zhanzhibar vs Amex/AIC/Newman/ Brachers Solicitors

[Rhia]

Zan have just read the N150 and it looks good to me too. All points covered. I will also be interested to see the letter posted tomorrow as Amex is getting somewhat lively in a number of cases.

 

Have had a "conversation" with another CAGer who is about to start taking action against them too. They are going to be rather busy.

[Rhia]

I am afraid that seems to be exactly what is happening. Judges are increasingly making the law, not carrying out the law. With any law the basis is what did Parliament intend? In the CCA Parliament's intention was to protect the consumer.

 

They should not be ignoring House of Lords ruling, but they are.

 

I fear there is a degree of mutual support going on here, perhaps not in an organised sense but as a group of people of similar background propping each other up.

 

After all, it's not short of humiliating to see someone who has the same pedigree and in the same "club" being whooped in court by a layman or woman. Stand firm and don't be intimidated by them or anyone. It takes a lot of courage to stand your ground in court.

Edited June 23, 2010 by Rhia

[Rhia]

Absolutely brilliant!

 

Zhan I know you have a hell of a fight on your hands but when you are standing there it doesn't hurt to hold the thought in your mind that, despite it's pedigree Mishcon actually have employed a criminal and at a senior level.

 

You couldn't make this up.

 

Also you must not allow them to attempt to move the case to London. As a Litigant-in-Person you are permitted to have the case heard at your local court. You need to object as soon as possible and state you are a LiP whereas the company is very high profile law firm with big resources and it would give you considerable inconvenience and hardship and not be in the interests of justice for this to be moved to suit their convenience.

[Rhia]

LOL! A much more reliable source than the Daily Rant.

[Rhia]

This is a very interesting development and it does seem they are engaging in brinkmanship with you. Of course it's your shout entirely as to which way you jump but the Judge would never have allowed this to proceed in this way if he did not think you had a case. His summing up is quite considered and he looks at the likelihood of success not just a fantasy of possibility. AMEX are fighting a number of these cases now and fighting them hard.

 

I see Martel is subscribed to this thread and she is in the same or similar boat with AMEX. MIschon will cost them a pretty penny but they will be ready to throw money at this as they can't let it fail. There is a section in the Scrivener Opinion commissioned by Martin Lewis at Money Saving Expert on the current account bank charges which refers to the way Judges are ignoring consumer laws and also the EU directives which states clearly that the laws exist not to give banks and consumers a level playing field but to protect the consumer and the interpretation most favourable to the consumer should prevail.

 

I haven't attached it as don't want to confuse you and you have a decision to make but I can do so as it is worthwhile reading as Anthony Scrivener brings in the European Directive aspect of consumer legislation which is being totally ignored even by the Supreme Court.

 

I would hold steady here Zhanzibar. It's easy to lose your nerve in the face of such heavy duty opposition but something is amiss with their case or they would not have sent such a detailed and forceful Without Prejudice letter to you.

[Rhia]

Must just join in to say as soon as I read this garbage on her WS re Gregorian etc my jaw dropped and the wonderful expression WTF fell from my lips. Just who, anwhere in the world, in any line of business uses the 204th day of whatever when writing a date. in either a personal or a commercial sense.

 

Complete and total hogwash but Ill give 'em a couple of points for a fresh approach at hogwasherry.

 

Yup and I too would be slightly suspect re a single poster but then Im just paranoid.

[Rhia]

Wow a load of us all pitched in at once with comments at the same time last night. I totally agree that s140 of the CCA is a powerful argument. amex is trying to pretend or hoodwink you into believing they can undermine the CCA. Just because they are a US company. They think they can avoid their responsibilities but Parliament intended UK citizens to be afforded protection from unscrupulous lenders - not that you'd realise that from some judges.

[Rhia]

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.

[Rhia]

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.