Court Hearing on 9/06/10 - Egg/Cabot/Morgan v me - need help!!!

[wish me well]

Martel,

 

Have you ever heard of the 'Midnight Club'.

 

Kind Regards

 

The Mould

 

Everyone has, surely...........

 

WMW

Edited June 9, 2010 by wish me well
spelling

[The Mould]

No......but am I approaching entitlement to membership???

 

MX

 

 

Oh definately Martel, how good are you at howling?

 

Just a little light hearted fun to take the stress and strains away.

 

Kind Regards

 

The Mould

 

PS. I need to have a cup of tea and a smoke, back in 10 mins

[The Mould]

By the way Martel,

 

In that new shiny bundle that Morgan robots sent you today, what explaination do they give regarding the different numbers?

 

Do they say this is 'Charge off' account No's?

 

Kind Regards

 

The Mould

[The Mould]

OK Martel,

 

Hopefully catch you up on Sunday or Monday.

 

WMW, another top drawer loader from you, great work, it looks as though Martel has logged off to watch the filum, or maybe he/she is getting some howling practice in.

 

I love the way those soldiers talk to the warewolves.

 

Kind Regards

 

The Mould

[Martel]

By the way Martel,

 

In that new shiny bundle that Morgan robots sent you today, what explaination do they give regarding the different numbers?

 

Do they say this is 'Charge off' account No's?

 

Kind Regards

 

The Mould

 

Oh, we don't wait for midnight......we howl all day long here!!

 

Here's from their WS:

 

'For the sake of clarification, Cabot Europe has allocated reference number XXXX to the account. This reference number appears on some documents and correspondence in relation to the Defendant's account in this matter'.

 

Yeah, right - it's written by hand on some of their internal documents but not ones sent to me!! But it's used on their POCs....

 

Good night and thank you to all.....MXXX

[cymruambyth]

Have you see this post? I don't know if it will help http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-2964522.html

[Martel]

Cym!

 

Thanks for this! I did quote Wilson in my Defence but not this bit...definitely going into my WS.

 

MXXX

 

With credit to Tonster, here is the quote:

 

In the Wilson case the judge said:

 

“ 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.

 

The court is therefore barred from issuing an enforcement order under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, in accordance with sections 65 and 127(3) as it then was, and the claimant’s claim must fail.

 

So the T&C's are almost an irrelevance as the prescribed terms cannot be in the T&C's they need to be in the signature document which they clearly aren't."

[gh2008]

*PLEASE* before relying on that be aware of Waksman's ruling on Issue 5 in the 'Carey' case

[gh2008]

Well hello there, there is no right to cancel on the agreement which automatically means the court cannot enforce, sections 64 (1) and 127 (4)(b) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

I dont know all of the details but if they have not complied with that essential piece of info then its game over, no need for all of the defence above.

 

Hope this is of help

 

KWS, WMW

 

What makes this a cancellable agreement?

[Martel]

GH, thank you. Will return to my computer in about an hour and investigate then, MX

[The Mould]

Martel,

 

Are you going to speak with your opponents before the hearing?

 

Kind Regards

 

The Mould

[Martel]

*PLEASE* before relying on that be aware of Waksman's ruling on Issue 5 in the 'Carey' case

 

Hi GH,

 

My head is swimming after trying to penetrate the 'Carey' case.

 

Mine is not a reconstituted agreement but a copy of the original (that's not deemed 'reconstituted', is it?). I understand about references to T&Cs made on the doc, the fact it can be on a number of pages. However, it still maintains the a right to cancel is a prescribed term (doesn't it?) and that is missing from my 'agreement'.

 

So, does 'Carey' trump 'Wilson'? And, indeed, 'Dimond v Lovell'?

 

MX

[Martel]

Martel,

 

Are you going to speak with your opponents before the hearing?

 

Kind Regards

 

The Mould

 

Hi Mould,

 

I'm not convinced there's any point. Am brewing up another plan. Watch this space!

 

MC

[gh2008]

Issue 5 was nothing to do with reconstituted documents ????

 

Issue 5 was about what 'a document' was, what 'within all 4 corners' meant and clarified 'embody'

 

It does not 'trump' the others it clearly states what is and isn't acceptable in Law.

 

Paras 171-181 are the ones you need to read.

 

By this (and questioning whether this is a cancellable agreement) I am merely trying to reinforce how unprepared you are for a Fast Track trial - especially as you have no Witness Statement or any Bundle of documents to rely on.

[Martel]

Issue 5 was nothing to do with reconstituted documents ????

 

Issue 5 was about what 'a document' was, what 'within all 4 corners' meant and clarified 'embody'

 

It does not 'trump' the others it clearly states what is and isn't acceptable in Law.

 

Paras 171-181 are the ones you need to read.

 

By this (and questioning whether this is a cancellable agreement) I am merely trying to reinforce how unprepared you are for a Fast Track trial - especially as you have no Witness Statement or any Bundle of documents to rely on.

 

I've read the paras. Is there any significance to 177.4, stating Carey signed first and the bank countersigned? Mine is the other way around.

 

Mx

[gh2008]

I've read the paras. Is there any significance to 177.4, stating Carey signed first and the bank countersigned? Mine is the other way around.

 

Mx

 

I *think* it just means that they don't have to send an additional copy as that already is the unexecuted agreement which becomes executed upon your signature.

 

In Carey the original form was an application, then the creditor should send back an unexecuted copy and then a copy of the executed (which is normally sent with the 'card carrier')

[citizenB]

 

CPR 3.1.2

PART 3 - THE COURT’S CASE MANAGEMENT POWERS - Ministry of Justice

 

CPR 3.1(2)(b) gives the Court the power to adjourn a hearing. When exercising that power, the Court must consider the overriding objective of the CPR to deal with cases justly

 

in Fitzroy Robinson Limited v Mentmore Towers Limited and others [2009] EWHC 3070

 

 

Coulson J identified the following factors which the Court should take into account when considering an application to adjourn a trial at the eleventh hour:

• The parties' conduct and the reason for the delays; The extent to which the consequences of the delays can be overcome before the trial;
  
• The extent to which a fair trial may have been jeopardised by the delays;
  
• Specific matters affecting the trial, such as illness of a critical witness; The
  
• consequences of an adjournment for the Claimant, the Defendant and the Court.
  

 

Get on the phone to the other side - they *must* advise you as you are a LiP.

 

Ouch, IMHO I think you should be contacting the opposition. If you stay focussed on the objective just advise that you have been let down by your solicitor. Would they be agreeable to an extension of time in order for you to find new counsel or prepare your papework.

 

I would imagine if they didnt agree, then you could make an application to the court directly.. probably by N244, this would of course cost you. I think £40. without a hearing and £75. with.

 

I will hit the S.O.S button and flag your thread for the site team.

[Martel]

Hi CB,

 

Great to hear from you!! I am waiting to hear from Morgan's if they will consent to a postponement. If I don't hear by the end of today, I will file the N244 tomorrow (have a letter from my ex sols). Ir will be cutting it fine but what else can I do?

 

Thanks for your input!

 

MX

[gh2008]

That's fine 8) Phew

 

If they refuse and the Court grants it (which I am pretty sure they will) then the other side could even be responsible for your costs in this part of the action. Main point is they can't get you for a few £k for Counsel turning up on the day

[citizenB]

Hi CB,

 

Great to hear from you!! I am waiting to hear from Morgan's if they will consent to a postponement. If I don't hear by the end of today, I will file the N244 tomorrow (have a letter from my ex sols). Ir will be cutting it fine but what else can I do?

 

Thanks for your input!

 

MX

 

 

Excellent. Once you know where you are with time, then you can start to work on getting your paperwork together.

[foolishgirl]

I will file the N244tomorrow (have a letter from my ex sols)

 

Glad to hear you got the letter safely martel.

 

If you have to file an app, I would turn up at court on Weds anyway just in case it hasn't hit your file. You don't want them to obtain judgment by default in your absence due to admin error

[Martel]

That's fine 8) Phew

 

If they refuse and the Court grants it (which I am pretty sure they will) then the other side could even be responsible for your costs in this part of the action. Main point is they can't get you for a few £k for Counsel turning up on the day

 

Ah, GH,

 

You see, I AM paying attention!

 

There's still the all too real risk of Morgan's NOT complying (I've asked for an adjournment on another hearing as well, next Monday - I have a new thread for that that begins 'Another Court Hearing' if you're interested). And, of course, the DJ could dismiss my N244 and insist on the hearing...

 

So, I'm still in front of the firing squad, just haven't been shot yet!!

 

Thanks for you support....

 

MX

[Martel]

Excellent. Once you know where you are with time, then you can start to work on getting your paperwork together.

 

Yes, then the fun begins!! Fingers crossed and thanks for your help, MX

[Martel]

Glad to hear you got the letter safely martel.

 

If you have to file an app, I would turn up at court on Weds anyway just in case it hasn't hit your file. You don't want them to obtain judgment by default in your absence due to admin error

 

I haven't sent my sol's letter to Morgan's with my request for a adjournment - is it necessary to do so?

 

If I have to file tomorrow, I will go to the court myself and mark it all sorts of URGENT. And, of course, pitch up on Weds just to be safe.

 

Thanks, FG!!!!

 

MX

[Martel]

So......got a letter from Morgan's just now willing to consent but wanting me to sign a consent to liability to their costs incurred on preparing for the hearings. They will forward these Consent Orders to the Court with the appropriate fee for their consideration

 

Two such orders are enclosed.

 

Where I come from, this is known as blackmail! Is this common?

 

MX