Help ... Been to Court ... Big Credit Card Problem

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Coolerking!

 

I'd fight this all the way. It was never the job of the Judge to give you a lecture on morals.

 

In a nutshell, your case reflects one of mine, and boils down to this:

 

(1) Do they actually have an Original properly executed Regulated Credit Agreement.

 

(2) Did they comply with your s78(1) Request.

 

(3) Did they have a right to issue a Default Notice, i.e. if they failed the above, then they were constrained by 78(6) so were not in a position to issue a Default Notice.

 

(4) Did they issue and Serve a Valid Default Notice? If they failed to do that, then went ahead to Terminate, then they lose the benefits of s87, i.e. the Right to seek early repayment of the Balance that was not otherwise due for Payment at that time. All they can ask for is the Payments that were due at Termination, i.e. the Arrears.

 

(5) Did they Terminate Lawfully. They'd need a valid Default Notice to do that. Without that, they can still Terminate, but it's unlawful. IOW, it's an Unlawful Rescission of Contract, for which you may be entitled to Compensation. They were as bound to the Contract as you, and the Act sets out what they must do if they wish to extract themselves from the Contract in a lawful manner following any Breach by you that was not remedied.

 

Termination means just that, they can't turn back time to un-Terminate it.

 

Once Terminated, they cannot Default you again, as there is by then no live Agreement to issue a Default Notice upon.

 

Assuming you have not already done so, please take a look at my Thread below, as many of the same key points apply:

 

BRW v A Particularly Nasty Bank

 

I do fully appreciate your position. The worry is acute I know. However, as I see it, you are in the right, they are in the wrong.

 

Their position should be fatal if they fail on any of the main points listed above.

 

I do hope this helps.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Coolerking!

 

He basically said if he threw the case out in my favour because they had not complied with my initial request for the CCA it would really **** them off. He believed that they would make sure they get they story right next time, go to fastrack, which they would probably win, i would have to pay costs, get a CCJ, and involve the papers.

 

I think the Judge doesn't understand the issues.

 

Your best plan is to work on what you will say, pull together a clear Skeleton Argument that cuts out everything and concentrates on the key points outlined above.

 

If they come back for you a 2nd time, what else are they going to bring to the table that they didn't have the first time?

 

Perhaps they will get the Ironing Board out and some starch, and try to make their invalid Default Notice look flatter and crisper?

 

If they are stuffed now, then they'll be just as stuffed the next time.

 

I know it's hard, but if I were you (which I'm not, so this has to be your call), I'd stick to my guns and hold out for a victory this time around.

 

Saying they will get angry and come back for you in a nastier way next time is just something to disregard and put out of your mind. Sort it now, and that should be that.

 

Being angry is not really for real, as this is all just numbers to them anyway. A banker never gets that upset. It's all show to try and undermine your confidence. Away from this, the bankers will not give you a 2nd thought. They won't give you a 2nd thought on the day, and won't give you a 2nd thought after the day.

 

You are just another little blip on their Spreadsheet, so do not read too much into them being angry. You have to ask why the Judge said all of this. They could be a soft cuddly Colonel Blimp Judge who has no idea but wants to be nice, or they could be a pro-bank Judge who wants to get you to capitulate to avoid having to risk making a wrong Judgement that could be challenged via Appeal. They could be something in between the above two.

 

Whatever they are, the advice they have given you is very suspect and beyond what a Judge should be doing. They are supposed to sit in the middle, listen to both sides of the argument, and make a Judgement.

 

Telling you the other side may get hissy and come back for you again is really odd...especially given the facts that you have already disclosed.

 

So, best advice I can give is to concentrate on the key points, and go back hard, don't back down...and hold your nerve.

 

Cheers,

BRW