MBNA + Restons + Court Summons - Help Please

[supasnooper]

Hello d-i-d,

 

Please can you re-post the latest Restons letter as it is too small.

[damsel in distress]

Hello d-i-d,

 

Please can you re-post the latest Restons letter as it is too small.

 

Sorry Guys.

 

One or two techncal glitches at the moment. Working on them and expect to have it on-line for your consideration soon.

 

In the meantime, thanks for your patience.

 

D in D x

[damsel in distress]

Apologies again for the delay hopefully here it is in a readable format.

 

Need to do the A.Q. over the week-end so would appreciate any comments/suggestions for that and also on Reston's latest letter.

 

Many thanks for your continued help and support

 

D in D x

[damsel in distress]

PDF attached, hope this is okay

Restons 21st April 2010.pdf

[diddydicky]

PDF attached, hope this is okay

 

"the terms and conditions were incorporated into the agreement" is restons for " the terms and conditions were not CONTAINED within the signature document

 

"the Dn was posted on Friday therefore the 2nd working day was monday" is restons for

 

" our client made a cock up and the second working day after posting, even if it were sent first class is actually tuesday- but were hoping that our letter will bullsh*t you into beleiving it gave enough time"

 

you could "bullsh*t them by stating that you have the envelope it was posted in so you would like them to swear an affidavit to the fact that it was posted first class.

 

If you are looking Restons- I know what your'e thinking punk! - does he REALLY have the envelope - go on punk- make my day!

 

|You could also state that you have no intention whatsoever of withdrawing your defence and you will counter their SJ application with a strike out application as they have no cause of action

 

you can also point out that you have a copy of a Restons letter to a county court admitting the fact that a faulty DN means that they cannot proceed and that any action they take on the back of that DN will be claimed to be vexatious and you will put these facts before the court

[citizenB]

What a load of

 

Yes, they are correct that the Bulk Centre allows for them not to attach documents. However, it does not allow for them not to proved those same documents mentioned in the POC when requested.

 

The CPR is there to manage the claim efficiently and they should have those documents to you at the earliest possible opportunity.

 

The rest of the letter is positively wierd. They know darn full well that a letter dated on a Friday is going nowhere fast until the Monday. I dont have time to go back over your thread at the moment, so if the following has already been posted I will remove it later.

 

A complete defence based on an invalid default notice.

 

 

 

The requirement for a valid Default Notice to lawfully Terminate an Account whilst in default

 

1. Notwithstanding the matters pleaded above, the Claimant must under Section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 serve a valid Default Notice before they can demand early payment of sums not yet due under a Regulated Credit Agreement.

 

2. Under the Interpretation Act 1978 Section 7, it states:

 

Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression "serve" or the expressions "give" or "send" or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post."

 

2. Practice Direction

Service of Documents - First and Second Class Mail.

 

With effect from 16 April 1985 the Practice Direction issued on 30 July 1968 is hereby revoked and the following is substituted therefore.

1). Under S7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 service by post is deemed to have been effected, unless the contrary has been proved, at the time when the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.

2). To avoid uncertainty as to the date of service it will be taken (subject to proof to the contrary) that delivery in the ordinary course of post was effected:-

(a) in the case of first class mail, on the second working day after posting;

(b) in the case of second class mail, on the fourth working day after posting.

"Working days" are Monday to Friday, excluding any bank holiday.

3). Affidavits of service shall state whether the document was dispatched by first or second class mail. If this information is omitted it will be assumed that second class mail was used.

4). This direction is subject to the special provisions of RSC Order 10, rule 1(3) relating to the service of originating process.

 

8th March 1985

J R BICKFORD SMITH Senior Master

Queen's Bench Division

 

3. Further to point 2 above, CPR rules on service also state the required timescales to be given for serving of documents :-

 

Under CPR 6.26 First class post (or other service which provides for delivery on the next business day) is deemed to be “served” The second day after it was posted, left with, delivered to or collected by the relevant service provider provided that day is a business day.

 

4. The Default notice supplied by the Claimant is dated Friday 3rd August, to allow service in line with the statutory requirements mentioned in points 2 & 3 above, 2 working days were required to allow for 1st Class postage. Thus the Rectify date should be 14 calendar days from Wednesday 8th August, namely Wednesday 22nd August 2007, not the 14 calendar days from the date of the letter as stated in the Default notice which would have been 17th August.

 

5. I therefore put the Claimant to strict proof that any Default Notice sent to me was valid and allowed the statutory 14 clear days to rectify the breach. I also 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).

 

6. The 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 an unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the Court enforcing any alleged debt, but give me a counter claim for damages Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119.

 

7. It is submitted that the above Default Notice served s87(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 failed to comply with the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561).

 

8. For a Creditor to be entitled to terminate a regulated Credit Agreement where there is a breach, demand repayment in full or take any legal action to recover any monies due under the Agreement, a creditor must serve a Default Notice under section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 which states:

 

Section 87. Need for Default Notice

 

(1) Service of a notice on the Debtor or hirer in accordance with section 88 (a "Default Notice ") is necessary before the creditor or owner can become entitled, by reason of any breach by the Debtor or hirer of a regulated Agreement -

 

(a) to terminate the Agreement, or

 

(b) to demand earlier payment of any sum, or

 

© to recover possession of any goods or land, or

 

(d) to treat any right conferred on the Debtor or hirer by the Agreement as terminated, restricted or deferred, or

 

(e) to enforce any security.

 

9. The Act also sets out via Section 88(1), that the Default Notice must be in the prescribed form, as below:

 

Section 88. Contents and effect of Default Notice

 

(1) The Default Notice must be in the prescribed form…

 

10. The wording must make it clear that no variation is acceptable. Therefore it cannot be dispensed with as a De Minimus issue.

 

11. I note that the regulations do not allow any variation in the form of these statements and therefore it is suggested that where the statements are not as laid down in the regulations the Default Notice is rendered invalid as a consequence.

 

12. In the case of Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain & Co - [1998] All ER (D) 339 in the Court of Appeal, the Court addressed in some detail the issue of the contents of a Default Notice and should the notice fail to comply with the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) it would render the Default Notice invalid I quote the comment of KENNEDY LJ: "This statute was plainly enacted to protect consumers, most of whom are likely to be individuals" the judgment appears to confirm the consumer credit legislation made under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 as plainly enacted and set out to offer protection to the consumer. Therefore it is suggested that the failure of the Claimant to set out the Default Notice in accordance with the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) could unduly prejudice me as it failed to allow the required time to remedy the alleged default.

 

13. The Claimant’s failure to issue a valid Default Notice must surely prevent a right of action and would make any termination of the Agreement unlawful, as statute provides the procedure that must be followed. Since the Claimant has failed to adhere to statutory procedure it is averred that the Claimant does not have a right of action, and can never now have a right of action having terminated the Agreement unlawfully.

 

14. Furthermore, the Arrears Total outlined cannot be accurate, as the Balance on the Account was at least partly comprised of Unlawful Charges plus additional Charges and interest added unlawfully whilst the Account was in Dispute. Therefore, the Arrears claimed cannot be accurate, as they are themselves calculated using a Total that was itself inaccurate.

 

15. This is at all times an Agreement Regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. There is no provision in the Act that allows a large financial institution to terminate an Agreement that is in alleged default or breach simply by giving notice to the Consumer. Section 98(6) makes that quite clear. The Creditor must follow the steps outlined in Section 87 and Section 88 if they are to lawfully Default and Terminate, and enjoy the benefits of Section 87.

 

16. Finally, an invalid Default Notice cannot be remedied by simply issuing a new Default Notice. The Claimant may not serve a second effective default notice in prescribed form post-termination of the agreement. Any such second default notice will necessarily state a date by when I would be required to comply after which in default the agreement would terminate. The second default notice would therefore contain the fiction that the agreement endured when that cannot be the case, as it was terminated on XX/XX/XX. Terminating an Agreement on the back of a defective Default Notice, simply confirms the undeniable truth that Termination of the agreement by the Claimant was carried out in circumstances which then prohibited them from enjoying the benefits of Section 87, namely the opportunity to seek early Payment of a sum that was, prior to Termination, only payable in the future.

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-2383387.html

 

UK Mail | Services | Mail | Services | UK Deliveries

 

Any mail sent via UK Mail will take at least one day extra as it is delivered to Royal Mail for "the final mile"

 

 

and from the CPR, Part 6 Service of documents.

 

Interpretation

6.2

 

In this Part –

(a) ‘bank holiday’ means a bank holiday under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 19711 in the part of the United Kingdom where service is to take place;

 

(b) ‘business day’ means any day except Saturday, Sunday, a bank holiday, Good Friday or Christmas Day;

 

 

 

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello D-in-D!

 

Agree with CB, plus...

 

Rectums are talking out of themselves when trying to imply that CPR Document Service applies to s87(1) Default Notices:

 

In relation to the points made regarding the Default Notice, our client confirms that this would have been sent to you via first class post. The Default Notice is dated 4 December 2009, which was a Friday. CPR 6.26 provides that if a document is served by first class post, the deemed date of service will be "the second day after it was posted, left with, delivered to or collected by the relevant service provider provided that day is a business day; or if not, the next business day after that." The second day after the Default Notice was posted was Sunday 6 December 2009. The deemed date of service is therefore Monday 7 December 2009 which is the next business day after that.

 

CPR stands for the Civil Procedure Rules, and govern litigation. IOW, CPR 6.26 is applicable only to CPR, it has no bearing on any Notices that were issued in accordance with a live Agreement still fully Regulated by The Consumer Credit Act 1974, i.e. clearly at a time well before any Claim could have been issued on the back of a Notice that itself had yet to be Served.

 

A s87(1) Default Notice is a Notice that can only ever be issued by a Creditor when an Agreement is live and still operational and before a full Default has been registered and s87 rights secured for the Creditor. The Notice is the mechanism by which proper warning of an existing but redeemable default is made, and a warning that a full Default will occur if that redeemable default is not corrected, i.e. unless the Consumer remedies the default issue or sum as advised in the Notice itself. Thus, the issue is clearly something that happens whilst an Agreement is still live.

 

Thus, a s87(1) Default Notice confirms that the Agreement, at the time of issue, and certainly at the point of Posting via UKMail 3rd Class Post, was still live so no s87 benefits had been secured by the Creditor, so no Court Claim based upon s87 benefits could possibly have arisen prior to the issue of the Notice and, in turn, whilst the Statutory 14 clear day remedy period had yet to start running because Service had not yet been made. This Notice was therefore in mid-flight to you, ahead of the 14 clear days, and before Service, so CPR is wholly inapplicable.

 

Deemed Service is therefore only covered, in this case, by the established provisions of The Consumer Credit Act 1974 itself, via s176 and, in turn, by the triggering of The Interpretation Act 1978 and the related 1985 Queens Bench Practice Direction the moment they elected to send the Notice to you via Post.

 

This is s176 of the Act with some notes below that I believe were made by Sir Roy Goode QC:

 

PART XII

SUPPLEMENTAL

 

Part XII Service of documents

 

176. Service of documents

 

(1.) A document to be served under this Act by one person ('the server') on another person ('the subject') is to be treated as propery served on the subject if dealt with as mentioned in the following subsections.

 

(2.) The document may be delivered or sent by post to the subject, or addressed to him by name and left at his proper address.

 

(3.) For the purposes of this Act, a document sent by post to, or left at, the address last known to the server as the address of a person shall be treated as sent by post to, or left at, his proper address.

 

(4.) Where the document is to be served on the subject as being the person having any interest in land, and is not practicable after reasonable inquiry to ascertain the subject's name or address, the document may be served by-

 

(a) addressing it to the subject by the description of the person having that interest in the land (naming it), and

 

(b) delivering the document to some responsible person on the land or affixing it, or a copy of it, in a conspicuous position on the land.

 

(5.) Where a document to be served on the subject as being a debtor, hirer or surety, or as having any other capacity relevant for the purposes of this Act, is served at any time on another person who-

 

(a) is the person last known to the server as having that capacity, but

 

(b) before that time had ceased to have it, the document shall be treated as having been served at that time on the subject.

 

(6.) Anything done to a document in relation to a person who (whether to the knowledge of the server or not) has died shall be treated for the purposes of sub-section (5) as service of the document on that person if it would have been so treated had he not died.

 

(7.) Neither of the following enactments (which provide for the vesting of the estate of an intestate in the probate Judge) shall be construed as authorising service on the Probate Judge of any document which is to be served under this Act-

 

section 9 of the Administration of Estates Act 1925;

 

section 3 of the Administration of Estates Act (Northern Ireland) 1955.

 

(8.) References in the preceding subsections to the serving of a document on a person include the giving of the document to that person.

 

Commencement 31 July 1974 (see Sch 3, note).

The following comments on s176 are believed to be attributed to Sir Roy Goode QC:

 

General effect

 

The section makes general provision relating to the service of documents under this Act. Compliance with this section means that a statutory notice will have been duly 'served' on 'the subject' for the purposes of the Act. The section is not exhaustive, however, in the sense that 'proper service' does not, per se, constitute effective service; for example, a notice of withdrawal under s57 or of rescission under s102 will be properly served if posted to a 'subject' specified in those sections, but it does not follow that the notice thereupon takes effect (see note to sub-s (2), below).

 

Serve, served, service. To 'serve on' means, for the purposes of the Act, to deliver, or send by post, to the subject: see s 189(1).

 

'Delivery' includes personal delivery, and references to 'serving' a document therefore include giving the document to the subject: sub-s (8 ).

 

Person See note to s7

 

Sent by post. The effect of sub-s (2) is that provisions of this Act which require or authorise service of a document also authorise the service of that document by post, bringing into operation the Interpretation Act 1978 s7 (48 Halsbury's Statutes (3rd Edition) 1300) by which service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, prepaying and posting a letter containing the document. Unless the contrary is proved, service will be deemed to have been effected at the time when the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post. This provision will, accordingly, govern the efficacy of posted notices served under this Act except where it is excluded: see s69(7).

 

For decisions on the Interpretation Act 1889, s26 which was to a similar effect as s7 of the 1978 Act, see:

 

Sharpley v Manby [1942]1 KB 217, [1942]1 All ER 66

Sandland v Neale [1956]1 QB 214, [1955] 3 All ER 571

R v County of London Quarter Sessions Appeals Committee, ex p Rossi [1956] 1 QB 682, [1956] 1 All ER 670

Beer v Davies [1958]2QB 187

Stylo Shoes Ltd V Prices Tailors Ltd[1960] Ch396, [1959] 3 All ER 901

Moody v Godstone RDC [1966] 2 All ER 696, [1966] I WLR 1085

White v Weston [1968] 2 QB 647, [1968] 2 All ER 842

Cooper v Scott-Farnell [1969] 1 AII ER I 781 , [1969]1 WLR 120

Hewitt v Leicester City Council [1969] 2 All ER 802, [1969] I WLR 855

Maltglade Ltd v St Albans RDC [1972] 3 All ER 129, [1972] I WLR 1230

Saga of Bond Street Ltd v Avalon Promotions Ltd [1972] 2 QB 325n [1972] 2 AII ER 545n

A/S Cathrineholm v Norequipment Trading Ltd [1972] 2 QB 314

Thomas Bishop Ltd v Helmville Ltd [1972] I QB 464, [1972] 1 All ER 365

Migwain Ltd (in liquidation) v Transport and General Worker's Union [1979] ICR 597.

 

Interest in land See the note 'Land' to s 189(1) A person who has died The effect of sub-s (5) is to facilitate service of a notice by service to the subject's address in the normal way even though he has (whether to the server's knowledge or not) died intestate and, at the time of service, no letters of administration have been granted Administration of Estates Act 1925, s 9 See 13 Halsbury's Statutes (3rd Edn) 46 Administration of Estates Act (Northern Ireland) 1955 1955 c 24 (Nl)

 

Definitions

 

Debtor, give, hirer, land, serve, surety: s189(1).

Going back to Rectums:

 

..our client confirm that this would have been sent to you via first class post

Unless they have a Statement from MBNA to that effect, this is a dangerous statement for them to make, i.e. if they do not know if it is true or not. Ask Rectums for confirmation that MBNA have actually stated this, and request confirmation.

 

By all means point out that you would be very surprised if MBNA have stated this, for the simple reason that you have retained the UKMail Envelope within which the Notice was actually sent. That being positive Evidence that MBNA are either mistaken, or that someone is deliberately trying to mislead both you and the Court.

 

They then go on to say:

 

As the Default Notice specified 21 December 2009 as the last date by which the Claimant must receive the payment from you to remedy the breach, this provided you with exactly 14 days in which to remedy the breach.

Sorry Rectums, that is not the case. The Act demands that the Consumer is given no less than 14 clear days after Service (for a Notice issued in 2009), so they cannot demand payment on the 14th clear day, or else it cannot then be a clear day if they are eating into it.

 

But, it gets worse for them, because MBNA have still not allowed sufficient time, even if they try to argue 1st Class Post (ignore their CPR argument for Deemed Service, that's not applicable, as explained above).

 

Service via 1st Class Post = +2 Working Days

Posting Date = Friday 04/12/2009

+2 Working Days = Tuesday 08/12/2009

Date of Service is therefore = Tuesday 08/12/2009

1st Clear Day is therefore = Wednesday 09/12/2009

14th Clear Day is therefore = Tuesday 22/12/2009

Earliest day for Payment to allow 14 clear days = Wednesday 23/12/2009

 

Thus, an MBNA Payment Deadline of 21/12/2009 has clearly not allowed you 14 clear days from Date of Service.

 

Naturally, we all know it's even worse for them, because UKMail is not 1st Class Post, and struggles even to manage the timescales for 2nd Class Post. It's effectively 3rd Class Post, but because there is no definition for 3rd Class Post, all we can use is the one for 2nd Class Post. That works out like this:

 

Service via 2nd Class Post = +4 Working Days

Posting Date = Friday 04/12/2009

+4 Working Days = Thursday 10/12/2009

Date of Service is therefore = Thursday 10/12/2009

1st Clear Day is therefore = Friday 11/12/2009

14th Clear Day is therefore = Thursday 24/12/2009

Earliest day for Payment to allow 14 clear days = Friday 25/12/2009...Christmas Day, a present to you from Santa!

 

Thus, an MBNA Payment Deadline of 21/12/2009, when Posted via UKMail 2nd Class Post has clearly not allowed you 14 clear days from Date of Service.

 

Rectum goes on to say:

 

The Claimant asserts that the Default Notice is fully compliant with the requirements of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and any regulations made pursuant to it.

Sorry Rectums, that is manifestly not the case, however you wish to argue this.

 

Finally:

 

We do not believe that you have an arguable Defence in Law to the Claim issued against you. Our instructions are therefore to transfer this case to your local County Court and to subsequently make an application for Summary Judgment against you. This action will incur further costs, which you will then be liable to pay.

More gas from Rectums. It's not up to them where the Case gets transferred, that is done automatically by the Court, because you are a Litigant in Person, who has filed a Defence to their Northampton Bulk Issue Centre Claim (a handy place to issue when Creditors do not have all the paperwork they need).

 

You have a solid Defence because their Client has Terminated a Regulated Agreement without first securing s87 benefits. Thus, any attempt at enforcement that requires those benefits are doomed to failure if a fair hearing is permitted (if not, you Appeal, simple as that).

 

Any costs to be paid, should be from them to you if they wish to push this issue any further. Start boning up on Litigant in Person costs, and note that all Cases are Multi-Track until Allocation. So, if they apply for Summary Judgment before Allocation, then they had better get ready to write you a cheque for your full costs when you defeat them.

 

I hope this helps.

 

Cheers,

BRW

Edited April 24, 2010 by banker_rhymes_with
Clarify Default/default issue - changes in red.

[diddydicky]

A s87(1) Default Notice is a Notice that can only ever be issued by a Creditor when an Agreement is live and still operational and not at that time, in default. It cannot be in default, because the Notice is the mechanism by which proper warning of a proposed default is being considered, i.e. unless the Consumer remedies the default issue or sum as advised in the Notice itself.

 

 

not quite sure that this is correct BRW with respect

 

a DN under s87(1) can ONLY be issued if the debtor IS in default (breach) of the agreement

 

the DN sets out the nature of a default(breach) that must already have occurred, on the part of the debtor and what the debtor must do in order to remedy it, failing which (assuming that the DN is correct in all other respects ) - the creditor may "take the next step" (demand entitlement to the benefits of s87)

 

The language of the text clearly states that if the debtor takes that action "then it will be as if the breach had never occurred)

 

If there is a dispute as to whether the debtor is or is not in default then -

if the debtor was not in fact in default-and the creditor was wrong to state that he was- then the DN would be invalid for overstating an amount due to be paid , or alternatively demanding an action be taken by the debtor which he is not obliged to take

Edited April 24, 2010 by diddydicky

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello DDY!

 

Yes, I agree, I think my wording could have been better. I will edit.

 

What I was getting at is the difference between a default on payment, and Default being registered. It's confusing, but a Default with the big D is something that is registered once some other redeemable default has not been addressed.

 

Thus, in my view, a s87(1) Default Notice is one that warns of a payment or other default, but is something that will lead to a permanent Default being registered if that Notice is ignored.

 

That was what I meant by being in Default, as opposed to in default.

 

I'll edit to try and remove the confusion.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[diddydicky]

ahhhh those friday night binges!!

[banker_rhymes_with]

ahhhh those friday night binges!!

Guilty!

 

I'll wake up after the 10th cup of Coffee!

 

Cheers,

BRW

[damsel in distress]

Hello again CB, Diddy and BRW. Huge thanks to each of you for taking the time to look at my case in such detail. I'm sure that lots of other newbie Caggers will also benefit from your sage words.

 

You have given me a huge amount to read and take in, but my first-reading conclusions are that, for variety of reasons, Rectum's claims are flawed and they are trying to intimidate me into withdrawing my Defence. I imagine that most of the information you have provided will be invaluable when it comes to defending a Summary Judgment application (should they be foolhardy enough to proceed with one). Therefore, given that the AQ is due in court on Monday and I only have limited time available this weekend, then I think I should take this one step at a time. Therefore, between now and Monday morning (most probably tomorrow) I propose:

 

1. Completing the N149 ( which appears straight forward - Any suggestions welcome )

 

2. Re-drafting the letter I propose sending to Rectums. I will inform them that I am confident their client cannot substantiate or succeed in its claims against me . I will warn of the costs consequences and invite them to discontinue their claim.

( If anyone is willing to consider my letter before I send it to Rectums, then please let me know and I will send it to you in a PM so as not to risk giving the game away and spoiling the surprise )

 

If I have got my priorities wrong, please let me know so that I don't misuse what little time remains.

 

Thanks again.

 

D in D x

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello D-in-D!

 

You could always hit them with an N244 too! IOW, hit them with a Summary Judgment Application.

 

But only do so if 100% confident of carrying it off. If you need to gather the evidence and plan your Court strategy, then use all the time you can, and let Rectum pay for the Application. When they do, go for their throats with all you've got.

 

Treat any Summary Judgment as the real thing, and plan for it accordingly. Put everything you have into it, don't treat it like a prelude to the big match, because there won't be a big match if someone wins the Summary Judgment...so make sure that someone is you!

 

Cheers,

BRW

[damsel in distress]

Hello D-in-D!

 

Re: The anticipated SJ...

 

If you need to gather the evidence and plan your Court strategy, then use all the time you can, and let Rectum pay for the Application. When they do, go for their throats with all you've got.

 

Cheers,

BRW

 

Sounds like a plan to me, BRW.

 

Thanks yet again.

 

D i D x

[citizenB]

Rectum's claims are flawed and they are trying to intimidate me into withdrawing my Defence.

 

Spot on.

 

 

Hello D-in-D!

 

You could always hit them with an N244 too! IOW, hit them with a Summary Judgment Application.

 

But only do so if 100% confident of carrying it off. If you need to gather the evidence and plan your Court strategy, then use all the time you can, and let Rectum pay for the Application. When they do, go for their throats with all you've got.

 

Treat any Summary Judgment as the real thing, and plan for it accordingly. Put everything you have into it, don't treat it like a prelude to the big match, because there won't be a big match if someone wins the Summary Judgment...so make sure that someone is you!

 

Cheers,

BRW

 

Yes, dont leave anything to chance, have all your ammunition lined up and ready to fire.

[damsel in distress]

Hi CB.

 

Thanks for your encouragement. I'm currently working on the AQ (N149, not N150 ) which is mostly ticking 'Yes' or 'No' boxes.

 

I'm currently at Section G - Other Information and I'm thinking that I should be writing volumes about the flawed Default Notice etc. but I'm also wondering if this is strictly necessary or advantageous ?

 

If it is, then I'm happy stating the DN arguments, however, I've been searching for a thread from which I could extract an appropriate wording about Rectums only providing a reconstituted copy of the Agreement.

( I still don't know if that means they have complied with my CPR31.14 request or not ? )

 

Can someone please see take another look at Rectums' recent letter and suggest a wording to include in the AQ about the Agreement, or point me in the right direction?

 

Once the AQ is out of the way, I can start to re-write my reponse to Rectums.

 

Thanks.

 

D in D x

[damsel in distress]

Polite bump

 

Good morning all.

 

The AQ is due in today ( I will deliever it by hand this afternoon )

but there is still time for me to include/exclude anything you guys might suggest.

 

Also, anyone willing to take a look at my draft response to Rectums ?

Edited April 26, 2010 by damsel in distress
addition to post.

[LB145]

subbing