Welcome/Cohens - case withdrawn ***WOO-HOO ***

[postggj]

beat me to it

 

hang fire a mo

[Prudence]

x20 said about the Default Notice:

 

"The Default Notice presents a crisis also. The notice was issued on 22 June 2007 and required your compliance with it before 6 July 2007. It came by post. It would have arrived no earlier than 23 July 2007. It may have arrived later. The demand for compliance must allow a period of not less than 14 days after service for this to occur.

 

The creditor did not allow the minimum period and in consequence did not become entitled to terminate the agreement or claim early payment under section 87(1). It appears to be wanting to. I small a defence."

[postggj]

where is surface gent defence pru

 

whatpost number

[postggj]

also

 

with out getting an old callender

 

how many days are in june

 

how many days is it from the 22 june to the 6 july

[postggj]

pru just checked the dates

 

default notice is crap

 

game over

[Prudence]

If Notice received 23 June then 14 days from that would be 7 July.

Here is the defence, as I have a few threads on this subject and it's easier for me to just post it again!

 

1 The Defendant admits entering into an agreement with the Claimant and which was regulated by The Consumer Credit Act 1974 (The Act). No admissions are made as to the terms, conditions or other provisions of the agreement and the extent to which the Claimant may or may not have complied therewith and the extent to which the Defendant may or may not have complied therewith. Further and alternatively, it is denied that the agreement was properly executed and/or is now enforceable in whole or in part.

 

2 It is denied that the Claimant served upon the Defendant a default notice pursuant to section 87(1) of The Act and which was in prescribed form and compliant with the provisions of section 88 of the Act.

 

3 The default notice relied upon by the Claimant was a notice dated 22 June 2007. Save that the notice was served upon the Defendant on a date thereafter and that service was by post, the Defendant is now unable to recall on what precise date and by what precise means the notice was served upon him/her. The notice failed to specify a date being a date 14 days after service of the notice or any date after service by when the Defendant was required to comply with the notice. Alternatively, the date specified in the notice by when the Defendant was required to comply was stated to be before 6 July 2007 which was not a date which was 14 days after service of the notice.

 

4 Without prejudice to the generality of the Defendant’s contentions set out at paragraph 1, the Defendant avers the Claimant terminated the agreement on 6 July 2007 and pursuant to termination that the Claimant has since made demand of the Defendant for the payment of money the subject of this claim.

 

5 Furthermore the agreement is not headed as required by Schedule 1 Consumer Credit Agreements Regulations 1983. Payment protection insurance, which is included in the total amount of credit, was mis-sold as set out in paragraph 6 and as a result the amount of credit is incorrect.

 

6 Incorporated within the sum demanded by the Claimant are sums claimed for payment protection insurance. [PPI] The Defendant was induced to enter into an agreement with the Claimant for PPI by relying on the representations of the Claimant's agent [Cash Drive] that the loan would be looked upon more favourably if PPI was taken out. Further the Claimant‘s agent did not make the Defendant aware of the exclusions of the policy. The representations were false in that the Claimant‘s agent told the Defendant that the PPI would cover the Defendant in the event of sickness or unemployment. The Defendant

believes that the PPI was not fit for purpose and the Claimant failed in their duty of care in that they did not ensure that the policy was suitable. Further the Defendant wishes to point out that a claim was made on the payment protection insurance on 21 January 2006 and that detailed correspondence regarding this matter is available for the court. The Claimant’s insurance company refused to honour the insurance on the basis that the Defendant’s illness was a pre-existing condition, in spite of the Defendant providing medical evidence to the contrary. The Defendant was led to believe that he was insured against loss of earnings and in such an event, the loan would have been repaid and this Court action would not have been necessary. In the circumstances it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to recover sums incorporated in the claim and which represent sums allegedly owing for PPI.

 

7 Further, incorporated within the sum demanded by the Claimant are sums claimed for administration fees, late payment charges and like provisions. It is denied (if it be alleged) that the Claimant has incurred any such fees and charges, alternatively that such fees and charges if incurred accurately represent sums lost by the Claimant by reason of any breach on the part of the Defendant. Alternatively, the Defendant avers the incorporation of such claims is penal and unenforceable at law.

 

8 Further and in any event, by reason of the matters set out at paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Defence and the requirements of section 87(1) of the Act, the steps taken by the Claimant and identified at paragraph 4 hereof were steps which the Claimant was not entitled to take.

 

9 In the circumstances neither the Claimant’s default notice nor its termination of the agreement gave rise to an entitlement to claim any of the relief now sought by the Claimant.

 

10 The Claimant’s claim to be entitled to £8,445.05 or any other relief following termination of the agreement is denied.

 

I BELIEVE THAT THE CONTENTS OF THIS DEFENCE ARE TRUE.

 

Signed:

 

Dated:

[Prudence]

You helped with that Defence Post! (Re the PPI bit). If the Default Notice is no good, is that really good enough? And how should we proceed please?

[postggj]

prudenc

 

more good news

 

interest can not be charged on penalty fees which we all know welcome are fond off

 

its not looking to good for them

 

no wonder they want you to sign a consent order,

 

do you know what it means , the default notice being crap and legal action taken against you,

 

all you would have to pay are any arrears up to the default notice, welcome can then whistle for the rest as they have terminated the agreement

[postggj]

must tern in now

 

ill draft up a letter for you to send the solicitors

 

remember pru

 

at the end of the day its your decision

[Prudence]

Thanks so much, Goodnight Post.

[Prudence]

I've been looking through the documents posted but where does it say they've charged interest on the penalty fees?

I have the agreement & can post that as well tomorrow if you need it? Thanks and definitely GOODNIGHT!!!

[Prudence]

Hi Post, if you remember when you originally saw our agreement you told me that they could not include PPI in the credit amount which they have done.

[caro]

please doll

 

i think in my own opinion we have them on the run

 

Couldn't agree more. If it was me I would be saying thanks for the but no thanks. I'll see you in court and see what the judge thinks about this.

 

I would also be concerned that the judge is not one of those who follows the letter of the law and believes if you owe money you should pay it back.

 

If the judge just sticks to the legalities you should be fine.

 

Bear in mind though that you do have them on the run so they MAY back down before court.

 

It's like a game of chicken at the moment to see who runs away first. I would be standing firm but I'm not you. You must do what is right for you.

[Prudence]

Thanks Caro, much appreciated. We are standing firm! We have had a letter this morning from the Court in reply to our request for a strike out with comment from the DJ who says "There is now an order dealing with procedural steps. The Defendant should make a formal application in proper form if he wishes to apply to strike out the claim". They enclose an app form with 2 different fee details if want a hearing or just to refer back to the DJ. We have not had the Order the DJ refers to, maybe will arrive Monday.

[caro]

If you don't get it phone the court and ask what this says.

[JonCris]

Any updates??

[Prudence]

Hi Jon, thanks... I have PM'd you.

[Prudence]

Has anyone seen JonCris please?

[caro]

If you post on the thread Pru, maybe others will be able to help.

[Prudence]

Hi, thanks Caro. It's just that my thread is a long one and thought that people wouldn't want to trail through all the posts.

 

I submitted the application form for Strike Out. The Court responded asking for further £40 to go to a hearing in a week's time. The previous Order requested the other side to submit Court fees etc by today (and gave us a hearing date of 19 June)- does that still apply?

 

I really need help with this Strike Out hearing please. Thankyou, Pru

[postggj]

contacting site team pru

[Prudence]

Thanks Post... I'm hanging on...

[steven4064]

Hi prudence

 

Can you give us a quick resume of where you are and what help you need

[postggj]

MENY THANKS FOR LOOKING IN STEPHEN

MUCH OBLIGED

 

Originally Posted by Prudence

received a Notice of Application to Strike Out the Claim. The Court requested a further £40 as the Judge wants a hearing (19 MAY). HELP! When I look back at the previous order I see the Judge ordered :

 

Each party must file a completed pre-trial checklist t no later than 10 May and the claimant must pay a fee of £XXX (haven't got it to hand, got this from my thread think it was 500)

 

Judge also ordered them to pay a four figure sum by 10 May (hearing fee). So will these instructions still apply? I'm confused!!! And SCARED!!!!

[steven4064]

So what has been sent in reply to this order? WHat else has happened since?