SAINSBURYS credit card claimform- Help needed

[unclebulgaria67]

Roy

 

I agree with previous posts that you need to concentrate your defence on procedural issues rather than the agreement. In my opinion I think the judge will buy the claimants argument that the microfiche copy of the CCA is a copy of the original, if they have witness to the process the company followed. If you put too much weight on the CCA just being an illegible copy, then I can see the judge, just skimming over that.

[bazaar]

Also, you MUST object to the hearsay evidence ( 14 day limit), BUT if they havent notified court to adduce, then those statements should be used.

 

This is all in the criminal justice act 2003, which they are using against you, so have a read through it, is there anything you can use against them, Check the correct wording of the parts theyve used, does it differ from the act ( IE, have they used the bits that suit them?)

 

Theyve used section 9, but Section 9 does not automatically make the evidence in it admissible. So question question question.

 

If it were me, I'd call the court to see if theyve submitted this hearsay, or have they snidely put it in the documents you have? have a look

[roygoodbeat]

Thanks for all your help.

 

I had my case but lost. As it was in a small claims court, the judge ruled that they did not need their witness, permission for circumstantial evidence would not be required and the lenders breach of the court order and subject access request was ignored by the court.

 

They ruled that the Waksman ruling allowed the lender to submit the reconstructed versions and that they could use these in court.

 

They ruled that even without a copy of the default notice, they need not produce a copy of the original.

 

They ruled that the waksman ruling allowed the court to enforce the claimants debt.

 

They ignored the fact that the reconstructed agreement and the poor photo copy did not conform to the consumer credit act and did not mention this in their summary.

 

Was ordered to pay the full debt of £5,600 plus £550 in costs.

 

Never mind.

[Tonster]

The Waksman ruling was only talking about using reconstructed agreements in response to s78 requests NOT for use in court and the Wilson case (from House of Lords) is still valid.

[roygoodbeat]

The judge beleaved that it was not relevant anymore and that the waksman case superseeds this, and would not accept this as defence.

[Docman]

What!!!

 

Since when did a High Curt administrtative ruling in Manchester overrule BOTH the House of Lords case AND the statute. You MUST appeal!

[bazaar]

Pretty disgraceful for a judge to make such a crass ruling,

So what are you going to do now?

IMHO, I would look at the rulings the judge dismissed on and get a damned good argument against his/her ruling ready for appeal.

Obviously, then you can decide to push on or to accept.

[supasnooper]

You say that the hearing was held under Small Claims Track yet earlier in the thread, you state it was agreed to be held as Fast Track .........please can you clarify.

[patrickq1]

should order the judge to pay it seeing as he has abused the court procedure rules himself ,i am thinking that the solicitors for the other side have nobbled this judge in the back room before the case has started...ive had it done to me in the past ..

patrickq1