Court Action BOS/AA card

[empowered]

10.30 tomorrow. I really don't think I can do any more on this apart from keep reading and re-reading both skellys and pulling their w/s apart.

Confuse and fudge? That's a very good description of me at the moment:D

Edited April 8, 2010 by empowered

[AndyOrch]

Try not to look to deep for a solution sometimes the most unlikely obvious point can win the day.A simple pont re the DN can be enough.I know its easy for me to say dont worry,humans are not designed that way we do worry and this the Claimant relies upon.Even if you lose you have made them work for it and cost them not only financially but in time and effort.The CCA is quite clear what is required to succeed in litigation I hope you get a savvy DJ who is prepared to uphold the act and favor the LiP.Best of luck Debs for tomorrow I will be thinking of you.

 

Kind Regards

 

Andy;)

[empowered]

thank you for your all your help and kindness Andy - both Mr E and myself are very very appreciative:-) Am actually feeling very chilled out and relaxed about it all now - have a whole load of questions ready ripping their "evidence" apart, case law/statutes all printed and cross referenced and I feel a new day job coming on! Thank heavens for the advice to send in the skelly earlier so that the DJ gets time to get up to speed. If its the one that did our CMC I am feeling quietly confident cos he did drop quite a few hints and seemed to know consumer law;-)xx

[Mr lex]

All the best fortune for tomorrow Debs, you'll be fine

 

Great job Andy, thank you

 

Lex

[empowered]

All the best fortune for tomorrow Debs, you'll be fine

 

Great job Andy, thank you

 

Lex

 

Thanks so much guys for your help - hope we don't let CAG down:p

[AndyOrch]

How did it go Debs on tenderhooks here:confused:

 

 

Andy

[empowered]

Hi Andy

Just got back from nice pub lunch to recover... from the moment we got into the court room it was no hoper:mad:

Counsel turned up with a paralegal from SCM plus witness from the bank.

It took much referencing to books by His Honour plus counsel to see if I was allowed to be a lay representative which they agreed with.

 

Counsel did her bit, to which I was allowed to bring up my points and then His Honour summed up. It got quite dizzy having to get up and down each time I addressed His Honour:grin:

 

He said our entire defence was without merit. Bank did not need to supply D/N as under clause xx they could terminate the agreement at any time and that a Formal Demand is sufficient precursor to making a claim. He couldn't agree that the agreement was unenforceable as it clearly had the photocopied terms on the back and OH had signed it, and a all his personal details were on the front. He said that all the points raised by us were purely technical. He said that the fact that the summons amount had now been reduced didn't matter. He didn't accept the unlawful charges being applied on the arrears request on the D/N, as the D/N wasn't required in any case and quoted Rankine and the OFT re penalty charges. They also made great reference to Carey, McGuffick.

 

 

He paid tribute to my research and presentation as a non lawyer and summed up by saying it was an unattractive attempt to avoid paying for goods and services.

 

Counsel then brought up the matter of costs to be awarded on an indemnity basis. She then mentioned that they had been following this thread, quoting my user name and title and all my advice had come from forums:eek: (since when is that against the law - would consulting law books as opposed to the internet made any difference?) Due to the amount of documentation, printing and vast number of technical points that we had incurred, he awarded full costs of nearly £6K payable in 14 days plus payment of the debt.

 

I think we've been made an example of, over what was quite a small amount approx £5500 as they know we are part of CAG and would appear to want to spread the message that everybody think very seriously before you get mixed up with ScM and BOS:cool:

 

Am having a ceremonious bonfire this weekend to burn all the paperwork - at least its over and in a funny way, quite a satisfying challenge at being able to speak in a proper courtroom.

 

From the start, it was apparent he was very clued up on consumer law and was on the bank's side from the outset.

 

Thanks to everybody for their help and advice.

 

Am going to have my first relaxing weekend for months:p

Debs xxx

[MadScouser]

I would say he isnt particularly clued up on consumer law if he stated they didnt need a DN to request amounts owed.

 

Im not a lawyer but work in IT, and he sounds like the users I hate most who know a little but think they know alot and try and teach you what they know.

[empowered]

both Counsel and Judge were adamant that because of the clause in the T/Cs they could terminate when they liked without need for a D/N - I'd never heard of this before so couldn't fight back:(

[hatesdebt]

Unbelievable!!

Sorry about your case..

 

Yet another case of the judge doing what he wants...

 

I was always under the impression that the court was unable to enforce an agreement unless the original compliant one was shown at court? And I thought a correct DN was essential and there is case law to support the same.

 

There was another thread on here recently (can't find it now) where the cagger submitted a very solid defence - no cca / dodgy DN, yet the lender asked for a SJ hearing which was granted and the judge seemed to just dismiss the caggers defence out of hand and awarded the SJ.

 

The cagger took it to appeal and even with a very solid appealants defence, the appeal was refused on the grounds of no reasonable prospect of winning!!

 

Whats going on? Have the courts been given a word from above??

They just seem to be doing what they want, ignore case law etc.

 

Is there any way we can fight back?...

[empowered]

The exact wording in their argument is

"The D/N is only required where the creditor wishes to rely on a breach. Where the agreement provides the right to terminate contractually, as in clause 15, reliance on a breach is not necessary. Credit card agreements generally contain this right as they are open ended agreements"

[empowered]

Unbelievable!!

Sorry about your case..

 

Yet another case of the judge doing what he wants...

 

I was always under the impression that the court was unable to enforce an agreement unless the original compliant one was shown at court? And I thought a correct DN was essential and there is case law to support the same.

 

There was another thread on here recently (can't find it now) where the cagger submitted a very solid defence - no cca / dodgy DN, yet the lender asked for a SJ hearing which was granted and the judge seemed to just dismiss the caggers defence out of hand and awarded the SJ.

 

The cagger took it to appeal and even with a very solid appealants defence, the appeal was refused on the grounds of no reasonable prospect of winning!!

 

Whats going on? Have the courts been given a word from above??

They just seem to be doing what they want, ignore case law etc.

 

Is there any way we can fight back?...

 

 

In a word, nope. Judge said it would have been cheaper for us to instruct a solicitor but the result would have been the same - there was literally nothing more I could use. If we had a solicitor we would have been even worse off financially!

 

The judges and the banks seemed joined at the hip. Suppose they have to recoup their losses somehow:rolleyes:

[hatesdebt]

The exact wording in their argument is

"The D/N is only required where the creditor wishes to rely on a breach. Where the agreement provides the right to terminate contractually, as in clause 15, reliance on a breach is not necessary. Credit card agreements generally contain this right as they are open ended agreements"

 

Hmm.

 

Never heard that one before. I'm sure some of the more legal experts on here will have an opinion.....

 

Anyway, sorry you lost.....

[AndyOrch]

Sorry to hear this outcome Debs.You gave it your best shot unfortunately wrong day wrong DJ.I'm not going to get into arguments whether he was right or wrong we all know how the CCA should work and can only emphasize my comments as per post 127.The CCA is quite clear what is required by law and the need for a valid DN is imperative otherwise termination is invalid.

On another note Debs was the Judgment forthwith?

 

 

Commiserations, gutted for you

 

 

Andy:(

[empowered]

Sorry to hear this outcome Debs.You gave it your best shot unfortunately wrong day wrong DJ.I'm not going to get into arguments whether he was right or wrong we all know how the CCA should work and can only emphasize my comments as per post 127.The CCA is quite clear what is required by law and the need for a valid DN is imperative otherwise termination is invalid.

On another note Debs was the Judgment forthwith?

 

 

Commiserations, gutted for you

 

 

Andy:(

 

Hi Andy

Their argument which judge agreed with was they didn't need a D/N to terminate due to the clause which allowed them to contractually terminate.

 

Judgment - all i know is that counsel asked for costs within 14 days. No mention was made of forthwith for the balance claimed:-?

 

At least we've got 1 ring binder out of them plus loads of case law if anyone needs it , plus I've lost 5lbs in weight - all for £6K:rolleyes:

[AndyOrch]

Hi Andy

Their argument which judge agreed with was they didn't need a D/N to terminate due to the clause which allowed them to contractually terminate.Did they make mention of the DN in their P.o.C?

 

Judgment - all i know is that counsel asked for costs within 14 days. No mention was made of forthwith for the balance claimed:-? have u considered a redetermination? to allow mthly payment

 

At least we've got 1 ring binder out of them plus loads of case law if anyone needs it , plus I've lost 5lbs in weight - all for £6K:rolleyes:

 

Well its behind you now and you can relax a tad

 

 

Regards

 

Andy

[humbleman]

Hi Andy

Their argument which judge agreed with was they didn't need a D/N to terminate due to the clause which allowed them to contractually terminate.

 

This is total bu*****T.

 

The t&c's cannot override the CCA 1974 and for them to terminate the account and demand the full monies you need to have been given the opportunity to rectify any breach. Otherwise it's an unlawful termination.

 

They are quite within their right to end the agreement but they cannot demand the full monies except if you do not pay them the minimum monthly payment. Which is what they were most likely referring to.

[humbleman]

Not sure if you read this

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/224300-mandm-egg-loan-mandm-22.html#post2826998

[hatesdebt]

This is total bu*****T.

 

The t&c's cannot override the CCA 1974 and for them to terminate the account and demand the full monies you need to have been given the opportunity to rectify any breach. Otherwise it's an unlawful termination.

 

They are quite within their right to end the agreement but they cannot demand the full monies except if you do not pay them the minimum monthly payment. Which is what they were most likely referring to.

 

Very good point.

This needs to be remembered in case this is tried on in other cases...

[middenmess]

I know it's easily said but this must be appealed--it's an atrocious decision which goes against everything that the CCA should represent and must be a devastating blow for you.

[empowered]

Well its behind you now and you can relax a tad

 

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

Yes, D/N is mentioned in their POC

 

Don't want to go the route of redetermination and run the risk of a CO if anything should go wrong with payments - will pay and at least its done and dusted:mad:

[empowered]

I know it's easily said but this must be appealed--it's an atrocious decision which goes against everything that the CCA should represent and must be a devastating blow for you.

 

If it was small claims then we would appeal but cannot afford to run up another £6K for their costs:eek:

[AndyOrch]

Yes, D/N is mentioned in their POC Then they did terminate with the need of the DN, as if mentioned in their P.O.C then you must have breached the agreement.The DJ was wrong!!!!!

 

Don't want to go the route of redetermination and run the risk of a CO if anything should go wrong with payments - will pay and at least its done and dusted:mad:

Wasnt sure of your circumstances Debs only an option.

 

 

Enjoy this beautiful weekend worry free.

Regards

Andy;)

[empowered]

Wasnt sure of your circumstances Debs only an option.

 

 

Enjoy this beautiful weekend worry free.

 

Regards

 

Andy;)

 

 

off to pub with family:D

trying not to think anymore about it but it just makes my blood boil:cool:

[babybear39]

Just finished reading your whole thread

 

**** got lucky on this one because the DJ knew JS about the CCA! BOS & **** s conduct was a very long way from competant.

 

Far from sending out a message to CAG and others defending against them it will strengthen our resolve to beat them

 

Have a great weekend with your family, you deserve it after all that.

 

*hugs* BB