Court Hearing 25th Feb...Help Please **WON** CASE STRUCK OUT

[mrmarmite]

pt or tomterm, i sent pt a message to look at http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/133330-hfc-my-mum.html

 

i'd be VERY grateful to have a look and advise when you get time,

thanks

[pt2537]

Hi Mrm

 

got your message, been at a law lecture all day so i havent had chance to look properly.

 

will take a looksy tomorrow when i get a mo

 

regards

paul

[mrmarmite]

Hi Mrm

 

got your message, been at a law lecture all day so i havent had chance to look properly.

 

will take a looksy tomorrow when i get a mo

 

regards

paul

 

ok cheers, as long as you got message i'll wait,

thanks

[lottery-loser]

Phew! What a fascinating thread! I started reading as I just got the court form today and couldn't stop till I go to the end. Best of luck ilonavamp; you deserve it. That judge and solicitor should be shot at dawn for their cronyism. Te judge is supposed to be impartial and take into account that you're not a legal expert. Pah! Fingers, eyes, legs all x'd for you!

[mrmarmite]

Phew! What a fascinating thread! I started reading as I just got the court form today and couldn't stop till I go to the end. Best of luck ilonavamp; you deserve it. That judge and solicitor should be shot at dawn for their cronyism. Te judge is supposed to be impartial and take into account that you're not a legal expert. Pah! Fingers, eyes, legs all x'd for you!

 

the problem is the judge is not fully inversed in the CCA 1974. claimant solicitor sussed this out and used it to his advantage "missleading the judge" by saying that a fixed agreement is nothing like a running account agreement, when in fact there is very little difference between them,

 

have you started your own thead yet? if so post the link please

[lottery-loser]

the problem is the judge is not fully inversed in the CCA 1974. claimant solicitor sussed this out and used it to his advantage "missleading the judge" by saying that a fixed agreement is nothing like a running account agreement, when in fact there is very little difference between them,

 

have you started your own thead yet? if so post the link please

 

No I haven't, I posted in another one as my problem was very similar to the one there (HFC & Restons) but i'm not sure if that's quite the done thing! I've also read your thread re your mum and HFC. THey seem to have sent much more sympathetic letters than i got (not that their words mean much in the end...)

[mrmarmite]

they all unique cases are all require individual responses, yes i agree they all along the same lines BUT there are differences,

example for 1 is if your account is with a DCA some dca's just need a nudge whilst others need a kick in the head, it's all unique, hence you really need to start your own thread, it dont work by doing letters to 1 dca that true Caggers know full well just wont work.

[illonavamp]

Phew! What a fascinating thread! I started reading as I just got the court form today and couldn't stop till I go to the end. Best of luck ilonavamp; you deserve it. That judge and solicitor should be shot at dawn for their cronyism. Te judge is supposed to be impartial and take into account that you're not a legal expert. Pah! Fingers, eyes, legs all x'd for you!

 

Thankyou but stop, as I'll start blubbing again and I'm supposed to be sucking it up and be a toughy.

 

Anyways, pt/tom, I've printed off the defence pasted (the most recent) here. I hope I'm not being cheeky BUT I've taken out points 2 and 3 - these were talked about and argued last time and I think mentioning it again might only inflame the judge - rightly or wrongly. And the whole point I'm trying to make is that, as I've been told, REGARDLESS of what number's on it or what 'type' of agreement it is, it MUST have certain minimum terms.

 

I've also taken out one or two points made regarding the default notice - namely the sentences it is supposed to contain (because it does, actually, I checked!) I've just left in there that 14 days was not allowed, - once the agreement is judged dodgy I can get the default removed on that basis - (i.e. that there IS no valid agreement in place). I don't want to start introducing too many points I'm not too bothered about at this stage - I don't want it to end up looking like I'm stomping and saying 'and it's crap, so nerrrrr' - the bits I am bothered about right now is the 127(3) part as I've mentioned.

 

I've re-numbered, spell-checked, indented quoted, highlighted case law names etc etc. It's very purdy.

 

In fact thinking about it I should save that sucker right now, my luck we'll get a power cut.

 

OK, N244 now and I should be set.

 

What a lurvely way to spend a Sunday!

 

[illonavamp]

N244 completed as per #159, ty Tom.

[pt2537]

 

 

I've also taken out one or two points made regarding the default notice - namely the sentences it is supposed to contain (because it does, actually, I checked!) OH No i think you are wrong , the default that you posted on your photobucket page does not have the required statements in the required form, they must be underlined and in bold and they are neither on your default, they must as statements of protection be given prominence and they are not and as such provide you an excellent arguing point . not least because an invalid default with all the points i pointed out could have their claim thrown out of court on its own, by weakening it you weaken your case

 

I've just left in there that 14 days was not allowed , - once the agreement is judged dodgy I can get the default removed on that basis - (i.e. that there IS no valid agreement in place). I don't want to start introducing too many points I'm not too bothered about at this stage - I don't want it to end up looking like I'm stomping and saying 'and it's crap, so nerrrrr' - the bits I am bothered about right now is the 127(3) part as I've mentioned.

 

 

 

Sorry to sound harsh

 

 

BUT DO YOU WANT TO WIN? or DO YOU WANT TO LOSE

 

there is a fine line between success and failure with this kind of litigation and the default points give you case added strength, by removing them you weaken your position

 

i understand the reasoning behind removing the points 2&3 from the start but the default arguement was built upon my analysis of your documents and their failings

 

i hop[e you seriously reconsider as you are taking away so very key points from the defence

[tomterm8]

i'd kind of suggest you listen to what paul says.

[pt2537]

What you are saying with the default notice is not as required by law, therefore its invalid

 

a judge could say that since the 14 days have now passed and you didnt remedy the breach you cannot rely upon that failure

 

so what would you now fall back on? if you have removed the arguement i put forward youre in trouble as the judge could decide the default is valid;) if you go with what i have raised hes got NO room to move he has to look at the fact that it is non compliant

 

this adds to your case, by removing it you are giving them a helping hand. why do that? its rather silly

 

now i can help you with advice but i cannot make you take the right decision that is your and only your choice

 

but i dont want to sound arrogant but i feel my track record on the CAG speaks for itself, i had a case where i helped with, and i wrote the defence and the DCA didnt even wait for the case to be transferred to the local court they gave up and ran away

 

its your call, but i wrote that defence to help you

 

 

regards

paul

[mrmarmite]

we trust in Pt2537

[Lula]

we certainly do, supports a crap footie team but he knows his stuff when it comes to this stuff

[illonavamp]

OK, I'll re-do it tomorrow at work then and hand it in Tuesday, my mistake sorry.

[mrmarmite]

we certainly do, supports a crap footie team but he knows his stuff when it comes to this stuff

 

 

Save our oatcakes ?????? lmao

[mrmarmite]

we certainly do, supports a crap footie team but he knows his stuff when it comes to this stuff

 

he's not a saint supporter is he????????????? ( and no i dont do footie either)

[pt2537]

Hi Sam

 

no problems, i just didnt want you to remove something which could swing the judge to your line of arguement

 

also, dont forget, when you are making amendments that take out sections of the defence you need no only to renumber the paragraphs but also the references within some of them

 

for example

 

12. Notwithstanding point 11, The agreement must be signed in the prescribed manner to comply with s61 (1) CCA 1974, if the agreement is not signed by debtor or creditor it is also improperly executed and again only enforceable by court order

 

 

if youve taken out two paragraphs then it will not only impact on 12. but also the referecne within

 

ive seen a few people make this mistake.

 

 

try not to be too disheartened by my comments above but like i said theres a fine line between success and failure

 

regards

 

 

paul

[mrmarmite]

so if i get what PT is saying, ANY modifications made to defence, you MUST tripple check that any references made to another part of your defence MUST coinside so point point 12 refers to point 11, you need to check that it does refer to point 11 not point 10.

 

cover ya rear end, look after No 1. and bear in mind it already obvoius their solicitor trying to pull wool over judges eyes,

 

check everything and then do it again, I have helped as much as I can and now PT on scene to further help you, this can be nailed easily if everything is correct.

[illonavamp]

ok.

[illonavamp]

Just want to check:

18. Therefore it is submitted that this document falls foul of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 as previously outlined in points 5 through to 13

Should it say

18. .....points 5 through to 17........ (as 17 particularly talks about the prescribed terms being in the body of the document) ?

 

29. The statements referred to in points 26 & 27 are laid out in schedule 2 of Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561)

Should it say

29. .....points 27 & 28.......

 

13. .....the requirements are laid out clearly what is required for the court to be able to enforce the agreement where section 65(1) has not been complied with.......

 

Could this say:

 

.....the requirements for the court to be able to enforce the agreement (where section 65(1) has not been complied with) are laid out clearly.......

 

 

Plus: I've indented as follows, for example:

Point and / or reference to case

Case summary (where given)

Case quotation

 

- I've put Case quotations (speech only) in italics

- I've put references to Acts and Sections of Acts in bold

- I've put references to exhibits in bold blue

- Conclusions/Ultimate requests to the court in bold/underline

 

This sound okay to you?

 

I'll email you a copy of the final article when I get home.

 

Handing it in tomorrow morning. I can't get out of work at all today

 

Sam

[pt2537]

Just want to check:

 

Should it say

18. .....points 5 through to 17........ (as 17 particularly talks about the prescribed terms being in the body of the document) ? Yes thats totally correct,if you are using this defence i posted here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-1401406.htmlthen yeah as i added to the original draft which highlights how making additions can cause you problems

 

 

 

 

Should it say

29. .....points 27 & 28....... Yep correct once again

 

 

 

Could this say:

 

.....the requirements for the court to be able to enforce the agreement (where section 65(1) has not been complied with) are laid out clearly.......

 

 

Plus: I've indented as follows, for example:

Point and / or reference to case

Case summary (where given)

Case quotation

- I've put Case quotations (speech only) in italics

- I've put references to Acts and Sections of Acts in bold

- I've put references to exhibits in bold blue

- Conclusions/Ultimate requests to the court in bold/underline

 

This sound okay to you? Yeah sound ok,

 

I'll email you a copy of the final article when I get home.

 

Handing it in tomorrow morning. I can't get out of work at all today

 

Sam

 

Hi sam, sounds ok to me, its my error that led to the confusion as i added to the defence and didnt go through it and make all the amendment needed

 

sorry

 

regards

 

paul:)

[MAVERICKMAN]

Hi there, I'm just subscribing out of interest.

[illonavamp]

Order landed on my doorstep when I got home last night:

 

 

It is ordered that

 

1) This hearing is adjourned to

 

18th April 2008 at 12 noon (time estimate 45 minutes)

 

and reserved to District Judge XX

 

2) The claimant shall by 4pm on 24th March 2008 file and serve a statement exhibiting the terms & conditions applicable to this agreement and it's inception (think that should say AT) and a copy of the terms and conditions applying to the same agreement at any later date until today.

 

3) Costs be in the case

 

Dated 25th February 2008

 

[gh2008]

District Judge XX is going to get a bit of a shock next time isn't he/she