Response by Howard Cohen/Santander **WON** (claim struck out)

[hammyhound]

Claim form received 17th August so we do have a bit of time.

 

Right

 

I have no terms and conditions so cant check clause 7. The only agreement I have received is the one above which I believe is enforceable which btw is not a GE money agreement but The First Personal Bank Plc.

 

The default notice is invalid as it says 21 days from receipt of this notice and further down it says BEFORE THE DATE SHOWN but there is no date.

 

Notice of Assignment on the Howard Cohen letterhead with further down telling me that a claim has today been submitted to the county court for issue both on the same piece of paper received the day before the court papers.

 

Thanks for your help folks.

 

HH

[sue4daz]

Hi,

 

Our case is more or less the same as yours - although we do not have the agreement in our possession, we have received the same letters and responses from Cohen. I will be reading this with interest as you are working from the same dates as us too.

 

Just received a letter back from them following the CPR31.14 request - standard letter obviously as you have received saying they do not have to comply. They really dont have a clue, but to them its prob worth a shot as the numbers of people who defend will be in the minority.

 

Good luck with your defence, although I cant advise you on anything related to that YET, I'll share any notes with you or advice as we go along.

 

How long ago did you receive a default notice?

[citizenB]

Claim form received 17th August so we do have a bit of time.

 

Right

 

I have no terms and conditions so cant check clause 7. The only agreement I have received is the one above which I believe is enforceable which btw is not a GE money agreement but The First Personal Bank Plc.

 

The default notice is invalid as it says 21 days from receipt of this notice and further down it says BEFORE THE DATE SHOWN but there is no date.

 

Notice of Assignment on the Howard Cohen letterhead with further down telling me that a claim has today been submitted to the county court for issue both on the same piece of paper received the day before the court papers.

 

Thanks for your help folks.

 

HH

 

 

Any chance the balance that they asked for in the DN ie the arrears, contained penalty fees/ etc. ?

 

The DN above, is this one you received through the post or is it what they SAY would have been sent ?

 

The Notice of Assignment sounds a bit odd

[hammyhound]

Hi,

 

the default notice which was received around 6th June probably did have penalty charges as we were receiving statements just before that showing £12 late payment fees. I cant find the statement for May though which would have shown exactly the arrears in amount so I could compare it to the default notice.

 

When Santander sent us a statement of account together with the agreement it only showed us the balance due and the amount in arrears but I do note that 2 weeks later we received a letter from Viking showing that the balance had arisen by £40.00 but this could be interest due.

 

Here is a copy of the NoA which I have "borrowed" from Lux's threat which is exactly what I received just scroll down.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=10389&d=1246782442

 

Hope that helps.

 

HH

[hammyhound]

In the Northampton County Court

 

 

Between

 

 

 

 

C L FINANCE

 

 

Claimant

 

 

 

and

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Defendant

 

 

 

 

Defence

 

 

 

 

1. I am the Defendant in this action and make the following statement as our defence to the claim made by C L Finance.

 

2. Except where otherwise mentioned in this defence, I neither admit nor deny any allegation made in the Claimants Particulars of Claim and put the Claimant to strict proof thereof.

 

3. The Defendant is embarrassed in pleading to the Particulars of Claim as it stands at present, inter alia:-

 

4. The Claimants' particulars of claims disclose no legal cause of action and they are embarrassing to the Defendant as the Claimant's statement of case is insufficiently particularised and does not comply or even attempt to comply with CPR part 16. In this regard I wish to draw the courts attention to the following matters;

 

(a) The Particulars of Claim are vague and insufficient and do not disclose an adequate statement of facts relating to or proceeding the alleged cause of action. No particulars are offered in relation to the nature of the written agreement referred to, the method the Claimant calculated any outstanding sums due, or any default notices issued or any other matters necessary to substantiate the Claimant's claim.

 

(b) A copy of the purported written agreement that the Claimant cites in the Particulars of Claim, and which appears to form the basis upon which these proceedings have been brought, has not been served attached to the claim form.

 

© A copy of any evidence of both the scope and nature of any default, and proof of any amount outstanding on the alleged account, has not been served attached to the claim form.

 

5. Notwithstanding matters pleaded, it is denied that the Claimant has established a cause of action or that the Claimant has a valid claim against the defendant. Consequently, it is proving difficult to plead to the particulars as matters stand.

 

The relevant Act of Parliament in this Case

 

6. Firstly we will address the issue of which Act is relevant in this case, in case it is suggested that the claim falls under the Consumer Credit Act 2006, it is drawn to the courts attention that schedule 3, s11 of the Consumer Credit Act 2006 prevents s15 repealing s127 (3) of the 1974 Act for agreements made before s15 came into effect. Since the agreement would have commenced prior to the inception of the Consumer Credit Act 2006, section 15 of the 2006 Act has no effect and the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is the relevant act in this case.

 

7. For the avoidance of any doubt we include the relevant section of the 2006 Consumer Credit Act (Except taken from Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14) - Statute Law Database accessed Thursday 31st January 2008

 

11 The repeal by this Act of:-

 

(a) the words "(subject to subsections (3) and (4))" in subsection (1) of section 127 of the 1974 Act,

 

(b) subsections (3) to (5) of that section, and

 

© the words "or 127(3)" in subsection (3) of section 185 of that Act,

 

has no effect in relation to improperly-executed agreements made before the commencement of section 15 of this Act.

 

8. Therefore the Consumer Credit Act 2006 is not retrospective in its application and has no effect upon this agreement and the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is the act which this agreement is regulated by.

 

The Request for Disclosure

 

9. Further to the case, on I requested the disclosure of information pursuant to the CPR 31.14 (letter attached marked Exhibit A), which is vital to this case from the Claimant.

 

10. On I received a letter from the Claimant’s solicitors marked Exhibit B advising me that they do not have to comply with CPR rules.

 

11. The court’s attention is drawn to the fact that the without disclosure of the requested documentation pursuant to the Civil Procedure Rules I have not yet had the opportunity to asses if the documentation which the Claimant claims to be relying upon to bring this action even contains the prescribed terms required in Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) which was amended by Consumer Credit (Agreements) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI2004/1482). The prescribed terms referred to are contained in schedule 6 column 2 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) and are inter alia: - A term stating the credit limit or the manner in which it will be determined or that there is no credit limit, A term stating the rate of any interest on the credit to be provided under the agreement and 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:-

 

1) Number of repayments;

2) Amount of repayments;

3) Frequency and timing of repayments;

4) Dates of repayments;

5) 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

 

12. The courts attention is drawn to the fact that where an agreement does not have the prescribed terms as stated in point 11 it is not compliant with section 60(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and therefore not enforceable by s127 (3). The courts attention is also drawn to the authority of the House of Lords in Wilson-v- FCT [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul) which confirms that where a document does not contain the required terms under the consumer credit act 1974 and the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) and Consumer Credit (Agreements) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI2004/1482) the agreement cannot be enforced

 

13. It is submitted that if the credit agreement supplied falls foul of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) in so far that the prescribed terms are not contained within the agreement then the court is precluded from enforcing the agreement. The prescribed terms must be with the agreement for it to be compliant with section 60(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974. In addition there is case law from the Court of Appeal which confirms the Prescribed terms must be contained within the body of the agreement and not in a separate document.

 

14. We refer to the judgment of TUCKEY LJ in the case of Wilson and another v Hurstanger Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 299

 

"[11] Schedule 1 to the 1983 Regulations sets out the "information to be contained in documents embodying regulated consumer credit agreements". Some of this information mirrors the terms prescribed by Sch 6, but some does not. Contrasting the provisions of the two schedules the Judge said:

 

"33 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 (with the benefit of legal advice if necessary) 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 misstated. 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. More detailed requirements, which

are designed to ensure that the debtor is made aware, so far as possible, of specified information (including information contained in the minimum terms) are to be found in Schedule 1."

 

15. If the agreement does not contain these terms in the prescribed manner it does not comply with section 60(1) CCA 1974, the consequences of which means it is improperly executed and only enforceable by court order

 

16. Notwithstanding points 11 and 12, any such agreements must be signed in the prescribed manner by both debtor and creditor. If such a document is not signed by the debtor the document cannot be enforced by way of section 127(3) Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

17. The Claimant is therefore put to strict proof that such a compliant document exists

 

18. Should the issue arise where the Claimant seeks to rely upon the fact that they can show that the Defendants have had benefit of the monies and therefore the defendant is liable, I refer to and draw the courts attention to the judgment of Sir Andrew Morritt in the case of Wilson v First County Trust Ltd - [2001] 3 All ER 229, [2001] EWCA Civ 633 in the Court of Appeal

at para 26

 

"In effect, the creditor by failing to ensure that he obtained a document signed by the debtor which contained all the prescribed terms--must (in the light of the provisions in ss 65(1) and 127(3) of the 1974 Act) be taken to have made a voluntary disposition, or gift, of the loan moneys to the debtor. The creditor had chosen to part with the moneys in circumstances in which it was never entitled to have them repaid;"

 

The Need for a Default notice

 

19. It is neither admitted nor denied that any Default Notice in the prescribed format was ever received and the Defendant put the Claimant to strict proof that said document in the prescribed format was delivered to the Defendants.

 

20. Notwithstanding point 19, I put the Claimant to strict proof that any default notice sent to us was valid. We 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)

 

21. 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 a unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the court enforcing any alleged debt, but would also give rise to a potential counterclaim for damages where damage occurs to my credit rating (Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society - [1996] 4 All ER 119)

 

Conclusion

 

 

22. The Defendants deny that there has been any failure to make payment in accordance with the alleged contract. The Claimant has failed to produce a copy of a credit agreement in the requisite timescale/at all, and in the absence of such an agreement, which conforms to sections 60 and 61 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the Defendant avers that no agreement has ever existed for there to have been any failure to make said payment.

 

23. Without Disclosure of the relevant documentation we are unable to assess if we are indeed liable to the Claimant, nor am I able to assess if the alleged agreement is properly executed, contain the required prescribed terms, or correct figures to make such an agreement enforceable by virtue of s127 Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

24. In view of the matters pleaded above, I respectfully request that the court gives consideration to whether the Claimant's statement of case should be struck out as disclosing no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim, and/or that it fails to comply with CPR Part 16.

 

25. Alternatively, should the court order the Claimant to produce the necessary documentation. I will then be in a position to file a fully particularised defence and counterclaim and will seek the courts permission to amend my statement of case accordingly.

 

 

 

 

Statement of Truth

 

 

 

I, believe the above statement to be true and factual

 

 

Signed:______________________________

 

 

Signed:______________________________

 

 

Date :

 

 

Can anyone cast their eye over this defence. The bit that is missing and I want to insert is regarding the notice of assignment not coming from the original creditor and also on the same page the notice of proceedings.

 

Thanks

 

HH

[hammyhound]

Just borrowed this from Lux's thread - promise to return it Lux honestly.

 

Can this be used in my defence regarding the notice of assignment.

6. A copy of any Notice of Assignment as required by 136(1), of the Law of Property Act 1925 has not been attached to the claim form;

The Notice of Assignment

a. It is denied that the Claimant has ever served upon the Defendant a Notice of Assignment in accordance with section 136(1), of the Law of Property Act 1925, in respect of the alleged debt which occurred between the original Claimant, GE Money, and Viking Collection Services LTD

b. It is denied that the Claimant has ever served upon the Defendant a Notice of Assignment in accordance with section 136(1), of the Law of Property Act 1925, in respect of the alleged debt which occurred between Viking Collection Services LTD and CL Finance LTD

 

The amount detailed in the Claimant’s claim, which is likely to include penalty charges, which are unlawful at Common Law, Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company Ltd v New Garage and Motor Company Ltd [1915], under The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Accordingly, the inclusion of penalty charges in the purported Notice of Assignment renders it entirely legally unenforceable. The Claimant has failed to comply with section 136(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925, by furnishing a Notice of Assignment in respect of that which is denied, that is inaccurate, W.F.Harrison and Co Ltd v Burke [1956].

 

The defendant requires sight of the notice of assignment of the debt. In addition the defendant requires proof of service of the Notice of Assignment in accordance with s196 of the Law of Property Act 1925 which is required to give the claimant a legitimate right of action in their own name since it appears this is an assigned debt. the reason the defendant requests this information is inter alia to clarify the dates are correctly stated on all documents , the defendant notes that if there are errors in the assignment it may be rendered in effectual in law per W F Harrison and Co Ltd v Burke and another - [1956] 2 All ER 169

2 -Perfection of the assignment.

 

2.1. I have never received a notice of assignment according in all respects with s136 of the Law of Property Act 1925

 

2.2 I respectfully submit to the court that steps to ensure service of a notice of assignment are only adequate if the requirements of s196 of the law of property act 1925 are complied with regard to either (a) personal service or (b) postal service.

 

2.3 Since the claimant explicitly states the notice was "sent" it is assumed that this was done via the postal service.

The requirements for service via the post are

 

Law Of Property Act (1925) s196

Regulations respecting notices.

 

(4) Any notice required or authorised by this Act to be served shall also be sufficiently served, if it is sent by post in a registered letter addressed to the lessee, lessor, mortgagee, mortgagor, or other person to be served, by name, at the aforesaid place of abode or business, office, or counting-house, and if that letter is not returned by the postal operator (within the meaning of the Postal Services Act 2000) concerned undelivered; and that service shall be deemed to be made at the time at which the registered letter would in the ordinary course be delivered.

3.2 - It is noted that the claimant has, at no time, provided evidence that the notice of assignment was sent via registered post, and if "sent" via any other method, the notice was not sufficiently served

3.3 -. I did not receive any notice of assignment in the format prescribed by law and served in the prescribed manner from the respondent, and I have asked the other members of my family if they signed for such a document; they have assured me that they did not.

3.4 - To the best of my knowledge, any notice of assignment sent by registered post must, therefore have been returned to the respondent.

3.5 - Consequently, I do not believe that any notice of assignment was properly served upon me at the date of the claim, and therefore any assignment has not been perfected in law.

 

 

Thanks

 

HH

[citizenB]

Just borrowed this from Lux's thread - promise to return it Lux honestly.

 

Can this be used in my defence regarding the notice of assignment.

 

 

 

 

 

6. A copy of any Notice of Assignment as required by 136(1), of the Law of Property Act 1925 has not been attached to the claim form;

The Notice of Assignment

a. It is denied that the Claimant has ever served upon the Defendant a Notice of Assignment in accordance with section 136(1), of the Law of Property Act 1925, in respect of the alleged debt which occurred between the original Claimant, GE Money, and Viking Collection Services LTD

b. It is denied that the Claimant has ever served upon the Defendant a Notice of Assignment in accordance with section 136(1), of the Law of Property Act 1925, in respect of the alleged debt which occurred between Viking Collection Services LTD and CL Finance LTD

 

The amount detailed in the Claimant’s claim, which is likely to include penalty charges, which are unlawful at Common Law, Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company Ltd v New Garage and Motor Company Ltd [1915], under The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Accordingly, the inclusion of penalty charges in the purported Notice of Assignment renders it entirely legally unenforceable. The Claimant has failed to comply with section 136(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925, by furnishing a Notice of Assignment in respect of that which is denied, that is inaccurate, W.F.Harrison and Co Ltd v Burke [1956].

 

The defendant requires sight of the notice of assignment of the debt. In addition the defendant requires proof of service of the Notice of Assignment in accordance with s196 of the Law of Property Act 1925 which is required to give the claimant a legitimate right of action in their own name since it appears this is an assigned debt. the reason the defendant requests this information is inter alia to clarify the dates are correctly stated on all documents , the defendant notes that if there are errors in the assignment it may be rendered in effectual in law per W F Harrison and Co Ltd v Burke and another - [1956] 2 All ER 169

2 -Perfection of the assignment.

 

2.1. I have never received a notice of assignment according in all respects with s136 of the Law of Property Act 1925

 

2.2 I respectfully submit to the court that steps to ensure service of a notice of assignment are only adequate if the requirements of s196 of the law of property act 1925 are complied with regard to either (a) personal service or (b) postal service.

 

2.3 Since the claimant explicitly states the notice was "sent" it is assumed that this was done via the postal service.

The requirements for service via the post are

 

Law Of Property Act (1925) s196

Regulations respecting notices.

 

(4) Any notice required or authorised by this Act to be served shall also be sufficiently served, if it is sent by post in a registered letter addressed to the lessee, lessor, mortgagee, mortgagor, or other person to be served, by name, at the aforesaid place of abode or business, office, or counting-house, and if that letter is not returned by the postal operator (within the meaning of the Postal Services Act 2000) concerned undelivered; and that service shall be deemed to be made at the time at which the registered letter would in the ordinary course be delivered.

3.2 - It is noted that the claimant has, at no time, provided evidence that the notice of assignment was sent via registered post, and if "sent" via any other method, the notice was not sufficiently served

3.3 -. I did not receive any notice of assignment in the format prescribed by law and served in the prescribed manner from the respondent, and I have asked the other members of my family if they signed for such a document; they have assured me that they did not.

3.4 - To the best of my knowledge, any notice of assignment sent by registered post must, therefore have been returned to the respondent.

3.5 - Consequently, I do not believe that any notice of assignment was properly served upon me at the date of the claim, and therefore any assignment has not been perfected in law.

 

 

Thanks

 

HH

 

 

HH, is that your question, the one I have highlighted in blue at the top ?.

 

I imagine if your Assignment is the same as Lux's then yes you can use the same information. Just make sure that any dates etc, are in respect of your document.

 

Oh, and if necessary renumber to suit your defence

[hammyhound]

Just checked the CL Finance letter again as I need to copy it to go with my defence and even though the number is correct it says "Evans" store card.

 

I wish they would get things right!!

 

HH

[citizenB]

Which letter is that HH ?. Either way, if they can screw up in a letter, then that throws some doubt around doesnt it ?

[hammyhound]

The letter from CL Finance saying they do not have to provide documents under the CPR rules. As I said since when did CL Finance know about CPR.

 

All the better for my defence I should say!

 

HH

[hammyhound]

I have just spotted on another thread were the poster has posted up the exact same agreement and caggers have said it is enforceable.

 

Do I really have a defence now? I know I just cant rely on the invalid default notice.

 

Should I just wait to see what HC say to my defence.

 

HH

[citizenB]

HH, can you give me a link to the thread you are referring to please I will go and take a look.

[citizenB]

HH, I think you have more than just the dodgy DN dont you.

 

Account numbers different. The card style and account number changed part ways through the contract, but you havent been provided with the modifying agreement.

 

They DN refers to clause 7. But where is clause 7 and is it clause 7 on the document that was signed or on paperwork that should have been provided for the varied account?

 

Is there a clause on the original document that allows them to unilaterally vary terms and conditions ?

[hammyhound]

Thanks CitizenB for your help

 

Here is the link where it is said the agreement is enforceable.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/214069-howard-cohen-cl-finance.html?highlight=G+E+Money%2FCL+Finance

 

Right DN is invalid.

 

"agreement" has a different account number as upgraded to a gold card about 2 to 3 years ago.

 

Nowhere is clause 7 - only received the above nothing else.

 

HH

[hammyhound]

Case transferred to our local court so no doubt I will be asking questions about the AQ - looks like Cohens are going full steam on this one and not stopping.

 

HH

[GhostDebt]

Is this above or below £5k?

 

Have long running problems with Cohen, small claims got struck out, fast track ongoing, but DN and assignment are our main issues as well.

In court again (3rd time) in early October so if its any help drop by my thread and see if you can pick up any useful info.

 

Regards

[hammyhound]

Hi it is well under £5000 but it will be just my luck that they proceed with this.

 

HH

[lilly white]

h used this one we want to see the deed,

 

dates and the value etc

 

 

 

 

The Assignment of the Debt

 

 

19. If the Claimant was not XXXX then it is not admitted that there was a lawful assignment. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the assignment was lawful and is put to strict proof that sufficient notice thereof was served upon myself. Without this proof the Claimant has no standing before the court.

 

 

20. The Law of Property Act 1925 is the relevant act that deals with the assignment of debts. Section 136(1) requires that for the assignment of a debt to be effective, express notice in writing must have been given to the debtor:-

 

136. Legal assignments of things in action.

— (1) Any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor (not purporting to be by way of charge only) of any debt or other legal thing in action, of which express notice in writing has been given to the debtor, trustee or other person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim such debt or thing in action, is effectual in law (subject to equities having priority over the right of the assignee) to pass and transfer from the date of such notice—

 

21. However, it is Section 196(4) that prescribes the requirements for giving sufficient notice by post:-

 

196. Regulations respecting notices.

(4) Any notice required or authorised by this Act to be served shall also be sufficiently served, if it is sent by post in a registered letter addressed to the lessee, lessor, mortgagee, mortgagor, or other person to be served, by name, at the aforesaid place of abode or business, office, or counting-house, and if that letter is not returned [by the postal operator (within the meaning of the Postal Services Act 2000) concerned] undelivered; and that service shall be deemed to be made at the time at which the registered letter would in the ordinary course be delivered.

 

22. It is noted that by the Recorded Delivery Service Act 1962 a recorded delivery letter is equivalent to a registered letter and that under the Postal Services Act 2000 Schedule 8 any reference to registered post is to be construed as meaning a registered postal service (eg Royal Mail recorded delivery or special delivery).

 

 

23. For the assignment of a debt to be effective and so giving the Claimant a right of action a valid Notice of Assignment must have been sufficiently served on me using a registered postal service pursuant to s196(4) before proceedings were commenced. The Claimant is put to strict proof that any notice of assignment was sufficiently served on me before proceedings were commenced. Without this proof, the Claimant has no right of action.

 

 

24. Further, it is submitted that the mere fact of giving a notice does not, of itself, create an assignment and that there must be an actual assignment in existence. It is the actual Assignment, not just the Section 136 notice, under which the Claimant derives title to bring the claim and the Claimant is put to strict proof that such Assignment exists. It is further averred that I am entitled, in any event, to view the document of assignment as a matter of law (Van Lynn Developments v Pelias Construction Co Ltd 1968 [3] All ER 824)

 

 

 

 

25. It is further averred that to be valid the the alleged notice of assignment must accurately describe the assignment including the date (W F Harrison & Co Ltd v Burke & another [1956] 2 ALL ER 169).

[lilly white]

ok

 

we want to see the value because it may or may not be correct

 

we want to see the date because it could be incorrect

 

we want to see the amount they paid for it because it takes the moral question out of the piture also if you are claiming charges etc it could poss sway the judge on the day,

 

Also they could possible have issues getting it together,

 

lilly

[debbbbsy]

Hi HH

I'm in exactly the same boat.

Did CPR request 2 months ago when they filed claim at Northampton ,HC have just supplied a storecard application from 1994 & is not with GE,is barely legible,undated,signiture on seperate sheet,interest rate different,it does not have the same ref no,& does not contain "Clause 7..."it is clearly not the agreement they refer to in there claim.

In my CPR request I specifically requested the Agreement that they refer to with this clause & interest rate & account number.

My case has now been moved to local court, AQ due in on Monday. & will file my "Draft order for Directions".

I really believe that we have a good chance of success.

How can they be allowed to use the old store card application.They have to provide the agreement that they refer to, & rely upon to make this claim.

 

Are you aware of any cases that have already gone to court, & the outcome ?

 

Keep in touch

Debs

[debbbbsy]

Found this, really really helpfull.

 

HELP Court Papers from M&S

 

Debs

[hammyhound]

Debs I have spent many an hour looking through the Howard Cohen threads and it seems to me if you put in a good defence he will withdraw but it will just be my luck he doesn't. My AQ was sent to him and the court earlier last week although he doesn't have to put his in until 7th October so we will wait and see was transpires.

 

HH

[debbbbsy]

I'm filing my AQ, midday tomorrow.

Also going to send HC a letter pointing out the innaccuracies in the claim, & again asking for a copy of the agreement THEY refer to, & giving them the opportunity to withdraw there claim.

Inlight of Seriouslyfedup's success, is it not worth pointing out these "IMPORTANT" issues with Howard Cohen before they file there AQ, you never Know, they may decide not to bother, & it only strengthens your case if they choose to continue.

 

Debs

[hammyhound]

I wonder if anyone can help. We sent in an income and expenditure form to Cahoot for a credit card. This payment was £50 per month (normal monthly payment would be £180).

 

I spoke to them on the telephone as we received a letter asking us to contact them.

 

I asked them if they had received our offer and they said yes but were refusing to accept it as it was a third of the normal balance. She said that there was no problem making the payment but after the third payment the account would be sent to a third party debt collection agency and we would default.

 

I said "well what would be the point of making that payment" and she said "it will come off your balance".

 

So if we pay it goes to a DCA if we don't it still gets sent.

 

Can companies refuse your offer of payment and what is the likelihood the debt collection agency will also refuse. I sent in the income and expenditure form to prove that we could pay £50 but Cahoot don't want to know.

 

HH

[craigers]

i think cahoot are correct in what they say provided they comply with the default notice requirements and subsequent termination notices.

 

dca will probably accept your offer but they may push for more in the first instance.