Bankruptcy Petition - Help Needed Please

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Traderx!

 

Cant believe the court doesnt have the correct address

 

Mmm...things going to the wrong Address is a favourite Amex Trick, so I'd contact the Court straight away and make a very strong complaint.

 

Ask them who gave them your old Address.

 

But make sure your new Address goes on record from the Complaint Letter onwards.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[Traderx]

[Traderx]

[Traderx]

[42man]

No mention of an affadavit of service !!!

Judge Boggis QC - RE AWAN - [2000] BPIR 241

Then r 6.15 says:

(1) Service of the petition should be proved by affidavit.

(2) The affidavit shall have exhibited to it -

(a) a sealed copy of the petition, and

(b) if substituted service has been ordered, a sealed copy of the order;

and it should be filed in court immediately after service.

'In my judgment, bankruptcy is one of the most serious forms of execution that can be brought against a debtor. In any bankruptcy proceedings it is, in my view, absolutely clear that the provisions as to service must be followed exactly. The rules provide in terms that the petition must be supported by an affidavit of service showing how the petition was served, and express reference is made to substituted service and the way in which that then is to be proved, which involves the affidavit of service having with it a sealed copy of the order.' - JUDGE BOGGIS QC - SITTING AS A JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

[42man]

And for the credit card agreement are the prescribed terms in the 4 corners of the agreement ?.....and as we know the default notice is invalid....although they are correct about the charge card aspect....

[Traderx]

I believe that was in the first statement.

 

and the process server was at the first hearing.

[Traderx]

they have provided me me thus far with 3 different 'application' forms with 2 different sets of terms and conditions allegedly on the back of the application form.

 

1 cca request just the front of app form

2 1st statement had terms and cond photocopied on back (ones that dont relate to default notice

3 in SAR pack app form with a set of terms and conditions on leaflet type

[Traderx]

I am back!

 

Have been resting since surgery (which was a success)

 

Got a couple of adjournments to cover my recovery and may apply for another but need to get on top of this and get my next statement in.

 

will have some questions. thanks for all help thus far.

 

Question 1

 

what is the latest (nearest to hearing) I can file a statement?

 

Traderx

[42man]

Welcome back....I think Traderx that you can submit no longer than 1 week before the hearing....did they ever send you copies of default notices at all do you still have them by any chance ?

[42man]

Apologies I forgot you had posted up the default notices....the default notice is duff !!

 

Have a read -

 

The requirement for a valid Default Notice to lawfully Terminate an Account whilst in default

 

1. Notwithstanding the matters pleaded above, the Claimant must under Section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 serve a valid Default Notice before they can demand early payment of sums not yet due under a Regulated Credit Agreement.

 

2. Under the Interpretation Act 1978 Section 7, it states:

 

Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression "serve" or the expressions "give" or "send" or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post."

 

2. Practice Direction

Service of Documents - First and Second Class Mail.

 

With effect from 16 April 1985 the Practice Direction issued on 30 July 1968 is hereby revoked and the following is substituted therefore.

1). Under S7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 service by post is deemed to have been effected, unless the contrary has been proved, at the time when the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.

2). To avoid uncertainty as to the date of service it will be taken (subject to proof to the contrary) that delivery in the ordinary course of post was effected:-

(a) in the case of first class mail, on the second working day after posting;

(b) in the case of second class mail, on the fourth working day after posting.

"Working days" are Monday to Friday, excluding any bank holiday.

3). Affidavits of service shall state whether the document was dispatched by first or second class mail. If this information is omitted it will be assumed that second class mail was used.

4). This direction is subject to the special provisions of RSC Order 10, rule 1(3) relating to the service of originating process.

 

8th March 1985

J R BICKFORD SMITH Senior Master

Queen's Bench Division

 

3. Further to point 2 above, CPR rules on service also state the required timescales to be given for serving of documents :-

 

Under CPR 6.26 First class post (or other service which provides for delivery on the next business day) is deemed to be “served” The second day after it was posted, left with, delivered to or collected by the relevant service provider provided that day is a business day.

 

4. The Default notice supplied by the Claimant is dated Friday 3rd August, to allow service in line with the statutory requirements mentioned in points 2 & 3 above, 2 working days were required to allow for 1st Class postage. Thus the Rectify date should be 14 calendar days from Wednesday 8th August, namely Wednesday 22nd August 2007, not the 14 calendar days from the date of the letter as stated in the Default notice which would have been 17th August.

 

5. I therefore put the Claimant to strict proof that any Default Notice sent to me was valid and allowed the statutory 14 clear days to rectify the breach. I also note that to be valid, a Default Notice needs to be accurate in terms of both the scope and nature of breach and include an accurate figure required to remedy any such breach. The prescribed format for such document is laid down in Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) and Amendment regulations the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/3237).

 

6. The failure of a Default Notice to be accurate not only invalidates the Default Notice (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain and Co - [2001] GCCR 2255) but is an unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the Court enforcing any alleged debt, but give me a counter claim for damages Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119.

 

7. It is submitted that the above Default Notice served s87(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 failed to comply with the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561).

 

8. For a Creditor to be entitled to terminate a regulated Credit Agreement where there is a breach, demand repayment in full or take any legal action to recover any monies due under the Agreement, a creditor must serve a Default Notice under section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 which states:

 

Section 87. Need for Default Notice

 

(1) Service of a notice on the Debtor or hirer in accordance with section 88 (a "Default Notice ") is necessary before the creditor or owner can become entitled, by reason of any breach by the Debtor or hirer of a regulated Agreement -

 

(a) to terminate the Agreement, or

 

(b) to demand earlier payment of any sum, or

 

© to recover possession of any goods or land, or

 

(d) to treat any right conferred on the Debtor or hirer by the Agreement as terminated, restricted or deferred, or

 

(e) to enforce any security.

 

9. The Act also sets out via Section 88(1), that the Default Notice must be in the prescribed form, as below:

 

Section 88. Contents and effect of Default Notice

 

(1) The Default Notice must be in the prescribed form…

 

10. The wording must make it clear that no variation is acceptable. Therefore it cannot be dispensed with as a De Minimus issue.

 

11. I note that the regulations do not allow any variation in the form of these statements and therefore it is suggested that where the statements are not as laid down in the regulations the Default Notice is rendered invalid as a consequence.

 

12. In the case of Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain & Co - [1998] All ER (D) 339 in the Court of Appeal, the Court addressed in some detail the issue of the contents of a Default Notice and should the notice fail to comply with the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) it would render the Default Notice invalid I quote the comment of KENNEDY LJ: "This statute was plainly enacted to protect consumers, most of whom are likely to be individuals" the judgment appears to confirm the consumer credit legislation made under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 as plainly enacted and set out to offer protection to the consumer. Therefore it is suggested that the failure of the Claimant to set out the Default Notice in accordance with the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) could unduly prejudice me as it failed to allow the required time to remedy the alleged default.

 

13. The Claimant’s failure to issue a valid Default Notice must surely prevent a right of action and would make any termination of the Agreement unlawful, as statute provides the procedure that must be followed. Since the Claimant has failed to adhere to statutory procedure it is averred that the Claimant does not have a right of action, and can never now have a right of action having terminated the Agreement unlawfully.

 

14. Furthermore, the Arrears Total outlined cannot be accurate, as the Balance on the Account was at least partly comprised of Unlawful Charges plus additional Charges and Interest added unlawfully whilst the Account was in Dispute. Therefore, the Arrears claimed cannot be accurate, as they are themselves calculated using a Total that was itself inaccurate.

 

15. This is at all times an Agreement Regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. There is no provision in the Act that allows a large financial institution to terminate an Agreement that is in alleged default or breach simply by giving notice to the Consumer. Section 98(6) makes that quite clear. The Creditor must follow the steps outlined in Section 87 and Section 88 if they are to lawfully Default and Terminate, and enjoy the benefits of Section 87.

 

16. Finally, an invalid Default Notice cannot be remedied by simply issuing a new Default Notice. The Claimant may not serve a second effective default notice in prescribed form post-termination of the agreement. Any such second default notice will necessarily state a date by when I would be required to comply after which in default the agreement would terminate. The second default notice would therefore contain the fiction that the agreement endured when that cannot be the case, as it was terminated on XX/XX/XX. Terminating an Agreement on the back of a defective Default Notice, simply confirms the undeniable truth that Termination of the agreement by the Claimant was carried out in circumstances which then prohibited them from enjoying the benefits of Section 87, namely the opportunity to seek early Payment of a sum that was, prior to Termination, only payable in the future.

--------------------------

The Claimant respectfully requests that an order may be made as follows:

 

1. That the Claimant's statement of case is struck out pursuant to rule 3.4(2)(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules

as the Calimant's statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim.

 

The claim is for the early repayment (ie before the full term of the allleged agreement between the Claimant and the Defendant) of a sum of money consequent on a breach of the alleged agreement by the Defendant. The Claimant is only entitled to file such a claim after first having served a defeult noitice under section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and in accordance with s88 of the Act.

 

Inter alia, the regulations made by the Sectratary of State related to s88 concerning default notices require that a period of 14 clear days be given to the Defendant to remedy the default before enforcement action (including filing a claim) may be started.

The default notice supplied by the Claimant in response to the order of the Court dated date is dated Friday 3 August 2008 and says "To remedy this breach, payment due on your account of £xxx must be received within fourteen calendar days from the date of this default notice", ie by Wendesday 17 August. Under CPR Part 6.2, a letter is deemed served on the second day after it was posted, provided that day is a business day. That means that a default notice posted on Friday 3 August would be deemed served on Tuesday 7 August and 14 clear days from then is Tuesday 21 August. Therefore the default notice does not comply with the regulations in respect of giving the Defendant the statutory length of time to remedy the default.

The failure of the default notice to comply with the regulations made by the Secretary of State invalidates the default notice (Woodchester Lease management Services Ltd v Swain and Co - [2001] GCCR 2255), is an unlawful rescission of contract and prevents the Court from enforcing any alleged debt (Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119).

The invalidity of the default notice means that the Claimant has no right of action in this case. On this basis, I respectfully ask the Court to strike out the Claimant's statement of case.

[42man]

Moreover....they terminated the agreement a month later, so they cannot issue another default notice, as this would be pure fiction as you have no agreement with them....make sure you bring up this potentially important defalut notice issue....

[Traderx]

Thanks 42man, I am all over this default notice bit like a cheap suit!

 

I agree that it is duff but not only that it makes reference to clause 7.2 and clause 3 which do not relate to the alleged terms and conditions supplied.

 

So either the default notice is incorrect or the agreement is. Either way it makes them wrong.

 

Trying to get this all down in a statement, and some other stuff that about the charge card, is tough though. Working on it this weekend and will have first draft by mon evening.

 

Bearing in mind at the last hearing the registrar didnt even read my statements i need to be as clear as possible. although this hearing does have a time estimate of 3 hours!#

 

almost excited!

[Traderx]

can someone check i have the dates correct please

 

The Default notice supplied by the Claimant is dated Sunday 13th May 2007,therefore could not have been posted until Monday 14th May 2007. To allow service in line with the statutory requirements mentioned in points 2 & 3 above, 2 working days were required to allow for 1st Class postage. Thus the Rectify date should be 14 calendar days from Thursday 17th May 2007, namely Thursday 31st May 2007, not the 14 calendar days from the date of the letter as stated in the Default notice which would have been 27th May 2007.

 

[42man]

Looks good....

[king123]

Mate, if you can possibly afford it I'd get a good solicitor onto this asap. You don't seem to have a sympathetic judge and bankruptcy is a serious business (unless of course it is in your interest to go bankrupt; in that case be grateful that they've paid the petition fee for you ) I'm also concerned about the implications on your health of fighting this alone. Good luck with whatever you decide!

[Traderx]

Thx 42man.

 

Sorry been ill again but got further adjournment. (about a month and a bit away now)

 

King 123, i am considering getting counsel for this. thanks.

 

Statement nearly finished. Anyone wanna proof read it?

[Traderx]

hi everyone,

 

thanks for all your help thus far. I have unfortunately due to health reasons and personal problems not had the time to deal with all this fully and i have lost every thing i had saved on my computer so am rewrting my third statement which i need to submit by thursday!!!!!!!!!!

 

I have done a large chunk of it and am on the home run now (i think) but would really appreciate some help with the ending

 

firstly there is a section in this forum relating to CPR rules about producing original agreements and the applicant relying on them in court. could someone point me to it please.

 

secondly can i post my statement thus far in here for a proof read by someone more experienced than myself.

 

thirdly i am going to file a counter claim for the penalty charges and missold ppi

a) do i mention that in my statement?

b) how do i calculate the interest on the amounts?

 

 

thank you in advance

[the_shadow]

Welcome back...

 

1) http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/162535-documents-court-civil-evidence.html

 

Plus

 

Under CPR 16 part 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 or served with the particulars of claim”

 

2) Yes I would

 

3) I've seen counter claims put in at the bottom of the defence but I'm not too sure of the process. Interest is either compounded at the rate you were charged if you are claiming in resitution or s69 interest, which are you going for? (although some people go for both)

 

S.

[Traderx]

1. I, xxxx, make this statement in response to the Applicant’s Statement of XXst March 2009. I apologise for the late filing and service of this Statement, caused as the court is aware by the illness and subsequent invasive surgery I have undergone within the last three months.

 

2. In the applicant’s second statements’ exhibits a default notice that is alleged to have been sent to me is shown and the length of time taken to find the Notice is given as an excuse for the late filing of his statement.

 

3. Notwithstanding the matters pleaded earlier, the Claimant must under Section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 serve a valid Default Notice before they can demand early payment of sums not yet due under a Regulated Credit Agreement.

 

4. Under the Interpretation Act 1978 Section 7, it states:

 

Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression "serve" or the expressions "give" or "send" or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post."

 

 

 

5. Practice Direction

Service of Documents - First and Second Class Mail.

 

With effect from 16 April 1985 the Practice Direction issued on 30 July 1968 is hereby revoked and the following is substituted therefore.

1). Under S7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 service by post is deemed to have been effected, unless the contrary has been proved, at the time when the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.

2). To avoid uncertainty as to the date of service it will be taken (subject to proof to the contrary) that delivery in the ordinary course of post was effected:-

(a) in the case of first class mail, on the second working day after posting;

(b) in the case of second class mail, on the fourth working day after posting.

"Working days" are Monday to Friday, excluding any bank holiday.

3). Affidavits of service shall state whether the document was dispatched by first or second class mail. If this information is omitted it will be assumed that second class mail was used.

4). This direction is subject to the special provisions of RSC Order 10, rule 1(3) relating to the service of originating process.

 

8th March 1985

J R BICKFORD SMITH Senior Master

Queen's Bench Division

 

6. Further to point 2 above, CPR rules on service also state the required timescales to be given for serving of documents :-

 

Under CPR 6.26 First class post (or other service which provides for delivery on the next business day) is deemed to be “served” The second day after it was posted, left with, delivered to or collected by the relevant service provider provided that day is a business day.

 

7. The Default notice supplied by the Claimant is dated Sunday 13th May 2007, therefore could not have been posted until Monday 14th May 2007. To allow service in line with the statutory requirements mentioned in points 5 & 6 above, 2 working days were required to allow for 1st Class postage. Thus the Rectify date should be 14 calendar days from Thursday 17th May 2007, namely Thursday 31st May 2007, not the 14 calendar days from the date of the letter as stated in the Default notice which would have been 27th May 2007.

 

 

 

8. I therefore put the Claimant to strict proof that any Default Notice sent to me was valid and allowed the statutory 14 clear days to rectify the breach. I also note that to be valid, a Default Notice needs to be accurate in terms of both the scope and nature of breach and include an accurate figure required to remedy any such breach. The prescribed format for such document is laid down in Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) and Amendment regulations the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/3237).

 

• The failure of a Default Notice to be accurate not only invalidates the Default Notice (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain and Co - [2001] GCCR 2255) but is an unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the Court enforcing any alleged debt, but give me a counter claim for damages Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119.
  

10.It is therefore submitted that the Default Notice served s87(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 failed to comply with the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561).

 

11. For a Creditor to be entitled to terminate a regulated Credit Agreement where there is a breach, demand repayment in full or take any legal action to recover any monies due under the Agreement, a creditor must serve a Default Notice under section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 which states:

 

Section 87. Need for Default Notice

 

(1) Service of a notice on the Debtor or hirer in accordance with section 88 (a "Default Notice ") is necessary before the creditor or owner can become entitled, by reason of any breach by the Debtor or hirer of a regulated Agreement -

 

(a) to terminate the Agreement, or

 

(b) to demand earlier payment of any sum, or

 

© to recover possession of any goods or land, or

 

(d) to treat any right conferred on the Debtor or hirer by the Agreement as terminated, restricted or deferred, or

 

(e) to enforce any security.

 

12. The Act also sets out via Section 88(1), that the Default Notice must be in the prescribed form, as below:

 

Section 88. Contents and effect of Default Notice

 

(1) The Default Notice must be in the prescribed form…

 

13. The wording must make it clear that no variation is acceptable.

Therefore it cannot be dispensed with as a De Minimus issue.

 

14. I note that the regulations do not allow any variation in the

form of these statements and therefore it is suggested that where the statements are not as laid down in the regulations the Default Notice is rendered invalid as a consequence.

 

 

15. In the case of Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain

& Co - [1998] All ER (D) 339 in the Court of Appeal, the Court addressed in some detail the issue of the contents of a Default Notice and should the notice fail to comply with the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) it would render the Default Notice invalid I quote the comment of KENNEDY LJ: "This statute was plainly enacted to protect consumers, most of whom are likely to be individuals" the judgment appears to confirm the consumer credit legislation made under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 as plainly enacted and set out to offer protection to the consumer. Therefore it is suggested that the failure of the Claimant to set out the Default Notice in accordance with the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) could unduly prejudice me as it failed to allow the required time to remedy the alleged default.

 

16. The Claimant’s failure to issue a valid Default Notice must

surely prevent a right of action and would make any termination of the Agreement unlawful, as statute provides the procedure that must be followed. Since the Claimant has failed to adhere to statutory procedure it is averred that the Claimant does not have a right of action, and can never now have a right of action having terminated the Agreement unlawfully.

 

17. Furthermore, the Arrears Total outlined cannot be accurate, as

the Balance on the Account was at least partly comprised of

Unlawful Charges plus additional Charges and Interest added

unlawfully whilst the Account was in Dispute. Therefore, the

Arrears claimed cannot be accurate, as they are themselves

calculated using a Total that was itself inaccurate.

 

18. This is at all times an Agreement Regulated by the Consumer

Credit Act 1974. There is no provision in the Act that allows a

large financial institution to terminate an Agreement that is in alleged default or breach simply by giving notice to the Consumer. Section 98(6) makes that quite clear. The Creditor must follow the steps outlined in Section 87 and Section 88 if they are to lawfully Default and Terminate, and enjoy the benefits of Section 87.

 

19. Finally, an invalid Default Notice cannot be remedied by simply

issuing a new Default Notice. The Claimant may not serve a

second effective default notice in prescribed form post-termination of the agreement. Any such second default notice will necessarily state a date by when I would be required to comply after which in default the agreement would terminate. The second default notice would therefore contain the fiction that the agreement endured when that cannot be the case, as it was terminated on19th June 2007. Terminating an Agreement on the back of a defective Default Notice, simply confirms the undeniable truth that Termination of the agreement by the Claimant was carried out in circumstances which then prohibited them from enjoying the benefits of Section 87, namely the opportunity to seek early Payment of a sum that was, prior to Termination, only payable in the future.

 

20. The invalidity of the default notice means that the Claimant has

no right of action in this case. On this basis, I respectfully

ask the Court to strike out the Claimant's statement of case.

 

21. Notwithstanding the above, the default notice states ‘You have

failed to make the minimum payments due to your account as

required by clause three of the terms and conditions governing

the use of the American Express Credit Card.’ Looking at the

terms and conditions exhibited at page 7 of GPP1 and alleged to

form part of the agreement between myself and American Express,

clause 3 relates to ‘The Account’ and has 3 sub points none of

which refer to minimum payments. Furthermore the default notice

states at point 3 ‘Your account may be referred to a debt

collection agency and you may be charged for any costs which

American Express incur in recovering any overdue amount from you

as stated in clause 7.2 of the Terms and Conditions governing

the use of the credit card’. Again looking at the terms and

conditions exhibited at page 7 of GPP1 clause 7.2 relates to the

daily interest to be charged for a period of six months.

 

22. As this clearly demonstrates one or both of the documents is

false, if it is the default notice then as stated earlier but for different reason the claimant is prevented from taking further action to recover any sums due, or if it is the terms and conditions that is a falsehood then no agreement exists and the claimant has brought this action unfairly.

 

23. Notwithstanding the above and as I have referred to in my previous statement no enforceable agreement exists between myself and American Express, the exhibits shown by the applicant are application forms and do not subscribe to the format dictated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Claimant is at pains to put to this court that it is a correct agreement as stipulated in the Consumer Credit Act. However to be a credit agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 the agreement has to be a single page and include a number of prescribed terms, as dictated by Schedule 6 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 and for a credit card consist of

- A term stating the credit limit or the manner in which it will be determined or that there is no credit limit.

 

And in all cases

 

- 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--

(a) number of repayments;

(b) amount of repayments;

© frequency and timing of repayments;

(d) dates of repayments;

(e) 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.

 

In Wilson and another v Hurstanger Ltd (2007) it was stated “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 … 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”.

 

The terms and conditions exhibited at page xx of xxx clearly do not form part of the application form,

[Traderx]

thx shadow

[Traderx]

i was looking for the bit about the applicant needing to produce originals in court, not the poor illegible photocopies they attached to their statement

[the_shadow]

Traderx,

 

Is this in the insolvency court or county court?

 

S.

[Traderx]

insolvency

[the_shadow]

insolvency

 

Damn, missed that sorry, CPR wont help you then, its governed by the insolvency act and the rules in that, fraid I'm not au faix with them at all... I'll take a look now and see what I can spot regarding evidence.

 

S.