CCJ from CL finance (Howard Cohen)

[debtdebtdebt]

cb,

Here is the order from the court....hopefully makes more sense...can I respond to this and in what form?

thanks

 

Edited December 28, 2009 by debtdebtdebt
typo

[debtdebtdebt]

Open for any comments.... please?

Thanks DDD

[citizenB]

ddd, I have to be honest, I am none the wiser. It would appear that you as the defendant were

 

given permission to file an amended defence out of time on or by 17th December

 

Your defence was struck out as failing to show cause of action ?.

 

This bit I dont understand, especially as your defence is in response to theirs.. surely they should be the one showing cause of action ?

 

If you have a reason to object to the strike out then you can object within 7 days from the date of the order.

 

I do not see your amended defence.. so we will need to see how you defended in order to see where things have gone wrong.

 

Once you have pointed us to the defence you ahve submitted, I suggest you hit the triangle at the left hand side of the screen in order to get some attention from the site team. There appears to be a bit of urgency required here.

[debtdebtdebt]

Thanks cb,

Here is my amended defence....and urgency is required and appreciated - must be in tomorrow to comply comply with the courts notice.

 

Unless I am mistaken this means the judge apears to accept DN as compliant which worries me a lot :o(

 

 

In the XXXXXX County Court

Claim Number (Ref)

 

Between

 

CL Finance - Claimant

 

and

 

Me - Defendant

************

DEFENCE

************

 

1. I Name and address am the defendant in this action and make the following statement as to my amended defence to the claim made by CL Finance Limited.

 

2. Except where otherwise mentioned in this amended defence, I neither admit nor deny any allegation made in the Claimant’s Particulars of Claim and put the Claimant to strict proof thereof.

 

THE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

 

 

3. Further to attendance at Guildford County Court on Wednesday 2nd December the defendant was embarrassed as to not having copies of the documents that the claimant had filed with the court but had not served to the defendant as directed by Deputy District Judge name.

 

4. It is neither admitted or denied that any Default Notice in the prescribed format was ever received and the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that said document in the prescribed format was delivered to the defendant.

 

5. The copy of the Default Notice the claimant submitted in the Guildford county court on 2nd December 2009 is not compliant. The claimant has not provided a compliant copy of the Default Notice that they claim has been served under s87 (1) Consumer credit act 1974.

 

THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CREDIT CONSUMER ACT 1974

 

 

6. The courts powers of enforcement in cases relating to Regulated Credit Agreements under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 are subject to certain qualifications being met with regards to the form and content of the documentation, in particular the Default notice. Therefore such Documents that are produced before the court must comply with the relevant sections of the consumer credit act and the regulations made under the act.

 

THE DEFAULT NOTICE

 

7. Notwithstanding the matters pleaded above, the claimant must under section 87(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 serve a default notice before they can demand payment under a regulated credit agreement

 

8. It is noted that to be valid, a default notice needs to be accurate in terms of both the scope and nature of breach and include an accurate figure required to remedy any such breach. The prescribed format for such document is laid down in Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) and Amendment regulations the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/3237)

 

9. Failure of a default notice to be accurate not only invalidates the default notice (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain and Co - [2001] GCCR 2255) but is a unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the court enforcing any alleged debt, but give me a counter claim for damages Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119.

 

10. In particular by Regulation 2(2) of these regulations, any Default Notice must include both a description of the agreement sufficient to identify it and the name and a postal address of the creditor or owner.

 

11. It is denied that the document exhibit A is a valid Default Notice in that it is not in the prescribed form nor does it contain sufficient information to identify it or the name and postal address of the creditor or owner.

 

12. The Default Notice provided by the Claimant to the defendant is inferred that this document was posted to the Defendant on 23rd March 2006. By S7 of the Interpretation Act 1978, a posted document is deemed to have been served at the time when it would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.

 

 

 

I, name do believe the above statement to be true and factual.

 

 

Signed:

 

Dated: 12th December 2009

Edited December 28, 2009 by debtdebtdebt
typo

[postggj]

Thanks For Jumping In Citizen

I Was Getting Confused As To Why

 

Debtdebtdebt

 

Have You HiT The Red Triangle

[debtdebtdebt]

cb,

Thanks and I see where you are coming from.....but it seems if my initial defence is not upheld which was a request for all relevant documents they are still witholding information.

But the judge seems to have accepted documents that trickled in slowly and late - despite the order of the court - most especially the DN that is most likely fabricated but clearly non-compliant nonetheless!

Deperate now....but your help is appreciated;)

[debtdebtdebt]

Yep done it....with comment of ''H - E - L - P please?''

[debtdebtdebt]

cb,

I think I get it...... If I had put a conclusion or similar and said the claim should be struck out - that would have been enough cause of action?

 

OR (as you say)

 

is the cause of action required from CL not me?

Edited December 28, 2009 by debtdebtdebt
typo

[postggj]

The Site Team Will Be On This And Get Back Shortly

[debtdebtdebt]

Thank you....REALLY do appreciate this:)

[citizenB]

Thanks For Jumping In Citizen

I Was Getting Confused As To Why

 

Debtdebtdebt

 

Have You HiT The Red Triangle

 

postggi, I am bliddy sure, I dont understand either:confused:

 

DDD, I have added URGENT to your SOS (via the red triangle) and added more comment in order for the site team to better understand. I am hoping that you will get the help required ASAP.

 

I would think that because of the christmas holiday you could ask for a day or so extra. Could be worth phoning the court in the morning to ask this.

 

I cannot see what is wrong with your defence. Perhaps another ST member will be able to advise.

[citizenB]

cb,

I think I get it...... If I had put a conclusion or similar and said the claim should be struck out - that would have been enough cause of action?

 

OR (as you say)

 

is the cause of action required from CL not me?

 

Could be, I really dont know.

[debtdebtdebt]

cb,

Appreciated....you have been helpful.

Will see what the ST has to offer.......

[supasnooper]

ddd,

 

Please can you point me to the Court Order that asked for the latest defence to be submitted.

 

Please can you also post up the defence that you submitted.

[debtdebtdebt]

supasnooper,

Hi and thanks. I will post up Order to present amended defence.

The amended defence is seen in post #179.....

 

The order permits in default of defence '....there shall be leave to the Claimant to enter Judgment for the full amount claimed plus costs...'

 

Original minus details to be posted in few minutes....

Edited December 28, 2009 by debtdebtdebt
typo

[debtdebtdebt]

ss,

Here is the Order.....

Dec 2nd 2009 picture by luffxobni - Photobucket

[debtdebtdebt]

Amended Defence.....

 

CL Finance - Claimant

 

and

 

 

Me - Defendant

 

************

 

 

 

DEFENCE

 

 

 

************

 

 

 

1. I Name and address am the defendant in this action and make the following statement as to my amended defence to the claim made by CL Finance Limited.

 

2. Except where otherwise mentioned in this amended defence, I neither admit nor deny any allegation made in the Claimant’s Particulars of Claim and put the Claimant to strict proof thereof.

 

THE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

 

 

3. Further to attendance at ****** County Court on Wednesday 2nd December the defendant was embarrassed as to not having copies of the documents that the claimant had filed with the court but had not served to the defendant as directed by Deputy District Judge name.

 

4. It is neither admitted or denied that any Default Notice in the prescribed format was ever received and the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that said document in the prescribed format was delivered to the defendant.

 

5. The copy of the Default Notice the claimant submitted in the ****** county court on 2nd December 2009 is not compliant. The claimant has not provided a compliant copy of the Default Notice that they claim has been served under s87 (1) Consumer credit act 1974.

 

THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CREDIT CONSUMER ACT 1974

 

 

6. The courts powers of enforcement in cases relating to Regulated Credit Agreements under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 are subject to certain qualifications being met with regards to the form and content of the documentation, in particular the Default notice. Therefore such Documents that are produced before the court must comply with the relevant sections of the consumer credit act and the regulations made under the act.

 

THE DEFAULT NOTICE

 

 

7. Notwithstanding the matters pleaded above, the claimant must under section 87(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 serve a default notice before they can demand payment under a regulated credit agreement

 

8. It is noted that to be valid, a default notice needs to be accurate in terms of both the scope and nature of breach and include an accurate figure required to remedy any such breach. The prescribed format for such document is laid down in Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) and Amendment regulations the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/3237)

 

9. Failure of a default notice to be accurate not only invalidates the default notice (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain and Co - [2001] GCCR 2255) but is a unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the court enforcing any alleged debt, but give me a counter claim for damages Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119.

 

 

10. In particular by Regulation 2(2) of these regulations, any Default Notice must include both a description of the agreement sufficient to identify it and the name and a postal address of the creditor or owner.

 

11. It is denied that the document exhibit A is a valid Default Notice in that it is not in the prescribed form nor does it contain sufficient information to identify it or the name and postal address of the creditor or owner.

 

12. The Default Notice provided by the Claimant to the defendant is inferred that this document was posted to the Defendant on 23rd March 2006. By S7 of the Interpretation Act 1978, a posted document is deemed to have been served at the time when it would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.

 

 

 

I, name do believe the above statement to be true and factual.

 

 

Signed:

 

Dated: 12th December 2009

Edited December 29, 2009 by supasnooper
removed personal data

[ski1382]

Good luck, wish I had some valuable contribution to make for you.

 

The only thing I am wondering about is that you do not seem to have made reference in your defence to the strong possibility of the DN being a forgery.

 

Can you not ask for more time in order to request documentation from GE? Surely, if this is a genuine DN they can send you a copy themselves? Sorry if this has been done already, going a bit bog eyed.

 

Subbing

Edited December 29, 2009 by ski1382

[postggj]

you still up ski

[ski1382]

The joys of night shifts!

[ski1382]

Not sure if this is of any help to you but have done a wee bit of hunting and have found a genuine GE default notice and a HC cooked up one on the same post, along with a copy of a HC letter admitting faking it. Maybe it will be enough to get more time if you can demonstrate that HC are quite willing to deceive the court? Incidentally, your scanned one looks very like the fake one.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/239785-howard-cohen-backtrack-admit.html#post2667141

 

Again apologies if this has already been investigated!

[supasnooper]

Whilst the defence you filed was sound enough, you did not file it on time.

 

Unfortunately, your home town Court must be pretty sharp.

 

The Order for the submission of the amended defence states the defence must be submitted by 4.00 pm 16th December 2009 and the Order that dismisses the defence states the defence was received on 17th December 2009 and that is why it has been struck out as pointed out by postggj.

 

You'll have to apply to the Court today to get the Order varied or set aside and expect to pay a fee unless you are eligile for fee remission - even then you may be too late if the court won't be flexible !

[debtdebtdebt]

Thanks super snooper + ski1382,

I was worried that may be the case, I am now waiting to make a call to the court office to confirm definitively when my time is up.

If present circumstances are anything to go by it's unlikely to be in my favour.

 

Your comments are appreciated....thank you

[debtdebtdebt]

Time up tomorrow 30th Dec for definite.

 

I propose to request for the action to be Set Aside due to forged DN, coupled with complete lack of response/disclosure to both the court and me when requested or ordered.

The reliance upon the forged DN is still to be proven that it was ever served or proof of it.

 

I am also asking for court to reconsider my amended defence as the huge scope of latitude permitted to the claimant to file the 'so-called' DN more than 2 months after the court ordered it....and was permitted!

 

Surely if the Claimants DN is allowed then my defence 1 day late is a 'drop in the ocean' and justly the DN should not be admissable?

[debtdebtdebt]

Picture this......

 

Lets say hypothetically I a DN has been issued and found - what would the resultant be from that point onward?

Apart from the fact it proves the document suggested by CL finance is a fabricated and a forgery?

 

Comments please or direct me to a similar thread.....