AMEX - have issued claim papers-castella

[citizenB]

Thread started for Castella:)

 

If you need moving to another forum or want a different title, just yell.

[citizenB]

Castella, can you please also post up the particulars of the claim.

 

When was the date of issue so we can keep on top of the time line, which is:

 

From date of issue to service = 5 days

from then you have 14 days to acknowledge service of claim

from then you have 14 days to enter a defence.

 

33 days from date of issue:)

 

BTW, I am moving you to legal issues forum

 

Oops, just read your post properly and discover you have the timeline in hand.

[citizenB]

Castella, looks to me as though you have a pretty good defence handed to you by Amex:)

 

When do you have to submit ?

[citizenB]

I would say that the contract starts when you have signed the agreement/application.

 

I would think it is irrelevant when you actually start to use the card in that you might have it for say a couple of weeks or even months before you start to use it (hard to believe I know, but possible).

 

It is also irrelevant as to when the document was signed by the creditor as long as it IS signed by both you and them.

 

I am assuming at this point you are putting in a holding/embarrassed defence if you do not have the documents you require ie the DN/TN and agreement .

 

The agreement appears to have no prescribed terms so that is going to be your main attack plan, isnt it ?

 

I wonder if it might be worth raising the timescale on the Claim form. It is quite odd that the date of issue is 6th, and not posted out until the 14th. Do you have the envelope with the date stamp on it ?

[citizenB]

So they have produced a copy Default Notice which is different to the original, but still havent addressed the main points ie the amount of time to remedy the breach

 

And all this after terminating the account anyway:rolleyes:

[citizenB]

Dont know whether this quote will be of interest, posted by shadow in the following link.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-2539936.html

 

 

 

 

Professor Sir Roy Goode QC's view on that Judgment:

 

Comment

 

The court's strident and blunt approach is to be welcomed. This includes the statement at paragraph 9 that the Consumer Credit Act was introduced to protect the individual unsophisticated in financial affairs in contracts with unscrupulous and sophisticated financial institutions. It was not designed to help individuals in the financial services business make money out of financial institutions through exploiting its undoubted technicalities. In the latter regard, the court did not hesitate to dismiss the Rankines' various arguments in a commensurate tone.

 

However, with respect, it is submitted that Mr Justice Simon Brown QC was mistaken when he stated, at paragraph 16:

 

'In the Tesco case, where they are seeking enforcement, section 78(6) of the Act does not have the effect contended for by the Rankines. First, the prohibition is against a creditor 'under an agreement'. The agreement was at an end. Therefore there is no reason why there cannot be enforcement.

 

Secondly, the [2008] GCCR 7701 at 7713 word 'enforce' is not descriptive of the commencement of proceedings. Bringing proceedings during a time when the agreement has been brought to an end is only a step taken with a view to enforcement. It is not actually enforcement.'

 

The grounds for questioning the statement are the following:

 

(i) In section 189(1) 'creditor' is defined as 'the person providing credit under a consumer credit agreement … and in relation to a prospective consumer credit agreement, includes the prospective creditor'; 'debtor' is defined as 'the individual receiving credit under a consumer credit agreement … and in relation to a prospective consumer credit agreement includes the prospective debtor'.

 

(ii) The Agreements Regulations identify 'creditor' and 'debtor' with reference to their respective descriptions irrespective of the status of the agreement. In other words, the expressions are used to identify the relevant parties under, or to, the agreement.

 

(iii) The expression 'enforce an agreement' is utilised in the Act to mean to take steps to assert one's rights under the agreement, regardless of whether the agreement has come into force, is still extant or has been ended. Thus, section 65 of the Act uses the expression 'enforceable' when referring to whether an improperly executed regulated agreement is enforceable against the debtor on an order of the court. Section 127 refers to enforcement orders in the case of infringement. Applying for an order under this section might amount to seeking enforcement of the agreement, as the heading to Part IX also suggests, namely: 'Enforcement of certain regulated agreements and securities'.

 

[citizenB]

Sadly, castella, all of the people you mention have day jobs, families as well.

 

I am sure if any one of us had the time to take on these extra projects, we would willingly do so. The information is contained in threads around the forums.. if you use the search feature then you will find as much as is available.