Court Claim for O/draft from Nthmtn (CCBC)

[AndyOrch]

I would make a start anyway just in case its legit but as I say in the absence of the N244A something is not quite right.Could be the Court forgot to send it to you:D

Just out of interest which doc gives the date of the hearing?

 

Regards

 

Andy

[r&b]

I would make a start anyway just in case its legit but as I say in the absence of the N244A something is not quite right.Could be the Court forgot to send it to you:D

Just out of interest which doc gives the date of the hearing?

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

its the notice of summary judgment form attached to the front of the N244-Application notice, outlines the type of hearing, date, time, where and length.

im surprised they have a 1hr hearing this quick as the court has been overrun recently in my other dealings with them. that may account for the lack of paperwork from the court actually. it took 6 weeks to get directions for a set aside case recently.

[AndyOrch]

Notice of Summary Judgement form that got an offical form number R&B?

 

Andy

[r&b]

Notice of Summary Judgement form that got an offical form number R&B?

 

Andy

 

hi andy, its an N24 here:

 

src="http://i615.photobucket.com/albums/tt231/robntanya/LLOYDSSJAPPLICATION.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket">

[AndyOrch]

thats legit R&B another version of the N244 A

 

You better get working on the WS

 

regards

 

Andy

[r&b]

this is the completed N150 form for the AQ:

P1:

src="http://i615.photobucket.com/albums/tt231/robntanya/LLOYDSAQN1501.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket">

P2:

src="http://i615.photobucket.com/albums/tt231/robntanya/LLOYDSAQN1502.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket">

P3:

src="http://i615.photobucket.com/albums/tt231/robntanya/LLOYDSAQN1503.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket">

P4:

src="http://i615.photobucket.com/albums/tt231/robntanya/LLOYDSAQN1504.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket">

P5:

src="http://i615.photobucket.com/albums/tt231/robntanya/LLOYDSAQN1505.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket">

 

added: for future ref plus andys chged directions above post 89 and draft directions post 68 with copies of CPR18 letters/reminders

Edited June 25, 2009 by r&b
added

[r&b]

thats legit R&B another version of the N244 A

 

You better get working on the WS

 

regards

 

Andy

 

ok andy thanks just finishing the AQ then onto it

cheers r&b

[AndyOrch]

AQ is fine R&B (did you know you can download it on PDF fill it on screen and print off looks far more prof (just me im a perfectionist haha)

 

 

 

Andy

[r&b]

AQ is fine R&B (did you know you can download it on PDF fill it on screen and print off looks far more prof (just me im a perfectionist haha)

 

 

 

Andy

 

no i didnt...much prefer that finish myself andy...bugger just spent ages persuading my scanner to work...albeit intermittently...lol never rmind dont have to be up til 5.30am....will get it printed now thank you

[r&b]

ive had enough for one day im afraid.

andy thanks for all the help i ll have to finish this WS off tomorrow. ill phone the court anyway in the mng just to make sure and complain abt no notification!!!

will post up the revised version tom

cheers r&b

[r&b]

ok court confirm there is hearing on 1st july...

i have clearly missed the opportunity to file and serve 7 days b4 under the CPR so i simply have to to it asap i guess n include a letter.

is there any protocol when the court say they sent notice and its not received?

[AndyOrch]

Good Morning R&B

 

Ok did the Court confirm they sent you notice?If so did you take the name of the Court Staff?

You will have to apply a covering letter to the WS stating the facts when recieved etc/nothing recieved from the Court/seven day etc

 

Now just backtracking the date Application was made was 8th June 2009

you recieved sols copy 23rd June.

The notice Of Summary Judgment Hearing was dated 12th June 2009

 

This allows you exactly 7 days to prepare (inc W/End)

 

Now request for SJ is usually made at the time of the AQ so we summise that the Claimant as completed its AQ also.

 

R&B the above is not acceptable and you need to complain to the Courts Casel Manager what as happened.Stiched up and kipper spring to mind:(

 

Never the less lets continue because your WS is going to be submitted whether they allow or not.

 

Just a few ponts to bear in mind when you start your Draft WS

 

Two criteria must be met before summary judgment may be properly granted: (1) there must be no genuine issues of material fact, and (2) the movant must be entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A genuine issue implies that certain facts are disputed. Usually a party opposing summary judgment must introduce evidence that contradicts the moving party's version of the facts. Moreover, the facts in dispute must be central to the case; irrelevant or minor factual disputes will not defeat a motion for summary judgment. Finally, the law as applied to the undisputed facts of the case must mandate judgment for the moving party. Summary judgment does not mean that a judge decides which side would prevail at trial, nor does a judge determine the credibility of their Witness. Rather, it is used when no factual questions exist for a judge or jury to decide.

The moving party has the initial burden to show that summary judgment is proper even if the moving party would not have the burden of proof at trial. The court generally examines the evidence presented with the motion in the light most favorable to the opposing party. Where the opposing party will bear the burden of proof at trial, the moving party may obtain summary judgment by showing that the opposing party has no evidence or that its evidence is insufficient to meet its burden at trial.

 

 

Just post R&B if you need help I am around most of the day.

 

Regards

 

Andy

Edited June 25, 2009 by Andyorch

[r&b]

ok andy thanks for that...i shall complain in my letter of explanation to the court with my WS.

 

as i see it my main point of attack is the lack of DN and proof of service.

they have admitted in letters that they have neither and only a record kept on computer.

their main defence to this will be that current accounts are not regulated by the CCA1974. however im going on the lines of running credit in s10 CCA1974.

im halfway thru so i ll post up when im dun to see if u think its suitable

 

cheers

[r&b]

may have come out a bit weird from word but heres a first rushed go anyway:

 

I XXXXXXX am the Defendant in this case. I make this statement in reply to the Summary Judgment application and attached witness statement of the Claimant. Save where I indicate to the contrary, the matters set out in this witness statement are known to me personally.

Having received notice of this Summary Judgment action via delivery of the Claimants bundle on xxJune 2009 I have had little time in which to prepare this statement and as Litigant In Person I trust the Court will be lenient with timings of my response in this regard.

This Summary Judgment Claim is faulty in its assertions and the Witness Statement on which it relies is scant in its detail of the main facts relating to the lawful enforcement of this case. I shall support my stand that this case has no merit with statute and case law relevant to the lawful enforcement of this claim.

 

1. NATURE AND REGULATION OF THE ACCOUNT:

The Claimant refers to a bank account numbered XXXXXXX held in my name and the claim relates to the overdrawn balance.

This account is a running credit account with from time to time arrangements for an overdraft balance regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the Act) as set out in section 10 of the Act.

This is borne out in the case of Coutts & Co v Sebestyen [2005] EWCA Civ 473 (28 April 2005) at the Court Of Appeal before May LJ, Rix LJ and J. Parker LJ where it was stated that an overdraft in relation to the Act:

 

 

 

 

 

16. THE ACT

1. It is common ground:
   

(a) that the agreement for an overdraft of £2,000 in the terms of Coutts' letter dated 5 April 2002 was a regulated debtor-creditor agreement within the meaning of sections 8 and 13© of the Act, providing for 'running-account credit' within the meaning of section 10(1)(a) of the Act (in effect, a revolving credit within the agreed credit limit of £2,000); and

:

Any exemption of this type of credit account is limited to section V of the Act regarding the Credit Agreement as stated in the Claimants letter of xx May 2009 exhibit “RB1” stating “current account overdrafts are given specific exemption from all the Part V formality requirements section 74(1)(b) of the Act”.

 

 

 

 

 

Further, again from Coutts & Co v Sebestyen [2005] EWCA Civ 473 (28 April 2005) at the Court Of Appeal before May LJ, Rix LJ and J. Parker LJ:

1. Section 74 of the Act provides for the exclusion of certain agreements from Part V. It provides as follows (so far as material):
   

"74. – (1) This part …. does not apply to –

(a) ….

(b) a debtor-creditor agreement enabling the debtor to overdraw on a current account, …

© ….

Given the trouble taken to explain the exemption of certain parts of the Act for this type of account, by definition other parts of the Act must apply to this type of debtor-creditor running credit account.

 

2. THE REQUIREMENT FOR A PROPERLY SERVED, VALID DEFAULT NOTICE TO LAWFULLY TERMINATE AN ACCOUNT WHILST IN DEFAULT:

1. This account is regulated by the Act.

2. The Claimant must under Section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 correctly serve a valid Default Notice before they can demand early payment of sums not yet due under a Regulated Running Credit Agreement. For a Creditor to be entitled to terminate a Regulated Running 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 valid 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.

 

 

 

3. 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."

 

4.. 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

The Claimant has already stated in their letter of xx April 2009 exhibit “RB2” “no proof of postage will be available to the Bank”. It must therefore be taken that service is assumed as second class and received, at the earliest, 4 working days after posting.

The assumption that this Default Notice was issued on Wednesday xx August 2008, as per the Claimants Witness Statement, therefore draws the conclusion that service was deemed on Tuesday xx August 2008.

 

5. The Default Notice supposedly supplied by the Claimant was supposedly issued on xx August 2008. As has already been established service would be deemed, in law as Tuesday xx August 2008. The Act stipulates in s.88(2):

(2) A date specified under subsection (1) must not be less than [F1 14] days after the date of service of the default notice, and the creditor or owner shall not take action such as is mentioned in section 87(1) before the date so specified or (if no requirement is made under subsection (1)) before those [F114] days have elapsed.

Thus the Default Notice must under this statute allow 14 clear days in which to remedy the breach. This gives a date for remedy not before the xx September 2008. The Claimants state in their Witness Statement that the supposed Default Notice had a remedy date of xx September 2008, in clear breach of s.88 of the Act by not leaving the stipulated time for remedy, thereby invalidating this Default Notice.

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

 

 

6. Further, s.88 of the Act stipulates that:

88. Contents and effect of default notice.

— (1) The default notice must be in the prescribed form and specify—

(a) the nature of the alleged breach;

(b) if the breach is capable of remedy, what action is required to remedy it and the date before which that action is to be taken;

© if the breach is not capable of remedy, the sum (if any) required to be paid as compensation for the breach, and the date before which it is to be paid.

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 Claimant, by their own admission in their letter of xx April 2008 exhibit “RB3”, is unable to produce the original or even a copy of the original Default Notice as “A copy of the Default Notice issued by the Bank is not retained.”

It is therefore impossible to tell if the Default Notice adhered to these regulations and was in the prescribed terms required to be able to enforce this debt.

This is the crux of the Claimants case and without this evidence they are unable to prove that they are lawfully able to enforce in this Court.

 

7. The Default Notice needs to be accurate in both scope and nature of breach and include accurate figures to remedy any such breach. The Claimant admits in their Witness Statement that there are unlawful charges on this account.

In this instance the figures claimed for remedy of the breach cannot be accurate as the balance on the Account contains these unlawful charges, plus additional interest on these charges. Therefore the arrears claimed on the Default Notice cannot be accurate, as they are themselves calculated using the inaccurate total, further rendering the Default Notice invalid by way of inaccurate sums to remedy the breach.

 

8. 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.

 

9 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.

 

10. The Claimant’s failure to prove the service of 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.

 

11. 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.

 

12. Finally, an invalid Default Notice cannot be remedied by simply issuing a new Default Notice. The Claimant may not serve a subsequent 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 remedy any breach, 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 September 2008 as per the Claimants Witness Statement. Terminating an Agreement after the service 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.

 

13. Should there be any question as to my seeking an Unplanned Overdraft without notice to, or advice from the Claimant by continuing to seek payment of Direct Debits, Standing Orders or other regular payments, I would draw your attention to the statements marked “RB4” dated xxxx2008 to the closing of the account on xxxx2008, the sums that take the account over the planned overdraft are charges, interest and spurious payments for a credit card held with the Claimant. Despite my pleadings with an offshore call centre run by the Claimant and a letter to the xxxxxxxx Branch, I unfortunately do not have a copy, I was unable to stop these payments, even having called on several occasions, being told that I could not stop these payments and my overdraft limit would be increased as they saw fit. These phone calls were at best taxing and frustrating, at worst they were deliberately obstructive.

The Claimant allocated a planned overdraft facility of £xxxxxfor this account. I had by the end of xxx 2008, stopped all direct debits, standing orders or any other forms of debit from this account,in order to stay within the overdraft limit, save for one which I missed but was nevertheless returned twice on xx Feb 2008 and xx Feb 2008 for xxxxxxx in the sum of £xxx.xx. The reason for exceeding the overdraft limit rests solely with unlawful charges levied by the Claimant and payments of £xxx.xx and £xxx.xx on xx xx 08 and xx xx 08 to a credit card account which I held with the Claimant, taken completely on their own volition see exhibit “rb4”.

 

14. In any event the previous unlawful charges on this account had they not been levied would have easily seen the balance within the planned overdraft agreement.

 

15. FAILURE TO REMEDY BREACH:

The Claimant states in their Witness Statement that on Friday xx September 2008 the Claimants instructed their Solicitors to issue a Formal Demand for full payment by Friday xx September 2008. I would draw the Courts attention to s.76 and s.98 of the Act which state:

76. Duty to give notice before taking certain action.

— (1) The creditor or owner is not entitled to enforce a term of a regulated agreement by—

(a) demanding earlier payment of any sum, or

(b) recovering possession of any goods or land, or

© treating any right conferred on the debtor or hirer by the agreement as terminated, restricted or deferred, except by or after giving the debtor or hirer not less than seven days’ notice of his intention to do so.

98.

Duty to give notice of termination (non-default cases).

— (1) The creditor or owner is not entitled to terminate a regulated agreement except by or after giving the debtor or hirer not less than seven days’ notice of the termination.

(2) Subsection (1) applies only where—

(a)a period for the duration of the agreement is specified in the agreement, and

(b) that period has not ended when the creditor or owner does an act mentioned in subsection (1),

In order to comply with the above statutes, the Claimant must have adhered a strict process to legally allow release of the terminations under s.78(1) and s.98(1) with regard to enforcing a running credit account:

 

1) The issue of a Formal Notice to file a Default and take the action necessary to recover the funds. This Notice must show a set time limit to allow satisfactory arrangements to be made in settlement of the account, typically full payment or an arrangement, this must be attached to the termination under s.78(1) and 98(1) and must give the correct balance without unlawful charges. This must have the address of both Creditor and Debtor, be dated and state the date of Termination.

Without sight of the Formal Notice, required to legally release the terminations under the above statutes, s.76 and s.98 of the Act, I am unable to assess the validity of such with regard to whether it conformed to the prescribed form.

2) The issue of a Formal Demand for repayment, listing the account number, the balance due exclusive of unapplied interest due or to become so and also of unlawful charges.

Without sight of the Formal Demand I am unable to assess the validity of such with regard to whether it conformed to the prescribed form.

 

The Claimant has not produced the relevant documentation that shows they have lawfully brought this action to this point. They have not proved any case with regard to the processes which must be adhered to if they wish to terminate the account, issue proceedings and enforce the debt.

 

 

As further evidence, as has already been proven in points 3. and 4. above, service, must, without proof to the contrary, be taken as 4 days after issuance. This therefore, means that service was deemed on Thursday xx September 2008. The demand for full payment 1 day after service, is clearly in breach this Statute.

 

 

As already proven in points 3. and 4. above, service, must, without proof to the contrary, be taken as 4 days after issuance. This therefore, means that service was deemed on Thursday xx September 2008. The demand for full payment 1 day after service, is clearly in breach this Statute.

 

16. The Defendant has on several occasions, namely xx2009, xxxx2009 and xxxx2009 sent the Claimant disclosure requests under Civil Procedure Rule 18 marked exhibit “RB5”. To date the Claimant has returned letters of explanation as to why there is no credit agreement pertaining to this account due to the exemption of section V and several years of statements for the account. I have specifically asked for the relevant documentation which would enable the Claimant to lawfully enforce this debt but no such documentation has been forthcoming. In this instance, I was forced to enter a holding defence to the original claim as I could see no case to answer without the confirmation of these vital documents.

 

17. CONCLUSION:

As has been shown above, this case rests on the complex issues surrounding the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the various requirements thereunder to enable the lawful enforcement of this debt. The Defendant avers that this case is clearly not suitable for Summary Judgment as the Claimant fails to adhere to the strict guidelines in the Statute in every single aspect that allows them lawful enforcement. I therefore ask the Court to throw out the Claimants claim that my defence is insufficient and should be thrown out and that any part of this claim should be stayed and further that there is no case for Summary Judgment.

 

 

I BELIEVE THAT THE STATEMENTS MADE IN THIS WITNES STATEMENT ARE TRUE

R&B

Edited June 29, 2009 by r&b

[AndyOrch]

Looking good R&B

 

Dont forget the need for Formal Demand/Final Notice letter and Notice served under sections76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA 1974.Contention of penalty charges within that notice rendering it invalid

 

Having re read the Claimants WS they are applying for either your defence to be thrown out or a stay on the penalty element and SJ on the remaining balance.Bare this in mind

 

Regards

 

Andy

Edited June 25, 2009 by Andyorch
addition

[r&b]

Looking good R&B

 

Dont forget the need for Formal Demand/Final Notice letter and Notice served under sections76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA 1974.Contention of penalty charges within that notice rendering it invalid

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

cheers andy onto it now.....can u inform me as to s.8.2 pls? i have conflicting amounts of credit allowed, im wondering which is the correct current amendmnt...i have £15k & £25K..i know the top limit for credit under the act (unless otherwise stated) is £25k is this the figure i can rely on as ive stipulated this section in my statement and the O/D is £20k ?

cheers

[AndyOrch]

25 K is correct amendments CCA1974 CCA2006

 

Andy

[r&b]

Looking good R&B

 

Dont forget the need for Formal Demand/Final Notice letter and Notice served under sections76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA 1974.Contention of penalty charges within that notice rendering it invalid

 

Having re read the Claimants WS they are applying for either your defence to be thrown out or a stay on the penalty element and SJ on the remaining balance.Bare this in mind

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

thanks andy

i normally like to find things myself but im under the cosh here a bit.

cud u elaborate on the formal demand/final notice letter....i think ive covered the 7 day issue of 76 &98... ill put those amendments in the original in a min

 

added: amendments from 15 onwards..

Edited June 25, 2009 by r&b
added

[AndyOrch]

Hi R&B

 

Ok there is a set process that they must conform to, to release (legally) the Sec 76(1) 98 (1)

 

Firstly Formal Notice to file a Default and take action to recover

 

This usually allows 28 days to make arrangements ie satisfactory payment /payment plan.This is attached to the Sec 76(1)& 98(1) which itself must give the correct balance re overdraft.Must have theirs and yours full address and postcode.Must be dated and state the date of termination (14 days)

BTW this will state there is a charge for this notice and will be applied to the account before the date shown (another penalty charge:D)

 

Formal demand for repayment first listing account numbers and balance

exclusive of unapplied interest which is due or may become due.

 

This gives you the debter the opportunuty to resolve the issues by either

Paying the full amount/or set up a payment plan/or write with your proposals

you would normally be given 10 days to respond before the Claimant can instigate Litigation/pass to a DCA.

 

I trust the above is of use

 

Regards

 

Andy

[r&b]

Hi R&B

 

Ok there is a set process that they must conform to, to release (legally) the Sec 76(1) 98 (1)

 

Firstly Formal Notice to file a Default and take action to recover

 

This usually allows 28 days to make arrangements ie satisfactory payment /payment plan.This is attached to the Sec 76(1)& 98(1) which itself must give the correct balance re overdraft.Must have theirs and yours full address and postcode.Must be dated and state the date of termination (14 days)

BTW this will state there is a charge for this notice and will be applied to the account before the date shown (another penalty charge:D)

 

Formal demand for repayment first listing account numbers and balance

exclusive of unapplied interest which is due or may become due.

 

This gives you the debter the opportunuty to resolve the issues by either

Paying the full amount/or set up a payment plan/or write with your proposals

you would normally be given 10 days to respond before the Claimant can instigate Litigation/pass to a DCA.

 

I trust the above is of use

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

brilliant andy appreciate the help...

are these statutory requirements under the 78 n 98 regs...IOW how can i add these as issues?

is it smth like under s78 n 98 there is a requirement for a FORMAL NOTIC/FORMAL DEMAND in the correct format see s78/98 ss.(3) etc etc

[AndyOrch]

brilliant andy appreciate the help...

are these statutory requirements under the 78 n 98 regs...IOW how can i add these as issues? Yes. Just include in your WS the procss that must be followed to be able to terminate a overdraft legally and allow you the provision to comply/rectify any breach.Which I summise they never did or you ever recieved the above in pre Action Protocol.They have to convince and proove to the DJ that they did and you then put them to strict proof

is it smth like under s78 n 98 there is a requirement for a FORMAL NOTIC/FORMAL DEMAND in the correct format see s78/98 ss.(3) etc etc

The s78/79, by all means and purposes acts as a DN and as such is governed by the CCa 1974 and as such adequate notice and process must be followed before issuing/terminating should be followed.If they wish to seek the bennefits of the CCA 1974 they are also bound by it also

 

Keep going R&B you are doing well

 

Regards

 

Andy

[r&b]

really appreciate the hand holding andy aplogies for the at times facile questioning.

 

ive updated the WS by editing if u cud have another look n see wot u think id be grateful..

 

cheers r&b

[AndyOrch]

**EDITED - at the request of the OP**

 

 

 

Very indepth R&B in the time you have had to prepare.Just make sure your appendix and enclosures are correct.

 

Regards

 

Andy

Edited June 30, 2009 by car2403
**EDITED - at the request of the OP**

[r&b]

thanks andy i will do so when i get home and get it sent and delivered to court in the mng.

 

ive also got to draft that letter of explanation and complaint of course.....

 

really appreciate your input and thanks for taking the time and effort to help

regards r&b

[AndyOrch]

Not a problem R&B just hope it works for you.

 

Keep the thread updated

 

Regards

 

Andy