Curious twist on two CCA requests-they are taking me to Court!

[Laiste]

Here's the 2nd installment!

 

Returning to the trial documents that had to be submitted on the 4th& 5th Jan, HFC’s sols did not send us any paperwork, or submit anything to the Crt. We did think for a short period of time that they had decided to give up after receiving the cc. Nothing so straightforward obviously! On the 6th Jan (Sat) we got a letter from them, which contained a copy of the Application Notice (AN) they were submitting to the Crt, essentially saying that they had not received the Court’s Directions, with the trial date and applicable dates for submitting documents, so could not prepare for the trial. Much of their explanation for not having the Order and why they hadn’t been in contact with the Crt, was incoherent babbling. How convenient that they hadn’t got the Order! The Crt vacated the trial by telephoning each party on the Monday, and this (IMO), bought them some more time to decide what to do about our cc!

 

Meanwhile, I waited for the Crt order to arrive. We received it on the 16th Jan, it was dated the 15th. The Judge instructed HFC to provide all info requested in the SAR’s by the 31st Jan. As is the usual practice, any party that wishes to set aside or vary the Order, has 7 days to apply to the Crt. I decided that I was going to write back to the senior manager at HFC, advising her that I would not be requesting the info under a SAR, as the matter was now the subject of a Crt Order. I took the opportunity to correct her on a number of factual inaccuracies, and inform her that they had until 31st Jan to provide the info, otherwise on the 1st Feb the Court would be informed of their non compliance. I included a copy of the Crt Order sent to me. Just to let you know from the comments this woman made in her letters, it was evident that she was entirely familiar with the case, she is not a customer service bod, with little or very vague knowledge of the case. I am making this point because her involvement was significant and what you are about to read beggars belief!

 

So, the letter is addressed to her personally and sent by g/d on the same day as I receive it, the 16th Jan. Given they only had 7 days to apply to the Crt, I didn’t want them claiming they hadn’t got it in time! It was also a good idea IMO to ensure that as well as the Directions being sent to the sols by the Crt, that I send a copy to the claimants directly, after all they were the ones who would be providing the info! It was received by her office before 1pm on the 17th Jan.

 

There was nothing for me to do except wait for the info to arrive or report their non-compliance. On the 29th Jan we got a letter from the sols, with an AN attached which they were intending to submit. The witness statement drafted by one of the sols that was included, had to be seen to be believed!

 

They sols state that they only received the Directions on the 25th Jan. Now get this, they only became aware of the existence of a Court document, following a conversation that I apparently had with someone at HFC on the 24th Jan, during which I am supposed to have made reference to a Court date of the 31st Jan!

 

No such conversation EVER took place, it’s complete nonsense! Why on earth would I speak to them, I had absolutely no reason to! The letter sent to the manager at HFC was categoric in its instructions that they had to provide the info by the Jan 31st. I completely understood the Judge’s instructions and there was no mention of a hearing on the 31st Jan, a fact evidenced by both my letter and copy of the Crt Order received by HFC on the 17th Jan! This work of fiction was obviously concocted to provide the background story to them not receiving the Court Order, the 2nd one I might add, that had mysteriously failed to turn up!

 

The witness statement of the sol actually states that the claimant (HFC) did not become aware of the existence of the Crt Order until the 24th Jan! I couldn’t believe I was reading this! I have irrefutable proof it was delivered on the 17th Jan! The sol said they received it on the 25th, having been contacted by (one presumes) the person I am alleged to have spoken to, querying this matter of the Crt date, which prompted the sol into action and she promptly contacted the Crt to get a copy of the Order faxed over!

 

In view of the fact that both the claimants and sols had only received the Crt Order on the 24&25th Jan respectively, the sol wanted the Order set aside as my request for info was unreasonable, or in the alternative, for them to be given more time to comply and to be able to amend their particulars of claim! Priceless! I have thought about this and it is entirely feasible that if HFC have a post room, the manager may be unaware that the letter was sent by g/d if it was taken out of the envelope before it was taken to her! That would seem like the only logical explanation for them saying when they received the letter, because they certainly can’t argue with the postage proof! Unless, they think I would have disposed of the proof? That wouldn’t make sense though, if you send letters by such methods, it’s so you have proof! I haven’t yet sent them a copy of the AN we filed after receiving theirs, so if they do have a post room, which I gather they will have, they are not yet aware of the letter being sent by guaranteed post.

 

I was determined to put the Judge in the picture about their lies and dirty tricks. I was in the midst of putting together my AN, and on the 1st Feb a package arrives by r/d from HFC. It’s a huge volume of paperwork, which we sat down and read through, literally the moment it arrived. Much of the info I requested, cannot be underestimated in it’s damaging effect to their case. Guess what? What they provided was a fraction of the incriminating info I had requested, so they didn’t comply with the Order. They sent a lot of meaningless info, in my opinion, to drown us in paperwork, it didn’t work! I set out everything in a lengthy letter to the Judge, putting him firmly in the picture. I should add that in their AN they requested a hearing, obviously to argue the reasonableness of them having to provide the info and to amend their claim (IMO) to remove the penalty charges, which I have made a big issue out of! In my AN I have asked for their AN to be struck out in its entirety and Judgment by Default awarded to us.

 

At the end of last wk, wondering why we hadn’t heard from the Crt, I rang to find out what was going on. Help me understand what I’m about to tell you, because we are baffled. The Judge has dismissed my request for their AN to be struck out and for Judgment to be awarded to us. He has granted them a hearing as they requested!:o

 

So they make up stories, I prove to the Judge they have lied, which can’t be refuted and they are entitled to a hearing! Which is why I made the point earlier that just on the basis of not submitting paperwork by the 8th December alone, they would have got Judgment against us! Does anyone think that this decision by the Judge represents each party being fairly and equally treated? I thought I had heard the member of Court staff incorrectly when she advised me what the decision was! Well, the very same day I submitted a letter to the Judge asking for the reasons for his decision, there is absolutely no way I am accepting this! I have been informed by the Court that I will get the letter tomorrow.

 

So I am thinking about the details to include in my appeal at the moment! I am interested to hear everyone’s thoughts on this, so feel free! You may get very brief answers from me, for the next couple of days, as my fingers are numb from typing this up! So there you have it, sorry it’s so long!

 

Laiste.

[Laiste]

Good morning!

 

Well so much for receiving the Court's Directions and the letter explaining the Judge's decision this morning! I was looking forward to telling you why the Judge thinks HFC should get a further bite of the cherry even though they have not complied with the Order and attempted to deceive one and all about when they received the Directions!

 

Turning this situation on its head, is there the remotest possibility that the reason the Judge has granted them a hearing, is that he wants to haul them over the coals, over what they've done? Or is this decision as unfair and biased as it appears to be?

 

Laiste.

[humbleman]

Here's the 2nd installment!

 

The Judge has dismissed my request for their AN to be struck out and for Judgment to be awarded to us. He has granted them a hearing as they requested!:o

 

 

Laiste

 

Just to clarify, you were the defendant in this case and a judgement has been made against you??

[Laiste]

Hi Humbleman,

 

Yes I am the defendant. Judgment has not been awarded against me, I asked for Judgment against HFC because of everything they have done. The Judge has declined to award us Judgment against HFC. He has also refused to throw out their Application Notice, as I had asked him to and is allowing them to have a hearing to raise the arguments they put forward in their Application Notice.

 

I hope this clarifies things.

 

Regards,

 

Laiste.

[e28bigalbexley]

Hi Laiste,

Laiste im so disappointed for you, you must exhausted and at your wits end.

This surly cant be fair decision and yes unfortunately i think your right in saying that it is biased. (I would have used a slightly stronger term).

I wont comment further than that at the moment as i want to read your post a couple of more times myself. I sure others will be along soon and offer good advice.

I know i must be difficult not to feel disappointed, but i for one believe you will get the right result in the end, although at this present time that must seem like light years away.

Wishing you and your family all the best

Chin up

AL:)

[Laiste]

Hi Al,

 

Many thanks for your support and comments. To be honest, I'm not at my wits end, I knew this was going to be a marathon and not a sprint and with legal proceedings things don't always go according to plan! I'm certainly not happy with what the Judge has decided. By all appearances, this is a perverse decision, that flies in the face the of logic, justice and reason! That said, there is an appeals procedure and I intend to make full use of it! This is just a test of my resolve, that's all! It's a setback and lets face it, if my appeal is rejected and they get the hearing, so what! They have to face me in Court and I am going to be one formidable and uncompromising opponent. If they want a fight, then I'll give them one!

 

Laiste.

[PriorityOne]

Good morning!

 

Well so much for receiving the Court's Directions and the letter explaining the Judge's decision this morning! I was looking forward to telling you why the Judge thinks HFC should get a further bite of the cherry even though they have not complied with the Order and attempted to deceive one and all about when they received the Directions!

 

Turning this situation on its head, is there the remotest possibility that the reason the Judge has granted them a hearing, is that he wants to haul them over the coals, over what they've done? Or is this decision as unfair and biased as it appears to be?

 

Laiste.

 

Hi Laiste,

 

I am so sorry that you are still being forced to go through this !! :o It must be such a strain for you and your husband...

 

Until you get the Judge's decision through though, it will be difficult to see how his thinking may have been swayed by HFCs tactics. I say "may" because I would like to clling on to the hope that the reason he has allowed then to have their day in court is to see what they can come up with to justify their non-compliance, etc. If that is not the case... then I would have to agree with you that the decision of the Judge has been biased in their favour.

 

Don't lose heart though. Although HFC will have their day in court... you will have your day as well. You have mentioned that you are able to prove certain things yourself, which should mean that HFC will be left unable to dispute things in the way they would like.

 

Please post the Judge's decision on here if you can.... when you get it.

 

Meanwhile, keep up the fight and stay strong....

[Laiste]

Hi Priority,

 

Thanks for your support. To be honest, this isn't a strain, we are just taking it all in our stride. There is no point panicking or worrying about the situation, we just have to work on putting coherent and persuasive arguments together that paint a compelling picture of how the claimants have behaved, for the Judge.

 

Interestingly, the Judge has ordered a telephone hearing, rather than a hearing in Court. In some respects I think this may be advantageous to us. Each party obviously will not know what the other is saying and he is maybe curious to hear how they are going to explain themselves, with regard to recent events! Do they have a magician....?

 

We got the Court Order this morning, but did not receive the Judge's reasons! This conflicts with what we told by a member of Court staff.:o He's been on a wk's holiday, so we'll get it next wk...which is not ideal, but hey ho!

 

Laiste.

[Cornucopia]

Hi Priority,

 

Thanks for your support. To be honest, this isn't a strain, we are just taking it all in our stride. There is no point panicking or worrying about the situation, we just have to work on putting coherent and persuasive arguments together that paint a compelling picture of how the claimants have behaved, for the Judge.

 

Interestingly, the Judge has ordered a telephone hearing, rather than a hearing in Court. In some respects I think this may be advantageous to us. Each party obviously will not know what the other is saying and he is maybe curious to hear how they are going to explain themselves, with regard to recent events! Do they have a magician....?

 

We got the Court Order this morning, but did not receive the Judge's reasons! This conflicts with what we told by a member of Court staff.:o He's been on a wk's holiday, so we'll get it next wk...which is not ideal, but hey ho!

 

Laiste.

 

Hi Laiste,

 

Just wanted to say that I am sorry this hasn't gone your way (yet), but there is still hope and it will be interesting to see how they do manage to explain themselves as you say.

 

Looking forward to the next instalment of your "tome"!

 

Lots of luck!

[JonCris]

Laist Its' to your advantage that the judge has not granted you summary judgement. If he did HFC could & probably would apply to have it set aside.

 

I suspect the judge has granted the hearing because he wants to been seen asgving them every opportunity to put their case. I also suspect (as has already been mentioned ) that he wants them to explain themselves to his face & he may have some harsh words for them.

 

This is pure conjecture but he could also be about to warn them about making false statements to the court

[Laiste]

Hi Joncris,

 

Thanks for your comments, much appreciated. Whilst obviously my 1st reaction was one of annoyance and disbelief, I have adopted a more rounded perspective, and tried to understand what the Judge's view of the situation might be. As you wisely point out, chances are if I had been granted judgment by default, they would have appealed. If they are given a crack of the whip to dig themselves a bigger hole, it cannot be said the Judge failed to follow the CPR and treated them unfairly. He may also want to haul them over the coals for lying to the Court and generally abusing the system.

 

Obviously, this cannot be reconciled with the fact that had we not submitted documents in Dec 06, HFC would have immediately been entitled to Judgment! I'll use that little gem, if it becomes necessary for me to appeal, but we will have to see what transpires at the hearing!

 

Regards,

 

Laiste.

[KHMcBey]

Good luck Laiste, we're all rooting for you

[rippedoffagain]

Fascinating Laiste

 

Hooked subscriber.

[paulwlton]

Hi Guys,

 

Many thanks for your messages!

 

I may be entirely wrong in my thinking here, but there has to be a reason why Parliament set down very specific timescales for Companies to comply with CCA requests.Why would criminal liability be factored into the legislation if very little was going to happen to Companies who didn't comply. I realise licenses can be revoked, but in reality, what is the chance of that happening?

 

Surely there has to be a reason why Companies have to seek the permission of a District Judge to proceed with a case where they haven't complied with the CCA 1974, in time, irrespective of whether the documents have been furnished, be it even a long time after the 1 month has expired.

 

I suppose what I am saying is, (if a case goes ahead) the Judge must have the power/discretion to say the debt is unenforceable, because they are in breach of the Act and their actions give rise to criminal liability. Many legal cases turn on a technicality, why not a situation such as this? It sends very much the wrong message to banks and c/c Companies, if they think they can ignore the CCA 1974, and commit criminal offences without any sanctions!

 

Perhaps ours will be test cases, I just feel that the prospect of them being able to enforce the debts having flouted the Act, which after all regulates their business and which they are supposed to be fully conversant with, is beyond comprehension. If we have to go Court over this to let a Judge decide, then so be it! It will be a great help to everyone here doing CCA requests, if a Judge agrees with us.

 

I am very interested to hear people's views.

 

Laiste.

 

Hi Laiste

 

I had a meeting with a Legall Eagle at Trading Standards in January he seems to think they have a defence for not complying with the time stipulated in the 1974 Act.

 

Paul.

[Laiste]

Hi Paul,

 

Goodness me, that's a post from way back when! Things have moved on significantly since then! To address your comments, I don't see what defence a bank or c/c could raise for not complying with the timescales of the Act, as you haven't detailed what your legal eagle said?

 

Laiste.

[The Lantana]

I think the 'defence' is that they couldn't find it.

 

I suspect the reality is that if a creditor presents an otherwise enforceable agreement in court, save for non-compliance with a statutory cca request, most Judges will accept it.

 

Fines etc. for criminal breaches are not the concern of the civil courts.

 

You can counterclaim that they need a court order, but the Judge could simply grant that order in the course of the hearing - I think.

 

Many have written on this site that Bank's etc. won't dare go to court with an agreement once they've breached the terms of a statutory cca request. I beg to differ, but hope to be proved wrong.

 

Regards

 

 

Lantana

[Laiste]

Hi Lantana,

 

Lets be honest many of the banks and c/c's are arrogant enough to try that "defence!"

 

Unfortuntely, the Act does not provide that a Judge can exercise discretion and declare a debt unenforceable for non-compliance with a CCA request. If the docs weren't furnished for 6mnths for example, the debt would not be owed for that period of time, but that's hardly satisfactory is it? Judges have to accept a valid agreement, irrespective of a creditor's behaviour!

 

As you correctly point out criminal acts are not the responsibility of the civil Courts. There isn't much of a deterrant for Companies who act illegally, when there's more chance of Lord Lucan being found than them being prosecuted!

 

When HFC didn't comply with the CCA timescale and committed an offence, they didn't apply for a Court Order to proceed with the case! They filed a claim in the normal way and none of my protestations made a blind bit of difference!

 

It's absolute nonsense that a Company wouldn't dare go to Court having breached a CCA request! My case with HFC is proof! It's more of a forlorn hope that people have, rather than anything based on fact! Halifax have just recently issued proceedings against me, having not complied with my CCA request! They have commenced legal action and do you think they have furnished the agreement? You don't need me to tell you the answer....!

 

Regards,

 

Laiste.

[Cornucopia]

Hi Lantana,

 

Lets be honest many of the banks and c/c's are arrogant enough to try that "defence!"

 

Unfortuntely, the Act does not provide that a Judge can exercise discretion and declare a debt unenforceable for non-compliance with a CCA request. If the docs weren't furnished for 6mnths for example, the debt would not be owed for that period of time, but that's hardly satisfactory is it? Judges have to accept a valid agreement, irrespective of a creditor's behaviour!

 

As you correctly point out criminal acts are not the responsibility of the civil Courts. There isn't much of a deterrant for Companies who act illegally, when there's more chance of Lord Lucan being found than them being prosecuted!

 

When HFC didn't comply with the CCA timescale and committed an offence, they didn't apply for a Court Order to proceed with the case! They filed a claim in the normal way and none of my protestations made a blind bit of difference!

 

It's absolute nonsense that a Company wouldn't dare go to Court having breached a CCA request! My case with HFC is proof! It's more of a forlorn hope that people have, rather than anything based on fact! Halifax have just recently issued proceedings against me, having not complied with my CCA request! They have commenced legal action and do you think they have furnished the agreement? You don't need me to tell you the answer....!

 

Regards,

 

Laiste.

 

Good evening Laiste & others,

 

I am currently on the edge of criminal non-compliance with a CCA although my story is rather more long and complicated than just that, however, your case, Laiste, is obviously important to me given my circumstances.

 

I would point out that I have come across several people on the site who have had their debts written off on the basis of CCA non-compliance without having set foot in the Court.

 

Maybe this is dependant on the costs that the creditor would have to shoulder to bring the case in comparison to the debt, even though one I know of was rather large (£6K in fact). Alternatively, maybe they are fearful of commencing proceedings because they have acted in an unlawful manner in other aspects of the case (something I believe applies to me).

 

I do find it hard to understand how companies can continually break a law and yet carry on as if it doesn't apply to them. I continue to watch your thread with interest and hope that justice will prevail........

[The Lantana]

I see on the news tonight that following a mere 100 complaints TS are investigating dodgy petrol for sale in Kent.

 

Nationally, TS must have 1,000's of complaints of Banks etc. failing to comply with s77/78 requests yet do nothing. Why should Banks respect the law when they don't have too.

 

The situation is disgraceful. You have my full support (for what it's worth).

 

Regards

 

Lantana

[rippedoffagain]

We are fighting a system, the powers that be do not want the population joining forces to upset the status quo!

 

The lenders take a much bigger cut from the poor s*ds that get into difficulty.

 

Lend you up to the eyeballs in "unsecured" debt, then invite you to consolidate, maybe a nice "low rate" secured loan, default on that and wham your house has gone, perhaps 20 to 30 percent below market value.

 

Halifax Auction Guide :: Auction Results

[paulwlton]

Hi Paul,

 

Goodness me, that's a post from way back when! Things have moved on significantly since then! To address your comments, I don't see what defence a bank or c/c could raise for not complying with the timescales of the Act, as you haven't detailed what your legal eagle said?

 

Laiste.

 

In a letter i received 3 months after my CCA 78 Request it stated.

 

Unfortunately, i have been unable to trace your original request which i understand was forwarded for my attention. Please accept my apology.

 

Trading Standards seem to think the above can be used as a defence.

[Cornucopia]

In a letter i received 3 months after my CCA 78 Request it stated.

 

Unfortunately, i have been unable to trace your original request which i understand was forwarded for my attention. Please accept my apology.

 

Trading Standards seem to think the above can be used as a defence.

 

Paul, have you sent them the template letter along the lines of "you have committed a criminal offence therefore I am walking away", I am sorry to be unspecific but it is late and I tired tonight! I wondered if you had, what the response had been.

 

I cannot see that they can use "we cannot find it" as a defence. You are surely not taking that as gospel??

 

Where's JonCris, he would know!

[Laiste]

Hi Cornucopia,

 

I appreciate where you are at with your CCA requests. That said, if people have had debts written off, it is highly unlikely that these Companies will have given a reason to debtors as to why the debt has been written off. My opinion, is that it is the supposition of said individuals that this is the reason, rather than this being confirmed by the bank or c/c. They are extremely secretive and are unlikely to reveal things, probably for fear of that person telling 100 of their closest friends! It really is an assumption that non-compliance with a CCA request will scare them so much, that they write the debt off!

 

Personally, I believe from my own experiences, that there are various business reasons for Companies opting to discontinue with a case, and it's impossible to discover what they are! Silence pervades matters, just as it does with penalty charges!

 

You shouldn't find it hard to believe that banks and c/c's break laws, there is a wealth of evidence on here that confirms it's exactly what they do! Money makes Companies do the unthinkable and unless we challenge them, we bear the consequences!

 

As you say, lets hope justice prevails!

 

Laiste.

[joneshousehold]

In a letter i received 3 months after my CCA 78 Request it stated.

 

Unfortunately, i have been unable to trace your original request which i understand was forwarded for my attention. Please accept my apology.

 

Trading Standards seem to think the above can be used as a defence.

 

Paul, I think what you are actually saying here is that the request has never been received by the creditor. Did you send it by recorded delivery or has the £1 cheque been cleared from your account? If you can prove they did receive it then their defence is not reasonable. Otherwise Trading Standards are probably right and you will have to start again with a request but this time make sure you use recorded delivery. There can be no doubt then and they cannot use non-receipt as a defence.

[Cornucopia]

Paul, I think what you are actually saying here is that the request has never been received by the creditor. Did you send it by recorded delivery or has the £1 cheque been cleared from your account? If you can prove they did receive it then their defence is not reasonable. Otherwise Trading Standards are probably right and you will have to start again with a request but this time make sure you use recorded delivery. There can be no doubt then and they cannot use non-receipt as a defence.

 

A voice of common sense! It was so late, I completely mis-read Paul's post! I see what you are saying now, in which case, yes it would be defence unless receipt could be proved.

 

I agree, do it again, recorded or special, see what happens next!