Black Horse Car Finance (BH)

[BubbleCat]

would also appreciate any help on this, as I do not want my case to look weak - SO PLEASE ANYONE????

[BubbleCat]

42man, X20 , anyone :confused:

[BubbleCat]

Have today received pages 1 of 1 and 7 of 11 of the agreement.

 

This is not the agreement which was on the day, although the signature is there.

 

I have tried to scan it to post it on here, but it is such a bad copy, the scanner cannot pick up the wording.

 

I'm losing hope with this one, so can anyone give me some idea of what the worse case scenario is likely to be?

[BubbleCat]

>>>>> Bump

[BubbleCat]

Hi,

 

Would anyone please mind going through the attached and give me any pointers on adding or deleting info. Would I need to send a copy of my defence to Black Horse?

Edited November 30, 2008 by BubbleCat
Defence and help needed

[BubbleCat]

I really need some help in getting things into the correct perspective, as looking through the thread, I’ve got myself in a right tizzy. So, my sincere apologies and would really appreciate your patience in reading through the attached.

 

I’ve now had time to sit down and go through everything with a fine toothcomb, and have put things in the right order.

[surfaceagentx20]

BC,

Got your PM and I've read throuh your Word attachments which are very useful. Two questions:

 

In your letter dated 14 April 2008, did you send the £1.00 fee and have you any evidence of delivery by chance?

Is the default notice dated 20 September 2008?

 

I'll be back later during daylight hours with further thoughts, but if you could answer the questions in the meantime please.

 

x20

[BubbleCat]

Hi X20

 

I sent a cheque for £10, as that was what I was advised by BH rep over the phone. the cheque was never cashed and no proof of posting, as I thought the cashing of the cheque would have been evidence.

 

Yes, the DN is dated 20/09/2008

[surfaceagentx20]

Run your eyes over this Defence for anything you like or dislike and let me know what you think.

 

DRAFT / DEFENCE

 

1 The Defendant admits entering into a hire purchase agreement with the Claimant in relation to the goods set out at paragraph 6 of the Particulars of Claim 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 have complied therewith and the extent to which the Defendant 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 Without prejudice to the generality of the facts and matters set out at paragraph 1, on 14 April 2008 the Defendant delivered by (method of posting) to the Claimant a request within the meaning of section 79 Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

3 In default of the Claimant's obligations under section 79 aforeasaid, the Claimant failed to comply with the Request whether in prescribed form or at all in consequence of which and by reason of the provisions of section 79(3)(a) of the Act, the Claimant was not entitled whilst the default continued to enforce the agreement.

 

4 Notwithstanding the facts and matters set out at paragraph 3 of the Defence, on or about 20 September 2008 the Claimant issued to the Defendant a default notice in words intended to comply with the provisions of Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 and by which default notice, inter alia, the Defendant was informed of the following:

 

"IF THE ACTION REQUIRED BY THIS NOTICE IS TAKEN BEFORE THE DATE SHOWN NO FURTHER ENFORCEMENT ACTION WILL BE TAKEN IN RESPECT OF THE BREACH".

 

5 In the circumstances the default notice constituted 'enforcement action' and informed the Defendant that 'further Enforcement Action' would be taken if the Defendant failed to take the action required by the default notice. The purpose and intent of service of the notice was to enforce the Defendant's compliance with the agreement at a time when the Claimant was in default of the Act and prohibited from doing so by section 79(3)(a) of the Act.

 

6 Further and owing to prohibition aforesaid, the said default notice was ineffective for the purpose of giving rise to any of the entitlements set out under section 87(1) of the Act in the event that the Defendant failed to comply with it.

 

7 Paragraph 12 is denied. Without prejudice to the facts and matters set out at paragraphs 4 to 6 inclusive of the Defence, if the Claimant was entitled to serve the default notice (which is denied), the default notice was served upon the Defendant by second class post on a day long after 20 September 2008. Further, the notice failed to specify a date being a date 14 days after service of the notice 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 before 9 October 2008 which was not a date which was 14 days after service of the notice.

 

8 Save that the Defendant admits and accepts the Claimant terminated the agreement on 9 October 2008 as alleged, paragraph 13 of the Particulars of Claim is denied. The Defendant denies that termination arose as of right. On the contrary the Defendant contends the termination of the agreement by the Claimant on 9 Ocober 2008 was in repudiatory breach of the agreement.

 

9 The claimant's claim to be entitled to late payment interest and/or to sums claimed for administration fees, late payment charges and like provisions is denied. 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 or on which the Claiomant is entitled to raise a charge 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.

 

10 Further and in any event, by reason of the matters set out herein and the requirements of section 87(1) of the Act, the steps taken by the Claimant and identified at paragraph 7 hereof were steps which the Claimant was not entitled to take.

 

11 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.

 

12 The Claimant’s claim to be entitled to the return of the goods, to money or any other relief following termination of the agremeent is denied.

 

I BELIEVE THAT THE CONTENTS OF THIS DEFENCE ARE TRUE.

 

Signed:

Dated:

 

X20

[BubbleCat]

After reading a few times over for my own understanding, this is brilliant. It bounces right back at them and there is no need for me to propose any suggestions to resolve. Thank You.

 

Should I also send in copies of all the correspondence I have made, with this defence? If yes, do I also have to send copies to BH? or do I just take all my evidence to court on the day?

[surfaceagentx20]

If you're happy with it, just file at court. No attachments and nothing fancy. If they want documents they can come back with a CPR 31.14 request of their own.

 

x20

[BubbleCat]

Can I just ask, in the 1st para, where it begins that there is no denial of signing, will the Court or BH take that as "well that's it you admit to taking our the agreement and now have to pay regardless"?

[surfaceagentx20]

Can I just ask, in the 1st para, where it begins that there is no denial of signing, will the Court or BH take that as "well that's it you admit to taking our the agreement and now have to pay regardless"?

 

No. And that's because of what else is said in paragraph 1 and all the other paragraphs.

 

x20

[BubbleCat]

I had thought that, but you know what these people are like and may try to worm out of the wrong doings. Gonna get this off to the court in the morn.

[BubbleCat]

Hand delivered the Defence papers to the court. The woman looked bemused and handled them with a startled look on her face!!

 

Then today I get the attached

 

[surfaceagentx20]

The letter is nothing to be concerned about. It is merely BH complying with new Consumer Credit regulations which came into play on 1 October and which compel creditors to keep debtors informed about arrears, default charges and other information about the running of the account.

 

x20

[BubbleCat]

Ok - Thanx.

[BubbleCat]

Hi X20,

 

Update

 

had a response to letter which you kindly suggested in #17.

 

BH have sent me a 'test' copy of an agreement, of which nothing on it is relevant to me at all and is again is different to the one signed at the time of purchase and different to the one they sent me attached to a letter dated 26/11/08.

 

They have sent the same DN, dated 20/09/08.

 

I really don't think they have the original document which was signed.

 

I will take all these documents to court, as I think it shows just how inadequate they have handled this.

 

Cheers

 

BC

[BubbleCat]

As I prep for my court attendance with BH on the 02/01/09, can anyone tell me should I have some figures in place of what I want? in the hope this goes in my favour

[BubbleCat]

Happy New Year everyone

 

Here's the update on the court date of 02/01/08

 

I attended the court.

 

No one from Black Horse was there and they had not submitted any additional info, other than the latest letter i.e. court date and in breach of agreement.

 

The judge, who seemed very nice, asked if I had a legal background due to the defence had been put together (THANX X20:D)

 

I did say I had some help with compiling, so he asked me for a very brief overview of what had happened, which I did.

He said there was clearly more to the case than BH were saying and said he was not prepared to rule anything on that day, but he was going to make an order. He did this in silence and then explained he wanted me to do a statement of events and BH to respond to my defence paper.

I offered him copies of all the paperwork I had, to which he said he needed to amend the order as mine was all complete. He said he really did not want to see this matter in court and was hopeful that BH would liaise with me to come to an amicable conclusion. However, in the event this did not happen the order would bring us back to court and he had to allow BH at least 28 days for response and soon after another court date would be sent out to both parties and BH would need to send a representative, unless the matter had been settled out of court.

 

He did add that usually, people do not defend against credit agreement disputes and he would have been sat there trying to make a decision & usually would rule in the favour of the company.

[BubbleCat]

Here is all 13 pages of the defence BH are going to be relying on, as per the court order, they do not have to appear in court on 2nd March.

Edited February 5, 2009 by BubbleCat

[BubbleCat]

[BubbleCat]

[BubbleCat]

[BubbleCat]