Amex/Mischcon V Me

[Martel]

Have been so preoccupied with my recent hearings that I'd managed to forget (for 2 minutes) about the looming Amex hearing which glamourous Mishcon de Reya has taken up for poor, little defenceless Amex. There's A LOT of history here but I'll pick up the story from the present.

 

It had been stayed pending the outcome of the Manchester test cases.

 

Now, the deadlines are:

 

Standard Disclosure by 30/6.

 

WS exchanged by 28/7.

 

Pre-trial checklist 18/8

 

Multitrack Hearing date TBC in September.

 

The DN is DEFECTIVE, which, presumably, may invalidate the Claim (POCs are the greediest things you've ever read, they keep amending them to add more stuff as they think of it).

 

My questions are:

 

Is it worth point the DN situation out to the sols - might that avert a hearing? Or is that a stupid idea?

 

Should I send a CPR request and, if so, to Mishcon or Amex and which CPR to send?

 

Many thanks in advance! MXX

[zhanzhibar]

Hi Martel,

 

I am in the same boat as you. well.. guess Amex has transferred all their cases from Brachers to Mishcon coz I got a letter from them too saying a change of solicitor. Amex/Brachers tried to take me on summary judgment but they lost due to invalid DN, no credit agreement (as it was online application in my case). Its been 9 months since I last battle with them in court for summary judgment which I won & suddenly i received the AQ N150. Its a new type of N150 that I have not seen b4 ( i have filled in a few!) am wondering if you could let me know the link to your thread so i can see whether I could get some guidance on filling in the form?

[Martel]

Hi Zhan,

 

Ugh....Amex.....they are total thugs, unlike the 'classy' image they like to project!!

 

I don't have another thread on this....but looked up the new 150 you referred to. On a quick glance, it doesn't seem TOO different from the previous one.

 

I think Amex must be hoping for more success reclaiming debt following the Rankine case.....i.e., they can simply 'reconstruct' the agreement and the court will probably sanction this (I've just lost a big Cabot claim that was only remotely subject to the Rankine judgment).

 

Amazing that you defeated them in a SJ hearing - good for you!!!

 

I'm not all that knowledgeable, but isn't a defective DN grounds for invalidating an agreement?

 

I kind of wish Amex/Brachers had gone for a SJ with me. What happened was.....Amex/Brachers issued the Claim, which was stayed pending the outcome of the test cases. A few months ago, I started getting letters from Brachers, admitting my agreement was flawed but 'in the spirit of compromise' they would consider an offer from me (!). Then, the court, not Amex, reinstated the claim and Mishcon is now on board.

 

Having just endured 3 hearings on separate claims in one week after my sols dumped me 3 days before, I'd love never to see the inside of my court ever again - or to meet the same DJ, who now manages all my claims (look up the definition of 'prejudice'). So, I don't know whether to just write to Mishcon and point out the DN problem or go through the motions in court.

 

From my recent experience, I would advise getting some solid advice - but explore the DN issue. I could be totally wrong, but I think a dodgy DN could be the key to defeating these parasites. I don't know about your Claim and POCs, but almost half the amount stated on mine is interest, penalties and legal costs.

 

Do you have a thread?

 

MXX

[zhanzhibar]

Hi Zhan,

 

Ugh....Amex.....they are total thugs, unlike the 'classy' image they like to project!!

 

I soo agree with you there..They are not just thugs..parasites.. names that I can't even put here..They didn't comply to the law & think they are soo big that they can't be wrong!

 

I think Amex must be hoping for more success reclaiming debt following the Rankine case.....i.e., they can simply 'reconstruct' the agreement and the court will probably sanction this (I've just lost a big Cabot claim that was only remotely subject to the Rankine judgment).

 

Oh dear ..sorry to hear that you lost the case...

 

I don't have another thread on this....but looked up the new 150 you referred to. On a quick glance, it doesn't seem TOO different from the previous one.

 

Amazing that you defeated them in a SJ hearing - good for you!!!

One would think after that they will think twice before going to trial ..but noo they have to drag me to court again.

Because I have won the SJ, hence the not sure what to put as to reason why I do not want to settle and why I have not complied with relevant pre-action protocol..

 

I'm not all that knowledgeable, but isn't a defective DN grounds for invalidating an agreement?

Yep..that's what the DJ on my SJ stated in his judgement & not only that, in my case, there wasn't any agreement as it was applied online.

 

I kind of wish Amex/Brachers had gone for a SJ with me. What happened was.....Amex/Brachers issued the Claim, which was stayed pending the outcome of the test cases.

If I may ask, what test case?

 

A few months ago, I started getting letters from Brachers, admitting my agreement was flawed but 'in the spirit of compromise' they would consider an offer from me (!). Then, the court, not Amex, reinstated the claim and Mishcon is now on board.

Ohh no..

 

Having just endured 3 hearings on separate claims in one week after my sols dumped me 3 days before, I'd love never to see the inside of my court ever again - or to meet the same DJ, who now manages all my claims (look up the definition of 'prejudice').

Is he/she allowed to do that?

 

So, I don't know whether to just write to Mishcon and point out the DN problem or go through the motions in court.

Sorry, wish I could help but I am not an expert to suggest which way to go esp when you have the same DJ. Unless the DJ is an expert in Consumer law, he/she should take time to really read both sides. The DJ for my SJ, have to reserve judgment in court coz he said I have given him so many authorities that he does not know himself that he needs to go away & read things through..now that I think is what all DJ should do.. read & digest what both parties submit to them.

 

Do you have a thread?

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/137617-zhanzhibar-amex-aic-newman.html

[cymruambyth]

Martel, 3 was greedy but 4!!!!!!!!! Need I say anymore?????? Is this also reserved for your favourite DJ?

[Martel]

I soo agree with you there..They are not just thugs..parasites.. names that I can't even put here..They didn't comply to the law & think they are soo big that they can't be wrong! I'd love to produce an alternative Amex ad, starring the nasty dimwits in Brighton, unspeakable thugs from Newman's and a chorus line of sols from Brachers and Mishcon.......

 

 

 

Oh dear ..sorry to hear that you lost the case... TWO Cabot cases......a nightmare

 

 

One would think after that they will think twice before going to trial ..but noo they have to drag me to court again. I'm sure they have some new found confidence after the Rankine decision in their favour....though I don't think it will apply to you because of the dodgy DN

Because I have won the SJ, hence the not sure what to put as to reason why I do not want to settle and why I have not complied with relevant pre-action protocol..Think you need to seek advice from someone who knows their way around these forms....

 

 

Yep..that's what the DJ on my SJ stated in his judgement & not only that, in my case, there wasn't any agreement as it was applied online.As I said above, they'll just magic up a 'representation' of your agreement.....but I think you still might have the upper hand because of your flawed DN

 

 

If I may ask, what test case? There were test cases in Manchester. And the Rankine case was, I believe, at the High Court - not sure if it's defined as a 'test case'.

 

Ohh no..

 

Is he/she allowed to do that?Sadly, yes.

 

Sorry, wish I could help but I am not an expert to suggest which way to go esp when you have the same DJ. Unless the DJ is an expert in Consumer law, he/she should take time to really read both sides. The DJ for my SJ, have to reserve judgment in court coz he said I have given him so many authorities that he does not know himself that he needs to go away & read things through..now that I think is what all DJ should do.. read & digest what both parties submit to them. Sounds like you had a decent DJ. It's a lottery (tho not in my case!).

 

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/137617-zhanzhibar-amex-aic-newman.html

 

Will have a look over le weekend!

[Martel]

Martel, 3 was greedy but 4!!!!!!!!! Need I say anymore?????? Is this also reserved for your favourite DJ?

 

 

As Dorothy Parker might say....what fresh hell is this??

 

Ah.....for a little light relief, you might want to wander over to my 5th thread (Big Overdradt, etc....).

 

Yes to the DJ question.....do you they have a crush on me???

 

Maybe I should just start my own website.....gluttonforpunishment.com

 

MX

[Monty2007]

As Dorothy Parker might say....what fresh hell is this??

 

Ah.....for a little light relief, you might want to wander over to my 5th thread (Big Overdradt, etc....).

 

Yes to the DJ question.....do you they have a crush on me???

 

Maybe I should just start my own website.....gluttonforpunishment.com

 

MX

 

Dear Martel

 

I thought that Brachers were working for Amex, who are Mishcon de Reya?

[Martel]

It's been passed from Bracher's to s****y Mishcon (they repped Princess Diana in her divorce, e.g.).

 

Amex's legal fees probably exceed the amount of the debt.

 

Am sure they're feeling frisky post Rankine but they should really scrutinise their docs before carelessly hounding certain people through the courts....MX

Edited June 19, 2010 by Martel
I dont understand why the word 's****y' mutated into 's*****'

[cymruambyth]

Have you looked at Shakespeare's appeal thread as he is dealing with Amex and Mishcon?

[Martel]

In post 6, I refer to Mishcon as S****Y - 'very fancy, posh, trendy'. I don't know why it's been changed to s***** - not the meaning i intended at all.

[Martel]

Have you looked at Shakespeare's appeal thread as he is dealing with Amex and Mishcon?

 

Just glanced at the last few pages. From what I read, I guess I can just hi directly Mishcon's from this thread! So much for their classy rep!!

 

Have previously dipped and out of that thread but will give it a closer look. Appears there is no reportable resolution as yet?

 

Thanks again, Cym....MX

[supasnooper]

Cpr 31.14 to Mischcon for any of the documnets listed in the POC

 

Please can you post up the POC .

[Martel]

Hi Supa,

 

These are the Amended POCs. The total is almost 50% higher than on the original.

 

And Particulars (ii) are about HALF of (i).

 

(!!!!)

 

I can post the orig POCs tomorrow, if that helps.

 

Am unsure whether to write directly to Mishcon re the DN.

 

Thanks for the guidance!

MX

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=19249&stc=1&d=1276972394

Amex186.pdf

[creditcardmug]

Ive just logged on to see this, you are not doing yourself any favours by not posting up any of the relevant docs...if you want proper genuine help, you will obviously have to post up everything relevant, i.e. the original poc, the amended poc, and how the court process got to that, your defence to the claim, and any subsequent developments

 

In short this whole thread is a nonsense without the full details, in my opinion

[Martel]

Ive just logged on to see this, you are not doing yourself any favours by not posting up any of the relevant docs...if you want proper genuine help, you will obviously have to post up everything relevant, i.e. the original poc, the amended poc, and how the court process got to that, your defence to the claim, and any subsequent developments

 

In short this whole thread is a nonsense without the full details, in my opinion

 

I don’t understand the level of aggression and criticism here.

 

This thread is only in its 4th day and there are only 15 posts at the moment. We all know that Amex/Brachers/Mishcon monitor this site (they’ve produced a copy of an entire Amex thread in court). Posting lots of docs that may prejudice one’s case requires thought and caution. And time.

 

I haven’t had the luxury of time to formulate a strategy re the above because I am dealing with the fallout from THREE hearings in SEVEN days, two of which require N420s and the meter is seriously ticking on both. There are other legal issues going on in the background and I have to prioritise according to court deadlines.

 

What I was trying to ascertain in the first instance is whether it was worth approaching Mishcon directly and pointing out the DN is irredeemably flawed (presumably making the claim a nonstarter) in an effort to head the hearing off at the pass. Several sols have confirmed the DN is a dud.

 

There is also a problem with the agreement, but, and you’ll have to trust me here, I can’t risk posting it. Again, sols have confirmed the problem.

 

I may be posting other docs anon if I feel or don’t care if they’re ‘incriminating’ but have to tend to the N420s and other hideous legal matters.

 

So, comments like ‘this whole thread is a nonsense’ are not, to my mind, warranted or very helpful.

[Martel]

So, I get this URGENT letter from Mishcon - love the way they assume I'm just sitting here, waiting for them to write to me. i could be away for a few weeks.

 

Anyway, can't make out what they're up to....other than no good.

 

Why would they amend the POCs? Oh, I haven't scanned the 3 page 'statement of account' they want to submit to the court. Weird that it's dated now, when it was terminated in 2006.

 

Would love some advice on how to respond! Many thanks, MX

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=19340&stc=1&d=1277247969

Amex187.pdf

[zhanzhibar]

Hiya

 

Brachers did same thing to me too. Can't remember whether its before or after I point out that the File referral fee amount is illegal. I think they know that the "File Referral fee" is not allowed hence they tried to take it out before the case heard in court. In my case that reduced the balance they claimed by about £1,200. Funnily enough in my case, I think they didn't ask me about amending the POCs. I received a letter from court informing me about the amended POCs. I just let them do it, no point arguing asking them to leave that amt in POCs.

[Martel]

Thanks, Zhan.

 

What caught my eye in the amended POCs is 'an enforcement order pursuant to sections 65(1) and 127(1) of the CCA 1974 if necessary.'

 

Have tried googling the cases they refer to you in the letter to you but no luck. I wonder if these cases set a precedent?

 

My recent experience in court w/Cabot demonstrated the DJ's power to dismiss/ignore missing or incorrect prescribed terms, like Cancellation, and go for enforcement. It all seems arbitrary. And, in my case anyway, prejudiced by a DJ on a mission to get rid of these CCA claims.

 

Hope someone experienced comes along on your thread soon....MXX

[zhanzhibar]

What caught my eye in the amended POCs is 'an enforcement order pursuant to sections 65(1) and 127(1) of the CCA 1974 if necessary.'

I read your pdf file and I have to admit that if you didn't tell me that they were amending the POCS by taking the Referrel fee out I wouldn't know that that was what they were trying to do and yes I too not sure why they put those two sections in the POCs. Hopefully someone with more knowledge will come along and help you.. or perhaps the Mishcon people themselves (somebody told me they are caggers follower too:rolleyes:), if they read this, can answer your question directly here.

 

Have tried googling the cases they refer to you in the letter to you but no luck. I wonder if these cases set a precedent?

I am quite worried after receiving that letter today... really hope sombedu can help me..

[Martel]

Yes, apparently Mishcon showed up in court with a printout of a CAG thread (was it Shakespeare's?), so clearly they are monitoring this site quite heavily.

 

Yes, I am puzzled by the letter you rec'd - I suspect it could be saber/sabre rattling on an intimidating letter head.

 

My deduction, from my recent experience as a loser x 2 in court, is that 90% of the battle is down to the DJ you get. As random as that.....MX

[Martel]

I have to reply to Mishcon by 28/6.

 

I'd be inclined to not sign the order as it includes in the amended POCs 'an enforcement order pursuant to sections 65(1) and 127(1) of the CCA if necessary.

 

any advice from anyone? MX

[Blondie40]

Martel

 

They may have added the bit about s65(1) and s127(1) because if the agreement is not properly executed, and therefore only enforceable on an order of the court, if they have not asked the court to enforce the agreement in the POC, the court may not enforce.

 

Hope that makes sense

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Martel!

 

One good reason not to sign, is they are not entitled to s69 County Courts Act 1984 Interest in relation to a Regulated Agreement.

 

Here's why, see s3(a) of the following Statutory Instrument:

 

The County Courts (Interest on Judgment Debts) Order 1991 [sI 1991/1184]

 

The general rule

 

2.

 

(1) Subject to the following provisions of this Order, every judgment debt under a relevant judgment shall, to the extent that it remains unsatisfied, carry interest under this Order from the date on which the relevant judgment was given.

 

(2) In the case of a judgment or order for the payment of a judgment debt, other than costs, the amount of which has to be determined at a later date, the judgment debt shall carry interest from that later date.

 

(3) Interest shall not be payable under this Order where the relevant judgment-

 

(a) is given in proceedings to recover money due under an agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974;

 

(b) grants

 

(i) the landlord of a dwelling house, or

 

(ii) the mortgagee under a mortgage of land which consists of or includes a dwelling house, a suspended order for possession.

 

(4) Where the relevant judgment makes financial provision for the spouse or a child, interest shall only be payable on an order for the payment of not less than £ 5,000 as a lump sum (whetheror not the sum is payable by instalments).

 

For the purposes of this paragraph, no regard shall be had to any interest payable under section 23(6) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.

Obviously, you cannot possibly sign anything that might allow them to claim something to which they are not entitled.

 

That would never do!

 

They also have to win first before they get it, but that's yet to be decided.

 

I do hope this helps.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[Martel]

Martel

 

They may have added the bit about s65(1) and s127(1) because if the agreement is not properly executed, and therefore only enforceable on an order of the court, if they have not asked the court to enforce the agreement in the POC, the court may not enforce.

 

Hope that makes sense

 

Blondie,

 

Thanks for this. It looked like a totally bizarre request to me.....I wonder if THEY would agree if I asked for something comparably favorable to me????

 

I assume I should write back and say no thank you?

 

MXX