Shakespeare62 - v - a NastyBank

[ScarletPimpernel]

They sure have some front. Firstly they introduce this very late (hot off the Press as it were) just ahead of the last Hearing to try and panic S62 into banging out, then they say it's the original in Court, plus their Witness says it's the original in a Witness Statement, then today they fight tooth and claw to make the Court use their Expert Witness instead of S62's, and then, when they don't get their way, they start to snivel that it might have been a reconstruction after all.

 

 

'Oh what a tangled web they weave

When first they practice to deceive...'

 

Hitler diaries, anyone?

[cab1ne]

Hello Cab1ne!

 

This is really only applicable to Court related documents IMHO. The Consumer Credit Act 1974 is amply covered by The Interpretation Act 1978, and the subsequent Queens Bench Practice Direction 1985 that clarified the time scales for Service via 1st (+2 Working Days) and 2nd Class (+4 Working Days) Post.

 

CPR does not even mention 2nd Class Post for example.

 

But CPR is useful to argue that even CPR defines time scales for Service via Post, so Amex and others have to allow for transit time if they elected to use Post rather than personal service, i.e. to ensure the Consumer is given the correct number of clear days (7 or 14, depending on when the Default Notice was issued).

 

In the case of all Amex DNs we have seen, they have failed to do so.

 

Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.

 

Cheers,

BRW

 

thanx BRW,

 

i hope one of them is relevent, i would personally go for the Interpretation Act 1978, it rather does appear to be covered in the cca 1974 act, (never really looked at it that way) cheers M8

 

cab

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Cab1ne!

 

I think it's important to focus on the fact that The Consumer Credit Act 1974 is an Act that is covered by s7 of The Interpretation Act 1978:

 

7

 

References to service by post.

 

Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression “serve” or the expression “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 been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.

Because that was a little vague on the time scales, the 1985 Queens Bench Practice Direction elaborated on that to define 1st and 2nd Class Post.

 

CPR is CPR, an Act is an Act, if you see what I mean. If an Act mentions Service by Post (that is not otherwise excluded from using The Interpretation Act 1978 ), then the 1978 Act covers it, as does the 1985 clarification via the later Practice Direction (PD).

 

I think this is important, because if you let them rely upon CPR rather than The Interpretation Act 1978, i.e. when it suits the banks' purposes, they could then potentially see off people who have had their defective Default Notices served via 2nd Class Post (or worse, such as Business Post etc).

 

So, use CPR only as a background example to show that even CPR allows for Service. The key is to ram it up them that Default Notices are actually covered by a specific Act and a related PD when it comes to their Service via Post.

 

IOW, don't walk in to Court relying upon CPR in this case, because you have a more powerful weapon in your arsenal.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[the_shadow]

Well done Shakespeare

 

It would seem Amex are bringing big guns to more cases...

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/amex/198761-im-amex-help-defence-3.html

 

OP is in need of help with MdR.

 

S.

[foolishgirl]

I think this is important, because if you let them rely upon CPR rather than The Interpretation Act 1978, i.e. when it suits the banks' purposes, they could then potentially see off people who have had their defective Default Notices served via 2nd Class Post (or worse, such as Business Post etc).

 

You mustn't let them rely on CPR. DNs are served before the instigation of legal action & service of them would therefore come under the Interpretation Act.

 

IMO CPR only comes into effect once legal action is contemplated/instigated. At the DN stage, they are giving you the opportunity to rectify the default & if you did so, legal action would not even be in the frame so CPR would not be applicable.

[gezwee]

Wait for the disappearing agreement trick courtesy of the unsealed envelope on arrival to the expert witness.......... dare they attempt it?

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello FG!

 

You mustn't let them rely on CPR. DNs are served before the instigation of legal action & service of them would therefore come under the Interpretation Act.

 

IMO CPR only comes into effect once legal action is contemplated/instigated. At the DN stage, they are giving you the opportunity to rectify the default & if you did so, legal action would not even be in the frame so CPR would not be applicable.

 

Absolutely.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[cab1ne]

Hello Cab1ne!

 

I think it's important to focus on the fact that The Consumer Credit Act 1974 is an Act that is covered by s7 of The Interpretation Act 1978:

 

Because that was a little vague on the time scales, the 1985 Queens Bench Practice Direction elaborated on that to define 1st and 2nd Class Post.

 

CPR is CPR, an Act is an Act, if you see what I mean. If an Act mentions Service by Post (that is not otherwise excluded from using The Interpretation Act 1978 ), then the 1978 Act covers it, as does the 1985 clarification via the later Practice Direction (PD).

 

I think this is important, because if you let them rely upon CPR rather than The Interpretation Act 1978, i.e. when it suits the banks' purposes, they could then potentially see off people who have had their defective Default Notices served via 2nd Class Post (or worse, such as Business Post etc).

 

So, use CPR only as a background example to show that even CPR allows for Service. The key is to ram it up them that Default Notices are actually covered by a specific Act and a related PD when it comes to their Service via Post.

 

IOW, don't walk in to Court relying upon CPR in this case, because you have a more powerful weapon in your arsenal.

 

Cheers,

BRW

 

so basically stick to the big queeny guy on the bench and use the cpr bit just to enhance mr bickfords ramblings:grin: "got it"

 

cab

[RobinWayRobinme]

Good news shakey, well done.

R

[patrickq1]

well done dude superb news

[patrickq1]

they aint gonna perjure themselves i think not s62

[Desperate Daniella]

Wonder where guest is tonight?

 

I've seen the CPR, and the QB direction on service, but I'm absolutely sure some Law Lord or other has made a statement/authority. Done a couple of searches, but can't find it. Will keep trying. (Oh why didn't I copy it?)

 

Absolutely agree that an ACT is an ACT, but it's clear that some judges, like some DCAs, just don't get the fact that it's written in stone, and not actually open to their interpretation.

 

xx

 

DDxx

[patrickq1]

i can see a discontinuance on its way....go for costs ,imo i wouldnt allow them one inch to get away with the possible charge of perj? this would also put to everyone that RECONSTRUCTIONS are dead in the water ?

[dp77]

Perjury is the least of it, if the document is proven not to be the original. There was malice aforethought here.

[patrickq1]

vexatious litigant

[Desperate Daniella]

Of course there was, dp77.

 

Just look at all the people who have looked at these "agreements" and been told they are the "real thing".

 

Good luck - I'm sure you have ammunition now.

 

DDxx

[Desperate Daniella]

Still no guest.

[Alphageek]

It's quite apt that "For a few dollars more" is on Channel 5 right now.

 

It's seems Amex will tyr just about anything in their desperate bid to dupe the judiciary of this country!

[Series3]

brilliant...!!!

 

well done Shakey..

[dp77]

A few things need to happen before we get too excited; the document needs to be delivered back to the defendant, and then the defendant's expert needs to confirm his opinion that the document is not the original.

 

Given that the litigant has insisted (more than once) that this document IS the original I would not be surprised if it went missing, or they ask for a discontinuance, or come up with some other way of avoiding facing the bullet.

 

I can't see MdR meekly handing this document over and then waiting politely for the defendant's expert to declare it a fake - that drops their client right in it, not to mention their own barrister.

 

Wish I knew more about the legal implications here, but I assume none of them are good for the claimant if the document is a mock up.

[diddydicky]

i can see a discontinuance on its way....go for costs ,imo i wouldnt allow them one inch to get away with the possible charge of perj? this would also put to everyone that RECONSTRUCTIONS are dead in the water ?

 

did i not read somewhere that one party can now oppose a discontinuance under CPR (for instance where it might be in the public interest for the matter to be decided)?

[Desperate Daniella]

Sadly, I would tend to agree with you. It may well go missing, although I'm sure even the judge wouldn't believe that.

[Desperate Daniella]

I was agreeing with dp77's post.

 

Other DD, that would be a good idea (unless of course they offer Shakey a six figure sum in which case he should go for it!)

 

Daniella xx

[ifoughtthelaw]

Well done! Subbing with interest.

x

[diddydicky]

I was agreeing with dp77's post.

 

Other DD, that would be a good idea (unless of course they offer Shakey a six figure sum in which case he should go for it!)

 

Daniella xx

 

well within the bounds of possibilities that they will offer a settlement together with a gagging order