Nationwide taking court action

[1littleduck]

I also notice on the agreement (prioity application)that it has my name and address pre-typed, this tells me that it was one of the application forms that companies sent through the post to apply for their card, so the terms and conditions that they sent me along with the copy of the cca would not have appeared on the form, these would only appear on an additional agreement....or am I mistaken?...

Could some one please take a look at the cca I have posted and let me know what they think of it.

[creditcardmug]

Theres 5 days from the date on the claim for postage then 14 days to file your AOS then another 14 days to file your defence giving a total of 33 days.

 

Give it a couple of days for the court to get your AOS then phone them to check what date you have to file the defence by, You will have to send it by post so aim to send it about 3 days before the due date.

 

I hear what your saying about not having had a DN, and they have just sent the app form, but you should still send the request because you need to know what they will/wont be relying on if you see what i mean.

 

To be honest they rarely comply with it anyway, but it shows the court you have been doing everything right, and they everything wrong.

[creditcardmug]

Just looked at the app form too small to read but i dont think the prescribed terms are there, if you can read it does it say something like the terms are overleaf?

[1littleduck]

Hi CCM, I have scanned the bottom part and blown it up abit..it says that I am asking you to issue me with a credit card and that your conditions, which I have read, will apply.... but does not say anything about them being attached...it does say the t&C form part of the agreement.

http://i534.photobucket.com/albums/ee344/gangsta_caz/LastScan-3.jpg

 

it does not say page 1 of 2 or anything else.

[creditcardmug]

Well they wont get away with that, the prescribed terms must be "within the four corners of the agreement", they cannot be found elsewhere.

[creditcardmug]

Here is what they will be up against on that point,

 

. Firstly, the agreement must contain certain Prescribed terms under regulations made by the Secretary of State under section 60(1) CCA 1974, the regulations referred to are the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) The prescribed terms for a Running credit account as set out below

 

17. The prescribed terms referred to are contained in schedule 6 column 2 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) and are inter alia: - A term stating the credit limit or the manner in which it will be determined or that there is no credit limit, A term stating the rate of any interest on the credit to be provided under the agreement and A term stating how the debtor is to discharge his obligations under the agreement to make the repayments, which may be expressed by reference to a combination of any of the following--

1. Number of repayments;

2. Amount of repayments;

3. Frequency and timing of repayments;

4. Dates of repayments;

5. The manner in which any of the above may be determined; or in any other way, and any power of the creditor to vary what is payable

 

18. It is submitted the credit agreement supplied falls foul of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) in so far that the prescribed terms are not contained within the agreement. These terms must be contained within the agreement. They cannot be contained within a separate document. The prescribed terms must be within the agreement for it to be compliant with section 60(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

19. I refer to the judgment of TUCKEY LJ in the case of Wilson and another v Hurstanger Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 299

"[11] Schedule 1 to the 1983 Regulations sets out the "information to be contained in documents embodying regulated

consumer credit agreements". Some of this information mirrors the terms prescribed by Sch 6, but some does not. Contrasting

the provisions of the two schedules the Judge said:

 

 

"33 In my judgment the objective of Schedule 6 is to ensure that, as an inflexible condition of enforceability, certain basic minimum terms are included which the parties (with the benefit of legal advice if necessary) and/or the court can identify within the four corners of the agreement. Those minimum provisions combined with the requirement under s 61 that all the terms should be in a single document, and backed up by the provisions of section 127(3), ensure that these core terms are expressly set out in the agreement itself: they cannot be orally agreed; they cannot be found in another document; they cannot be implied; and above all they cannot be in the slightest mis-stated. As a matter of policy, the lender is denied any room for manoeuvre in respect of them. On the other hand, they are basic provisions, and the only question for the court is whether they are, on a true construction, included in the agreement. More detailed requirements, which

are designed to ensure that the debtor is made aware, so far as possible, of specified information (including information contained in the

minimum terms) are to be found in Schedule 1."

20. If the agreement does not contain these terms in the prescribed manner it does not comply with section 60(1) CCA 1974, the consequences of which means it is improperly executed and only enforceable by court order

 

[1littleduck]

I have printed the letter for the n/w and will post it out recorded tomorrow.

[1littleduck]

Wow, thanks for that CCM, the rest of the application form is standard so I hope they will not fight me...should I write to them and point this out, or will they know this and hopefully not preceed?

I must say, you have been a great help to me, I was really depressed last night, but am in a fighting mood today, hope it lasts...lol

[creditcardmug]

No need to write to them, you get to point all this out and more in your defence

[1littleduck]

Thats great, I hope someone can help me with that, and I am going to look at the other cca's I have received so far, one of them was applied for on line, do you think that this would be the same for that one, as it is with the HFC bank and they are really nasty...I have put in my defence for that one, but I could maybe say all of that in court!

[1littleduck]

Hi all,

Could someone please help me with my defence letter, as it is due in very soon and as I have to do this by post, I would need a few days for the postal system to get it there.

Perhaps I could use alot of the things said in post 31.

The courts have received my form, and the n/w have to date not responded in writing to my last letter, but they did try to contact me by fone...I was not in!!..lol

[creditcardmug]

Hi, what date is your defence due? have you read through the defence i used for NW ( link in one of my posts above), i think most if not all of it would be suitable to your defence, ask if your not sure about anything in it.

[1littleduck]

Thank you for that CCM, I will have a look.

I think I have to have it to them by the 5th of Nov, as the court papers were dated 9th October.

[1littleduck]

Hi CCM,

[1littleduck]

I have had a look and think that may just do the job...I would have to take out the bits saying they have not supplied any paperwork as they sent me the complete set of statements dating back to 2022 when the account was started, but alongside the application form, thats it!!

The exhibit numbers you have given, are they just 1,2 etc shuch as ex1?

Thanks for all your help

[1littleduck]

should be 2000 not 2022...bit ahead of myself there...sorry

[1littleduck]

Sorry....do I have to send the copies of the ex's with the claim, or just keep them until I go to court

[1littleduck]

Hi all and CCM,

I have put up a defence the same as ccm's defence, but have taken out the entire paragraphs relating to the default notice as I have not got a default notice from them, and they have not issued me with a copy of one...I hope this is the right thing to do.

Can someone please give it a once over as I have to post this off to the court before the 5th November...also, do I have to send with the defence a copy of the letters which I have marked as exibits...Thanks.

 

Defence

1. I xxxxxxxxx of xxxxxxxxxxxxx am the defendant in this action and make the following statement as my defence to the claim made by Nationwide Building Society.

 

2. The claimants particulars of claim as very vague and are not sufficiently particularised in accordance with CPR part 16 and practice direction 16

 

3. The claimant has issued proceedings in the XXXXXX County Court therefore according to practice direction 16 Para 7.3

 

 

7.3 Where a claim is based upon a written agreement

 

(1) a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement should be attached to or served with the particulars of claim and the original(s) should be available at the hearing

 

4. The claimant has failed to include a copy of the written contract which he relies upon and it stands to reason that they are in breach of their obligations under the Practice Direction

 

5. Further more the claimant offers no particulars in relation to how the sums claimant are calculated and no statements are attached with the claim in support of the figures

 

6. A copy of any evidence of both the scope and nature of any default, and proof of any amount outstanding on the alleged accounts, has not been served attached to the claim form.

 

7. Consequently, I deny all allegations on the particulars of claim and do not know what case I have to meet

 

8. Further to the case, in an attempt to ascertain what grounds the claimant is bringing this action and to allow me to prepare my defence I requested on 07/09/2008 the disclosure of information pursuant to the Civil Procedure Rules, which is vital to this case from the claimant. The information requested amounted to copies of the Credit Agreement referred to in the particulars of claim and any default or termination notices and also any other documents the Claimant seeks to rely on, including any default notices or termination notice, and a copy of the Notice of Assignment required to give the claimant a legitimate right of action. (Attached marked CCM 1)

 

9. To Date the claimant has failed to comply with my request under the CPR and I have not received any such documentation requested. As a result it has proven difficult to compose this defence without disclosure of the information requested. All I have received in relation to my request is a signed copy of my application form and a copy of statements.

 

10. On 18/10/2008 I requested that the claimant provide a true copy of the executed credit agreement, which they claim exists between parties pursuant to section 78(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Consumer Credit (Prescribed Periods for Giving Information) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1569) sets out that the claimant must comply with such request in 12 working days of receipt of such request. Copies of the letter and proof of delivery attached marked Exhibit CCM 2 & CCM3

 

11. For clarity, section 78(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 states

78. Duty to give information to debtor under running-account credit agreement.-

 

(1) The creditor under a regulated agreement for running-account credit, within the prescribed period after receiving a request in writing to that effect from the debtor and payment of a fee of £1, shall give the debtor a copy of the executed agreement (if any) and of any other document referred to in it, together with a statement signed by or on behalf of the creditor showing, according to the information to which it is practicable for him to refer,-

(a)the state of the account, and

(b)the amount, if any currently payable under the agreement by the debtor to the creditor, and

©the amounts and due dates of any payments which, if the debtor does not draw further on the account, will later become payable under the agreement by the debtor to the creditor.

12. In response to this request, the claimant's response was to send a single page document, which is annexed to this defence, marked CCM 4, which they claimed to be the credit agreement. No other documents were supplied, there were no terms and conditions nor were there any documents relating to the right to cancel. The document clearly states "you have the right to cancel" yet no cancellation notice has been supplied nor are there any details relating to how to cancel which are referred to in the document. I note that the burden of proof is upon the claimant to prove they did indeed send cancellation details and notices as per the ruling of ANGLO LEASING PLC v. PASCOE and ANOTHER [1997] EWCA Civ 895 (31st January, 1997)

 

13. In response to the purported credit agreement supplied by the claimant, Marked Exhibit CCM X, it is denied that it is a valid executed credit agreement within the definition contained within the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and it is submitted that the document fails entirely to comply with Consumer Credit legislation as laid out below.

 

14. The credit agreement supplied is not compliant with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553)

 

15. Under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 there are certain conditions laid down by parliament which must be complied with if such agreement is to be enforced by the courts

 

16. Firstly, the agreement must contain certain Prescribed terms under regulations made by the Secretary of State under section 60(1) CCA 1974, the regulations referred to are the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) The prescribed terms for a Running credit account as set out below

 

17. The prescribed terms referred to are contained in schedule 6 column 2 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) and are inter alia: - A term stating the credit limit or the manner in which it will be determined or that there is no credit limit, A term stating the rate of any interest on the credit to be provided under the agreement and A term stating how the debtor is to discharge his obligations under the agreement to make the repayments, which may be expressed by reference to a combination of any of the following--

1. Number of repayments;

2. Amount of repayments;

3. Frequency and timing of repayments;

4. Dates of repayments;

5. The manner in which any of the above may be determined; or in any other way, and any power of the creditor to vary what is payable

 

18. It is submitted the credit agreement supplied falls foul of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) in so far that the prescribed terms are not contained within the agreement. These terms must be contained within the agreement. They cannot be contained within a separate document. The prescribed terms must be with the agreement for it to be compliant with section 60(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

19. I refer to the judgment of TUCKEY LJ in the case of Wilson and another v Hurstanger Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 299

"[11] Schedule 1 to the 1983 Regulations sets out the "information to be contained in documents embodying regulated

consumer credit agreements". Some of this information mirrors the terms prescribed by Sch 6, but some does not. Contrasting

the provisions of the two schedules the Judge said:

 

 

"33 In my judgment the objective of Schedule 6 is to ensure that, as an inflexible condition of enforceability, certain basic minimum terms are included which the parties (with the benefit of legal advice if necessary) and/or the court can identify within the four corners of the agreement. Those minimum provisions combined with the requirement under s 61 that all the terms should be in a single document, and backed up by the provisions of section 127(3), ensure that these core terms are expressly set out in the agreement itself: they cannot be orally agreed; they cannot be found in another document; they cannot be implied; and above all they cannot be in the slightest miss-stated. As a matter of policy, the lender is denied any room for manoeuvre in respect of them. On the other hand, they are basic provisions, and the only question for the court is whether they are, on a true construction, included in the agreement. More detailed requirements, which

are designed to ensure that the debtor is made aware, so far as possible, of specified information (including information contained in the

minimum terms) are to be found in Schedule 1."

20. If the agreement does not contain these terms in the prescribed manner it does not comply with section 60(1) CCA 1974, the consequences of which means it is improperly executed and only enforceable by court order

 

21. Notwithstanding point 20, The agreement must be signed in the prescribed manner to comply with s61 (1) CCA 1974, if the agreement is not signed by debtor or creditor it is also improperly executed and again only enforceable by court order

 

22. The courts powers of enforcement where agreements are improperly executed by way of section 65 CCA 1974 are themselves subject to certain qualifying factors. Under section 127 (3) Consumer Credit Act 1974 the requirements are laid out clearly what is required for the court to be able to enforce the agreement where section 65(1) has not been complied with

127(3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a)(signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner).

23. Further more the courts attention is also drawn to the authority of the House of Lords in Wilson-v- FCT [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul) which confirms that where a document does not contain the required terms under the consumer credit act 1974 and the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) and Consumer Credit (Agreements) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI2004/1482) the agreement cannot be enforced

 

24. With regards to the Authority cited in point 16, I refer to LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD in the House of Lords Wilson v First County Trust Ltd - [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul) over the following paragraphs

28.........I should outline the salient provisions of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Subject to exemptions, a regulated agreement is an agreement between an individual debtor and another person by which the latter provides the former with a cash loan or other financial accommodation not exceeding a specified amount. Currently the amount is £25,000. Section 61(1) sets out conditions which must be satisfied if a regulated agreement is to be treated as properly executed. One of these conditions, in paragraph (a), is that the agreement must be in a prescribed form containing all the prescribed terms. The prescribed terms are the amount of the credit or the credit limit, rate of interest (in some cases), how the borrower is to discharge his obligations, and any power the creditor may have to vary what is payable: Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983, Schedule 6. The consequence of improper execution is that the agreement is not enforceable against the debtor save by an order of the court: section 65(1). Section 127(1) provides what is to happen on an application for an enforcement order under section 65. The court 'shall dismiss' the application if, but only if, the court considers it just to do so having regard to the prejudice caused to any person by the contravention in question and the degree of culpability for it. The court may reduce the amount payable by the debtor so as to compensate him for prejudice suffered as a result of the contravention, or impose conditions, or suspend the operation of any term of the order or make consequential changes in the agreement or security.

 

29. The court's powers under section 127(1) are subject to significant qualification in two types of cases. The first type is where section 61(1)(a), regarding signing of agreements, is not complied with. In such cases the court 'shall not make' an enforcement order unless a document, whether or not in the prescribed form, containing all the prescribed terms, was signed by the debtor: section 127(3). Thus, signature of a document containing all the prescribed terms is an essential prerequisite to the court's power to make an enforcement order. The second type of case concerns failure to comply with the duty to supply a copy of an executed or unexecuted agreement pursuant to sections 62 and 63, or failure to comply with the duty to give notice of cancellation rights in accordance with section 64(1). Here again, subject to one exception regarding sections 62 and 63, section 127(4) precludes the court from making an enforcement order.

 

30. These restrictions on enforcement of a regulated agreement cannot be sidestepped.....

And further more

36. In the present case the essence of the complaint is that section 127(3) of the Consumer Credit Act has the effect that a Regulated agreement is not enforceable unless a document containing all the prescribed terms is signed by the debtor

 

49. ".............The message to be gleaned from sections 65, 106, 113 and 127 of the Consumer Credit Act is that where a court dismisses an application for an enforcement order under section 65 the lender is intended by Parliament to be left without recourse against the borrower in respect of the loan. That being the consequence intended by Parliament, the lender cannot assert at common law that the borrower has been unjustly enriched.

 

 

50. This interpretation of the Consumer Credit Act accords with the approach adopted by the House in Orakpo v Manson Investments Ltd [1978] AC 95, regarding section 6 of the Moneylenders Act 1927 and, more recently, in Dimond v Lovell [2002] 1 AC 384, another case where section 127(3) precluded the making of an enforcement order. In Dimond's case the restitutionary remedy sought was payment of the hire charge for a replacement car used by Mrs Dimond. The House rejected a claim advanced on the basis of unjust enrichment. Lord Hoffmann observed that Parliament contemplated that a debtor might be enriched consequential upon non-enforcement of an agreement pursuant to the statutory provisions. It was not open to the court to say this consequence is unjust and should be reversed by a remedy at common law: [2002] 1 AC 384, 397-398

25. The House of Lords and the Court of Appeal before it in considering the Wilson case held that if the agreement does not contain the prescribed terms outlined in Schedule 6 column 2 of Statutory Instrument 1983/1553 then the court couldn't issue an enforcement order. The House of Lords clearly considered it the will of parliament that where a lender did not comply with the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the Subsequent regulations then the lender does not have any recourse, they cannot side step regulation by any other means and weather it is considered right or wrong for the debtor not to have to repay an unenforceable debt becomes irrelevant where the requirements of the CCA 1974 and regulations are not met

 

26. In addition to the requirements of schedule 6 of SI1983/1553 these terms must be within the agreement itself, not in a separate document. I refer to the judgement of Tuckey LJ from Wilson and Hurstanger in point 19 above, from reading the document submitted as the "agreement" I cannot see any prescribed terms within the document and since they cannot be contained within another document as laid out by Tucky LJ then I cannot see any other conclusion other than the agreement rendered unenforceable

 

27. Therefore it is submitted that this document falls foul of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 as previously outlined in points 7 through to 15 and as a result Section 127(3) prevents this document from being enforced

 

28. I also refer to the website of Francis Bennion, the drafts person of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and note in particular a PDF document that the honourable Mr Bennion has posted (located here http://www.francisbennion.com/pdfs/f...974-s127-3.pdf ) which states

"As the draftsman of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 I would like to thank Dr Richard Lawson for his interesting and well-argued article (30 August 2003) on Wilson v First County Trust Ltd [2003] UKHL 40, [2003] 4 All ER 97. Dr Lawson may be interested to know that I included the provision in question (section 127(3)) entirely on my own initiative. It seemed right to me that if the creditor company couldn't be bothered to ensure that all the prescribed particulars were accurately included in the credit agreement it deserved to find it unenforceable, and that the court should not have power to relieve it from this penalty. Nobody queried this, and it went through Parliament without debate. I'm glad the House of Lords has now vindicated my reasoning and confirmed that nobody's human rights were infringed.

 

167 Justice of the Peace (2003) 773.

29. If the claimant is in disagreement, then it is respectfully requested that the claimant bring before the court the signed credit agreement containing the prescribed terms laid out in SI 1983 / 1553 schedule 6 and signed by both creditor and debtor as laid out in Regulation 6 of SI1983/1553. Should the claimant be unable to produce the original agreement or a copy of, signed by both debtor and creditor and containing the prescribed terms, I request that the court uses its powers under section 142 Consumer Credit Act 1974 and declare the agreement supplied by the claimant (marked Exhibit CCM 4) unenforceable.

 

 

30. In addition to the credit agreement being irredeemably flawed, it is submitted that the default notice served under s87 (1) Consumer credit act 1974 failed to comply with the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) See attached exhibit CCM X

 

31. I note that the claimants particulars of claim fail to acknowledge service a Default notice as required by section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 before the claimant can even consider terminating the agreement or demanding repayment in full. No default notice has been received and furthermore no copy of such a notice has been issued.

 

 

 

 

 

45. In view of matters pleaded, I respectfully request the court give consideration to striking out the claimants case pursuant to part 3.4

(2) The court may strike out a statement of case if it appears to the court -

 

(a) That the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending

(b) That the statement of case is an abuse of the court's process or is otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings; or

© That there has been a failure to comply with a rule, practice direction or court order.

46. If the court considers it inappropriate to use its case management powers, it is requested that the court order the claimant to produce the original documents before the court as the documents supplied do not comply with the Consumer Credit Act or Regulations made under the act, the is confirmed by case law as well. Without production of the requested documents the case can not be dealt with justly and fairly, and will severely prejudice my rights to a fair trial

 

47. I request that the original document be made available by the claimant for inspection pursuant to Practice Direction 32 .if the claimant cannot supply the original documents in this case it is requested that the claimants case be struck out as to seek enforcement the claimant would need to retain the agreement in case a stored copy was for example illegible or corrupted, therefore it stands to reason that the claimant must surely hold such document. However I note there is other pieces of legislation which set out the requirements of Document retention

 

48. According to sections 221 and 222 of the Companies Act 1985, a public company is required to maintain records for a period of six years (section 222(5)(b).

 

49. As a loan agreement is active until the agreement is terminated, I would suggest that all the payment records (and other documents making up the file - including the agreement/application etc) would be "live" until the account is paid, or terminated - thus, the full file should be retained for at least six years after that.

 

50. This interpretation fits in with Inland Revenue legislation that requires prime documents to be retained for a period of six years - AFTER THE END OF THE RELEVANT ACCOUNTING PERIOD. That would mean some files need to be retained for up to seven years. The relevant legislation is found in Schedule 18 of the Finance Act 1998 (paragraph 21) - of particular significance is sub-paragraph (6) which states:

"The duty to preserve records under this paragraph includes a duty to preserve all supporting documents relating to the items mentioned in sub-paragraph (5)(a) and (b)."

51. Finally, key documents/application forms etc must be kept until 5 years after that business relationship has ended. This is a requirement of The Money Laundering Regulations 1993, 2003 and 2007.

 

52. I respectfully request that should the claimant disclose any new documentation that has not been disclosed so far with the Particulars of Claim that the court grant permission to amend this defence accordingly

 

53. Should the issue arise where the claimant seeks to rely upon the fact that they can show that the defendant has had benefit of the monies and therefore the defendant is liable, I refer to and draw the courts attention to the judgment of Sir Andrew Morritt in the case of Wilson v First County Trust Ltd - [2001] 3 All ER 229, [2001] EWCA Civ 633 in the Court of Appeal

 

 

at para 26

"In effect, the creditor--by failing to ensure that he obtained a document signed by the debtor which contained all the prescribed terms--must (in the light of the provisions in ss 65(1) and 127(3) of the 1974 Act) be taken to have made a voluntary disposition, or gift, of the loan moneys to the debtor. The creditor had chosen to part with the moneys in circumstances in which it was never entitled to have them repaid;"

54. Finally I will address the issue of which Act is relevant in this case, in case it is suggested that the claim falls under the Consumer Credit Act 2006, it is drawn to the courts attention that schedule 3, s11 of the Consumer Credit Act 2006 prevents s15 repealing s127 (3) of the 1974 Act for agreements made before s15 came into effect. Since the agreement would have commenced prior to the inception of the Consumer Credit Act 2006, section 15 of the 2006 Act has no effect and the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is the relevant act in this case.

 

55. For the avoidance of any doubt I include the relevant section of the 2006 Consumer Credit Act (Except taken from Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14) - Statute Law Database accessed Thursday 31st January 200

 

11 The repeal by this Act of-

 

(a)the words "(subject to subsections (3) and (4))" in subsection (1) of section 127 of the 1974 Act,

 

(b)subsections (3) to (5) of that section, and

 

©the words "or 127(3)" in subsection (3) of section 185 of that Act,

 

 

has no effect in relation to improperly-executed agreements made before the commencement of section 15 of this Act.

 

 

 

56. Therefore the Consumer Credit Act 2006 is not retrospective in its application and has no effect upon this agreement and the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is the act which this agreement is regulated by

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Statement of Truth

 

 

I xxxxxxxxxxx, believe the above statement to be true and factual

 

 

Signed .....................

Date

 

I will retype the paragraph numbers in when someone lets me know if this is the right defence to send in.... Thanks again

[creditcardmug]

Hi,just got back from working away and saw your post, ill go thro it tomorrow and get back, bump the tread tomorrow anyway.

 

Regards

[1littleduck]

Hi CCM, just had another letter from N/W in responce to my last letter....

They have sent me another copy of the same application form..also a copy of what appears to be a booklet of their credit card conditions..it look like a book as there are 5 pages all layed out as the one in the attachment which is the front cover I think....and......a COPY of a default notice...not the one they sent to me...just a copy of one and a copy of another standard letter.....shall i leave all of the default wording in now and copy your defence as it stands just assuming that the default notice they supposedly have sent to me is excatly the same?

http://i534.photobucket.com/albums/ee344/gangsta_caz/Nw01.jpg

http://i534.photobucket.com/albums/ee344/gangsta_caz/nw02.jpg

http://i534.photobucket.com/albums/ee344/gangsta_caz/nw03.jpg

http://i534.photobucket.com/albums/ee344/gangsta_caz/nw05.jpg

I think I need to have this defence done and posted by Tuesday at the latest. Thanks.

[creditcardmug]

Hi again, yes keep the stuff re Default Notice in.

 

You need to send the attachments with it marked EX1/EX2 etc.

Send it to the court by Special Delivery, send an UNSIGNED copy to the claimant by normal post, with a covering letter to say that you have today filed the enclosed defence etc.( you can just type your name)

 

The "conditions booklet" is irrelevant

 

If they want to use that DN as evidence thats fine cos its flawed.

[1littleduck]

Hi again CCM

I have just finished my degence and it will go off in the morning....wow it was 10 pages long, I hope I get away with this..attachments also enclosed, but not to the n/w

I had to change small bits of it, to go with the attachments I send, but most remains the same...fingers crossed now..

Thanks for all of you help.

[1littleduck]

Hi all. Defence in post by special delivery and a copy sent to n/w...

[1littleduck]

Hi..I have received the attached from the courts today, they have transferred it to Cov. can you please help me fill in the forms as I dont understand them.

Thanks.

http://i534.photobucket.com/albums/ee344/gangsta_caz/LastScan1.jpg

http://i534.photobucket.com/albums/ee344/gangsta_caz/LastScan2.jpg

http://i534.photobucket.com/albums/ee344/gangsta_caz/LastScan3.jpg

http://i534.photobucket.com/albums/ee344/gangsta_caz/LastScan4.jpg

http://i534.photobucket.com/albums/ee344/gangsta_caz/LastScan5.jpg

http://i534.photobucket.com/albums/ee344/gangsta_caz/LastScan6.jpg

and what happens when I send them back. I have to reply beform 1st Dec.

[creditcardmug]

Hi, heres a link for help with the AQ, let us know which questions you are struggling with.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/131499-directions-n150-n149-allocation.html