HFC Loan Court Claim-Advise needed

[car2403]

Super, post #36 says you had until 25/12 to respond - what does the Court Order actually say?

 

Just to clarify my understanding, we have here an enforceable agreement and Restons are seeking Summary Judgment in the claim. There seems to be no defence to the agreement, as it contains the prescribed terms, but there **may** be issues with the Default Notice as it likely contains default charges which we want to challenge. As we can't be certain of the claim amount, (I don't believe you've received statements yet?) the amount of the charges contained within the Default Notice, (as there are no statements) nor the lawfullness of those collection charges, we can't submit a part admission for the amount that we agree with.

 

For me, the best way to address this in a Witness Statement against the awarding of Summary Judgment, will be to address these issues and ask the Court to dismiss the application for SJ but issue new directions for the progression of the claim. In short, there is no defence to this claim, but until the documents you need have been disclosed, you can't defend/admit/part admit anything as it's all too unclear.

 

So, what we want out of this is;

- The SJ application is dismissed

- They are ordered to comply with your DPA SAR (has this been sent yet) and a CPR Part 18 request for more information. (Have you sent this yet, I can't see it in the thread?)

 

Once all this is out in the open, you can calculate the default charges applied, (including those collection charges) and adjust any settlement negotiations as a result.

 

I can't see how they can get SJ on such an incomplete claim at this stage and I suspect that, in either case, you shouldn't be liable for their costs in bringing the application because of the state of the claim. Hopefully a Judge will agree and deal with them appropriately. What is important is that you fully document your attempts to settle prior to the SJ hearing and any more effort you put in to settling prior to the further directions having been complied with. Restons, bless their cotton socks, don't know their A from their E, so you need to be able to prove everything that has happened so far. A Judge won't be happy with them ignoring settlement offers because of the Festive leave of the person managing the case!

[SupermanX]

i received judgement order on 18.12 had 7 days to make an application to have it set aside,varied, stayed. I have until 05.01 to submit WS.

 

I have sent CPR 18 ages ago have sent SAR yesterday. They have forwarded me a statement for 5125.24 which is different to the money claimed;(statement is not very clear on any charges applied).

 

The amount claimed is 6347.48 consisting of 5440.55 +290 legal costs+906.43 collection charges, they claim the amount claimed (5440.55) is higher than the statement figure because "the amount claimed includes further calculation of interest to the end of the loan term as is the Claimant's entitlement"

 

S

[car2403]

If there are no charges on that statement, the Default Notice will be valid. If that is the case, with the issues around the agreement, we might find it hard to avoid Summary Judgment - the issue being that if we flag the documentation gap to the Court in the witness statement, then they provide everything that is required, your statement won't stand up in the hearing.

 

Are there any other issues with the Default Notice? Does the date of the transactions on the statements around the date of the Default Notice match the balance and outstanding arrears at that time, for example?

 

Getting these settlement negoitations underway is critical to your case now, so I'd suggest you speak to Restons again and try to get someone else involved with it, or at least find out what the person managing the claim is back in the office. (Everything in writing/email/fax, though, remember)

 

They tried to claim interest under the agreement in my claim as well - see this post;

 

Reply from Restons;

 

As far as interest is concerned (to the end of the loan term) we will rely upon the case of Forward Trust v Whymark which has been extensively reported.

 

and

 

Interesting, as Restons seem to be assuming they can get Judgment in this case, by relying on Forward Trust v Whymark! This case relies on an agreement being enforceable to start with, (otherwise Judgment can't be entered - this agreement isn't!) then goes on to back up my view that they can only claim the outstanding balance, NOT the amount of the original Default amount;

 

Of course, the issue for you is that your agreement appears to be enforceable, so they may be able to do this.

 

Here's the details of the case;

 

Forward Trust plc v Whymark

 

Court of Appeal 11 July 1989 (Times Law Report 25.7.89)

 

Where a creditor seeks to recover sums outstanding under a regulated consumer credit agreement in which a rebate is payable on early settlement, judgement should be entered for the full outstanding amount owed by the debtor.

 

Mr Whymark was in arrears on a 10 year personal loan agreement with the bank, who served him with a default notice under s.87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. They required, if the default continued, payment of the outstanding balance "less the rebate allowable". The bank subsequently issued a summons claiming the outstanding balance, and the Birmingham County Court, although originally granting judgement, subsequently set it aside on the grounds that the amount awarded should have been the net amount owing, after rebate. The bank appealed and Lord Donaldson, Master of the Rolls, gave judgement in their favour.

 

Forward Trust had not sought to make a windfall profit as a result of suing to recover total indebtedness under the agreement, but they objected to being placed at a significant disadvantage if they could only obtain judgement for the rebated amount. The rebate represented future interest under the agreement which, if they could have sued in the High Court, would have been replaced by interest on the judgement debt. However, they were required (s.141 of the Act) to sue in the County Court whose judgements did not at present bear interest. It was clear, from ss.94 and 95 of the Act, that Parliament intended that a debtor should be entitled to a rebate if he discharged his indebtedness before the time fixed by the agreement, whether through voluntary early settlement or on a breach. The apparent conflict could be answered by the Consumer Credit (Rebate on Early Settlement) Regulations 1983, in which the formula for calculating the rebate required the "settlement date", Regulation 6 defining this by reference to the date of payment by the debtor.

 

On this basis, the debtor's position at the date when judgement was entered was that he owed the full outstanding amount, and that there was no reason why judgement should not have been entered in that amount. Only when the debtor made a final payment of the agrement could a rebate (if any) be calculated. The following effects of this judgement were noted by the Court:

 

(1) Where a county court permits payment by instalments, it will need to ensure that, if discharge of the debt is going to be completed ahead of the original term of the agreement, the creditor does not gain the advantage of not having to pay a rebate which would otherwise be due.

(2) A judgement for the full outstanding amount should never be ordered to be enforced by the High Court (since this could create problems of interest being charged on interest).

(3) If in the future County Court judgements are allowed to bear interest, an exception must be made for judgements in respect of consumer credit agreements to which the rebate provisions apply. However there should be no bar to judgements attracting interest after the date of expiry of the original agreement.

(4) Means had to be found for informing the judgement debtor that, in some circumstances, he might be able to discharge the judgement by paying a rebated amount, and for informing bailiffs that their right to execute against goods would not extend to taking more than was sufficient to satisfy the judgement debt less the appropriate rebate.

Lord Donaldson considered that forms of judgement should be endorsed or specially printed to include the following wording:

 

"The judgement debtor can satisfy his obligations under this judgement by paying the full amount adjudged due from him less any rebate for early settlement to which he may be entitled under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and regulations made thereunder.

 

"The judgement debtor can find out whether any rebate is applicable, and if so the amount of the rebate by inquiry from the judgement creditor. In the event of dispute, the judgement debtor should apply to the court for a determination of whether he is entitled to any rebate and if so its amount."

 

This form of judgement would also alert bailiffs asked to levy execution to the need to take into account of the amount of any rebate likely to be applicable.

[SupermanX]

Tks

 

I'm sure there are charges added because my regulat payments were 198.73 per month and when i fell behind i made 3 or 4 payments of £213.73 which was the normal figure plus £15 fees. Also, the DF is for £5247.41, £5440.55 minus £193.14 statutory rebate allowable. dated 15.04.08

 

On the statement they have sent me , the balance on 09.04.08 is £5073.22 and £5099.59 on the 25.04

[car2403]

Tks

 

I'm sure there are charges added because my regulat payments were 198.73 per month and when i fell behind i made 3 or 4 payments of £213.73 which was the normal figure plus £15 fees. Also, the DF is for £5247.41, £5440.55 minus £193.14 statutory rebate allowable. dated 15.04.08

 

This is good, because we can probably postpone consideration of the SJ application based on the fact they haven't provided enough information on the account, including charges applied.

 

On the statement they have sent me , the balance on 09.04.08 is £5073.22 and £5099.59 on the 25.04

 

Does that tie in with the amounts on the Default Notice? (Can't see it earlier in the thread as the financial information has been blocked out)

[SupermanX]

the amounts differ by 200 between the Default Notice and the screen print they have sent me. The DN amount is greater

[car2403]

Did you get a reply from the Court regarding your CPR Part 18 non compliance letter?

 

I'll pull a reply to their application together for you over the next day or so.

[SupermanX]

I didn't receive any reply from the court regarding cpr18 non-compliance

 

tks for helping me out

[Josie8]

the amounts differ by 200 between the Default Notice and the screen print they have sent me. The DN amount is greater

 

 

In that case the default notice is defective

[car2403]

In that case the default notice is defective

 

I hope so, Josie, but I'm not convinced as it's less than 4% of the balance - in Woodchester v Swain, the DN was out by 38%, so I'm hoping that 4% isn't seen as a de minimus error that is overlooked. Realistically, I can't see SJ been awarded, so this should buy us that time to negotiate settlement before the final hearing is even listed.

[Josie8]

I hope so, Josie, but I'm not convinced as it's less than 4% of the balance - in Woodchester v Swain, the DN was out by 38%, so I'm hoping that 4% isn't seen as a de minimus error that is overlooked. Realistically, I can't see SJ been awarded, so this should buy us that time to negotiate settlement before the final hearing is even listed.

 

 

I would still think that £200 would not be regarded as de minimus - maybe relate it to the borrowers weekly earnings etc?

[Josie8]

or payments?

[car2403]

or payments?

 

You're right - if we calculate it as a %-age of the arrears, rather than the outstanding balance, it's probably a much bigger %-age. (If the Court buys it) The fact they demanded and received the fees along with the payments suggests that's a reasonable approach to take, IMHO. Let's hope the Court sees it that way.

[Josie8]

You're right - if we calculate it as a %-age of the arrears, rather than the outstanding balance, it's probably a much bigger %-age. (If the Court buys it) The fact they demanded and received the fees along with the payments suggests that's a reasonable approach to take, IMHO. Let's hope the Court sees it that way.

 

 

Well its worth putting a good argument forward I would think:D

[car2403]

This user is going through a similar process, but has his SJ hearing listed for some time in March; (note, his agreement seems unenforceable, but it may be an interesting thread for you to subscribe to so you can see the process used and the result)

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/160395-restons-court-action.html

[car2403]

Right, SupermanX, you mentioned earlier that you wanted to apply for SJ against HFC - IMHO, this puts you in a better position in agreeing to withdraw both applications for SJ (you against them and them against you) so to do this you should complete form N244 like this; (http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/n244_e.pdf)

 

• Name of Court/Claim number/Claimants Name/Defendants Name; enter from the details on the claim form
  
• Date; enter today's date
  
• Number 1; enter your name
  
• Number 2; tick "Defendant"
  
• Number 3; enter - "An Order for Summary Judgment against the Claimant under Part 24.2(a)(i) (in that that claimant has no real prospect of succeeding on the claim or issue) and Part 24.2(b) of the Civil Procedure Rules. (In that there is no other compelling reason why the case or issue should be disposed of at a trial)
  
• Number 4; tick "No"
  
• Number 5; tick "without a hearing"
  
• Number 6; enter "30" in the "minutes" box and tick "no" to say this isn't agreed
  
• Number 7; enter "N/A"
  
• Number 8; enter "District Judge"
  
• Number 9; enter "Claimant"
  
• Number 10; tick "the attached witness statement" and "the evidence as set out below"
  
• Statement of truth; sign and date the application notice, strike through "('s Solicitor)('s litigation friend)" and enter your full name in the box below that
  
• Number 11; sign and date the application notice, strike through "('s Solicitor)('s litigation friend)" and enter your full name in the box below that and enter your Name, address, post code and all your contact details to the boxes on the bottom of page 2 of the form
  

 

In the box under Number 10, enter;

 

The Defendant applies to the Court for Summary Judgment against the Claimant for the reasons outlined in the attached Witness Statement.

 

The Defendant seeks the permission of the Court (permission will be deemed granted on the Service of a Court Sealed copy of this Application Notice on all Parties) to respond to the Claimant's Application for Summary Judgment against the Defendant on the basis outlined in the attached Witness Statement, also. To save the Court and the Parties time, one Witness Statement has been supplied to cover the Defendant's response to the Claimant's Application for Summary Judgment against the Defendant and to support the Defendant's Application for Summary Judgment against the Claimant.

 

Then attach this as a separate document;

 

IN THE (NAME) COUNTY COURT

Case No: (Case No)

BETWEEN:

(Claimant's Name)

Claimant

and

 

(SupermanX)

Defendant

SUMMARY JUDGMENT HEARING:

WITNESS STATEMENT OF THE DEFENDANT

1. I, SupermanX, the Defendant in this case, make this statement from my own knowledge or experience, except where reference is made to specific documentation, attached in the form of an exhibit, in which case this statement is made in support of that documentation.

 

2. This statement is designed to clarify and elucidate on the Defendants response to the Claimants Application for Summary Judgment against the Defendant and to clarify the grounds on which the Defendant seeks Summary Judgment against the Claimant.

THE CLAIMANTS APPLICATION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

 

3. The Defendant objects to Summary Judgment being awarded to the Claimant for the reasons stated herein. The Defendant therefore sees no reason why such an Order should be granted, as a result, save from the information contained herein.

 

4. Paragraph 1 of the Claimants Application is admitted, save for where a denial is outlined elsewhere in this document.

5. Paragraph 2 of the Claimants Application is denied; insofar as it is admitted (save for where a denial is outlined elsewhere in this document) that the Claimant is claiming £X with interest of £X, totalling £X, but it is denied that this is the amount that the Claimant can claim against the Defendant, since payments have been made under the agreement since the date of Default and these payments have not been taken in to account in the Claimants claim. This amount also does not appear in the statements attached in support of the Claimants Application.

6. Paragraph 3 of the Claimants Application is denied; insofar as the Default Notice attached to the Claimants Application for Summary Judgment, issued on 15 April 2008, on which the Claimant is relying in this Application, dated XX/XX/XXXX, (“Exhibit X” attached) gave the Defendant until 2 May 2008 to remedy the breach.

 

Such Default Notice, therefore, does not meet the form and content requirements of Part VII, specifically s.88(2), of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 – (as amended) the Claimant is therefore unable to rely on the Default Notice to seek any enforcement of the agreement – and therefore any Judgment – (whether that be Summary Judgment, as sought under CPR Part 24, or otherwise) against the Defendant, having failed to meet the requirements in allowing the prescribed period to pass before taking any enforcement action against the Defendant, as prescribed in that section of the Act.

 

The agreement has, therefore, been unlawfully Defaulted and Terminated, in that the copy Default Notices supplied are not accurate for the reasons stated in this document, along with previous submissions made by the Defendant, and fail to comply with s.88 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1993, in that the Notice supplied;

i. Does not contain the correct amounts in relation to the agreement in question, at the time of issue. The outstanding balance shown on the alleged original Default Notice, dated 15 April 2008, being shown as £4,992.49 and the statement of account provided by the Claimant, (“Exhibit X” attached) showing an account balance, dated X, of £X with no further statement entries between X and 15 April 2008 – a discrepancy of £X; and

ii. The Defendants Credit Reference file showing an original Default date of X - the Default Notice being dated 15 April 2008; and

iii. The Default amount being incorrect as the Default Notice includes collection charges applied to the account, which are included in the Default and Termination figures of said Notice, thereby invalidating that Notice due to the unlawful application of charges, as outlined below;

 

During the period in which the account was operating the Claimant debited charges to the account in respect of purported breaches of contract on the part of the Defendant and also charged interest at the contractual rate on these charges once applied. (“Exhibit X” attached)

 

The Defendant requested copies of the original agreements and statements for this account from the Claimant in a Subject Access Request under s.7 Data Protection Act 1998 – the Defendant is yet to receive a reply to that request, dated X.

 

The Defendant contends that no such contractual provision exists within the agreement in question, to allow the Claimant to levy such charges.

 

In the alternative, which is denied, where it is held that there is a contractual provision that permits the Claimant to levy such charges, this provision is unenforceable by virtue of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, the Unfair Contracts (Terms) Act 1977 and the Common Law of penalties because the charge in each instance represents a disproportionately high sum in compensation compared to the cost of the purported breach; are not in any way a genuine pre-estimate of cost incurred by the Claimant; exceed any alleged actual loss to the Claimant in respect of any breaches of contract on the part of the Defendant; and are not intended to represent or be related to any alleged actual loss, but instead unduly enrich the Claimant which exercises the contractual term in respect of such charges with a view to create a profit for itself.

The Defendant submits that the charges levied to his account held with the Claimant are default penalty charges arising from and relating directly to breaches of contract, both explicit and implied, on the part of the Defendant. As a contractual penalty, the charges are unenforceable by virtue of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, the Unfair Contracts (Terms) Act 1977 and the common law.

 

vii. Failure of a Default Notice or a Termination Notice to be accurate not only invalidates such Notice, (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain & Co NLD 14 July 1998) but is an unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the Court enforcing any alleged debt, (Wilson v First County Trust, Wilson v Robertsons (London) Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 1088, Wilson v Pawnbrokers [2005] EWCA Civ 147) but would also give the Defendant a claim for damages in the sum of £1,000. (Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119)

7. Paragraph 4 of the Claimants Application is denied in its entirety – the Claimant has failed to highlight the relevancy of the submissions in this paragraph to the claim or the application for Summary Judgment against the Defendant. The Defendant, therefore, puts the Claimant to strict proof of the submissions made at Paragraph 4. Until such time as that is provided, the Defendant is unable to comment on Paragraph 4 further.

 

8. Paragraph 5 is admitted, in that the attachments mentioned in that paragraph are indeed attached to the Application.

 

9. Paragraph 6 is admitted, insofar that in that the Claimant has outlined the “history select” of the account as attached. The Defendant denies, however, that the interest applied to the account (and the overall accuracy of the “history select” provided) is accurate due to the application of charges, outlined in paragraph 6, above. Further more, the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of its ability to charge interest to the end of the term of the loan, as no legal authority has been provided for such a contention. The Defendant submits that charges and interest applied to the account after the Default and Termination of the agreement would be unlawful under the terms of the agreement and the Consumer Credit Act 1974. (As amended)

 

10. Paragraph 7 of the Claimants Application is denied, for the reasons stated herein.

 

a. The Defendant’s pleadings regarding the defaulting and termination of the account outlined in paragraph 6 of this document, specifically;

 

i. That the account has been improperly and unlawfully Defaulted and Terminated; and

 

ii. This improper and unlawful Default and Termination has effected, and continues to effect, the Defendant’s reputation and Credit Reference files, held by the Credit Reference Agencies;

13. The Defendant avers that the Claimants Application for Summary Judgment under CPR Part 24 should be turned aside as the Defendant a defence to the claim brought, offering a full legal basis for each point of defence submitted, so must reasonably be said to have a realistic prospect of defending the entire claim in full. The Defendant submits that the claim should be allowed to proceed to trial, to have that Defence tested and the outcome of the claim determined at a final determination hearing.

 

14. The Defendant makes reference to paragraph 6, above, outlining the reasons why the Claimant is not entitled, at this time, to seek any enforcement of the agreement via the Court.

 

15. The Defendant therefore submits that the Claimant is unable to seek Judgment, Summarily under CPR Part 24, or any Judgment whatsoever, in relation to the agreement for the reasons stated herein and requests that the Court turn aside the Claimants Application for Summary Judgment as a result.

 

THE DEFENDANTS APPLICATION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

 

16. The Claimants bringing of this claim is unlawful, as the Claimant hasn’t followed the prescribed process (under the Consumer Credit Act 1974) for Defaulting the Defendant prior to the issue of enforcement action via the Court. Such a claim is an abuse of the Courts process under CPR Part 3.4(2) in that the claim has no realistic chance of success (the Claimant not being eligible to seek enforcement - s.87 Consumer Credit Act 1974) and does not disclose reasonable grounds for bringing the claim, (CPR Part 3.4(2)(b)) as a result.

 

17. The Defendant therefore requests that the Court strike out the Claimants statement of case, under its powers pursuant to CPR Part 3.4(2).

 

18. Further, the Claimants claim is insufficiently stated under CPR Part 16.2(1)(a) and CPR Part 16.4(1)(a) as it does not refer to the terms under which the claim is brought concisely. The Claimant has failed to satisfy CPR requirements to concisely state its case in that the exact contractual terms which the Defendant has averred to have breached has not being outlined; the Claimant has failed to particularise the claim in enough detail to show which payments, if any, the Defendant is averred to have not made as per his contractual agreement; a copy of the agreement was not attached to the Claimants claim form at the time of issue; a statement of account was not attached to the Claimants claim form at the time of issue.

 

19. Despite these concerns the Defendant submitted a full Defence to the claim based on the dispute in question, which the Defendant has previously corresponded up on with the Claimant and their representatives. The Claimant has failed to clarify this issue and has also failed to provide such information under a CPR Part 18 request for more information from the Defendant, (“Exhibit X”, attached) dated XX/XX/XXXX, giving 14 days in which to comply with that request.

 

20. The Defendant applies to the Court to strike out the Claimants Claim, and to award Summary Judgment to the Defendant (CPR Part 24.2(a)(i)), as CPR Part 24.2(b) applies to these proceedings in that there is no compelling reason as to why the case should be disposed of at trial, in that the Claimant is unable to seek enforcement proceedings against the Defendant under the agreement at this time, for the reasons stated in this document and previous submissions made by the Defendant.

IN THE ALTERNATIVE

 

21. In the to that outlined in paragraph 16-20, above, which is denied, should the Court consider that the Defendant is unable to obtain Summary Judgment against the Claimant at this time, the Defendant requests that the Court allocate the claim to the Small Claims Track and issues standard directions for that track.

 

I, SupermanX, the Defendant in this case, believe that the facts stated in this document are true.

Signed:

SupermanX (Defendant)

Dated this, the 3rd day of January, in the year two thousand and nine.

 

 

Send a copy of everything to Restons as well

 

What you then need to do is write to Restons, without prejudice save as to costs again, telling them that you are prepared to withdraw your application for Summary Judgment against them if they agree to withdraw their application for SJ against you, to allow the claim to proceed to trial as per the Courts directions. You should also use that opportunity to restate your previous settlement offer, just to refresh their memory.

 

Hopefully, at the very least, this witness statement will buy you some to to negotiate settlement prior to the SJ hearing.

 

The directions from the Court probably won't be standard directions on the Small Claims Track, as I suspect they will be something along these lines, which is the best you can hope for at this stage;

• Claimant to file and serve sufficiently particularised POC;

  
  

• Defendant to file and serve an amended defence in light of those amended POC;

  
  

• Case to be listed for next available slot once the amended defence has been received;

  
  

• Both parties to file and serve further witness statements and documentation that they intend to rely on at the hearing.

  
  

Sorry it's taken a bit longer to get this together for you Super, but I had a knightmare with my garage door yesterday - the details of which I won't go in to here, as it's terribly boring.

 

Anyway, I hope this helps - shout up if you have questions...

[SupermanX]

Thanks for your reply. Hope your garage door is fixed. I had a bit of a hectic weeekend myself.

 

I have a few questions:

 

1) shall i fax the Application notice or send it by post(deadline is today) please note that i have to pay a fee

 

2) Point 5, can you clarify this point, after the default notice was issued i have not made any payemnts but they have added interest and fees to the account.

3) Point 6, "dated" refers to which date? the date they applied for a SJ?

4) Further down on point 6, "ii. The Defendants Credit Reference file showing an original Default date of X - the Default Notice being dated 15 April 2008;" not clear which date X is?

 

Many thanks as always

Super

[SupermanX]

also "The outstanding balance shown on the alleged original Default Notice, dated 15 April 2008, being shown as £4,992.49" you mean 5440.55?

[car2403]

1) shall i fax the Application notice or send it by post(deadline is today) please note that i have to pay a fee

 

It will need to be posted with the payment - if you check with the Court, they may take a fax with cheque in the post if you can't get to the Court today.

 

2) Point 5, can you clarify this point, after the default notice was issued i have not made any payemnts but they have added interest and fees to the account.

 

Just amend to suit - this is what is in my WS, so I left it in just in case.

 

3) Point 6, "dated" refers to which date? the date they applied for a SJ?

 

The date of the Default Notice.

 

4) Further down on point 6, "ii. The Defendants Credit Reference file showing an original Default date of X - the Default Notice being dated 15 April 2008;" not clear which date X is?

 

Should be the date of the registration of the Default on your CRA file.

[SupermanX]

great tks

 

shall i remove point 5 (2 below) since my last payment was b4 15.04.08?

 

point 6 (3) the issue date and "dated date" is the same for me, 15.04.08

 

shall i remove the credit file entry date argument as I cannot check the date, the most recent credit file that i have in hand is from 2006

[car2403]

shall i remove point 5 (2 below) since my last payment was b4 15.04.08?

 

point 6 (3) the issue date and "dated date" is the same for me, 15.04.08

 

Yes and yes.

 

shall i remove the credit file entry date argument as I cannot check the date, the most recent credit file that i have in hand is from 2006

 

Having this might actually help your claim, as you can show that the Default Notice wasn't acted on appropriately if the Default date on the CRA file dosen't match the dates on the Default Notice. It would be worth getting a copy of your CRA file - check this one out for immediate (free) access;

 

Free Credit Report now and every year - annualcreditreport

[SupermanX]

I have trouble gettingf the exact date, shall just say that the date is different to the 15.04.08 or just come up with a date and modify it once i get it?

[car2403]

I have trouble gettingf the exact date, shall just say that the date is different to the 15.04.08 or just come up with a date and modify it once i get it?

 

If you can't prove it's different, just leave this bit out.

[SupermanX]

cool tks

[SupermanX]

I checked the default date on my file and the entry is date 30.07.08, about 2.5 months after the date on the default notice.

 

Also, if this was to go to judgment do you think they would be able to get the 906 pounds added to the claim figure for collection charges?