zhanzhibar vs Amex/AIC/Newman/ Brachers Solicitors

[zhanzhibar]

I don't think its been made public Geoffrey. Talking about the source of info, the Amex V Brandon transcript that was given to me by Mishcon together with the letter above funnily enough also dated 23 jun 2010 time of fax 16:02:rolleyes:

[GeoffreyAlby]

Also, is an invalid DN just a back up.... I think you need to look at the original agreement that more than likely doesnt comply with the CCA 1974. in that it doesnt contain the prescribed terms.

[GeoffreyAlby]

I don't think its been made public Geoffrey. Talking about the source of info, the Amex V Brandon transcript that was given to me by Mishcon together with the letter above funnily enough also dated 23 jun 2010 time of fax 16:02:rolleyes:

 

So Mischon and Optima are using the same fax as scare mongering tactics?

[zhanzhibar]

So far, it would appear that Optima have failed in every case that they have gone for SJ using the Amex v Brandon case...

 

Hiya can you elaborate further on this please? I am very interested to know more. On what ground or how did the Optima's SJ failed when they used this case. Can you let meknow?

 

So Mischon and Optima are using the same fax as scare mongering tactics?

If I may ask why do you say that?

 

Also, has just been reading the Amex V Brandon transcript. Can somebody summarise what is in that transcript coz I don't think I understand what Denyer QC trying to say. I am not sure what exactly happened at county court with DDJ Gisby and why he reserved judgment and did he not handed down any judgment like the one in my case? I take it it was Mr Brandon who appeal to high court? Sorry about this .. I am just a bit confused and I desperately want to understand this case to see where the similarity with my case end. Can somebody clarify this case in simple english for me please..

[GeoffreyAlby]

Ive seen at least three downloads from various sources of this case, all have been downloads of the said photocopy......

 

Look on these threads, at least two cases have been stayed from SJ, for at least one of the reasons being because of the said case going to Appeal

 

Mischcon and Optima send out letters referring to this case with photocopies of the same appeal. But they ignore the other failings in their case. At the end of the day if their only defence is to admit they issued an invalid DN and then use this case to justify it, without regard to the fact that the original agreement was unenforceable then.... they are clutching at straws.

[zhanzhibar]

Also, is an invalid DN just a back up.... I think you need to look at the original agreement that more than likely doesnt comply with the CCA 1974. in that it doesnt contain the prescribed terms.

 

Yes the DN is just a back up. In my case I don't think there is any credit agreement as it was all done online. They claimed I tick the box but no where in the copy of agreement they gave to court got a tick nor my name on it.

[Undercover-Elsa]

Your name is still visible on the SJ transcript, Zhan!

Edited August 28, 2010 by Undercover-Elsa
discretion

[zhanzhibar]

I can't see it, can you tell me where?

[Undercover-Elsa]

Hi Hon,

If you scroll down where it quotes from the witness statement, it's in that..

 

xx

[GeoffreyAlby]

Any updates on the Amex V Brandon appeal? The earlier posts seem to have been removed. Anyone have a link detailing August 26th events?

[zhanzhibar]

Hi all,

 

I had a look at Mishcon website.. hmmm ..interesting insight. Managed to put a Edwin Chik's name to a face. Funnily enough there is no Moussa Zabeti but there is a partner named Masoud Zabeti who in their own words:

 

Masoud is a member of the Finance & Banking Group with his own focus on retail and investment disputes and regulatory matters.

 

In retail banking this has centred on developing strategies for clients to deal with mass consumer mobilisation over bank and default charges, PPI claims and the enforceability of consumer credit agreements. He is an expert on payment systems and also advises on substantial data compromise matters and ensuing investigations.

 

In investment banking he is a "go to" authority on disputes arising from complex investment products and funds, and advises in trade finance disputes.

 

He is currently advising a triumvirate of banks (Credit Suisse, American Express group, and Standard Chartered), having filled a similar role for institutions in the aftermath of the economic collapse of Iceland.

 

Legal 500 has praised Masoud for his activity in the field of retail banking litigation and in particular for being a "retail banking fraud specialist". He is a regular contributor to the legal press and was the only lawyer to address the BBA's Sixth Annual Financial Crime Conference. A member of the International Bar Association and the Fraud Advisory Panel, he joined the Firm as a Partner in 2007.

 

there must be such mass consumer mobilisation over bank and default charges, PPI claims and the enforceability of consumer credit agreements that he has to recruit his own relative ...another Zabeti...to deal with me:rolleyes:. Mass consumer mobilisation ...indeed!! Wonder what the strategies are? Care to share Mr Zabeti? We, the consumers, are not stupid ...really.. we are not. We've educated ourselevs & know now there has always been the law that "should" protect us.

 

Anyway I think now I know why Amex go with Mishcon, its becoz of this guy's expertise and he only joined the firm in 2007.. so expect to see more of Mishcon. I may be paranoid and maybe reading too many of John Grisham's books but I also smell sthg fishy here... By the sound of it he is quite influential re consumer credit agreement... I mean we all know what some of these lawyers (judges are lawyers too) are like when they get together right? I can just imagine them at seminars & conference alike, they get together, they talked, they discuss, lobbied each other and they decide what's best for their corporate clients..in other words who gives a s*** about the consumer law.. sorry no punt intended to those good ones who do care about the law..

 

After reading some of outcome of recent cases, I can't help but feel that there is sthg going on & that the law that is supposed to protect us consumers from these sharks are not being appplied by judges themselves who I would imagine have the duty to be "Fair".

[citizenB]

Zhan, I think fluffystuff might have a copy of that document you are looking for.

[zhanzhibar]

Hi everyone,

 

A lot has been happening since I last wrote here. Cut long story short, i have asked for a stay on my case due to the fact that they are relying on Amex v Brandon( which is still waiting to appeal) which they at first stated it has similarity with mine but now denying that the 2 cases has any similarity and disagree to stay. So gonna have a hearing for that on the 22nd October .. anybody out there can tell me how to preapare when you are the person who is asking for a stay?

 

But before tht I have to comply with the court order to complete listing questionnaire that the court has inckuded in the order they sent.

 

The order stated: All parties must file with their listing questionnaire a succinct case summary and schedule of issues(which they must seek to agree) . the court has included the listing questionaire together with the order.

 

So anybody out there has experience in filling one of these b4? Wht do u have to do exactly...some advice would be appreciated..

[AndyOrch]

Hi Zan

Pre-trial check list (listing questionnaire)

 

29.6

 

(1) The court will send the parties a pre-trial check list (listing questionnaire) for completion and return by the date specified in directions given under rule 29.2(3) unless it considers that the claim can proceed to trial without the need for a pre-trial check list.

 

(2) Each party must file the completed pre-trial check list by the date specified by the court.

 

(3) If no party files the completed pre-trial checklist by the date specified, the court will order that unless a completed pre-trial checklist is filed within 7 days from service of that order, the claim, defence and any counterclaim will be struck out without further order of the court.

 

(4) If –

(a) a party files a completed pre-trial checklist but another party does not;

 

(b) a party has failed to give all the information requested by the pre-trial checklist; or

 

© the court considers that a hearing is necessary to enable it to decide what directions to give in order to complete preparation of the case for trial,

the court may give such directions as it thinks appropriate.

 

 

 

Regards

 

Andy

[zhanzhibar]

Thanks for ur reply Andy

 

Myself & my friend Mr Edwin Chik of Mishcon have been swapping witness statement... here it is for all of u to see... I would really appreciate feedback from u guys/gals out there as to what do u think of Fiona Thomson WS...

 

 

[bazaar]

Hi Zhams, well a few points to start looking at.

at point 5 did you receive the card close to the date she is stating? Dont be fooled by the waffle of gregorian or julian dates, shes wrong and trying to confuse the court and you,

Test the dates at any julian date converter, like here http://www.onlineconversion.com/julian_date.htm

You'll see if you type in the numbers quoted they come out as year 780 sept 8th.

So play around a bit and getfamiliar with this argument to stuff it up her rear end.

Please someone correct me if Im wrong.

 

Point 9, shes blabbing on about an agreement, when in fact it is an application, check point 10.11 where she states executed agreement, ( albeit un signed )

 

point 10.7 when was it sent?

 

10.11, see point 9, it was never signed as an executed agreement, you MUST argue this point, she clearly admits it as so.

 

point 18. £5993, then jumps to £ 6630, why? did you use card or are these charges?

 

Point 30, No signatures present on an Executed agreement???, methinks you doth try our patience Mz Thomson

[AndyOrch]

Excellent Baz love your way with words:lol:

 

Regards

 

Andy

[bazaar]

Excellent Baz love your way with words:lol:

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

Thnx Andy, yes I thought the last comment needed to be in the language of the year 780

 

Perhaps this credit token was made of wood,

[bazaar]

OK Zhans, Just some extra homework for you,

this link http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/calendar/

has every calendar you can think of, if you go down to the pc excel bit, ( which most PC and logic programs are based on,) typein 2006204 you'll get a date far in the future in a land time has forgot, ( you'll get mty meaning). I just think we need to debunk this fool, but make sure they can see a calculation that has absolutely no relation to gregorian or julian dates. we need to hammer each of her points for you to send to court.

[Fluffystuff]

Bazaar,

 

Me thinks you've just given Zhan the 'lifeline' she needs - brilliant!

[manchesteruni]

From Bazaars link

 

ISO 8601 permits us to jettison the historical and cultural baggage of weeks and months and express a date simply by the year and day number within that year, ranging from 001 for January 1st through 365 (366 in a leap year) for December 31st. This format makes it easy to do arithmetic with dates within a year, and only slightly more complicated for periods which span year boundaries. You'll see this representation used in project planning and for specifying delivery dates. ISO dates in this form are written as “YYYY-DDD”, for example 2000-060 for February 29th, 2000; leading zeroes are always written in the day number, but the hyphen may be omitted for brevity.

The 204th day of year 2006 is indeed 23rd July 2006 as in para 5 of the Witness Statement.

 

Para 4 has a typo of 2002 where it should read 2006, but that is of no consequence and easily corrected.

[Fluffystuff]

From Bazaars link

 

The 204th day of year 2006 is indeed 23rd July 2006 as in para 5 of the Witness Statement.

 

Para 4 has a typo of 2002 where it should read 2006, but that is of no consequence and easily corrected.

 

 

Oh dear, seems I got excited a bit prematurely !

[bazaar]

no thats good, thanks for the input manchesteruni, although its a little strange that someone with only the one post would suddenly show up on this thread, maybe me being slightly sceptical I guess. . so we now deal with when this cc was issued to see if it matches the dates stated.

[Undercover-Elsa]

Re their argument that Clause 16 (2) allows them to terminate, which they claim negates the need for the DN to be correct..

what does clause 16 (2) of the T&C's actually say, Zhan? What process does it state should be followed, and did they ACTUALLY follow that process?

If not then surely they have chosen to terminate for breach, and must still follow that course if they haven't taken the required contractual steps to terminate under "clause 16 (2)"

Just a thought...

 

Elsa x

[the_shadow]

Dont be pushed away from the fact that the Default is as they put it of no issue due to a clause in their terms and conditions. The CCA is the overriding regulation here and should override all others, without a proper default under s87 they shouldnt be able to terminate the agreement early.

 

Brandon is key here and they know it, their witness statement refers to it and thus its a major factor that its been applied for appeal, if that case is appealed and thrown out then they have no case to bring due to not meeting the s87 requirements and therefore not being able to terminate the agreement and bring you to court for anything other than the arrears imo.

 

You should at least get a stay from any fair minded judge IMVHO 8-)

 

S.