Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the 02/01/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
    • Monika the first four pages of the Private parking section have at least 12 of our members who have also been caught out on this scam site. That's around one quarter of all our current complaints. Usually we might expect two current complaints for the same park within 4 pages.  So you are in good company and have done well in appealing to McDonalds in an effort to resolve the matter without having  paid such a bunch of rogues. Most people blindly pay up. Met . Starbucks and McDonalds  are well aware of the situation and seem unwilling to make it easier for motorists to avoid getting caught. For instance, instead of photographing you, if they were honest and wanted you  to continue using their services again, they would have said "Excuse me but if you are going to go to Mc donalds from here, it will cost you £100." But no they kett quiet and are now pursuing you for probably a lot more than £100 now. They also know thst  they cannot charge anything over the amount stated on the car park signs. Their claims for £160 or £170 are unlawful yet so many pay that to avoid going to Court. When the truth is that Met are unlikely to take them to Court since they know they will lose. The PCNs are issued on airport land which is covered by Byelaws so only the driver can be pursued, not the keeper. But they keep writing to you as they do not know who was driving unless you gave it away when you appealed. Even if they know you were driving they should still lose in Court for several reasons. The reason we ask you to fill out our questionnaire is to help you if MET do decide to take you to Court in the end. Each member who visited the park may well have different experiences while there which can help when filling out a Witness statement [we will help you with that if it comes to it.] if you have thrown away the original PCN  and other paperwork you obviously haven't got a jerbil or a guinea pig as their paper makes great litter boxes for them.🙂 You can send an SAR to them to get all the information Met have on you to date. Though if you have been to several sites already, you may have done that by now. In the meantime, you will be being bombarded by illiterate debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors all threatening you with ever increasing amounts as well as being hung drawn and quartered. Their letters can all be safely ignored. On the odd chance that you may get a Letter of Claim from them just come back to us and we will get you to send a snotty letter back to them so that they know you are not happy, don't care a fig for their threats and will see them off in Court if they finally have the guts to carry on. If you do have the original PCN could you please post it up, carefully removing your name. address and car registration number but including dates and times. If not just click on the SAR to take you to the form to send to Met.
    • In order for us to help you we require the following information:- [if there are more than one defendant listed - tell us] 1 defendant   Which Court have you received the claim from ? County Court Business Centre, Northampton   Name of the Claimant ? LC Asset 2 S.A R.L   Date of issue – . 28/04/23   Particulars of Claim   What is the claim for –    (1) The Claimant ('C') claims the whole of the outstanding balance due and payable under an agreement referenced xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and opened effective from xx/xx/2017. The agreement is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ('CCA'), was signed by the Defendant ('D') and from which credit was extended to D.   (2) D failed to comply with a Default Notice served pursuant to s87 (1) CCA and by xx/xx/2022 a default was recorded.   (3) As at xx/xx/2022 the Defendant owed MBNA LTD the sum of 12,xxx.xx. By an agreement in writing the benefit of the debt has been legally assigned to C effective xx/xx/2022 and made regular upon C serving a Notice of Assignment upon D shortly thereafter.   (4) And C claims- 1. 12,xxx.xx 2. Interest pursuant to Section 69 County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from xx/01/2023 to xx/04/2023 of 2xx.xx and thereafter at a daily rate of 2.52 to date of judgement or sooner payment. Date xx/xx/2023   What is the total value of the claim? 12k   Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? Yes   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? N/A Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Credit Card   When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? After   Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? Online   Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes, but amount differs slightly   Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. DP issued claim   Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? Not that I recall...   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Not that I recall...   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? Yes   Why did you cease payments? Loss of employment main cause   What was the date of your last payment? Early 2021   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? No   -----------------------------------
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

zhanzhibar vs Amex/AIC/Newman/ Brachers Solicitors


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4724 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

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

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

IMHO youve got to have in your WS that they were already stopped by court with Brachers, so those costs should not be awarded for that, ( second bite of cherry),

Also, They are trying it on with additional agreement terms that do not bear your signature, IE, it beggars belief that they would try to confuse you and possibly the court into thinking they were correct. It makes no difference if they are 'abridged terms', you do not have any concrete proof of an executed agreement as per statutes, their paperwork is in disarray as has been previously proven.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 658
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Just to add further to foolishgirl's post here are the full p46 details of costs capped in Fast Track. My understanding is it's Multitrack where the costs are unlimited.

http://www.justice.gov.uk/civil/procrules_fin/contents/parts/part46.htm#IDAMFTQ

 

And no they cannot claim costs that have already been dispensed with you'll need a copy of the court order stating the situation. as to the paperwork they need to be put to strict proof of your connection to these documents. And yes they are trying to confuse you.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hiya,

 

I am going to put the WS of Fiona again here coz I think that's where I am going to raise my Schedule of issue:

 

Top-1-3.jpg

 

Para 2 from the above: can I include this as one of the issue?

 

para 3 from below: another issue; I never received copy of ALL docs in FT1, para 7 ; pages 3-15 i never seen nor received before this. How can this be statement oftruth?

 

Top-1-2-1.jpg

 

Top-2-2.jpg

 

Top-3-1-1.jpg

 

 

Top-4-1.jpg

para 10.10: The abridged terms is on page 47 to 51 ... I didn't notice until today..

Para 10.11: are they allowed to recon an agreemment as evidence? Page 52-56

 

 

Top-5-1.jpg

 

Top-6-2.jpg

 

Top-7-1.jpg

 

Para 24: They blatantly lie as they did not issue the Claim until 29 may 2008. For nearly a year I have been harassed by Newman when I have been requesting the agreement under s78 but they never delivered. How can I use this against them?

 

Top-8.jpg

 

Para 30 below: Can an executed copy be without signtatures from both parties?

 

Top-9.jpg

 

Top-10.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just my opinion but had a quick scan of it... item 3 on issues the question of reconstructed agreements... you MIGHT want to narrow this down as a sentence on a fag packet can be accepted as evidence if the judge so wishes....You could qualify the reconstruction against the CCA1974 and instead say:-

 

Can a reconstructed agreement be brought as evidence in court for the purposes of section 61 and others of the Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

 

Edit:or you may want to keep that for your skeleton

 

Just a quick thought.. oh and I know time is precious but read up in Carey vs HSBC on reconstructions to be able to re-enforce the courts discretion on accepting/denying reconstructions for non s78 responses.

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure whether to put it here now or to leave it as skeleton argument for later. What do you all think?

I got till 10 this morn to decide becoz I told Pishcon I let them know whether I agree with the issue & sent them mine. I might just sent it to them & see whether they agree or not with that 3rd issue.

 

I think I have to read up Carey v HSBC & Amex v Brandon case for next week STAY hearing.

Edited by zhanzhibar
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Zhan I missed your deadline. However paras 4 & 5 (of theirs) are utter gibberish. Particularly para 4 which says you signed in 2006 and then in the next sentence you signed in 2003.

 

There is only one way to establish the origins of this and that is to use the Civil Evidence Act to demand the original or a fully certified copy of the original is produced for inspection in court. S78 interpretations in the Carey case said it was OK for creditor to reconstruct basically to provide a copy for info purposes but if you look further the Judge said that a copy or the original is required in court cases or serious dispute.

 

That's for the next stage though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK I think I am in trouible now... Mishcon replied..

Dear Madam,

Your comments are noted.

Please note that the purpose of these documents is to assist the Court in identifying the issues to be determined. They are not intended to be pleadings or arguments as to the merits of the claim. Further, the Court intended for the parties to agree the documents and file a single version rather than a copy for each party. With this in mind, the drafts we proposed were intentionally non-partisan in nature and set out the facts and issues to be determined by the Court rather than the history of the claim. We do not therefore agree to your proposed drafts.

After considering your comments we have made the following amendments to the documents we proposed:

Case Summary

Paragraph 1 - the relevant sentence now reads: "The Defendant entered into the agreement electronically via the internet, used the credit card provided by the Claimant to pay for goods and services but did not, towards the end of the Agreement, make the minimum payments..."

Paragraph 2© - reference to the "Defendant" has been replaced with reference to the "Claimant".

Schedule of Issues

Paragraph 1.2 has been amended as per your request.

Revised copies of these documents are attached.

Please confirm if you now agree to these documents.

Please note that, in order to file these documents with the Court by the required deadline, they will be sent to the Court by 3pm today.

Yours faithfully

 

 

So what if I disagree with their issue & case summary?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've e-mailed them twice after their e-mail asking the wording to be more non-partisan:

 

Dear Sir

In that case I believe to be non-partisan

Schedule of issue

1) Is there an enforceable agreement as prescribed under Consumer Credit Act 1974 between the Claimant and the Defendant? - this should replace your point 1 and 1.1 as it is more general

More to come

 

Dear sir,

In the spirit of non-partisan, point 1.3 of your sch of issue should be replaced by these

1.3) Does either party have the right to terminate the contract at any time pursuant to the purported Agreement being at all times a Consumer Credit Agreement (plus perhaps and consequently regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and amendment etc)

1.4) In the event of 1.3 being proven then DID the Claimant issue a Default Notice compliant to the processes required in the CCA1974

 

 

They don't like to change their "non-partisan view" of course & reply

Dear Madam,

For the sake of efficacy, please send all of your suggested comments at the same time rather than on an ad hoc basis.

Regarding your comments:

Para 1 - In our opinion, the question for the Court to answer is not whether there is an enforceable agreement, but whether or not the Claimant may actually enforce the agreement. It would be pointless if the Court did, for example, decide that the agreement was enforceable but made no comment as to whether the Claimant was entitled to actually enforce it. The question are to whether or not you signed the agreement is therefore a live issue for the Court to consider.

We appreciate your comment regarding the generality of your proposed wording, however, the purpose of these documents is to assist the Court in pin-pointing relevant issues without being too specific so as to litigate the claim on paper. We do not therefore agree with your proposed wording.

Para 1.3/1.4 - Your proposed wording suggests that you do not agree that either party had the right to terminate the agreement at any time. We do not agree with this suggestion; the Claimant maintains that it is entitled to terminate the agreements. In our view, the question is whether the Claimant was required to serve a Default Notice prior to termination, however, in view of your comments we would suggest:

"Did both parties have the contractual power to end the Agreement at any time? If so, was the Claimant required to serve a Default Notice before terminating the Agreement and if so, did the Claimant serve a valid Default Notice on the Defendant?"

 

Although not ideal, given the imminent deadline to send these documents to the Court, we would suggest that, if the proposals are not agreed, each party send a separate version to the Court.

Yours faithfully

 

 

& This is Pishcon V3

 

img034-1.jpg

 

So now what do I do?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, theyve just bloomin well answered that, they are now saying that each party should send their own, I think they were on a little fishing trip to see what youd argue.

So If I were you, Id put your version down and send to court asap, Dont get involved with these idiots anymore, they are trying to con you, stick to your arguments, thats why its got this far in the first place

Link to post
Share on other sites

TQ Bazaar for your input. might have to rethink my case summary & schedule of issue.

 

In the meantime would appreciate it if somebody could comment on my queries below re the listing Q itself

 

img029-1.jpg

 

img030.jpg

 

img031.jpg

 

Queries:

1) on A(1) I said yes because its about directions that are already given but what about A(2) additional directions? I said Yes on this mainly on the basis of the STAY application that I put through which the hearing is next week on the 22nd. Shoudl A(2) be a yes or a no & if it a YES what shall I direction shallI write.

 

2) In section F, if the answer is yes to A(2) above does that mean that I have put an application and pay fee for additional directions even though I have already paid for STAY application? At the moment I just ticked draft order & the estimate costs.

 

Help! Comments please on the above

 

 

Submitting these to Mishcon via e-mail this morning.

 

img028.jpg

 

img027.jpg

 

.

 

Might have to rethink about the 2 schedule above after putting kids to bed. Would appreciate any pointers...

 

and here's my estimate of costs.. is this ok do you guys think? Looks fair unlike theirs

 

img035.jpg

 

img036.jpg

 

img037.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

Just read te whole thread firstly must apologies for coming in so late on this with such a negative vibe.

I think you have to stand back an look at what has been discovered on this thread. Firstly an agreement for running account credit can be terminated at any time.

Secondly that a termination on default does not mean that the contractual right to terminate does not exist they can terminate at any time.

This to me means that they could if they want terminate by breach any time even after they have exercised there right to terminate under a contractual provision. This is certainly supported by contract law.

But OK say I am wrong and the contractual termination is valid and prevents the unlawful termination, doesn’t that mess up the accepting the unlawful termination argument.

In reality I think the court will say that the agreement could not have been terminated by breach. I think the best that hou n hope for is the case being thrown out for a ineffective DN and then the case being refilled. This is in fact happening as we speak over on CAG, the original costs are being added to the new costs and interest is also being added post the first termination.

All I am saying is be very careful

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

zhanzibar - having read through many of peterbard's posts on other topics, I would not give too much weight to what he says. He has consistently tried to persuade other Caggers that they had no or, at best, a weak case. I think (and I think many other much more experienced Caggers will agree) that you are still in quite a strong position and Amex (and their legal counsel) knows it.

 

Of course you have to tread carefully with any case that goes to court, particularly in the murky waters that are currently the environment of consumer law and with the many judicial sharks that form part of the judge lottery!! But your case is fundamentally very strong, even without the DN argument (which should in the end be proved right too, when they see sense to overturn the Brandon ruling, hopefully and likely in the near future). Good luck with it all and stick to your guns, you have done brilliantly so far and inspire many others.

Link to post
Share on other sites

HI

MMM

Yes indeed I do tend to de bunk the daft ideas on here, seems to be my calling. Unfortunately I think you will find I am usually correct.

My advice is don’t take anyone’s word for anything just gather the information and make your own mind up.

Bear in mind that his argument has never been proven or seriously argued in court ofn a credit agreement, the act has been in force since 1983.

I don’t know what is meant by experienced Caggres I have been on here a fair while and most of my knowledgeable contemporaries would not even comment on such a barmy concept as this.

If you mean Caggers with a lot of blips under their names I think you will find that they have those because in general they tell people what they want to hear, by the time the sh1t hit’s the fan they have moved on to the next victim.

Any way have a look at the threads I have started and judge for yourself.

As regards your claim I really do wish you luck with it and I earnestly hope you prove me wrong.

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

zhanzibar - having read through many of peterbard's posts on other topics, I would not give too much weight to what he says. He has consistently tried to persuade other Caggers that they had no or, at best, a weak case. I think (and I think many other much more experienced Caggers will agree) that you are still in quite a strong position and Amex (and their legal counsel) knows it.

 

Was Peter Bard wrong on Slater v Egg ?

 

Of course you have to tread carefully with any case that goes to court, particularly in the murky waters that are currently the environment of consumer law and with the many judicial sharks that form part of the judge lottery!! But your case is fundamentally very strong, even without the DN argument (which should in the end be proved right too, when they see sense to overturn the Brandon ruling, hopefully and likely in the near future). Good luck with it all and stick to your guns, you have done brilliantly so far and inspire many others.

 

Can you point out what you believe makes the case 'fundamentally very strong'' apart from the DN argument pls. My reading of the case is that the DN argument is the make or break issue.

 

Thanks :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

manchesteruni - perhaps you could enlighten me then on how Amex will prove zhanzhibar had a valid agreement in place at the time when indeed all they have is an internal form and a reference to a internet location that they have no way of proving if it relates to any computer he may or may not have used? Or how they can proceed to enforcement without a valid true copy of an executed agreement? thanks in advance for your input and for edifying me.

 

And without going back over numerous threads, as I am not going to get in a tit for tat war and quote any of peter bards previous posts, I know for a fact that I have read many of his previous posts and that they are in the main extremely negative and often without foundation. At one point he was arguing that the CAB was the definitive source of info for the consumer and that their info was the correct 'go to' source for consumers (!) That is utterly risible and any attempt to argue differently should be met with the contempt that it deserves.

 

peterbard - As to Caggers being some sort of ethereal or intangible concept, it really is not and anyone should be able to grasp the meaning of this with a passing thought. I am quite certain there are many, many knowledgeable Caggers who disagree with you strongly and would give this comment if they could be bothered to any more than they previously have in other threads you have entered into. Irrespective of this, I find your opinion deeply flawed but, hey, let's just wait and see the outcome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

Just read te whole thread firstly must apologies for coming in so late on this with such a negative vibe.

I think you have to stand back an look at what has been discovered on this thread. Firstly an agreement for running account credit can be terminated at any time.

Secondly that a termination on default does not mean that the contractual right to terminate does not exist they can terminate at any time.

This to me means that they could if they want terminate by breach any time even after they have exercised there right to terminate under a contractual provision. This is certainly supported by contract law.

But OK say I am wrong and the contractual termination is valid and prevents the unlawful termination, doesn’t that mess up the accepting the unlawful termination argument.

In reality I think the court will say that the agreement could not have been terminated by breach. I think the best that hou n hope for is the case being thrown out for a ineffective DN and then the case being refilled. This is in fact happening as we speak over on CAG, the original costs are being added to the new costs and interest is also being added post the first termination.

All I am saying is be very careful

Peter

 

TQ for your advice PB. They are noted. Rather than talking about DN which we can only talk about if there is a validly executed agreement, I would appreciate it if you can comment on whether or not I do have an agreement/contract in the first place because all I know is my so-called agreement is made of these

 

a) an intranet e-application form where even their 2 legal firms cannot agree as to when allegedly I applied for the card

b) a blank T&Cs with none of my name nor address

c) an IP address which as we all know is always changing

 

d)and now suddenly in the disclosure of evidence toegther with their WS, they also introduced another reconstitute T&Cs which is also blank, the only difference is that it has a box on the signature ( for ticking as oppose to signing) which is also blank i.e not ticked.

 

So now, let's forget about the DN or about the termination for a while and focus on this issue.. can anybody tell me

 

1) How they can suddenly bring in a new evidence i.e the recobtsruct T&Cs with still no names, no signature. not even a tick

2) Whether or not I have an agreement?

Edited by zhanzhibar
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I wish you the best of luck with your case subbing- I hope the brandon case result gets chagned and you win I have £90,000 mainly on faulty DN's so vested interest... Once again all the best..

Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle. Please do not PM me I do not use the PM service. Please use a link on my thread for any help or to talk.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

any news on this?

˙os op oʇ pǝʞsɐ ssǝlun ǝƃɐssǝɯ ǝʇɐʌıɹd ʎq ǝɯ ʇɔɐʇuoɔ ʇou op ǝsɐǝlԀ ˙pǝɹnɔɔo sǝssol ʎuɐ ɹo ǝɹnlıɐɟ ɟo ʇlnsǝɹ ɐ sɐ ǝlqɐıl plǝɥ ǝq ʇou llɐɥs I ˙llıʍpooƃ ɟo ǝɹnʇsǝƃ ɐ sɐ os ǝuop sı uǝʌıƃ ǝɔıʌpɐ ʎu∀

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...