Can anyone tell me the possible implications of this?

[blind-as-a-bat]

thought i might be over doing it a bit:rolleyes:

 

We now have a copy of there AQ

 

A-Settlement-yes Stalling for time maybe???

B-Location of Hearing-no

 

C-Track-yes

 

D-Witnesses-0

 

E-Experts-No

 

F-Hearing-No

-No

 

G-Other Information- Evidence to be filed in a statement of truth.

Deponent unknown at present Thats me confused, nothing new there though

H-Fee- Yes

 

So what is all that about?

[AndyOrch]

Hi Bat

 

So no suprises there Ok this is how I read their intentions

 

Dont be suprised, settlement is requested this is the norm and always expected from the Claimant to appear to be amicable throughout the claim.So not stalling for time but I understand your reasonings.have they requested a months stay?

With reference to G the deponent is the person whose deposition is being taken ie One who testifies under oath, especially in writing.

 

So basically they are going to rely on their witness statement and at a later stage after the stay probally request summary judgement with a view to having your defence thrown out with no real prospect or merit.

 

So now you understand why it is important to always view the opponents AQ it gives you an insight into their intentions and allows you to regroup adjust your attack.

I would advise you mirror their AQ with the addition of what we have said with reference to point G other

 

Just post if you are unsure of anything

 

Regards

 

Andy

.

.

[blind-as-a-bat]

No mention of a stay at all, just the tick in settlement.

 

Not sure what is to be negotiated, as i deny all there claim in my defence, so still a bit murky on that one

 

So are they saying there case is someone coming to court, swearing everything they have said (which is not a lot) is true, but dont know who that person will be yet? Am i reading that right? if so what about produceing the documents to substantiate there claim?

 

So my reply would be

 

A-Settlement-yes

 

B-Location of Hearing-no

 

C-Track-yes

 

D-Witnesses-0

 

E-Experts-No

 

F-Hearing-No

-No

 

G-Other Information- Evidence to be filed in a statement of truth.

 

Deponent unknown at present.

 

Its is respectfully requested this case be allocated to the small claims track, it is a straight forward case and is easily resolved on production of the required documentation by the claimant, should the claimant not have the documentation required to progress this case I suggest that there will be no case to answer

 

Therefore it stands to reason that this document must be disclosed before this case can progress any further

 

 

H-Fee- No

 

Im i understanding your reply correctly?

[AndyOrch]

No mention of a stay at all, just the tick in settlement.

 

Not sure what is to be negotiated, as i deny all there claim in my defence, so still a bit murky on that one

 

So are they saying there case is someone coming to court,not ness it may be via phone or witness statement swearing everything they have said (which is not a lot) is true, but dont know who that person will be yet? Correct Am i reading that right? if so what about produceing the documents to substantiate there claim? Your reference in G will prompt the DJ to Order Disclosure

 

So my reply would be

 

A-Settlement-yes Unless absolutly no debt ever exisited and a case of mistaken identitiy then no

 

B-Location of Hearing-no

 

C-Track-yes

 

D-Witnesses-1 wasnt this your wifes debt?

E-Experts-No

 

F-Hearing-No Yes

 

G-Other Information- Evidence to be filed in a statement of truth.

 

Deponent unknown at present. not required

 

Its is respectfully requested this case be allocated to the small claims track, it is a straight forward case and is easily resolved on production of the required documentation by the claimant, should the claimant not have the documentation required to progress this case I suggest that there will be no case to answer

 

Therefore it stands to reason that those documents must be disclosed before this case can progress any further

 

 

H-Fee- No

 

Im i understanding your reply correctly?

yes why what would you propose?

 

Regards

 

Andy

Edited November 5, 2008 by Andyorch

[blind-as-a-bat]

No i wouldnt propose anything else, it makes sense now, perfect sense in fact, thanks for your patiance and help Andy.

 

Dont know why this bit seemed to confuse me so much now, think im looking for things where there isnt anything, if that makes any sense

[AndyOrch]

OK Blind

 

The fact that you are requesting settlement,is in no way an admittance to any alleged debt.It only projects an image of amicabilty to the Courts.Shows that in the interests of Court time and Costs you are open to sort this fiasco out either with the Courts assitance or without.

They have not even submitted their fee yet and not requested a hearing also,no witness would appear to be available as yet and have not yet submitted a witness statement to boot:confused:

 

Im sure the Courts are going to be very interested in the Claimants case which would appear to have very little or no direction at all:rolleyes:

 

 

I rest my case Mlord

 

Andy:)

[blind-as-a-bat]

That sort of sums up how i saw it i think, that might be why it seemed to make no sence, i think i was expecting them to respond at least in some way to my defence, now im wondering if they have even read it

 

One last question, once my AQ has gone in does the judge review the defence together with the AQ, is that the point the judge actually see,s the case from both parties submisisions so far? or does s/he just look at the AQ,s?

[AndyOrch]

Yes the Defence and AQ are considered for further direction which will result in a hearing for Directions.That is presuming the opponents pay the fee on time:D

 

Blind dont forget to file a copy of the AQ on the Claimants Sols (dont sign)

Obviously one to your Local CC do sign and retain one for your file.

Ps The Claimants AQ is one of the poorest responses i have ever seen(and I have seen a few)

 

Regards

 

Andy

[blind-as-a-bat]

Might be intresting if the judge that heard my banckruptcy petition gets this one then, he was not a big fan of creditors and the way they bully people, so i doubt he would be impressed:D

 

Thanks Andy, going to get it filled out and ready to send to court and sols.

 

Will update as soon as i get any reply from whoever, but guess i may have a bit of a wait

[blind-as-a-bat]

Just a quick update, RM did it again and didnt deliver my AQ till monday, rang court, who confirmed it wasnt a problem, and was in the bundle awaitng being sent up to the judge, apparently i should get some sort of directions from court in about three to four weeks, but if it has to go to a hearing it will be march/april before the court could fit it in as they are so busy, so this may drag on for a while.

[blind-as-a-bat]

Ok we have some directions, pretty standard from what i have seen, i think

 

DISTRICT JUDGE xxxx has considered the statements of case and allocation questionnaires filed and allocated the claim to the small claims track.

The hearing of the claim will take place at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and should take no longer than 30 minutes. A hearing fee of £50.00 is payable by 29 December 2008 by the claimant unless you make an application for a fee concession. Failure to pay the fee may result in the Claim being struck out.

The court must be informed immediately if the case is settled by agreement before the hearing date.

The hearing fee will be refunded in full if the court receives notice in writing at least 7 days before the hearing date, that the case is settled or discontinued.

Each party shall deliver to every other party and to the court office copies of all documents (including any experts' report) on which he intends to rely at the hearing no later than 14 days before the hearing.

The original documents shall be brought to the hearing.

 

Have also been in touch with consumer direct, waiting for TS to ring back, im hoping TS will agree as they did with Maz and put in writing that GE where in default of a CCA request and that assigning it to CL is classed as enforceing the agreemant which due to the default on the CCA request they where unlawfull in doing so. Would that, as i hope, mean there is no case to answer if TS do agree and put it in writing?

Edited November 28, 2008 by blind-as-a-bat

[angel_1]

hiya blind as a bat

 

i can see some movements on your case, me im still awaiting the official complaint team to resolve my issues still, but had a snotty letter from them asking me to pay up and if not will default and take legal action

 

these people will never learn, im awaiting on their complaint resolution they asked me to give them the chance to resolve before i take it to fos

 

so i havnet been able to get back to ts, but i might just give them a courtesy call at ts anyway to tell them how im standing at the moment, perhaps i should now complain to oft, them chasing me for money even though ive disputed and their complaints team also told me they are investigating///

 

madness

 

good luck and keep positive ciao for now MAZ

[creditcardmug]

Hi blind the last line in that order is the best bit, thats going to be a killer for them.

[blind-as-a-bat]

Yes it may well be if it is meant in the literal sence when it comes to the agreemant, they didnt even have a copy untill i asked for one, and they still dont have a full copy at that:D

[creditcardmug]

Ive got a similar order, in my case with CL, but mine says they have to file and serve Copies of the docs by 30th Nov, and they have not.

 

Also says the original docs to be brought to the hearing, if they had done they would have had to be copies of the originals

[blind-as-a-bat]

Thanks for that creditcardmug, guess who is going to be watching your case/thread very closely:D

 

Judging by Andys replys in your thread, if the judge sticks to the order to the letter, it should be a short hearing for both of us if it gets that far

[creditcardmug]

Yes im hoping so, thanks for you support:)

[tifo]

subbing out of interest ...

[blind-as-a-bat]

Ok i need some help here, i have recieved a reply from TS, and on the subject of allowing 14 for default notices apparently the view that this means 14 days + whatever is deemed reasonable for postage times is "ARGUABLE" due to the satatment in sec 189 of the CCA 1974 defines "serve on" as to " deliver or send by post"

 

now apart from the fact it is the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 also defines service of the default notice, which clouds the argument further as served on or date of service is not defined at all.

 

I cant find any concrete defeniton on this in any of the acts, so can anyone tell me where it is defined?

[blind-as-a-bat]

Shameless bump

really need to know if "serve on" as defined in the CCA 1974 and "date of service" are one and the same or two seperate things.

 

This could be a big hole in my defence if it has the same defenition " deliver or send by post", and not the date it was reasonable to say it was recieved by me:(

 

This is what TS said, and why i need to know

 

1.You believe the default notice to be invalid on the grounds that it did not give 14 days from receipt for your wife to bring the arrears up to date. However, s189 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 defines 'serve on' as to deliver or send by post in which case it may be arguable that date of service is the date of posting.

Edited December 27, 2008 by blind-as-a-bat

[The GodMother]

i have always been told there needs to be 14 clear full days from date of recipt to date of deafult this is after delivery and that is now 2 working days.

 

so if it was wrote and posted on the monday. it is classed a delivered by last post wednesday so the 14 days start from the thursday from my understanding.

 

The only difference is if it is signed for then the 14 days start from the next day but NOT if it is signed for on a saturday if in doubt i would PM pt2537 linking in this thread asking him a breif question of that. He will know the answer.

[blind-as-a-bat]

Thanks for the responce GM, wish i had never contacted TS, they have totaly unerved me again just as i thought i had got this all sorted in my head, there are more issues in there responce, but i think i have sorted those for myself, just stuck on this one, there is no referance on any legal sites anywhere or in any legaslation to say that TS is wrong that i can find

 

Will try PM,ing PT:)

[angel_1]

hiya Blind-as-a-bat

 

im totally with you now on this, we really do need a bit of concrete evidence to set our nerves back to steel

 

i so wish id gone to law college at times like this, im so cross with myself!!!!

 

but im a quick learner, might look into now better late then never so they say,,,,

 

goodnight to all, off to do my taxi servicing collecting dd and dh from their nights out,,,

 

laters angel x:)

[The GodMother]

well at least your TS has bothered to acknowledge the complaint.

 

I have sent multipul letters of complaint all recieved and signed for and not one of them have been replied to.

[blind-as-a-bat]

well at least your TS has bothered to acknowledge the complaint.

 

I have sent multipul letters of complaint all recieved and signed for and not one of them have been replied to.

 

That may be a good thing, this was part of the responce too

 

4. Section 78 (1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 does require that the creditor shall give the debtor, on request, a copy of the executed agreement and of any other document referred to in it.

It would appear you are claiming that you have not been supplied with a 'true copy' of the agreement. A true copy is defined under the Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983. There may be omitted any information which is not required by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. It would appear that 'section 11' to which you refer is not prescribed information, and is thus not required in the copy. Thus G E Money may still be entitled to enforce the agreement.

 

Somewhat missing the point isnt it?