the Defendant avers that the Agreement does not contain the prescribed terms as required by the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations SI 1983/1553.

 

12.The prescribed terms are contained in Schedule 6 Column 2 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) and are, inter alia:

- A term stating the credit limit or the manner in which it will be determined or that there is no credit limit,

- A term stating the rate of any interest on the credit to be provided under the agreement, and

- A term stating how the debtor is to discharge his obligations under the agreement to make the repayments, which may be expressed by reference to a combination of any of the following:

1. Number of repayments;

2. Amount of repayments;

3. Frequency and timing of repayments;

4. Dates of repayments;

5. The manner in which any of the above may be determined; or in any other way, and any power of the creditor to vary what is payable

 

13.Part 6 (“Signing of agreement”) of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations SI 1983/1553 also states that the prescribed terms must be contained within the signature document.

 

14.None of the above prescribed terms are contained within the signature document (the Terms & Conditions are dealt with separately at paragraphs 18-22 below).

 

15.In support of paragraphs 15-18 above, the Defendant cites the following from Wilson and another v Hurstanger Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 299 (04 April 2007). When reviewing the provision of Schedule 6 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations SI 1983/1553, the Judge said:

33 In my judgment the objective of Schedule 6 is to ensure that, as an inflexible condition of enforceability, certain basic minimum terms are included which the parties (with the benefit of legal advice if necessary) and/or the court can identify within the four corners of the agreement. Those minimum provisions combined with the requirement under s 61 that all the terms should be in a single document, and backed up by the provisions of section 127(3), ensure that these core terms are expressly set out in the agreement itself: they cannot be orally agreed; they cannot be found in another document; they cannot be implied; and above all they cannot be in the slightest mis-stated.

As a matter of policy, the lender is denied any room for manoeuvre in respect of them. On the other hand, they are basic provisions, and the only question for the court is whether they are, on a true construction, included in the agreement. More detailed requirements, which are designed to ensure that the debtor is made aware, so far as possible, of specified information (including information contained in the minimum terms) are to be found in Schedule 1

 

16.The Defendant therefore respectfully submits that the Agreement relied upon is non-compliant with s60(1) Consumer Credit Act (1974) and cannot be enforced by virtue of s127(3) Consumer Credit Act (1974). The Defendant avers that the Agreement is irrevocably unenforceable and the Court’s attention is drawn to the authority of the House of Lords in Wilson-v- FCT [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul) which confirms that where a document does not contain the required terms under the Consumer Credit Act (1974), the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) and the Consumer Credit (Agreements) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI2004/1482) if applicable, then the agreement cannot be enforced.

 

17.In further reinforcement of the above, the Defendant respectfully submits the following statement from Francis Bennion, the draftsman of the Consumer Credit Act (1974) – this is available in a PDF document from Francis Bennion’s website (Francis Bennion -):

As the draftsman of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 I would like to thank Dr Richard Lawson

for his interesting and well-argued article (30 August 2003) on Wilson v First County Trust

Ltd [2003] UKHL 40, [2003] 4 All ER 97.

Dr Lawson may be interested to know that I included the provision in question (section

127(3)) entirely on my own initiative. It seemed right to me that if the creditor company

couldn’t be bothered to ensure that all the prescribed particulars were accurately included in

the credit agreement it deserved to find it unenforceable, and that the court should not have

power to relieve it from this penalty. Nobody queried this, and it went through Parliament

without debate. I’m glad the House of Lords has now vindicated my reasoning and confirmed

that nobody’s human rights were infringed.

167 Justice of the Peace (2003) 773.

 

18.It is further denied that the Defendant is liable to the Claimant in any manner, and the Claimant is put to strict proof that any enforceable Agreement between the parties exists.

 

The Terms & Conditions

19.The Claimant has filed and served a copy of the Terms & Conditions being relied on in these proceedings, which is annexed to its Re-Amended Particulars of Claim dated 6th June 2008.

 

20.The Defendant avers that the Terms & Conditions annexed to the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim show no relation to the Agreement provided and there is no clear link between the Agreement and the Terms & Conditions.

 

21.Further to paragraph 20 above, given the previous “errors” which have occurred in attaching the correct Terms & Conditions to the Amended Particulars of Claim (dated 20th March 2008), the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that the Terms & Conditons supplied with the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim are those that apply to the alleged Agreement.

 

22.Further, as there is no clear link between the Agreement and the Terms & Conditions, the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that the Terms & Conditions supplied are those allegedly contained on the reverse of the Agreement (as stated in the opening paragraph of the Agreement: “on the terms overleaf”), especially given the differences in quality of the reproductions of the Agreement and Terms & Conditions supplied.

 

23.The Defendant therefore respectfully submits that the Terms & Conditions filed and served do not correspond to the Agreement and the Claimant is put to strict proof that the Terms & Conditions as annexed are the Terms & Conditions that were in force at the time of the Agreement.

 

24.The Defendant also respectfully draw to the Court’s attention CPR 32 PD 13.1 which states “Photocopies instead of original documents may be exhibited provided the originals are made available for inspection by the other parties before the hearing and by the judge at the hearing.”

 

The Default Notice

25.The following paragraphs assume that the Claimant will still rely upon the Default Notice as attached to the Amended Particulars of Claim.

 

26.The Default Notice annexed to the Amended Particulars of Claim dated 20th March 2008 is in the sum of £5868.72. The Defendant avers that the amount includes unlawful penalty charges in the sum of £75.00 and interest accruing thereon. These charges are detailed in the Statements submitted by the Claimant and are as below:

19/10/2004

Overlimit Charge

£20.00

17/02/2005

Overlimit Charge

£20.00

17/02/2005

Late Charges

£20.00

26/04/2005

Auto Letter Fees

£15.00

 

27.The Defendant brings to the Court’s attention the Office of Fair Trading’s statement of 5th April 2006 – “Calculating fair default charges in credit card contracts” - concerning default charges in credit card contracts and avers that these charges represent a penalty and are therefore unrecoverable at Common Law. This statement was made almost 8 months before the date of the Default Notice submitted.

 

28.In the Scottish case of Castaneda and Others v. Clydebank Engineering and Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. (1904) 12 SLT 498; the House of Lords held that a contractual party can only recover damages for actual or liquidated losses incurred from a breach of contract. This is also the position in English law: Wilson v Love [1896]; Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor Co Ltd [1915] AC 79; Ford Motor Co v Armstrong [1915]; Bridge v Campbell Discount Co. Ltd [1962]; Murray v Leisureplay [2004].

 

29.The Defendant further avers that:

a) The charges debited to the Account:

i) are punitive in nature;

ii) are not a genuine pre-estimate of cost incurred by the Defendant;

iii) exceed any alleged actual loss to the Defendant in respect of any breaches of contract

on the part of the Claimant;

iv) are not intended to represent or relate to any alleged actual loss, but instead unduly

enrich the Defendant which exercises the contractual term in respect of such charges

with a view to profit.

 

b)Further to 29 (a), the charges debited are penalties rather than liquidated damages. A charge is held to be a penalty if the sum stipulated for is extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison to the greatest loss that could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach. A penalty clause is void in its entirety and unenforceable

 

c)The contractual provision that permits the Claimant to levy such charges is unenforceable by virtue of the Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999), the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the common law.

 

d)Without prejudice to and in the alternative to 29 (a), (b) and ©, if the Court finds that the charges are not a penalty, then the Claimant contends that they are unreasonable within the meaning of s.15 Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982

 

30.The Defendant respectfully submits that the Default Notice is, therefore, inaccurate.

 

31.Without prejudice to the above, the Claimant must under s87(1) Consumer Credit Act (1974) serve a Default Notice before it can demand payment under a regulated credit agreement.

 

32.It is neither admitted or denied that any Default Notice in the prescribed format was ever received and the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that said document in the prescribed format was delivered to the Defendant

 

33.In a Witness Statement dated 16th May 2008, the Claimant has admitted that the original Default Notice cannot be supplied, but that one was served and complies with relevant regulations. This Witness Statement implies that as the Claimant is a “major high street bank”, it is immune to making mistakes with Default Notices.

 

34.In the first instance, as has been seen from previous pleadings and evidence submitted, the Claimant is not averse to making errors with its documentation and the implication that a “major high street bank” is above complying with the relevant regulations governing Default Notices and procedures as laid out in the Consumer Credit Act (1974) is denied.

 

35.It is further averred that the Claimant is still under the obligation of strict proof that a valid Default Notice has been served and can be produced in accordance with CPR 32 PD 13.1, and not simply a “reproduction” notice using styles and data.

 

36.The Defandant also puts the Claimant to strict proof that any Default Notice sent was valid. The Defendant notes that to be valid, a Default Notice needs to be accurate in terms of both the scope and nature of breach and include an accurate figure required to remedy any such breach. The prescribed format for such document is laid down in Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) and Amendment regulations the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/3237)

 

37.Failure of a Default Notice to be accurate not only invalidates the Default Notice (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain and Co - [2001] GCCR 2255) but is an unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the Court enforcing any alleged debt, but allow the Defendant to submit a counterclaim for damages (Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119)

 

38.In lieu of submitting a counterclaim for damages, the Defendant would respectfully request the Court to consider awarding substantial damages to the Defendant as the Claimant has issued an inaccurate Default Notice. In kpohraror v woolwich building society [1996] C.L.C. 510 it was decided that the amount of the damages should be the amount of the cheque that was dishonoured (the amount of the default) plus substantial damage to reputation of £1,000.

 

Request under s78(1) Consumer Credit Act (1974)

39.Without prejudice to the foregoing paragraphs, on 6th February 2007, the Defendant made a formal request (“the request”) to the Claimant under section 78(1) Consumer Credit Act (1974), which states:

(1) The creditor under a regulated agreement for running-account credit, within the prescribed period after receiving a request in writing to that effect from the debtor and payment of a fee of £1, shall give the debtor a copy of the executed agreement (if any) and of any other document referred to in it, together with a statement signed by or on behalf of the creditor showing, according to the information to which it is practicable for him to refer,—

(a) the state of the account, and

(b) the amount, if any, currently payable under the agreement by the debtor to the creditor, and

© the amounts and due dates of any payments which, if the debtor does not draw further on the account, will later become payable under the agreement by the debtor to the creditor.

 

40.The Consumer Credit (Prescribed Periods for Giving Information) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1569) determines that the creditor must comply with the request within 12 working days of receipt of the request;

 

41.Section 78(6) Consumer Credit Act (1974) determines the consequences of failure to comply with the request, and states:

(6) If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with subsection (1) -

(a) he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement; and

(b) if the default continues for one month he commits an offence.

 

42.In responding to District Judge xxxxxx’s Orders of 18th March 2008, the Claimant was directed to supply documents as per the Draft Order for Directions attached to the Defendant’s Allocation Questionnaire of 2nd January 2008 – if supplied in full, the documents ordered would have the effect of satisfying the request made under s78(1) Consumer Credit Act (1974).

 

43.As has been explored above, the Agreement supplied is unexecuted, the Terms & Conditions supplied do not correspond to the Agreement supplied, and the cancellation rights document referred to in the Agreement has not been supplied.

 

44.The Defendant therefore avers that the Claimant has still failed to fully comply with the request and continues to remain in default of its obligations under s78(1) Consumer Credit Act (1974).

 

45.It is further averred that the Claimant has no right of action until such time as this default is remedied.

 

46.Should the Court decide that the Claimant is no longer in default of its obligations under s78(1) Consumer Credit Act (1974), the Defendant respectfully submits that this action should not have been brought as the Claimant was in default of its obligations and was not entitled to commence any enforcement action by virtue of s78(6) Consumer Credit Act (1974).

 

47.The Defendant would respectfully draw to the attention of the Court the fact that he is now substantially prejudiced by this action and the threat of a County Court Judgement, brought despite the Claimant not being entitled to commence any enforcement action.

 

48.Further, if the Claimant had supplied relevant documentation prior to commencing this action, there may not have been the need for this action and it would therefore have complied with the objective of the Pre-Action Protocols.

 

Summary

49.For the avoidance of doubt, it is denied that the Defendant is liable to the Claimant in any manner and it is further denied that the Claimant is entitled to the sum of £5872.72 or £5872.74 claimed or any other relief thereon.

 

50.The Defendant respectfully submits that:

 

• The Claimant has not complied with District Judge xxxxxx’s Orders of 18th March 2008;
  
• The Agreement relied upon is unexecuted, does not contain the prescribed terms and is therefore irrevocably unenforceable;
  
• The Terms & Conditions relied upon as forming part of the Agreement do not correspond to the Agreement relied upon;
  
• The Default Notice is inaccurate; and
  
• The Claimant has not satisfied the Defendant’s request under s78(1) Consumer Credit Act (1974).
  

 

51.In view of the matters pleaded above, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court:

 

• Makes an order that the Agreement relied upon is irrevocably unenforceable;
  
• Makes an order that the Claimant remove any and all credit reference data arising from the unenforceable Agreement and inaccurate Default Notice;
  
• Strikes out the Claimant’s Claim for the reasons detailed above in the Re-Amended Defence; and
  
• Awards substantial damages to the Defendant as per paragraph 38 above.
  

Cheers

Michael

Edited June 26, 2008 by mcuth
removing DJ's name

[moronic]

Hi wondered if you / anyone could help with credit card claiming against me re non-disclosure of info as requested following this thread / and others please:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/150037-court-action-1st-credit.html?highlight=1st+credit+court+action

[mcuth]

6. Both parties shall give standard disclosure to the other party by way of list supported by disclosure statement by 4pm on the 21st July 2008.

 

Hmmm, should I be doing something about this stuff?

 

Any request for the provision of copy documents shall be made to the other party by 4pm on the 28th July 2008 any such copies as my be requested shall be supplied by 4pm on the 4th August 2008.

 

7. Any request for further information pursuant to CPR Part 18 shall be made by the 11th August 2008 and shall be responded to by the 25th August 2008.

 

8. The parties shall exchange witness statements of witness of fact exhibiting any other documents which are relied upon by 4pm on the 22nd September 2008.

 

9. Pre-trial checklists/listing questionnaires shall be returned completed to the Court by the 28th octoebr [sic] 2008.

 

10. The parties shall make reasonable efforts to agree the contents of a trial bundle, to include all materials relied upon including a case summary and the skeleton arguments and authorities supplied pursuant to this Order, and the Solicitors for the Claiamnt's [sic] shall produce such a paginated bundle and serve it on the Defendant by 4pm on the 3rd November 2008. The trial bundle shall be filed with the Court with sufficient copies for the Judge and any witness by 4pm on the 10th November 2008.

 

Absolutely no idea what all this stuff's supposed to be about - I've never got this far into a case before!

 

Cheers

Michael

[pt2537]

simple answer is yes,

 

you should submit a disclosure by list document listing all the bits and bobs which you hold in your possession and will be relying upon

 

the DBL goes to the other side and the court

 

see here for an example http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/dca-legal-successes/124572-hfc-no-agreement-amended-6.html#post1347693

 

post 103

 

also the form for DBL is here http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/n265_1005.pdf

[mcuth]

simple answer is yes,

 

you should submit a disclosure by list document listing all the bits and bobs which you hold in your possession and will be relying upon

 

the DBL goes to the other side and the court

 

see here for an example http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/dca-legal-successes/124572-hfc-no-agreement-amended-6.html#post1347693

 

post 103

 

also the form for DBL is here http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/n265_1005.pdf

 

Phew - thanks for that Paul - will get on with it this week

 

Cheers

Michael

[mcuth]

Cor blimey if I haven't received a massive reply to my defence today! :o

Will try and post it up sometime this weekend, but suffice to say that it's all in lovely legalese....

 

Cheers

Michael

[Curlyben]

How many times do they mention the recent Rankin judgement ??

[mcuth]

How many times do they mention the recent Rankin judgement ??

 

Actually none. However, they do mention "the Defendant is trying to avoid paying monies owed based on technicalities" quite a few times....

 

Cheers

Michael

[Fred Bassett]

Actually none. However, they do mention "the Defendant is trying to avoid paying monies owed based on technicalities" quite a few times....

 

Cheers

Michael

 

To which I presume the answer will be that the bank is trying to collect an unproveable debt despite their disregard of the law of the land.

 

Fred

[N.P]

You aren`t avoiding paying on technicalities. Without a valid CCA doesn`t the law (CCA74) render this debt unenforceable? If so, the Judge should base his decision based on the Law, not what he or anyone else thinks is right

 

Am I right or just waffling on here?

 

 

 

N.P

[mcuth]

To which I presume the answer will be that the bank is trying to collect an unproveable debt despite their disregard of the law of the land.

 

Absolutely Fred

 

You aren`t avoiding paying on technicalities. Without a valid CCA doesn`t the law (CCA74) render this debt unenforceable? If so, the Judge should base his decision based on the Law, not what he or anyone else thinks is right

 

Am I right or just waffling on here?

 

No waffle, you're right - but I guess that's a standard approach to sway the Judge's opinion...

 

Cheers

Michael

[N.P]

Absolutely Fred

 

 

 

No waffle, you're right - but I guess that's a standard approach to sway the Judge's opinion...

 

Cheers

Michael

 

 

 

Soooo, does that mean if their CCA turns out to be nothing more than toilet roll, the Judge can still enforce it, if he decides?

[mcuth]

Soooo, does that mean if their CCA turns out to be nothing more than toilet roll, the Judge can still enforce it, if he decides?

 

We've seen on CAG a few times that some judges let their opinion rule rather than applying the law as it is laid down and proved in cases previously - if they do that, then they're making bad decisions and are open to having their judgement appealed against...

 

Cheers

Michael

[The GodMother]

You aren`t avoiding paying on technicalities. Without a valid CCA doesn`t the law (CCA74) render this debt unenforceable? If so, the Judge should base his decision based on the Law, not what he or anyone else thinks is right

 

Am I right or just waffling on here?

 

 

 

N.P

 

 

Could somebody please remind me when a law that helps a consumer, as in the cca1974, became a technicality?

 

If they can argue were using technicalities then why cant we?

[car2403]

Could somebody please remind me when a law that helps a consumer, as in the cca1974, became a technicality?

 

If they can argue were using technicalities then why cant we?

 

Judges aren't experts on Consumer Law.

 

If you didn't know what you know by being on CAG and someone came to you saying I owe £5k but I ain't going to pay it, yet I don't dispute the debt is owed, would you allow them to escape enforcement?

 

What we need to do is "convert" Judges in to experts by pointing out the legal argument, which overrides the moral argument day-in, day-out and should take priority.

 

The issue is that the Court has an equitable duty to ensure that the law (legal or otherwise) is applied fairly.

 

Once you hit with with Legislation Interpretation and the Wilson cases, that shouldn't be an issue.

[mcuth]

Ok, ok, I've not managed to get the reply scanned in & posted yet (it's quite a long doc!) - but in the meantime have done my disclosure by list and SCM have requested copies of 14 documents, which I'm sending today (ooops though, apparently I should've supplied by 4pm yesterday!). I haven't requested copies of any of theirs, since I think I have all that I need.

 

Now, moving forward, I have:

7. Any request for further information pursuant to CPR Part 18 shall be made by the 11th August 2008 and shall be responded to by the 25th August 2008.

 

8. The parties shall exchange witness statements of witness of fact exhibiting any other documents which are relied upon by 4pm on the 22nd September 2008.

 

I don't think I need to make a Part 18 request now do I? I think I have everything that a standard Part 18 request asks for don't I?

 

Then come the witness statements - that'll be errrr.... fun! Any ideas on that please?

 

Cheers

Michael

[citizenB]

What documents are SCM requesting sight of then mcuth ?

[mcuth]

What documents are SCM requesting sight of then mcuth ?

 

The original s78 request (+ delivery receipts), some correspondence from BLS Collections and the exchange between me & the Court when I went to get the claim struck out - only some of what I disclosed and nothing too drastic.

 

Cheers

Michael

[citizenB]

What documents are SCM requesting sight of then mcuth ?

 

The original s78 request (+ delivery receipts), some correspondence from BLS Collections and the exchange between me & the Court when I went to get the claim struck out - only some of what I disclosed and nothing too drastic.

 

Cheers

Michael

 

Thats, good. I was interested cos one of my CC companies have sent original documents (apart from the agreeement/T&Cs of course) to me in respect of an SAR. I was just wondering what would happen if they decide to take me to court. :grin:

[mcuth]

Well, I've finally managed to get the Reply To Defence scanned in - all 20 pages of it!

 

The Reply is posted in this Photobucket album - though if you want the direct links, here they are (if the pics look small, just click on them to enlarge):

page 1

page 2

page 3

page 4

page 5

page 6

page 7

page 8

page 9

page 10

page 11

page 12

page 13

page 14

page 15

page 16

page 17

page 18

page 19

page 20

 

For ease of referring back, my Re-Amended Defence is here.

 

Anyone any thoughts on this and the part18 request?

 

Cheers

Michael

[mcuth]

10. The parties shall make reasonable efforts to agree the contents of a trial bundle, to include all materials relied upon including a case summary and the skeleton arguments and authorities supplied pursuant to this Order, and the Solicitors for the Claiamnt's [sic] shall produce such a paginated bundle and serve it on the Defendant by 4pm on the 3rd November 2008. The trial bundle shall be filed with the Court with sufficient copies for the Judge and any witness by 4pm on the 10th November 2008.

 

Having a little think about this (well in advance), and I found this interesting - does this mean that it is down to SC&M to produce, file & serve the bundle, and I don't have to do any of it (well, apart from agreeing the contents, of course...)?

 

Cheers

Michael

[The GodMother]

remember to agree they have to provide docs they can as they have said they cant

[mcuth]

remember to agree they have to provide docs they can as they have said they cant

 

Oh absolutely

 

Cheers

Michael