They will make her bankrupt for 4000 pounds, help please.

[lilly white]

just looking in .

 

lilly

[lilly white]

Good morning.

 

Please we know how you are feeling, however please get hold of your wife and ask her to post herself it will help be assured just get her on here and we will do the rest..

 

Take controll now

 

i will keep a look out

 

lilly white

[lilly white]

there is somthing not right here.

 

did the judge refuse to set this a side and on what grounds

[lilly white]

ok the creditor has agreed for a charge on the property plus a repayment plan.

 

that s kind of them......... however i do undestand your position but i must say it would not be my position.

 

they have not provided a cca if this is right they cant enforce.

 

what sort of judge did you have for gods sake.

 

Mrs Thompson went on to say that she had an alternative case which was to the effect that assuming Barclays had failed to produce a s78 copy, the Court had power to order them to do so by way of an injunction. And if they subsequently produce a copy of the signed application form, the issue of an IEA can be looked at then. And if they do not, then the Court should at least make a declaration at common-law, not under si42, that the agreement is permanently unenforceable and not merely unenforceable for the duration of a s78 breach as s78 (6) provides. I do not think that such an alternative argument assists Mrs Thompson. First I have to deal with the principal claim being made now, as to an IEA which is the focus of the applications. Second, the question as to the appropriateness of such an injunction is an open one: paragraph 16 of the judgment of HHJ Brown QC in Rankine (supra) suggests that it may be but that question did not arise directly for that decision there. Third, it ignores the fact that if a proper case of IEA is mounted, disclosure will take place and of course at that point, if not earlier when the bank makes its defence, it is going to have to disclose the documents relevant to that agreement, whether it had to disclose them at the earlier s78 stage or not. Finally, I do not see that a permanent declaration of the kind mentioned by Mrs Thompson would be appropriate when s78 (6) expressly says that the agreement will be enforceable for so long as the breach persists. If it does, the agreement remains unenforceable. If at some later stage it is cured it is difficult to see why the creditor should not then be entitled to enforce.

[lilly white]

please take a look at section 78 consumer credit act

[lilly white]

i do not understand what will change in the furture fight now.

 

 

 

why .................do this.

[lilly white]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/dca-legal-successes/211818-lowell-hampton-statutory-demand.html

 

 

are these the same people

[lilly white]

i would like to know did they provide a witness statment.

 

and also what did it say, also please answer what one of our site team has ask

[lilly white]

well well.

 

ok we move on

 

as always viva cag and a happy new year to you all.

 

 

lilly

[lilly white]

i am with you p1

 

i have been looking and of course will help if i can however we need the op

 

to give the facts and like others who i know will help if this person is not a troll.

 

 

kind regards to you all