they have ammended court amount

[KTF]

Hello all just to write up my disclosure list,and using the one from K

arnevil . is there any thing i can add into the AUTHORITIES or CASE LAW , i can add , iam including sempra case as iam claiming contractual interest or can ony one past an up to date one for me pls?

[KTF]

hello can anyone look at my disclosure list and suggest any additions i could make , i have taken it from Karnevil's old post ,

 

2. Authorities

 

 

...........Description ......................... ......................... .............No. of pages

(AA) -- Copy of bank statements printed from online banking provided by Abbey

(BB) -- Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999) - 10

(CC) -- The Supply of Goods and Services Act (1982) - 13

(DD) -- Unfair Contract Terms Act (1977) - 9

(EE) -- Office of Fair Trading Report April 2006 (OFT842) - 35

( FF) -- House of Commons Early Day Motion (EDM 2227) - 1

(GG) -- House of Commons Select Committee on Treasury

Second Report: ‘Transparency in charging’ - 10

(HH) -- Report by Kendall Freeman on Liquidated Damages (May 2005) - 3

(II) -- Case Law Reference: Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd

v New Garage & Motor Co Ltd [1915] AC 79 - 2

(JJ) -- Case Law Reference: Alfred McAlpine Capital Projects Ltd

v Tilebox Ltd [2005] EWHC 281 (TCC) - 2

The Claimant will also make reference to the following case laws;

1. Murray v Leisureplay [2005] EWCA Civ 963

2. Wilson v Love [1898]

3. Lordsvale Finance PLC v Bank of Zambia (1996) QB 752

4. Bridge v Campbell Discount Co. Ltd. (1962)

 

Statement

or is there an updated list i have missed ?

[steven4064]

Hi KFT

 

What sort of case is this? Personal current account, business current accoutnt, credit card, loan.

 

A lot of the above has changed as a result of the test case and it depends on what aort of account you are claiming on

 

Presumably, also it is quite a large claim as teh disclosure list doesn't apply to SCT

[I've got no money]

As Steven4064 points out we do need a lot more information on the claim.

 

That said disclosure is covered by CPR 31 - basically it relates to documents which are part of the issues surrounding the dispute - Not - cases, statutes or other authorities which you propose to cite or refer to

 

Disclosure happens in one of two ways - either by list in which case you complete a standard form (on the court service website) and sign the disclosure statement - that, I think, is what has happened here. The second way is disclosure by copies - you basically provide the other side with copies of all the documents that you have AND a disclosure statement. Which method depends on the court order.

 

It must be a fast track or a multi track case as you don't get disclosure in the SCT [CPR 31 does not apply to SCT cases CPR 31 (2)]

[I've got no money]

OOps - its' CPR 31.1 (2)

[KTF]

ok, thks for the replies. it is for my current account which they served a court summons on me and i had to counter claim on them , my charges amounted to over 50 % of the defaulted amount ,you can read my original thread, just re-read the 'notice of allocation to fast track ' due in sept so i need to put together standard discovery by list which i need to give to them as i have said i have the correspondance list its just the others im not too sure on ? thanks in advance

[steven4064]

All the stuff on penalties has to come out (DD, II and JJ(I think)) - you have to concentrate on the charges being unfair under UTCCR1999 as the test case rules that charges are not contract penalties. You could add in thejudgement in the recent test case (OFT v 8 banks)

[I've got no money]

As I said the form is on the court service website -its headed list of documents - standard disclosure.

 

From memory there is a disclosure statement at the beginning form - you have to state the date of the order, that is the directios order, further down there are some tick boxes - you need to fill in anything that is relenat - there's a box that says I did not search for documents pre dating - put the date that the claimant says you were given the overdraft.

 

There is then three sections for the disclosure:-

1. Where you have relevant documents/copies.

- you then list them by category - not individually - so e.g. you would say correspondence from the claimants' solicitors of various dates,

You need to include correspondence, pleadings, witness statements and court orders in this section

2. Where you have documents but object to producing them - legally privilieged material - usually documents prepared for the purposes of defending the proceedings, including drafts and memoranda, own solicitor correspondence etc

3. Documents that you once had but don't have now - s if you've lost anything say so. The other thing that goes here is originals of correspondence sent to the claimant/claimants solicitors etc

You have to say when they were last in your possession.

 

Have a look at the form and let us know if you've got any questions

[I've got no money]

I'm not being difficult but you don't put case law in your disclosure list. Case Law goes into an authorities bundle and (if you file one - as you don't have) a skeleton argument.

 

Disclosure is all about parties ensuring that they both have relevant documents. If the other side want to consult an authority they can look it up on case track...

[KTF]

sorry for being so late in replying, im still a bit confused . i have the n265 , thats fine up to a point ,so do i add or not add the statues and the case law in my disclosure listing ??, i have all my correspondence dates there is not too much,are there any links to a filled out N265 form it would be a great help , i have just found out that this does not go to court just their solicitor , ?

[I've got no money]

KTF no - you don't put statutes, regulations and case law into the list

As far as letters goes - you don't have to list them individually - you put them in the list by groups

e.g. Correspondence received from the claimants' Solicitors of various dates

or

Copies of correspondence sent to the claimant of various dates..

etc etc

[KTF]

Cheers sweating on that , done now , sent a copy to their solicitor , and just for my peace of mind sent a copy to the court, i dont expect them to be as prompt as myself i think in serving theirs. thks for the help , the judge in his directions does not mention N265 so i will leave that out

[KTF]

Hello im just searching for an answer to my predicament , my case is fast track that the bank are claiming from me ,and i counterclaimed for charges , been allocated to fast track hearing in october , can i get the case struck out?

1) they didnt respond to my original CPR request even thought registered and delivered in response to their court summons

2) didn't resond to 2nd request as the case was going to allocation so all facts would be available on standard disclosure.

3) havn't complied with my request for standard disclosure as their solicitor have not recieved the information from the bank as yet.

 

any thoughts it seems like its a delay tactic as the bank rep in my 'without prejudice' meet said they would be asking for a stay anyway

[42man]

In the xxxxxxxx County Court

Claim number

 

 

 

 

 

Between

 

 

xxxxxxxxxxx- Claimant

 

and

 

 

- Defendant

 

 

 

Defence

 

1. I xxxxxxxxx of xxxxxxxxxxxxx am the defendant in this action and make the following statement as my defence to the claim made by xxxxxxxxxxxx

 

2. The Defendant is embarrassed in pleading to the Particulars of Claim as it stands at present, inter alia: -

 

3. The claimants' particulars of claims disclose no legal cause of action and they are embarrassing to the defendant as the claimant's statement of case is insufficiently particularised and does not comply or even attempt to comply with CPR part 16. In this regard I wish to draw the courts attention to the following matters;

 

a) The Particulars of Claim are vague and insufficient and do not disclose an adequate statement of facts relating to or proceeding the alleged cause of action. No particulars are offered in relation to the nature of the contract referred to, the method the claimant calculated any outstanding sums due, or any default notices issued or any other matters necessary to substantiate the claimant's claim.

 

b) A copy of the purported contract that the claimant cites in the Particulars of Claim, and which appears to form the basis upon which these proceedings have been brought, has not been served attached to the claim form.

 

c) No account number is contained within the particulars to enable me to identify the account on which this claim is brought

 

d) A copy of any evidence of both the scope and nature of any default, and proof of any amount outstanding on the alleged accounts, has not been served attached to the claim form.

 

4. Consequently, I deny all allegations on the particulars of claim and put the claimant to strict proof thereof

 

The build up to this action

 

5. In the build up to this action, I had raised a formal dispute with XXXXXXX. on the xx/xx/2007 I wrote to XXXXXX requesting a copy of the Credit Agreement pursuant to section 78(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 . This request was received on the xx/xx/2007. (A copy of the correspondence is attached to this defence marked CP)

 

6. On xx/xx/2008 the claimant supplied a copy of an application form, annexed to this defence marked exhibit CP2, which was of extremely poor quality and contained none of the terms required by the Consumer Credit Agreements Regulations 1983. Accordingly I wrote to the claimant setting out the issues

 

7. Without fair warning the claimant brought this action in what appears ignorance of the Civil Procedure Rules Pre Action Protocols Para 4.3, as no letter before action was received

 

The Request for Disclosure

 

8. Further to the case, on xx/xx/2007 I requested the disclosure of information pursuant to the Civil Procedure Rules, which is vital to this case from the claimant. The information requested amounted to copies of the Credit Agreement referred to in the particulars of claim and any default or termination notices, a transcript of all transactions, including charges, fees, interest, alleged repayments by myself and payments made by the original creditor. Also any other documents the Claimant seeks to rely on, including any default notices or termination notice, and a copy of the Notice of Assignment required to give the claimant a legitimate right of action.

 

9. To Date the claimant has failed to comply with my request under the CPR and I have not received any such documentation requested. As a result it has proven difficult to compose this defence without disclosure of the information requested, especially given that I am Litigant in Person ( a copy of the request is attached to this Defence marked CP)

 

 

The importance of a copy of the credit agreement and its production before the court

 

 

10. Firstly, I make reference to an excerpt of case law from the case of Wilson v Robertsons (London) Ltd [2005] EWHC 1425 (Ch),

 

In Wilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2003] UKHL 40, [2004] 1 AC 816, [2003] 4 All ER 97, the House of Lords explained that the 1974 Act was, like the Moneylenders Act 1927 before it, designed to tackle a significant social problem. The activities of some moneylenders have given the money lending business a bad reputation. Something had to be done to protect the borrower, who frequently, indeed normally, would be in a weak bargaining position. Protection of borrowers is the social policy behind the legislation. Part of that policy is to be achieved by setting stringent rules, which have to be complied with by the ender if his money lending agreement is to be enforceable. The strictness of the discipline imposed on lenders is illustrated by the following passage in the speech of Lord Nicholls:

 

"72. Undoubtedly, as illustrated by the facts of the present case, section 127(3) may be drastic, even harsh, in its adverse consequences for a lender. He loses all his right under the agreement, including his rights to any security which has been lodged. Conversely, the borrower acquires what can only be described as a windfall. He keeps the money and recovers his security. These consequences apply just as much where the lender was acting in good faith throughout and the error was due to a mistaken reading of the complex statutory requirements as in the case of deliberate non-compliance. These consequences also apply where, as in the present case, the borrower suffered no prejudice as a result of the non-compliance as they do where the borrower was misled. Parliament was painting here with a broad brush.

 

73. The unattractive feature of this approach is that it will sometimes involve punishing the blameless pour encourager les autres. On its face, considered in the context of one particular case, a sanction having this effect is difficult to justify. The Moneylenders Act 1927 adopted a similarly severe approach. . . .

 

 

74. Despite [criticism in the Crowther report] I have no difficulty in accepting that in suitable instances it is open to Parliament, when Parliament considers the public interest so requires, deciding that failure to comply with certain formalities is an essential prerequisite to enforcement of certain types of agreements. This course is open to Parliament even though this will sometimes yield a seemingly unreasonable result in a particular case. Considered overall, this course may well be a proportionate response in practice to a perceived social problem. Parliament may consider the response should be a uniform solution across the board. A tailor-made response, fitting the facts of each case as decided in an application to the court, may not be appropriate. This may be considered an insufficient incentive and insufficient deterrent. And it may fail to protect consumers adequately. . . ."

11. The message clearly from the case of Wilson v Robertsons (London) Ltd [2005] EWHC 1425 (Ch), is that the consumer credit Act is clearly enacted to protect consumers such as myself and therefore the claimants failures to supply the information and their behavior in this matter should be noted accordingly giving consideration to the case law and the facts as set out within this defence

 

 

 

12. The credit agreement supplied is not compliant with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) the consequences of such failings mean that the agreement is rendered unenforceable by section 127(3) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

13. Under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 there are certain conditions laid down by parliament which must be complied with if such agreement is to be enforced by the courts

 

14. Firstly, the agreement must contain certain Prescribed terms under regulations made by the Secretary of State under section 60(1) CCA 1974, the regulations referred to are the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553)

 

15. The prescribed terms referred to 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

 

16. It is submitted the credit agreement supplied falls foul of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) in so far that the prescribed terms are not contained within the agreement. The prescribed terms must be with the agreement for it to be compliant with section 60(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974. They cannot be found in a secondary document as according to section 61(1) (a)(b) &©, the agreement must at the time it is laid before the debtor contain all the terms of agreement

 

17. Furthermore, section 2 of the Consumer Credit Agreement Regulations 1983 clearly states

2 Form and content of regulated consumer credit agreement

s

 

[(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (9) below, documents embodying regulated consumer credit agreements (other than modifying agreements) shall contain the information set out in Column 2 of Schedule 1 to these Regulations in so far as it relates to the type of agreement referred to in Column 1.

18. Furthermore I refer to the judgment of TUCKEY LJ in the case of Wilson and another v Hurstanger Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 299

 

"[11] Schedule 1 to the 1983 Regulations sets out the "information to be contained in documents embodying regulated

consumer credit agreements". Some of this information mirrors the terms prescribed by Sch 6, but some does not. Contrasting

the provisions of the two schedules 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."

19. If the agreement does not contain these terms in the prescribed manner it does not comply with section 60(1) CCA 1974, the consequences of which means it is improperly executed and only enforceable by court order

 

20. Notwithstanding point 15, 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

 

The Courts Power of Enforcement

 

21. The courts powers of enforcement where agreements are improperly executed by way of section 65 CCA 1974 are themselves subject to certain qualifying factors. Under section 127 (3) Consumer Credit Act 1974 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

 

127(3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a)(signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner).

22. Further more the courts attention is also 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 and the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) and Consumer Credit (Agreements) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI2004/1482) the agreement cannot be enforced

 

23. The House of Lords in the case of Wilson v First County Trust Ltd - [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul) Ruled that a credit agreement must contain the prescribed terms and must be signed in the prescribed manner for the agreement to be enforceable and set out the consequences of non compliance with the 1974 Act.i refer to the judgment of Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead below....

 

28.........I should outline the salient provisions of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Subject to exemptions, a regulated agreement is an agreement between an individual debtor and another person by which the latter provides the former with a cash loan or other financial accommodation not exceeding a specified amount. Currently the amount is £25,000. Section 61(1) sets out conditions which must be satisfied if a regulated agreement is to be treated as properly executed. One of these conditions, in paragraph (a), is that the agreement must be in a prescribed form containing all the prescribed terms. The prescribed terms are the amount of the credit or the credit limit, rate of interest (in some cases), how the borrower is to discharge his obligations, and any power the creditor may have to vary what is payable: Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983, Schedule 6. The consequence of improper execution is that the agreement is not enforceable against the debtor save by an order of the court: section 65(1). Section 127(1) provides what is to happen on an application for an enforcement order under section 65. The court 'shall dismiss' the application if, but only if, the court considers it just to do so having regard to the prejudice caused to any person by the contravention in question and the degree of culpability for it. The court may reduce the amount payable by the debtor so as to compensate him for prejudice suffered as a result of the contravention, or impose conditions, or suspend the operation of any term of the order or make consequential changes in the agreement or security.

29. The court's powers under section 127(1) are subject to significant qualification in two types of cases. The first type is where section 61(1)(a), regarding signing of agreements, is not complied with. In such cases the court 'shall not make' an enforcement order unless a document, whether or not in the prescribed form, containing all the prescribed terms, was signed by the debtor: section 127(3). Thus, signature of a document containing all the prescribed terms is an essential prerequisite to the court's power to make an enforcement order. The second type of case concerns failure to comply with the duty to supply a copy of an executed or unexecuted agreement pursuant to sections 62 and 63, or failure to comply with the duty to give notice of cancellation rights in accordance with section 64(1). Here again, subject to one exception regarding sections 62 and 63, section 127(4) precludes the court from making an enforcement order.

 

30. These restrictions on enforcement of a regulated agreement cannot be sidestepped.....

And further more

 

36. In the present case the essence of the complaint is that section 127(3) of the Consumer Credit Act has the effect that a Regulated agreement is not enforceable unless a document containing all the prescribed terms is signed by the debtor

 

49. ".............The message to be gleaned from sections 65, 106, 113 and 127 of the Consumer Credit Act is that where a court dismisses an application for an enforcement order under section 65 the lender is intended by Parliament to be left without recourse against the borrower in respect of the loan. That being the consequence intended by Parliament, the lender cannot assert at common law that the borrower has been unjustly enriched.

 

 

50. This interpretation of the Consumer Credit Act accords with the approach adopted by the House in Orakpo v Manson Investments Ltd [1978] AC 95, regarding section 6 of the Moneylenders Act 1927 and, more recently, in Dimond v Lovell [2002] 1 AC 384, another case where section 127(3) precluded the making of an enforcement order. In Dimond's case the restitutionary remedy sought was payment of the hire charge for a replacement car used by Mrs Dimond. The House rejected a claim advanced on the basis of unjust enrichment. Lord Hoffmann observed that Parliament contemplated that a debtor might be enriched consequential upon non-enforcement of an agreement pursuant to the statutory provisions. It was not open to the court to say this consequence is unjust and should be reversed by a remedy at common law: [2002] 1 AC 384, 397-398.

24. The House of Lords and the Court of Appeal before it in considering the Wilson case held that if the agreement does not contain the prescribed terms outlined in Schedule 6 column 2 of Statutory Instrument 1983/1553 then the court couldn't issue an enforcement order. The House of Lords clearly considered it the will of parliament that where a lender did not comply with the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the Subsequent regulations then the lender does not have any recourse, they cannot side step regulation by any other means and weather it is considered right or wrong for the debtor not to have to repay an unenforceable debt becomes irrelevant where the requirements of the CCA 1974 and regulations are not met

 

25. Since the judgment of Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead clearly sets out that without a credit agreement the claimant's case cannot succeed.

 

26. I also refer to the website of Francis Bennion, the drafts person of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and note in particular a PDF document that the honourable Mr Bennion has posted (located here http://www.francisbennion.com/pdfs/f...974-s127-3.pdf ) which states

 

"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.

27. The defendant will further refer to the cases of Dimond v Lovell - [2001] GCCR 2751 and London North Securities Ltd & Mr and Mrs. Meadows [2005] EWCA Civ 956,as these cases which were dealt with by the Court of Appeal and House of Lords respectively deal with Consumer credit Agreements and the fact that where agreements do not comply with the Act they are not enforceable by the courts

 

28. Therefore I respectfully request that the court order the claimant produce the original signed agreement before the court to show the form and content of it and that it complies with the regulations referred to in this defence, otherwise the courts powers of enforcement are surely limited in these circumstances

 

29. Should the claimant be unable to produce the original agreement signed by both debtor and creditor and containing the prescribed terms, I request that the court uses its powers under section 142 Consumer Credit Act 1974 and declare the agreement supplied by the claimant (marked Exhibit CP xxx) unenforceable.

 

 

The Need for a Default notice

 

30. Notwithstanding the matters pleaded above, the claimant must under section 87(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 serve a default notice before they can demand payment under a regulated credit agreement

 

31. 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

 

32. Notwithstanding point 31, I put the claimant to strict proof that any default notice sent to me was valid. I note 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)

 

33. 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 a unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the court enforcing any alleged debt, but give me a counter claim for damages Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119

 

 

34. In view of matters pleaded, I respectfully request the court give consideration to striking out the claimants case pursuant to part 3.4

(2) The court may strike out a statement of case if it appears to the court -

 

(a) That the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending

(b) That the statement of case is an abuse of the court's process or is otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings; or

© That there has been a failure to comply with a rule, practice direction or court order.

35. If the court considers it in appropriate to use its case management powers, it is requested that the court order the claimant to produce a compliant credit agreement, which complies with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the Consumer Credit Agreements Regulations 1983. Without production of the requested documents the case can not be dealt with justly and fairly, and will severely prejudice my rights to a fair trial as laid out under Article 6 of the Convention rights contained within the Human Rights Act 1998

 

36. Having instigated these proceedings without any legal basis for doing so, having failed to provide sufficient information required under the pre-trial protocols in order to investigate this claim, or indeed to provide a reasonable time period to investigate this matter, and having failed to investigate a dispute as required by the OFT Debt collection Guidelines I believe the Claimant's conduct amounts to unlawful harassment under section 40 of The Administration of Justice Act 1970. Furthermore, the Claimant's behaviour is entirely vexatious and wholly unreasonable.

 

37. In addition, should it be suggested that the claim falls under the Consumer Credit Act 2006, it is drawn to the courts attention that schedule 3, s11 of the Consumer Credit Act 2006 prevents s15 repealing s127 (3) of the 1974 Act for agreements made before s15 came into effect since the agreement is alleged to have commenced in xx/xx/xxx the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is the relevant act in this case.

 

 

 

 

 

Statement of Truth

 

 

I xxxxxxxxxxx, believe the above statement to be true and factual

 

 

Signed .....................

 

Date

[42man]

This is a standard defence used when the CPR has not been complied with.....is the debt for a credit card / loan as the above does apply to that.....also this is a standard letter to send (after you hear back about the defence) to request a strike out of the claim...but obviously wait and see what response you get to the defence...

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

Your help desk has informed me that my case has been stayed due to the fact that the Claimant has failed to contact yourselves within 28 days after receiving my defence.

On the 4th of April 2008 I requested under the Civil Procedure rules that the claimant furnish me with certain information (see attached letter) which would prove that they had the legal right to undertake Court action against myself with respect to the alleged debt as well as to permit me to submit an appropriate defence, to this date I have received nothing from the claimant.

In light of the fact that the claimant has failed to contact yourselves within the prescribed time period and has failed to provide me with the Statutory required proof that they can undertake Court action against me with regards to the alleged debt I respectfully request that the Court Strikes the Claim out.

[KTF]

thankyou , but this case is a personal account, i am at the disclosure stage i have disclosed what they were after ie charges ;statements so i was looking for a pointer to what i could write to the district judge to get a legal base to get the case struck out ?

[42man]

Ok personal account, then the CCA will not apply....but it is still worth fighting this on the other faults, excessive charges, non production of defaults, notices of assignment, did you get a letter before action also ?

[42man]

You'll have to pick out from the defence above.....

[KTF]

thats what i thought , thks , i will keep the thread updated , i will pick out the relevant bits 1) no LBA from them , 2)no default recieved . , The bank is still being arrogant in my off site meeting with them 'to save as to costs' . i hope it does n't get stayed

[pt2537]

Hello im just searching for an answer to my predicament , my case is fast track that the bank are claiming from me ,and i counterclaimed for charges , been allocated to fast track hearing in october , can i get the case struck out?

1) they didnt respond to my original CPR request even thought registered and delivered in response to their court summons

2) didn't resond to 2nd request as the case was going to allocation so all facts would be available on standard disclosure.

3) havn't complied with my request for standard disclosure as their solicitor have not recieved the information from the bank as yet.

 

any thoughts it seems like its a delay tactic as the bank rep in my 'without prejudice' meet said they would be asking for a stay anyway

 

the way to deal with non compliance with a disclosure by list is to make a formal application for an order, ordering their compliance

 

the application needs to be made on a N244 form and there is a fee too, i think its £75.00

 

although if you are on a low income etc you may be able to get a fee exemption

[embarrassed_fool]

the way to deal with non compliance with a disclosure by list is to make a formal application for an order, ordering their compliance

 

the application needs to be made on a N244 form and there is a fee too, i think its £75.00

 

although if you are on a low income etc you may be able to get a fee exemption

 

If a N244 application is already in ( i.e for a judgement to be set aside) can it be asked that an order be added to that to comply with the CPR18 request ?

[KTF]

Hello my dilemma is this , on fast-track and the banks solicitor is asking for my consent to stay the claim until the ruling of the OFT case , as they say it will be stayed anyway if we proceed any thoughts? they took me to court and i counterclaimed with the help i received from this site ?

[saintly_1]

5 threads merged please just stick to the one thread thanks

[KTF]

thankyou for merging it, my apologies

[KTF]

could anyone advise me on this plse ?