series3 v MBNA/Optima

[AndyOrch]

You can submit a supplemental WS to keep your original intact...this is usually done with the agreement of the Claimant with view of maintaining the Overriding Objectives (CPR1) you can still submit without their consent though.

 

Andy

[Series3]

thanks Andy

much of the old one isn't needed so I'll just answer the one from them and see what happens.

I'll post it up later if you wouldn't mind going over it for me..

 

series3

[Series3]

altered on next page

Edited January 2, 2013 by Series3

[Series3]

where I have put I have the original DN in red....

 

When it folds it is obviously not from one of their "uk mail "S" envelopes.

 

should I include this?

[citizenB]

The “Application form” was filled at the Rugby Cup Final held at Twickenham. There were over 67,000 people attending. Along with many others I was asked to fill out an application for a credit card. At first I refused, we needed to get into the ground before kick off, then on the offer of 2 free hats with my clubs logo on them I was persuaded to fill in the form. At no time was I given any Terms and Conditions. Dianne Powell could not have been witness to what would have been done at the time of signing the application.

I finished completing the form and was given 2 hats.

 

 

 

Just nitpicking..

 

Highlighted.. Should that read.... "Filled in" - "completed" ?

[citizenB]

Harrison v Link..

 

The defendant will rely upon the case of Harrison v Link in support of the proposition that a bad Default notice cannot be relied upon for enforcement ( see para 75 of HHJ Chambers QC ruling).

 

So that needs to go somewhere near the DN section doesnt it ?

[Series3]

done

[citizenB]

where I have put I have the original DN in red....

 

When it folds it is obviously not from one of their "uk mail "S" envelopes.

 

should I include this?

 

 

I dont understand envelope sizes..

 

I think "DL" is the one where a letter is folded into 3 sections

 

C5 is the one where the letter is folded in the middle.. isnt it ? That is the one they tend to use for their Default notices.

 

Although, I think the size of the envelope is irrelevant.. it is the specific service used that needs to be established.

[Series3]

the window in the "S" envelope shows more than the address, so wouldn't have been sent in one of those.

the "S" envelopes take an A4 sheet folded in half so the customer address lines up in the window.

I'll go scan now to show you what I mean.

 

also above about Harrison v Link, I may add the bit about post too.

[Series3]

here

 

mine was folded in 3 for a smaller envelope, maybe like the one in the Harrison case

[Series3]

moved lower

Edited January 2, 2013 by Series3

[citizenB]

14.

There was no creditor’s signature on the application form. If it is to be inferred that the squiggle in the top left hand corner is the creditors signature, when was this signature was added, who is the signatory, under what status the signature was applied and is it normal practice to counter sign documents in this way. Until the response I received, I had never seen a copy of this document with this signature applied

 

You have one "was" too many .. should read.. "when was this signature added?"

 

I have just noticed the dates of the supposed posting of your Default Notice.. It was posted at the start of the Christmas rush so almost certainly there would have been a delay due to that and the actual public holiday, days.. where RM would not have been delivering in any case !! Although I guess that is irrelevant as you have confirmed a delivery date of 21 December.

[Series3]

was now removed.

 

I only confirm that date because of the 4 days.

I already said I didn't remember the exact date, could have been Tues or even the Saturday before.

Saturday is not a working day for "deemed service" so monday 21st.

does that make sense?

 

good point about xmas rush.

would like to hint at that but could do it verbally at court.

 

would also like to use uk mail T&C from their website.

have to check if I listed them.

Edited January 2, 2013 by Series3

[citizenB]

Ah right, yes, it does

[DonkeyB]

14.

 

You have one "was" too many .. should read.. "when was this signature added?"

 

 

It really doesn’t matter when the lender’s signature was added – they could execute the agreement with a squiggle any time, prior to the claim, as long as they have done it. It’s also an easily rectifiable error if they had not done it. This bit therefore not needed.

Edited January 2, 2013 by DonkeyB

[Series3]

thanks for that.

 

I read something about an application being a per-contractual and being signed blind.

 

1974 Act states

 

(59)An agreement is void if, and to the extent that, it purports to bind a person to enter as a debtor or hirer into a prospective regulated agreement.

 

the creditor would have had the option of refusing my application and denying me credit.

they wouldn't have that option on an agreement

 

 

please correct me, I'll remove the point.

[DonkeyB]

It’s a bit like a bad default notice – can’t litigate without it being correct. But like a bad DN, it is easy to rectify. You do not deny that it is signed, and you have no evidence that it was not contemporaneous to the account opening.

 

IMHO, just likely to confuse or annoy the judge.

[Series3]

It will be gone, don't need more confusion..

 

thanks DonkeyB

 

I welcome your input.

[Series3]

Moved to end

Edited January 2, 2013 by Series3

[AndyOrch]

I would lose #17 you dont include case law within a WS...by all means refer to it or attach as an exhibit...but not in the main body.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[Series3]

Done.

thanks Andy.

 

Should I do the same with #29 or leave that in?

 

D Powells WS

13. The Claimant has a rigorous audit process in place to ensure that the Section 62 are provided to customers as it is required to do so by law.

 

14. I understand that he Claimant is required to provide a customer with a copy of the Agreement once both parties have executed it. By the way of an explanation, when the Claimant sends a customer a credit card, it is stuck to the terms and condition (card carrier), which enclosed the Section 63 terms and conditions and the credit card to the Defendant.

 

15. The terms and conditions would have been provided to the Defendant in the form of a separate booklet.

 

16. I fail to see how the Defendants asserts that he has failed to receive a copy of the associated terms and conditions. The Claimant instructs an external company to print off and collate card packs to send out to customers, the Claimant has stringent measures in place, which monitors, audits and assesses what documentation has been sent to a customer.

 

Judge in Harrison found they didn't send and were flaws in their system.

 

should I put something in about these points also?

Edited January 2, 2013 by Series3

[AndyOrch]

I would take it out and as stated above refer to it.

 

" 16. I fail to see how the Defendants asserts that he has failed to receive a copy of the associated terms and conditions. The Claimant instructs an external company to print off and collate card packs to send out to customers, the Claimant has stringent measures in place, which monitors, audits and assesses what documentation has been sent to a customer.

 

Obviously no grasp of the CCA1974 and what an agreement must embody and contain within the signatory agreement...not sent separately:roll:

[Series3]

Altered again

taken off for now.

Edited January 3, 2013 by Series3

[citizenB]

are your DN and agreement posted on the thread ?

[Series3]

I'll find them