taken to court by HFC/restons... **case dismissed** now marking CRA file again

[AndyOrch]

Well you can prepare your costs schedule incase you win the hearing.Those costs are only for the SJ application hearing not the trial costs and as I said before are at the discretion of the DJ.I have known them to be refused.

With regards to your AQ once you submit you should receive a Notice of allocation with further directions from the DJ ie disclosure WS case summary's and a date for the trial.

If thats not the case he may do this at the hearing next week.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[whatamess]

Ok its all fitting together now.

 

I didnt get anything once i sent my a&q the next thing i received was the letter from the court and Restons to say my hearing is on 26th.

 

Thanks

[manchestman]

Ok its all fitting together now.

That's great to know, Whata. Have read your scan, thanks. Absolutely nothing in there for them to depend on apart from the usual drivel. Just finishing up watching my team on tv - will be back very shortly.

 

Oh, by the way, - can anyone point us in the direction of the post I have seen recently for responding to Reston's refusal to answer unsigned correspondence. I know the posting had a link to the Information commissioner stating that it was rubbish etc. Help please?

[manchestman]

Try and post whatever you think you have tonight, Whata.

[whatamess]

Hi Manc, wouldnt come between and man and his football

 

I am off to bed now so will log back on in the morning, unfortunitly i am only able to scan at work and tomorrow is my last day in before going to court on friday so anything else you think you might like to take a look at let me know and will scan tomorrow although i dont think there is anything else.

 

For some reason im not too worried at the moment but im sure I will be on Friday. My friend is going to come with me for support and an ear to chew on the way to and from the court as im sure i will need it.

 

I am very interested in the post about the not responding to unsigned letters as i dont think that is acceptable and i cant believe any judge would as this is Restons being unreasonable and making things difficult.

 

Speak tomorrow

[manchestman]

Hi Manc, wouldnt come between and man and his football

 

I am off to bed now so will log back on in the morning, unfortunitly i am only able to scan at work and tomorrow is my last day in before going to court on friday so anything else you think you might like to take a look at let me know and will scan tomorrow although i dont think there is anything else.

 

For some reason im not too worried at the moment but im sure I will be on Friday. My friend is going to come with me for support and an ear to chew on the way to and from the court as im sure i will need it.

 

I am very interested in the post about the not responding to unsigned letters as i dont think that is acceptable and i cant believe any judge would as this is Restons being unreasonable and making things difficult.

 

Speak tomorrow

I'm so glad you're in a devil-may-care mood!

I've been searching for hours for that post. The problem is i have that many threads subscribed and short term memory loss, so it always makes everything a nightmare. I'm also trying to tie down my own WS + further exhibits, to be handed in to court tomorrow at latest. Sorry, I mean today, Thursday.

Anyway, can't find the one I wanted - but have found information to counter with

 

Restons, the claimant's solicitors, first began writing to me several months ago and have previously responded to letters I sent them without my signature. They were then clearly so satisfied as to my identity as to instigate these proceedings. The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) don't require documentation to carry a signature if the recipient has been previously sending documents to your name and address. There are also safety issues regarding Identity Theft and signature 'pasteing' if a document should fall into the wrong hands.

On xxxxxxx?? 2010, I made a CPR31.14 request to the claimant's solicitors Restons, for documents mentioned in the claimant's Particulars of Claim (POC) and on which the claimant claims his case is based. On the same date, I also made a request under CPR18, and sent it to the claimant's solicitors Restons for a further explanation of the claim as the particulars were extremely vague and unsupported. Restons acknowledged they had received my requests in a letter to me, dated xxxxxx? 2010, but said they would not comply with my requests because my letter (and others I subsequently sent) were unsigned. I felt so frustrated and think that Restons are trying to deliberately frustrate the court process and are acting vexatiously in their application.[/Quote]

Edited November 25, 2010 by manchestman
Just thought of something else and added it

[manchestman]

No scanning today, Whatamess! Just have a good day and ask anything you want.

[manchestman]

And of course, Part 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) that govern how the court system should operate.

The overriding objective

1.1

 

(1) These Rules are a new procedural code with the overriding objective of enabling the court to deal with cases justly.

 

(2) Dealing with a case justly includes, so far as is practicable –

(a) ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing;

 

(b) saving expense;

 

© dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate –

(i) to the amount of money involved;

 

(ii) to the importance of the case;

 

(iii) to the complexity of the issues; and

 

(iv) to the financial position of each party;

 

 

(d) ensuring that it is dealt with expeditiously and fairly; and

 

(e) allotting to it an appropriate share of the court’s resources, while taking into account the need to allot resources to other cases.

 

 

Application by the court of the overriding objective

 

1.2

 

The court must seek to give effect to the overriding objective when it –

(a) exercises any power given to it by the Rules; or

 

(b) interprets any rule subject to rules 76.2 and 79.2.

 

 

 

Duty of the parties

 

1.3

 

The parties are required to help the court to further the overriding objective.[/Quote]

[AndyOrch]

Oh, by the way, - can anyone point us in the direction of the post I have seen recently for responding to Reston's refusal to answer unsigned correspondence. I know the posting had a link to the Information commissioner stating that it was rubbish etc. Help please?

 

 

 

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.u...-requests.html

[whatamess]

Morning, im still in good spirits today and thats the way its going to stay, like you said privously whats the worse that can happen if i loose... a ccj and fees to pay.. worse things could happen 8-)

[AndyOrch]

Morning, im still in good spirits today and thats the way its going to stay, like you said previously whats the worse that can happen if i loose... a ccj and fees to pay.. worse things could happen 8-)

 

 

Thats the attitude Whata and at least you will have argued your point and not acquiesce.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[citizenB]

Oh, by the way, - can anyone point us in the direction of the post I have seen recently for responding to Reston's refusal to answer unsigned correspondence. I know the posting had a link to the Information commissioner stating that it was rubbish etc. Help please?

 

 

 

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.u...-requests.html

 

I would like to see t his as well. Not having any luck on searching though

[AndyOrch]

Keeping the public register of data controllers - ICO

[manchestman]

If you have your main points written and want to test them out, feel free, whatever form they are in ... even in shorthand, lol

[AndyOrch]

Judging by Scribles result the only thing you need to be versed in is Carey.Dont leave the Court room dont accept anything less, ask for an adjournment if he/she mention Carey and request a different DJ.None of these cases lately are about settling debts but converting unsecured loans into secured ones by way of Charging Orders even on debts of less than £1k.They are not interested in recouping credit debt which as been cleared probably 3 times over with outrageous interest and default charges.The game is Charging Orders with interest

 

Intervention of the law is needed and quickly.

 

Rant over feel better8-)

 

Andy

[frettful38]

Totally andy but the OFT are clamping down on lenders going for CO's, it was all over the news yesterday and there were 4 lenders named for these activities

[manchestman]

Judging by Scribles result the only thing you need to be versed in is Carey.Dont leave the Court room dont accept anything less, ask for an adjournment if he/she mention Carey and request a different DJ.None of these cases lately are about settling debts but converting unsecured loans into secured ones by way of Charging Orders even on debts of less than £1k.They are not interested in recouping credit debt which as been cleared probably 3 times over with outrageous interest and default charges.The game is Charging Orders with interest

 

Intervention of the law is needed and quickly.

 

Rant over feel better8-)

 

Andy

 

Yes, I have just read poor Scribles thread and bigdebtor's rightful rant. It's absolutely outrageous and scandalous. But in my own thread, Restons dont even make a pretence of why we are in court. Why, oh, why, do we have this gigantic abyss that debtors just keep sliding further into merely because of the judiciary's social ignorance and absolutely nothing at all to do with the actual law or the legal starting point that at the very least, even an unqualified, illiterate serf should have the protection of a) the CCA and b) the judiciary. Yes, I mention serfdom because it does sometimes feel like the middle ages.

[whatamess]

Hi guys,

 

You may think this is the wrong way but i have not written anything the only way i am able to relax and feel confident tomorrow is to be myself and say whats is in my mind I dont understand alot of what i know i should be saying in court and i have read the Carey case and its too much information. If this means i loose then so be it, I need this out of my hair its too much stress, at the moment i feel relax and will sleep well tonight.

 

I dont want you to think that you have wasted your time on me because you have given me the confidence to go tomorrow as i would not have not turned up at court if it wasnt for you.

 

Im in court at 10am tomorrow and i will let you know the outcome 8-)

[manchestman]

Totally andy but the OFT are clamping down on lenders going for CO's, it was all over the news yesterday and there were 4 lenders named for these activities

That is very true, but how long before the judiciary actually listen or follow advice if at all?

[manchestman]

A Very simple Skeleton to help you, with very little case law or statute etc,

 

Skeleton Argument for:

An order to strike out the defence under part3.4(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules on the basis that the defence discloses no reasonable grounds for defending the claim and is abuse of the courts process.

This is the rule they are trying to use:

CPR 3 (2) The court may strike out a statement of case if it appears to the court –

(a) that the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending the claim;

 

(b) that the statement of case is an abuse of the court’s process or is otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings; or

 

© that there has been a failure to comply with a rule, practice direction or court order.

 

 

1 Claimant tries to hide behind a CPR rule that any claim issued through the online bulk centre at Northampton can escape full disclosure of documents and can rely on vague details. CPR number one overriding objective is to deal with all cases justly. (Quote this phrase).

The overriding objective

1.1

(1) These Rules are a new procedural code with the overriding objective of enabling the court to deal with cases justly.

2 I submitted an ‘embarrassed defence’ because of claimant’s failure to supply docs necessary to my defence. I shouldn’t have to request docs in order to defend my own case. It is common knowledge that Restons commence claims without possession of proper docs & withhold docs as long as possible.

3 I have submitted a WS that outlines the facts and I deny ever signing any such agreement as exhibit HFC1

 

4 Restons would not respond to my repeated CPR requests for disclosure of document copies

 

5 Restons first wrote several months ago and have previously responded to my unsigned letters. Clearly satisfied enough as to my identity to instigate this claim

 

3 The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) don't require documentation to carry a signature if the recipient has been previously sending documents to your name and address. ID theft is also an issue if signature falls into unscrupulous hands.

 

4 Restons are trying to deliberately frustrate the court process and are acting vexatiously in this application

 

 

Skeleton Argument for:

In the alternative, an order for summary judgement against the defendant under part 24.2 of the Civil Procedures Rules.

The defendant has not real prospect of successfully defending the claim and there is no other compelling reason why the case should be disposed of at a trial.

1 I don’t argue with the claimant that I owe the money claimed (and have every intention of repaying it.). I totally deny taking out an interest free loan in 2001 and totally deny signing any agreement whatsoever.

 

2 I agree that the statement of account balance is correct as in Exhibit HC2. However, the statement provided does not list all transactions, including various charges and other? See my exhibit #.

 

3 This loan was started in 1995 with Beneficial, another HFC company) which was when I received the money for the loan. When in trouble over higher repayment amounts, HFC agreed to take a lower amount and stop the interest charges for me. All arrangements were agreed to at my home and verbally. (This makes a difference to category of agreement and entitled protection)

 

4 The claimant includes a reconstituted copy of a agreement that I did not sign and claims it is what “I would have signed”. I have discovered this is a stock description circulating the internet that HFC seem to use on countless hundreds of other similar attempts to claim money.

 

5 Claimant submits my “defence is merely a speculative attempt to avoid liability and delay matters when in reality there is no arguable defence”. On the contrary, the claimant’s particulars of claim are largely almost identical to hundreds of other claims circulating the consumer advice forums and because I did not take out a loan or sign an agreement in 2001, it is the claimant’s claim that is purely speculative and clearly a ‘fishing’ trip.

 

6 (READ THIS OUT verbatum) In a recent publication from the enforcement section of the Office of Fair Trading they said that “Should no original agreement be in existence it is very hard to say that the copy the creditor offers to the debtor is, in fact, a true copy as there would be no original with which to compare it. In our view the onus of proof would be on the creditor to show that the copy is a true one and where none existed he may have difficulty discharging this. Neither should creditors suggest that a consumer has signed a credit agreement where they are unable to provide evidence to support this — to do so is likely to be a misleading action under Regulation 5 of the Consumer Protection From Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and would also constitute an unfair or improper business practice.”

 

 

How to reply when the Solicitor has referred to the ‘Carey’ judgment. You MUST utilise this argument whether in your own words or by apologising for your lack of knowledge and saying you will read your notes out as you get very confused about Acts and different sections etc

1 I’m sorry I am not very familiar with this case, but I have learned a little of it.

 

2 Claimant says the reconstituted document, claimed as an agreement, exhibit HFC1 is allowed instead of an original copy agreement because of the judgment in the ‘Carey’ case.

 

3 Original documents should be brought to court and the use of the word ‘should’ is in the normative sense. In deciding a matter as important as this case is, a reconstituted copy is not proof that an agreement in the form the claimant claims ever existed.

 

4 I understood that the judge made it very clear that he would only deal with cases where a debtor has requested a copy of his agreement under Section 77 or 78 of The Consumer Protection Act 1974, where a consumer pays a fee of £1. I thought the judge declared that these requests were for information purposes only and not as a method of proof and that because the debtor, Carey, was the claimant the onus of proof was on Carey. In this case, it is different to the Carey case and the onus of proof is still on the claimant, but this time, as creditor.

 

5 The judge said he would not deal with other sections of the CCA 1974, especially section 61 and made the distinct difference between the 2 sections.

 

6 My case is about section 61, which is not about an information request, but is a proof issue and is about the signing of an agreement.

 

Actual text from the CCA 1974, read it out if you want to, or not.

61 Signing of agreement

 

(1) A regulated agreement is not properly executed unless—

 

(a) a document in the prescribed form itself containing all the prescribed terms and conforming to regulations under section 60(1) is signed in the prescribed manner both by the debtor or hirer and by or on behalf of the creditor or owner

 

7 I repeat I did not sign any agreement and I put the claimant to strict proof, because I know it did not happen.

 

8 Under section 127 (3) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 I am offered protection for this type of unsubstantiated claim. The claimant is not allowed to enforce this false agreement.

 

Actual text from the CCA 1974, read it out if you want to, or not.

127 Enforcement orders in cases of infringement

 

(3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a) (signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor . [/Quote]

[Leakie]

Hi Whatamess

Have read through your thread, and wanted to wish you all the best,

I am not a leagleleagle just a common old plumber so can not help in any way

I've been to court twice, the first time, I was a wreck, before I met the DJ

when I came out it was not as bad as I thought, but I had not had CAG behind me,

Just try to keep calm and I am sure you will be Ok.

 

All the best

 

Leakie

[whatamess]

Hi Leakie thank you for your best wishes for my 30 mins in court this morning.

 

Dear all

 

Whoop Whoop it went in my favour and the judge decline the strike out and lucky for me he was was totally sympathetic to my claims.

 

When i got to court HFC's solicitor introduced himself and then said he needed to speak to me,

so i was on my guard right away,

he then went on to ask me if i was a lawyer,

i said no and he said oh because you seem to know alot about the law and i have never delt with a case where someone knows so much,

so i can truly thank him for building my confidence right up.

Then he asked if i would like to settle there and then £1300 i said NO.

 

The judge said that after 15 yeas he could totally see why i would want to see my agreement

and couldnt understand why HFC was giving me a 0% interest loan for 120 months for the amount of the loan it didnt make sence,

 

the judge asked what it was i was asking for and i said i wanted to see my credit agreement from Benificial which show me the loan amount,

the interest i was paying and if PPI had been added.

 

The Judges said that it was a resonable request and without this infornation it didnt look to good on HFC and the solicitor agreed.

 

then judge decided to take it to trial and said we have until the 7th Jan to have everything in and then a date would be sent for a court date after that,

 

he said that it would be better if we could come to a settlement agreement without it going to court as it is for such a small amount of money

and HFC (in not so many words) is not in a good position and if they cant find any paper work its not likely to go in there favour

so they either accapt a settlement from me or they take it to court and not get anything form me and will also have to pay the costs.

 

I was in there all of 10 minutes and wasnt scary at all,

so thanks to all of you for helping me with this, not sure what i am hoping for now I would be prepared to pay a very small settlement,

 

do you think Restons will take that route or do you think they wil take it all the way after hearing what the judge said?

 

A very happy Whata today

[Leakie]

Well done whatamess

 

you will know what to expect next year if it goes to court.

 

All the best

 

leakie

[manchestman]

As you know, I am so pleased for you! You have won the first and major battle of the war.

 

Andy will know better, but I would like to suggest that HFC will not fancy the additional costs of taking this to trial for the sake of a few hundred quid, especially after what the judge said (but I might be wrong).

 

They will now probably try and negotiate a rotten deal to you with their first attempt. You are in much the same boat as Dizzy, who Andy has been helping with her negotiations.

 

I think it's a time to celebrate and have a little time off for now.

[whatamess]

I cant tell you how much i wanted to burst and punch the air in the room lol I was so pleased.

 

Oh yes will be celebrating with a nice large glass of wine, the battle is not over yet but i feel so much more confident now.

 

Do you have your trial on 3rd Manc? How you getting on with that, i have been so into myself with this i have yet to ask you