Jump to content


shabz25

CL Finance court case help!!!!!

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3417 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hi,

On the 21st December i will have to appear in court to defend myself against CL Finance who are acting on behalf of GE Money ( Now Santander). I have filed my defence and after 11 months received the CCA as part of CL's court claim. I am very nervous and anxious, i have looked at the CCA but do not understand if it is enforceable. I am relying on the CCA to be unenforceable otherwise i might as well give up. Can someone please look at the CCA and if it is unenforceable how do i defend this in court. I would appreciate if you could reply urgently as i am running out of time.

Shabz25

court case.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi I'm sorry but I'm not knowledgeable enough to help, but, how are the terms and conditions shown? You show 2 pages, but the second is half the first? From what I understand the prescribed terms should be within the 4 corners of the agreement.

You could send 42man a pm and a link to your thread and ask for his advice.

Have you mentioned the DN in your defence and is this in the correct format?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Shabz

 

Their w/s seem to be getting better.

 

Is this your first thread for this?

 

Regards


-

PLEASE NOTE - I am not a legal expert, my comments are based on information learnt or

obtained and from my own experiences.

-

Case 1 - C L Finance - Court Case 'Stayed' :-). Stay Lifted - N149 AQ Received & Filed. Case Struck Out :grin:

-

Case 2 - C L Finance - Defence Filed. N150 AQ Received & Filed. Case 'Settled by Consent' :)

-

Case 3 - EOS Solutions - No Agreement - Account Closed ~£3500. :grin:

-

Advice & opinions offered freely but informally, without prejudice & without liability.

Use your own judgment and seek advice from a qualified and insured professional if you have any doubts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

this is not the first thread for this, please forgive me but i don't know how to bring the old thread back! I did say in my defence that the DN was not in the prescribed terms, it did not give a date in which to remedy the default. How do i link the thread to PM Man42.

Sorry but i'm not very familiar with this forum.

Shabz25

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK... I have experience of defending claims.

 

Can you please post up a copy of the Notice of Assignment as per point 7 of their Witness Statement?

 

I also need to see the default notice as per point 11.

 

Get these up ASAP and I will take a look and try to help.

 

If you need to search for your original thread then you go to search/advanced search/search by user name/type in your name/find threads started by user

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I might also ask whether you actually signed the agreement? There is no signature in the box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

Thank you for helping, i did not receive a notice of assignment as they have stated in the Witness statement. I will post the default notice with this reply.

Regards

Shabz

dEFAULT NOTICE GE.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The Assignment of the Debt

 

 

19. If the Claimant was not zzzzzzzzzzzz Bank 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)

:cool:

 

 

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).


Id quot circumiret, circumveniat.

 

please do not take my word for anything please do your own research All that i make comments on are done in good faith and to the best of my knowledge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Lilywhite for your help, i need all the help that i can get. I will appear in court next week hope all goes well.

Vjohn, i did sign the CCA or application i have removed it for security purposes.

Does anyone know if the CCA is enforceable, i have been told that the terms must be in all 4 corners of the agreement, so am i write in believing that they are not in the 4 corners. To me it looks like the terms which are on a separate page do not belong to the CCA, can someone with more experience that me have a look and let me know their thoughts.

Thanks again for all the replies.

shabz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shabz,

 

As I uderstand it the DN must specify an actual date and not 'within 21 days' therefore I believe you can argue its validity.

 

I am sure vjohn82 or someone else will comment on this further.

 

With regards their w/s you need to have arguements to discredit it.

I would suggest the following in the first instance (hope others will comment regarding this as well.

a)

Para 2. States On 5th August 2000 Defendant entered into a regulated credit agreement, yet Para 6. states On 04 January 2000 a DN was served.

b)

Para 7.

What does the Deed of Assignment look like?

Can you post up what they have provided please.

c)

Para 11.

See point ref dates made above and seek clarification.

d)

Is the w/s signed and dated by them?

 

With regards the Agreement and T&C's,

e)

Does the APR on the agreement match those in the T&C's?

f)

Is there anything to link the T&C's to the agreement? e.g page numbers, dates, reference numbers etc?

g)

Have you asked them to provide the 'original' document as required by Practice Direction 16, Para 7.3 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

h)

I would also suggest getting some info on the Civil Evidence Act.

i)

The agreement appears to be A4 size, yet the T&C's appear to be longer than a standard A4 sheet so are probably not the reverse of the original document however could be pulling at straws here. Just something to bear in mind.

 

Just my thoughts. Please seek further clarification and would welcome any other comments.

 

Regards


-

PLEASE NOTE - I am not a legal expert, my comments are based on information learnt or

obtained and from my own experiences.

-

Case 1 - C L Finance - Court Case 'Stayed' :-). Stay Lifted - N149 AQ Received & Filed. Case Struck Out :grin:

-

Case 2 - C L Finance - Defence Filed. N150 AQ Received & Filed. Case 'Settled by Consent' :)

-

Case 3 - EOS Solutions - No Agreement - Account Closed ~£3500. :grin:

-

Advice & opinions offered freely but informally, without prejudice & without liability.

Use your own judgment and seek advice from a qualified and insured professional if you have any doubts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Shabz, I cannot offer any legal advise, but I can speak from my own experience of dealing with C.L's sols (Howard Cohen). I had to go to court on 5 occasions with them, for the same case, for various reasons and I have to say, like you, in the beginning I was VERY nervous, but by the last appearance it was almost laughable.

 

I can only comment about the sols I dealt with, but there were 3 different ones, and they were ALL unprepared, un-interested, and in my opinion incompetent.

 

On one occasion I had to let them see a copy of a document I had taken to court (during the hearing), as they hadn't brought one (and the document in question was the whole reason for the hearing).

 

One of them looked so un-interested by the whole thing that at one point he took so long to answer a question asked by the judge we all thought he had fallen asleep, or was just not going to bother to answer, unbelievable!

 

All I can say is, make sure that you are as prepared as you can be before you go. Make sure you take all relevant paperwork with you and look into any relevant legislation that you may need to quote at the hearing.

 

And, finally, although I know how hard it is, try to stay calm and relaxed and give yourself the best possible chance of stating your case.

 

Lots of luck and let us know how you get on.:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shabz,

 

As I uderstand it the DN must specify an actual date and not 'within 21 days' therefore I believe you can argue its validity.

 

I am sure vjohn82 or someone else will comment on this further.

 

The CCA 1974 s. 87/88 points out what a default notice should look like and what prescribed terms it must contain. I've highlighted in yellow on pg 3 the appropriate term but you will need to give it all a read.

 

Basically you just need to be pointing out inconsistencies... they are a legal firm after all and should NOT be given any leeway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

respone to para 5.

 

The importance of an Original Copy of the Credit Agreement and its production before the Court

 

59. Under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 there are certain conditions laid down by Parliament which must be complied with if such an Agreement is to be enforced by the Courts (for Agreements pre Consumer Credit Act 2006).

 

60. Firstly, the Agreement must contain certain Prescribed Terms under regulations made by the Secretary of State as outlined in Section 60(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The regulations referred to are the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553).

 

61. The Prescribed Terms are contained in schedule 6 Column 2 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) and are as follows:

 

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:

 

Number of repayments;

Amount of repayments;

Frequency and timing of repayments;

Dates of repayments;

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

 

62. 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 within 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.

 

63. I 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 Schedule 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 s61 that all the terms should be in a single document, and backed up by the provisions of s127(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 mis- stated. 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."

 

64. If the Agreement does not contain these terms in the prescribed manner it does not comply with section 60(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the consequences of which means it is improperly executed and only enforceable by Court order.

 

65. Notwithstanding point 64, The Agreement must be signed in the prescribed manner to comply with Section 61(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. If the Agreement is not signed by Debtor or Creditor, it is also improperly executed and again only enforceable by Court order, although without a Debtor’s Signature, enforcement would not be possible.

 

66. I now wish to make reference to an excerpt of case law from the case of Wilson v Robertsons (London) Ltd [2005] EWHC 1425 (Ch).

 

67. In Wilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2003] UKHL 40, [2004] 1 AC 816, [2003] 4 All ER 97, the House of Lords explained that the 1974 Act was, like the Moneylenders Act 1927 before it, designed to tackle a significant social problem. The activities of some moneylenders have given the money lending business a bad reputation. Something had to be done to protect the borrower, who frequently, indeed normally, would be in a weak bargaining position. Protection of borrowers is the social policy behind the legislation. Part of that policy is to be achieved by setting stringent rules, which have to be complied with by the lender if his money lending Agreement is to be enforceable. The strictness of the discipline imposed on lenders is illustrated by the following passage in the speech of Lord Nicholls:

 

"72. Undoubtedly, as illustrated by the facts of the present case, section 127(3) may be drastic, even harsh, in its adverse consequences for a lender. He loses all his right under the Agreement, including his rights to any security which has been lodged. Conversely, the borrower acquires what can only be described as a windfall. He keeps the money and recovers his security. These consequences apply just as much where the lender was acting in good faith throughout and the error was due to a mistaken reading of the complex statutory requirements as in the case of deliberate non- compliance. These consequences also apply where, as in the present case, the borrower suffered no prejudice as a result of the non-compliance as they do where the borrower was misled. Parliament was painting here with a broad brush.

 

73. The unattractive feature of this approach is that it will sometimes involve punishing the blameless pour encourager les autres. On its face, considered in the context of one particular case, a sanction having this effect is difficult to justify. The Moneylenders Act 1927 adopted a similarly severe approach…

 

74. Despite [criticism in the Crowther report] I have no difficulty in accepting that in suitable instances it is open to Parliament, when Parliament considers the public interest so requires, deciding that failure to comply with certain formalities is an essential prerequisite to enforcement of certain types of Agreements. This course is open to Parliament even though this will sometimes yield a seemingly unreasonable result in a particular case. Considered overall, this course may well be a proportionate response in practice to a perceived social problem. Parliament may consider the response should be a uniform solution across the board. A tailor-made response, fitting the facts of each case as decided in an application to the Court, may not be appropriate. This may be considered an insufficient incentive and insufficient deterrent. And it may fail to protect consumers adequately…"

 

68. The message from the case of Wilson v Robertsons (London) Ltd [2005] EWHC 1425 (Ch), is that the Consumer Credit Act is clearly enacted to protect consumers such as myself and therefore the Claimant’s failures to supply the information and their general behaviour in this matter should be noted accordingly, giving consideration to the case law and the facts as set out within this Defence.

 

69. Therefore, the Claimant must provide an original copy of the Agreement compliant with the regulations as laid out in points 59 to 69 of this Defence to have any right of enforcement. This is the Document that I requested many times, all to no avail.

 

 


Id quot circumiret, circumveniat.

 

please do not take my word for anything please do your own research All that i make comments on are done in good faith and to the best of my knowledge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

poss.reply to para 2 edit to suit

 

 

 

1 I, make this statement as my defence to the Claimant’s vague particulars of claim dated 27 October 2008. The Defendant respectfully seeks the courts permission upon clarification of the claimant’s case and disclosure of the necessary documents to amend this defence if required.

 

2 On the 19th May 2005, the Defendant signed an Application Form for a credit card facility to be provided by Claimant. (Exhibit 1)

 

3 Provision of this credit facility was dependant upon a satisfactory credit record being obtained by the Claimant from one or more Credit Reference Agencies, and upon other lending decision criteria. The Application Form was therefore a pre-contractual agreement to enter into a prospective full-regulated credit agreement with the Claimant in the event that the Defendant’s application was successful.

 

4 The Application Form contained a clause, which included the following statement -

'Please issue me with an additional Barclaycard for use on the account(s) to which this application relates. I accept to be bound by the Barclaycard Conditions of use'. As such, the application purports to bind the Defendant to the terms and conditions of any prospective credit agreement with the Claimant.

 

5 Section 59 (1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 states that 'an agreement is void if, and to the extent that, it purports to bind a person to enter as debtor or hirer into a prospective regulated agreement.’ The Defendant therefore contends that this pre-contractual document, not being a regulated credit agreement in itself, and insofar as it purports to bind the Defendant to the terms of an actual prospective regulated credit agreement, is void and of no effect.

 

6 The Defendant’s application for credit was successful and a line of credit was provided. However, no subsequent regulated credit agreement, fully setting out the proposed terms and conditions and containing all the terms, information and statutory statements as prescribed by the Consumer Credit Act, was ever provided by the Claimant for the Defendant to sign and agree to. The credit facility was therefore given with no agreement made for repayment.


Id quot circumiret, circumveniat.

 

please do not take my word for anything please do your own research All that i make comments on are done in good faith and to the best of my knowledge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortantley it looks like the agreement is enforceable the prescribed terms are stated on the first page in the first box after your bank details have been entered - it states that they will determine the credit limit, what the APR is and how you make payments.

 

However how much was the credit limit on the card as at the top it says to fill in different bits depending on what limit you want.

 

Were you given credit the second you signed the agreement because if you weren't then you had cancellation rights according to the agreement and they should have sent a copy to you within 7 days with your cancellation rights if they didn't then it should be unenforceable.

 

Were you even given a copy of the agreement, is the copy you scanned up one you recieved after court action was taken or is it your original copy?

 

The Default Notice should be invalid it needs to state an actual date, it also needs to state who the parties to the agreement are what their addresses are and it doesn't appear to unless you've blanked it out.

 

Have you got statements of the account showing the balance or demanding a payment different to the arrears on the default notice?

 

Do you know when you recieved the default notice or when the account was terminated. Do you have a copy of your credit file (you may want to sign up for the free equifax trial if not) as your credit file will tell you when the account was defaulted and terminated.

 

You also need to point out they are claiming the Default notice was sent in 2000.

 

For assignment to be legal the notice needs to have been sent by recorded delivery and recieved prior to court action starting, in addition the information contained within the notice needs to match the details on the deed and they both need to be accurate. You can also argue GE Money should have told you they are now called Santander before the account was sold to CL Finance - if you didn't recieve notice that the account was now owned by Santander before CL Finanace bought it the assignment may be bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you all for your help

Someoneelse, i was not given credit instantly, at the time i bought some items which were on an interest free term, like a loan, the card came with it, i wasn't told that it was going to be a storecard, i thought it was for a loyalty card. I have not received a notice of assignment, only in their court defence. I receive the CCA as part of their defence, i requested it in Jan 2009. The default notice was sent on the 24th August 2009. I was not told that GE money had become Santander either. I will post the Deed of assignment that came with the court defence. I will have to do it at work tomorrow, my scanner doesnt work. I will also check through the statements that i have.

Maybelate, thank you for sharing your experience with me, I will try and go through all their points mentioned in their witness statement.

Vjohn, thank you for putting me on the right track, without your help i think i would be totally lost. I will take some time to check everything that i received from CL, i have one question, i only received their defence a 2 weeks ago, after the deadline set by the courts, are they allowed to do that? Howards have said that they answered by CPR request electronically.Unfortunately i did nor receive the first set of court papers from Northampton. When i called the courts they faxed the Claim papers to me but told me i could not request the Login details that would have been sent to my address originally so i have been unable to access the case online. So how am i ment to check that the court defence and CPR request was filed by howrds electronically? can you clarify this for me?

Ghostdebt,

Thank you for all the help i will spend alot of time to try and find ways of discrediting their points.

Thank you all once again.

Shabz25

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Lillywhite i didn't mean to forget you, you have been so helpful, i hope that you guy's will be available over the next few days as i will be in court in a weeks time and could do with all the support,

Thank you

shabz25

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vjohn, thank you for putting me on the right track, without your help i think i would be totally lost. I will take some time to check everything that i received from CL, i have one question, i only received their defence a 2 weeks ago, after the deadline set by the courts, are they allowed to do that? Howards have said that they answered by CPR request electronically.Unfortunately i did nor receive the first set of court papers from Northampton. When i called the courts they faxed the Claim papers to me but told me i could not request the Login details that would have been sent to my address originally so i have been unable to access the case online. So how am i ment to check that the court defence and CPR request was filed by howrds electronically? can you clarify this for me?Shabz25

 

Hmmm... this is an interesting one. I'm not too experienced with claims that have been issued via MCOL. I suspect however that if there is a court order which is not adhered to that you have the option to strike out the case via CPR 3.4 :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you all for your help

Vjohn, thank you for putting me on the right track, without your help i think i would be totally lost. I will take some time to check everything that i received from CL, i have one question, i only received their defence a 2 weeks ago, after the deadline set by the courts, are they allowed to do that? Howards have said that they answered by CPR request electronically.Unfortunately i did nor receive the first set of court papers from Northampton. When i called the courts they faxed the Claim papers to me but told me i could not request the Login details that would have been sent to my address originally so i have been unable to access the case online. So how am i ment to check that the court defence and CPR request was filed by howrds electronically? can you clarify this for me?

Thank you all once again.

Shabz25

 

The Online login that comes with the original court papers doesn't give you access to any of their documents, it just allows you to acknowledge the claim and file a defence.

 

Did you give Howards your email address as I think their are CPR rules regarding how service can be done and I thing they have to have permission to email you documents.

 

If they submitted documents past the deadline depending on what the court order said you could have asked for extra time to prepare/submit your response, ask for the claim to be struck out or the documents ruled inadmissable - though it does depend on what kind of order they ignored and the judge - in our case against Link when Link failed to submitt an amdended claim on time the judge gave us an extra 14 days to respond, in the MBNA case they submitted documents for the hearing after the deadline, but we were just told the judge would consider it in the hearing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you all for your help

Someoneelse, i was not given credit instantly, at the time i bought some items which were on an interest free term, like a loan, the card came with it, i wasn't told that it was going to be a storecard, i thought it was for a loyalty card. I have not received a notice of assignment, only in their court defence. I receive the CCA as part of their defence, i requested it in Jan 2009. The default notice was sent on the 24th August 2009. I was not told that GE money had become Santander either. I will post the Deed of assignment that came with the court defence. I will have to do it at work tomorrow, my scanner doesnt work. I will also check through the statements that i have.

 

Did you request the agreement under s77/78 with the £1 fee in Jan?

 

With the Default Notice they dated it Jan09 but didn't both posting it until August?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone, i have scanned the Deed of assignment and the notice of asignment that i received with Howards court defence. Can you please advise me if they are within the prescribed terms. I have noticed that the deed of notice is signed by one person only in 2 areas, does that mean it is not OK?

Also i said previously that the default notice was received in August, i was infact wrong it was received in Jan 09. In howards court defence they state that my CPR request was answered electronically, does that mean by email, if so i never supplied them with my email address.

I look foward to hearing from you.

shabz25

deed of assignment.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pmsl... salami week 583... what the heck?

 

Has similar issues to the one they provided me for my case, but more importantly yours appears to have nothing to link the pages together and

also it hasn't been signed off properly. needs 2 x signatures on the deed.

 

wonder if they wrote that themselves...

because the spelling is rubbish.

Edited by GhostDebt
changed

-

PLEASE NOTE - I am not a legal expert, my comments are based on information learnt or

obtained and from my own experiences.

-

Case 1 - C L Finance - Court Case 'Stayed' :-). Stay Lifted - N149 AQ Received & Filed. Case Struck Out :grin:

-

Case 2 - C L Finance - Defence Filed. N150 AQ Received & Filed. Case 'Settled by Consent' :)

-

Case 3 - EOS Solutions - No Agreement - Account Closed ~£3500. :grin:

-

Advice & opinions offered freely but informally, without prejudice & without liability.

Use your own judgment and seek advice from a qualified and insured professional if you have any doubts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

I will be in court tomorrow, 10.00am, need some help, any further info on the CCA, does it look enforceable, is the DN ok, i need to start counteracting the points raised in their witness statement, called the courts on Friday i have been told Howards haven't submitted a witness statement. i will call the court in the morning to check again. hope i get some help before i go to court.

Shabz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

I am in court tomorrow at 10.00am, i still need help with the CCa and Also anything else i have posted. I have worked out the DN is not in the prescribed terms with the help of those who have answered my thread. I called the courts on Friday, i was told that Howrds have not sent a witness statement, i will call the courts in the morning to confirm if this is still the case. Can i ask the courts to throw the case out if not witness statement has been submitted?

Please help

Shabz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...