Fiddlesticks, I didn't know that.....did you?.loan

[Bill Shidding]

Hi Popeye, I have edited that post#73, it was in fact C's skeleton arguement I was quoting from.

[Bill Shidding]

THIS cannot happen as the notices being invalid gives them no right to court action.

 

It does if they are claiming the arrears;

 

They dont need ANY DN or TN to claim.

If your loan agreement has finished its natural term.

And they have your executed agreement.

And they have provided you with twice yearly statements.

 

It seems they can claim ALL the arrears, without much problem. Regardless of any DN or TN notice you have already received.

 

The DJ allowed them to change IN the hearing.

 

Bill

Edited March 14, 2009 by Bill Shidding

[Bill Shidding]

it just sounds rubbish that they can take you to court using paperwork that they now are saying is irrelevant to the case, surely they should have had to drop the original case and start over again

 

The DJ allowed C to change their claim in the hearing, as described below.

 

The DJ expressed concern as to the length of time this case had been in the system, and gently reprimanded C over their case management. He said "I really dont want to waste any more court time with this case" + " I want to end this case today"

Or words very similar to the above.

 

Bill

[popeye1]

He accepted that a document was fraudulent

[Bill Shidding]

He asked if I still contended that the purpose of the notice that C was relying on was fraudulent. I replied "yes".

 

He then bypassed all docs by allowing C to change his claim to the arrears. Which is the same figure, but not being an "earlier payment"

because the loan term has ended.

 

Bill

[popeye1]

That made your defence irrevelent,invalid as you defended against a different claim

What about Witt statement

[Bill Shidding]

C's W/S relies on their recreated DN.

My W/S relies on the genuine original DN and the genuine original TN.

And the fact that C's DN is a false doc.

The TN is dated within the specified period for a remedy on the genuine DN. Therefore, the genuine DN is valid but, the genuine TN is technically invalid but was sent by C with the intention of termination, and I took it as such.

Edited March 14, 2009 by Bill Shidding

[popeye1]

Thats a W/S signed by them ,thats just not right

[Bill Shidding]

No, its not right.

Im sure this technique is going to affect a lot more people.

[popeye1]

The account was in dispute and a court claim started and the account was not settled so can the agreement end other than someone terminating it

[Bill Shidding]

The account was in dispute

Yes

and a court claim started

Yes

and the account was not settled

No

so can the agreement end other than someone terminating it

The agreement ends when

1) Its terminated / cancelled by either party

2) The balance is paid

3) The term of the loan ends (after 24/36 months etc)

 

At this time, the 3rd option applies to me. Which is why all sums due under the agreement are now classed as "arrears" and are no longer protected by section 87 CCA.

 

Bill

[Von Greenbach]

The agreement ends when

1) Its terminated / cancelled by either party

Providing either party complies with the termination / cancellation route stated within the T&Cs

[Bill Shidding]

Providing either party complies with the termination / cancellation route stated within the T&Cs

 

 

Agreed

[Von Greenbach]

Agreed

And have they Bill?

[Bill Shidding]

After the end of the term of the loan, they don't have to. They just say we are not claiming under section 87, we are claiming the arrears. Any notices sent before are not considered (well, not in my case).

 

Quote; and have they Bill?

 

Their recreated DN is dated too early to be in accordance with their T&Cs.

The Original DN is in accordance with the T&Cs.

The Original TN is dated too early to be effective, but it was sent with the intention.

Edited March 14, 2009 by Bill Shidding

[StayingCalm]

3) The termination notice that was dated before the end of the prescribed period on the genuine DN2, and was therefore an unlawful rescission of contract.

 

Unlawful or not my understanding is that termination of your account occurred at this time, and thereforethe maximum amount the C may be entitled to recover is the true amount of the arrears at the time of the Default Notice.

 

As the claim has been on going for at least 9 months the date of the DN is probably 12 months or more ago, so the arrears at this time should be considerably less than what they are now trying to claim.

 

Whether they can claim these arrears in this claim, or they may have to start a new claim I do not know, but you may be able to counterclaim for the unlawful rescission of contract.

 

Hope this helps

 

Regards

SC

[Bill Shidding]

Unlawful or not my understanding is that termination of your account occurred at this time, and thereforethe maximum amount the C may be entitled to recover is the true amount of the arrears at the time of the Default Notice.

 

Yes, that is what I was expecting / hoping at the hearing.

 

 

Bill

[Bill Shidding]

I think the DJ's logic possibly is;

The C's DN is ineffective (turn a blind eye to its creation, to get the case finished)

The true DN endures

The true TN is ineffective (for the reasons stated, regardless of its implication that the agreement is terminated or unlawful)

Thus, the agreement endures to its natural end, and now the C can claim all sums due as arrears, without providing any docs, except the agreement and proof of statements of account.

 

The outcome maybe, its best to defend with a dodgy DN, along with a Kosher TN.

Edited March 15, 2009 by Bill Shidding

[Von Greenbach]

Well, this thread has been turned upside down, spun round, thrown through the air, and you not much further forward Bill.

 

I think the 2 options open to you are

 

a) accept defeat and move on

 

b) appeal on the basis the DN being defective and the judge got it wrong (you're a lay person remember)

Edited March 15, 2009 by Von Greenbach

[Bill Shidding]

Yes, I think its going to be (a), or b+r.

There is no defence without the docs in court.

 

I hope this thread helps someone out, or at least it may be a heads-up.

 

 

Bill

[popeye1]

They misslead you with their W/S and you defended against it,in court they have gone against their own W/S because you beat them on it,what more could you do

[goonerhenry]

this surely makes exchanging skeleton arguments a farce, as it gave them time to come up with a way of getting out of the hole they dug themselves in, as many have said before you were at a disadvantage stright away as they had moved the goal posts and not let you know prior to the hearing, its a big pile of BS!!!!!

[Von Greenbach]

its a big pile of BS!!!!!

and another reason to appeal

[Bill Shidding]

and another reason to appeal

 

Unfortunately, the DJ reserved the remaining parts of the case to himself. I think I have to apply (to him) to get an appeal going?

 

Bill

[Von Greenbach]

I think I have to apply (to him) to get an appeal going?

No, you can do it on this form Bill

 

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/n161_0706.pdf