MONTY v CREATION FINANCE

[tam65]

evening monty

I am a cagger, just reading out of interest, did you know that your personal details can be seen on your photobook album, is this intentional or is it a computer glitch or some other thing, sorry I'm not that tech savvy, good luck Tam65

[emandcole]

The crux of their claim is that they can prove I have had the benefits of the card (they call it a 'creditcard' in their WS and a 'storecard' in other documents), therefore the production of a true copy of an agreement, DN and NoA is not required. This psition is suppoted by recent case precedent.

 

 

I'd be interested in reading the case law relied upon. Past case law has shown that having the benefit of any agreement is an entirely different matter to showing how that renders the debtor liable to return those sums and how such a return was to be orchestrated. Key thing therefore is not to deny the debt but to question the nature and documentation of how that debt was granted and how you were to pay it back under the CCA, not some ill founded moral argument based on attempts to secure a sympathy judgment.

 

It's perfectly simple but creditors seem to be finally and very slowly realising that actually the law does apply to them, in the meantime they'll try any tack to distract an informed judge as to your rights and to their lawful obligations. I'll have a dig about, might have some info to help you with this.

[caro]

Just to update - the hearing was adjourned. While I await another date to be scheduled there have be some significant events with other Caggers. The following link is particularly relevant to my case and I will be using it on the day:

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/...e/2011/B3.html

 

Of note, is the DJ's scathing comments re DCA tactics

 

Good evening Tom

 

Why was it adjourned Monty?

[emandcole]

Dimond v Lovell 2000

 

“Parliament intended that if a consumer credit agreement was improperly executed, then subject to the enforcement powers of the court, the debtor should not have to pay. This meant that Parliament contemplated that he might be enriched and I do not see how it is open to the court to say that this consequence is unjust and should be reversed by a remedy at common law: “

 

If the judge insists that as you had the money you should pay for it remind him/her politely that this case is binding on their court. If they persist and ignore you make sure you ask that they make clear reference to rejecting Dimond v Lovell so you can appeal afterwards.

 

Just make sure the court knows that you are merely asking the court to grant you your rights under the CCA.

[MONTY]

Dimond v Lovell 2000

 

“Parliament intended that if a consumer credit agreement was improperly executed, then subject to the enforcement powers of the court, the debtor should not have to pay. This meant that Parliament contemplated that he might be enriched and I do not see how it is open to the court to say that this consequence is unjust and should be reversed by a remedy at common law: “

 

If the judge insists that as you had the money you should pay for it remind him/her politely that this case is binding on their court. If they persist and ignore you make sure you ask that they make clear reference to rejecting Dimond v Lovell so you can appeal afterwards.

 

Just make sure the court knows that you are merely asking the court to grant you your rights under the CCA.

 

Good advice - thank you

[gh2008]

72. Undoubtedly, as illustrated by the facts of the present case, section 127(3) may be drastic, even harsh, in its adverse consequences for a lender. He loses all his rights under the agreement, including his rights to any security which has been lodged. Conversely, the borrower acquires what can only be described as a windfall. He keeps the money and recovers his security. These consequences apply just as much where the lender was acting in good faith throughout and the error was due to a mistaken reading of the complex statutory requirements as in cases of deliberate non-compliance. These consequences also apply where, as in the present case, the borrower suffered no prejudice as a result of the non-compliance as they do where the borrower was misled. Parliament was painting here with a broad brush.

 

More here, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200203/ldjudgmt/jd030710/will-1.htm heavy reading but there are a few paras of note

 

Also bear in mind that case law is NOT considered new evidence so you can bring up new pieces supporting your case

[citizenB]

Monty, have alerted site team, but you might want to try and contact gh2008, emandcole or foolishgirl who might be able to help.

[citizenB]

Litigation privilege notice

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-2913164.html

This thread exists exclusively to assist me in preparing litigation against another party. As such it is almost certainly protected by litigation privilege.

 

The legal requirements for claiming litigation privilege are well established and are not in dispute. Communications between a solicitor or the client and a third party will be protected by litigation privilege where the communications are for the dominant purpose of obtaining legal advice in connection with, or conducting, litigation reasonably in prospect: Re Highgate Traders Limited [1984] BCLC 151.

 

Copyright Information: All information contained in this website, associated websites, and forum posts are copyright Reclaim The Right Ltd. If you wish to use the information on this site for publication elsewhere, then please email the administrators for permission.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-2814871.html

dad – post 777

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-2843442.html

Litigation privilege by dad – post 16

*************************************

It looks like this has happened before, you might want to contact shakespeare62 and see what else he did in respect of his creditor printing off/using information from his thread.