A Cautionary Tale Regarding Restons ** DISCONTINUED**

[nana buzzz]

Yes DonkeyB that's it in a nutshell...Oh Dear is the word lol

[nana buzzz]

Also check the wording of the Dn & default sum notices, HFC are quite poor at both of these

 

Yes I am going to go over everything now with a fine tooth comb, with help of course I might have missed a few things because the first invalid DN was enough to make them Vacate their claim for summary judgement against me. the more weapons I have in my arsenal the better.

[DonkeyB]

I would say that prejudices you. They will argue it does not as you had no intention of responding to it, but I think they would get short shrift from a judge.

[DonkeyB]

As long as you understand they CAN simply reissue the DN before proceeding – but, as you say, I believe this backdated effort is invalid as quite simply it was NOT issued! You did not receive it at the time. Non-service is as good as no DN at all.

[nana buzzz]

Yes that's what I thought..But as I can demonstrate to a Judge I have been Predudiced from before the first claim ever even started..excerts from my SJ witness statement and in my mind this still applies.

 

 

2.On the 14/10/08 I sent by recorded delivery, a CCA request to HFC.This was recieved on the 16/10/08.They failed to respond to my request and were therefore in default.

 

3.A further request was sent to HFC on 14/5/09,also advising that i now considered the account in dispute. A response was received from HFC on the 28/05/09 and that they would be conducting an investigation.

 

Also

 

Furthermore as this became a formal case in dispute on the 26/10/08 Restons have no cause of action to bring this case in line with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (Sections 77-79)

Edited April 16, 2011 by nana buzzz
spelling

[nana buzzz]

Also I am not sure about the copy of the Agreement they intend to use in court..I found my customer copy today and I think it looks different to the one they are planning on using at court...I will go over them both and post it up ASAP!. Furthermore I was never ever sent a DN until I sent a

CPR .31.14 to Restons. I think things are starting to go in my favour

Edited April 16, 2011 by nana buzzz

[DonkeyB]

Do they remain in breach of the s 78 CCA request? If so, that is a complete defence.

 

The DN issue will, one way or another, become a dead end for you. But they MUST reissue a compliant DN before they take further action. They can overcome the DN issue but it appears they have not done so yet. This is a defence, but one that they can and may overcome.

 

The real point is whether they begin to abuse the process, and keep wanting bites of the cherry. You may be better going down the CPUTR route, IMO.

[nana buzzz]

Yes they sure do Donkey....How would CPUTR apply to my case?...Do I complain to the relevent bodies to stop them re-issuing any further DN's? I have a limited understanding but I am a quick learner lol

 

I forgot to say Thank you Donkey your help is greatly appreciated

[DonkeyB]

I’m sure if pt2537 were back on here, he’s point you at the s 78 defence. But again, long term, it’s one they can overcome. Then it’s down to whether there’s an unfair relationship as a result of their conduct.

 

I’d suggest a read through the CPUTR threads on CAG – it’s a bit grey sometimes but can be useful.

[nana buzzz]

Hi,

Having read CPUTR backwards and forwards I think I now have a bit of a clearer understanding of it.

I could CPUTR hfc to make them fess up as to wether they have the agreement or not...BUT! seeing as Restons keep sending me photocopies of the agreement I have to presume they do...And if I do that and (they must comply) does that not overcome the breach of my s78 request?

[pt2537]

CPUT regs are not directly enforceable by the consumer, but need to be enforced by the regulators such as OFT as i understand it

[nana buzzz]

Hi pt2537

 

Sorry this is what I meant http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?291468-Fighting-back-with-CPUTR-2008....&highlight=cputr

 

Was wondering if you could help me with my S78 defence Please? i don't know where to start and I am told your the person to help I have tried searching but came up blank

[PriorityOne]

CPUT regs are not directly enforceable by the consumer, but need to be enforced by the regulators such as OFT as i understand it

 

A very useful pre-court tool nevertheless....

[Ricardino]

Hi all,

sorry to but tin but have a similar situation with same counsel. My DN asked for full balance, they then sent a compliant notice in their bundle but claim my copy was from a SAR from OC. I have sent them a copy of an email which discredits their claim (I instructed sols pre defence which states DN askes for full balance) so thats a plus in some respects. Need some advice re court docs. Defended on basis of reclaiming PPI which was calculated using original statements (have them all so their lack of pre 6 years is irrelevant) so can i simply bring these to trial on that basis or do i need to include them in the bundle as a supplement and copy their sols before hearing date? Does'nt the creditor have a duty to keep all financial information for 5 years after termination anyway or would the DJ count them as inadmissable/order a mis-trial?? I did mention the CPUTR in my s78 request so will add that to the arsenal but really need to know about the statements.

Here's a link to my thread if anyone can help

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?259562-Restons-MBNA-v-Me/page2

[nana buzzz]

Wooooa I need to ring the court today as Restons seem to have dropped another clanger. The form of judgement has a different claim number to the response pack and POC sent by restons....

Edited April 21, 2011 by nana buzzz
double wording

[nana buzzz]

Draft of defence....comments please

 

 

 

 

 

Claim no: xxxxxxxxx

Between:

 

In the xxxxxx County Court

 

 

HFC Bank PLC Claimant

 

And

 

 

Nana Defendant

 

 

DEFENCE

 

 

I, Nana, not that old ,of xxxxxxxxxxx am the Defendant in these proceedings and I make this statement in defence to the claim.

 

The Credit Agreement

 

1. It is not denied that I entered into a Consumer Credit Agreement (the ‘agreement’) with the claimant, which is a regulated agreement and governed under legislation as laid out in the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the ‘Act’) and all subsequent regulations thereof (as amended). It is my assertion that the claimant is not entitled to proceed to enforcement of the sum he claims in these proceedings. I set out my grounds in support of my assertion

 

 

CCA Request

 

 

2. On the 14/10/08 I sent by recorded delivery, a section 78 CCA request to HFC. This was received on the 16/10/08.They failed to respond to my request and were therefore in default

 

3.A further request was sent to HFC on 14/5/09,also advising that I now considered the account in dispute. A response was received from HFC on the 28/05/09 and that they would be conducting an investigation.

4.On the 2/6/09 received another letter from HFC saying that they are still investigating .I have still not received or had any acknowledgement of my Section 78 subsection (1)CCA request . To date of preparing this Defence I have not received nor had acknowledgement of my lawful request and under the consumer credit act 1974 subsection 6 (a) If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with subsection (1)—

he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement.

 

General form of judgement or order

1 On the 19/2/2011 I received by way of service a general form of judgement or order by which leave to issue proceedings against me citing the same course of action was granted. A hearing to which I had no prior knowledge until after the fact and to which representations could have been made by the defendant saving the court wasted time and expense.

 

a) I respectfully request that the court takes notice of the claimant’s conduct in these proceedings, as the matter stands, the overriding objectives are not being met nor adhered to by him, as a result, the two parties in these proceedings are not on equal footing, the claimant’s conduct has placed me at an unfair disadvantage and is frustrating these proceedings, which in turn will place an unnecessary burden upon the court’s resources in managing the case and therefore I ask the court to exercise its powers in order to bring an end to the claimant’s nonsense

 

Defective statutory notice

 

2. The Claimant terminated the agreement unilaterally and now seeks to proceed to enforcement demanding the full balance without securing the necessary rights under said act that would allow him, as a matter of law, to do so.

 

a) It is my assertion that the statutory notice (the default notice) served, and relied upon in these proceedings, by the claimant is a defective (bad) notice and in this regard I respectfully refer the court to a recent High Court Judgment before His Honour Judge Chambers QC, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, between; Mr Keith Harrison and Link Financial Limited [2011] EWHC B3 (Mercantile). At para 75 of said case, His Honour HELD;

 

para75. “The notice of enforcement was a statutory pre-condition of enforcement. It was a bad notice and enforcement cannot be attempted in dependence upon it. However, bad notices can often be remedied by the service of good notices and I see no reason why that should not be so in respect of credit agreements”.

 

b) It is my contention that His Honour Judge Chambers use of the word ‘often’ in para 75, can only be construed to mean ‘sometimes’, but not ‘always’. It should be noted that said statutory notice relied upon by the claimant is a bad notice and it is a second bad notice served by him. The circumstances to which a bad notice can be made good have not been established, however, it is my assertion that if the creditor should terminate the agreement after having served a bad statutory notice upon the debtor, then the opportunity for him to remedy the bad notice with the service of a good notice has been lost, the bad notice in such circumstances extinguishes the creditor’s right to demand sums not yet due early, but said notice does not extinguish his action of termination, yes the debt would remain, but the creditor’s own action of non-compliance with the statutory requirement imposed upon him under the CCA 1974 (as amended) has deprived him of entitlement to the full balance he claims and only the arrears that were due before he terminated on the foundation of a bad notice, is the sum he is entitled to pursue the debtor for through enforcement.

 

b) It is my assertion that the claimant is responsible for his own actions, whether those actions are rightful ones or wrongdoings.

 

For all the reasons stated herein, I respectfully request that the court do dismiss the claim without any further notice and that costs be awarded for time spent in research/study, preparing and filing my response to the claim.

 

Statement of Truth

 

I believe the facts stated herein are true.

 

Full name: nana

 

Signed: Dated this xxxxxxx(Defendant)

[nana buzzz]

polite bump

[nicklea]

To be honest, this reads to me more like a witness statement, or perhaps a combination of defence and witness statement. Perhaps it might be beneficial to seperate out the two parts?

1. It is not denied that I entered into a Consumer Credit Agreement (the ‘agreement’) with the claimant, which is a regulated agreement and governed under legislation as laid out in the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the ‘Act’) and all subsequent regulations thereof (as amended). It is my assertion that the claimant is not entitled to proceed to enforcement of the sum he claims in these proceedings. I set out my grounds in support of my assertion

I really would suggest that you do NOT want to admit to entering into an agreement with the creditor. I would suggest that you perhaps say that you signed an application form but that the agreement was not reduced to writing, if they have not been able to supply a signed copy of the agreement.

CCA Request

 

 

2. On the 14/10/08 I sent by recorded delivery, a section 78 CCA request to HFC. This was received on the 16/10/08.They failed to respond to my request and were therefore in default

 

3.A further request was sent to HFC on 14/5/09,also advising that I now considered the account in dispute. A response was received from HFC on the 28/05/09 and that they would be conducting an investigation.

4.On the 2/6/09 received another letter from HFC saying that they are still investigating .I have still not received or had any acknowledgement of my Section 78 subsection (1)CCA request . To date of preparing this Defence I have not received nor had acknowledgement of my lawful request and under the consumer credit act 1974 subsection 6 (a) If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with subsection (1)—

he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement.

If they haven't replied to your request then that is a defence. You might also wish to refer to Carey.

Defective statutory notice

 

2. The Claimant terminated the agreement unilaterally and now seeks to proceed to enforcement demanding the full balance without securing the necessary rights under said act that would allow him, as a matter of law, to do so.

 

a) It is my assertion that the statutory notice (the default notice) served, and relied upon in these proceedings, by the claimant is a defective (bad) notice and in this regard I respectfully refer the court to a recent High Court Judgment before His Honour Judge Chambers QC, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, between; Mr Keith Harrison and Link Financial Limited [2011] EWHC B3 (Mercantile). At para 75 of said case, His Honour HELD;

 

para75. “The notice of enforcement was a statutory pre-condition of enforcement. It was a bad notice and enforcement cannot be attempted in dependence upon it. However, bad notices can often be remedied by the service of good notices and I see no reason why that should not be so in respect of credit agreements”.

 

But the thing is that you haven't pleaded what the defects are. If you have a read of some of the posts of pt2537 you will see that this will be very beneficial to your position, indeed he suggests that there is case law that you MUST plead the defects.

b) It is my contention that His Honour Judge Chambers use of the word ‘often’ in para 75, can only be construed to mean ‘sometimes’, but not ‘always’. It should be noted that said statutory notice relied upon by the claimant is a bad notice and it is a second bad notice served by him. The circumstances to which a bad notice can be made good have not been established, however, it is my assertion that if the creditor should terminate the agreement after having served a bad statutory notice upon the debtor, then the opportunity for him to remedy the bad notice with the service of a good notice has been lost, the bad notice in such circumstances extinguishes the creditor’s right to demand sums not yet due early, but said notice does not extinguish his action of termination, yes the debt would remain, but the creditor’s own action of non-compliance with the statutory requirement imposed upon him under the CCA 1974 (as amended) has deprived him of entitlement to the full balance he claims and only the arrears that were due before he terminated on the foundation of a bad notice, is the sum he is entitled to pursue the debtor for through enforcement.

 

b) It is my assertion that the claimant is responsible for his own actions, whether those actions are rightful ones or wrongdoings.

 

For all the reasons stated herein, I respectfully request that the court do dismiss the claim without any further notice and that costs be awarded for time spent in research/study, preparing and filing my response to the claim.

 

Do you actually understnad what the above means? I see that you took this from a poster called The Mould. As other people have already said about his posts, this is very experimental and if you try to use this then you will very much be a guinea pig for the Mould's experiments and theories. Also, I note that you haven't mentioned anythinga bout section 86D. Have they given you correct notice of sums in arrears? If not then this is also a defence.

[PriorityOne]

Excellent post....

[nicklea]

Excellent post....

 

Thanks, it's nice when people you respect give you praise.

 

nana,

 

I made a little mistake above. When I said:-

 

If they haven't replied to your request then that is a defence. You might also wish to refer to Carey.

 

I should have said Kotechka, not Carey. The relevant case is:- Kotecha v Phoenix Recoveries [2011] EWCA Civ 105

 

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/105.htm

[nana buzzz]

Thank you very very much nicklea I shall amend as advised.

 

I will read Kotecha v Phoenix Recoveries over the weekend the last day for my defence to be filed is the 29th of april (next friday) and so I am getting in a bit of a tizz.

 

Restons sent me a copy of the signed agreement when I cpr'd them and have compared it against the customer copy..and it stands up..I have been issued with 2 defective DN's, and I also have mitigating circumstances but don't know whether to include that in my defence also? I have never received a sums in arrears notice..Parts of the defence i pinched from my first WS the one on which Restons vacated their claim for summary judgement so that's probably why it looks like a WS lol

I have read a few of pt's threads very informative..could you please point me to the thread you mentioned about pleading the defects? again thank you so much

[nicklea]

With pleading the defects, I can't find pt's threads at the moment - trying to search on this site is very difficult. But there is a link here to a skeleton argument that covers some of the issues:-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?178915-Defence-required-for-Claim-form-Barclaycard-CL-Finance-Howard-Cohen&p=3364743&viewfull=1#post3364743

 

If there is a problem with the date and number of days for service then you also need to plead that as well.

 

If you haven't received any notices of sums in arrears then you can also rely on section 86D CCA which means that they cannot enforce the agreement in the same way as they cannot enforce an agreement if they don't respond to a s77/78 request:-

 

 

86D Failure to give notice of sums in arrears

 

(1) This section applies where the creditor or owner under an agreement is under a duty to give the debtor or hirer notices under section 86B but fails to give him such a notice—

(a) within the period mentioned in subsection (2)(a) of that section; or

(b) within the period of six months beginning with the day after the day on which such a notice was last given to him.

 

(2) This section also applies where the creditor under an agreement is under a duty to give the debtor a notice under section 86C but fails to do so before the end of the period mentioned in subsection (2) of that section.

 

(3) The creditor or owner shall not be entitled to enforce the agreement during the period of non-compliance.

 

(4) The debtor or hirer shall have no liability to pay—

(a) any sum of interest to the extent calculated by reference to the period of non-compliance or to any part of it; or

(b) any default sum which (apart from this paragraph)—

(i) would have become payable during the period of non-compliance; or

(ii) would have become payable after the end of that period in connection with a breach of the agreement which occurs during that period (whether or not the breach continues after the end of that period).

 

(5) In this section ‘the period of non-compliance’ means, in relation to a failure to give a notice under section 86B or 86C to the debtor or hirer, the period which—

(a) begins immediately after the end of the period mentioned in (as the case may be) subsection (1)(a) or (b) or (2); and

(b) ends at the end of the day mentioned in subsection (6).

 

(6) That day is—

(a) in the case of a failure to give a notice under section 86B as mentioned in subsection (1)(a) of this section, the day on which the notice is given to the debtor or hirer;

(b) in the case of a failure to give a notice under that section as mentioned in subsection (1)(b) of this section, the earlier of the following—

(i) the day on which the notice is given to the debtor or hirer;

(ii) the day on which the condition mentioned in subsection (4)(a) of that section is satisfied;

© in the case of a failure to give a notice under section 86C, the day on which the notice is given to the debtor.

[Guest]

Hi

Yes I would strongly recommend you reconsider using this part of your defence.

It is based on a misconception that the balance of the loan is somehow not due when a default notice is ineffective.

I believe this came about through a misunderstanding of the Woodchester case where future rental income could not be claimed due to a faulty notice, the situation is of course different in a loan where the principal of course is a current liability under the contract.

Re the Ketchoka case

Whilst being an excellent result for the firm involved the case very much turned on its own evidence.

This was an appeal, the section 78 request was shown to be inconsistent with the evidence presented at the original hearing. Due to the litigation procedure.(the agreement was still in the period of unenforceablitiy during the enforcemnt at the lower court) the judge had to find for the debtor.

If the incorrect section 78 had been made available at the original hearing then it would have been corrected and the court would have enforced. The judge at the appeal mentioned that the creditor could re-apply to the lower court and re file in order to enforce.

Peter

[nana buzzz]

Happy Easter folks.

 

Thanks nicklea and peter..

 

I think I have finished the second draft of my defence...not sure on the wording on some points so any tweeks to it are gratefully received

BUT! I would like to state that I am leaving in the part attributed to the mould and here is why. Yes I do understand it and it fits in with my own case very nicely I know this has never been tested and I am a willing guinea pig...I have nothing to lose a, the debt is small b,even if i lose i will only pay what i can afford which equates to very little and someone has to do it to test the point on the re-issue of DN's to my mind it would make me the perfect candidate.

 

On a side note I was diagnosed with COPD on Thursday so there are worse things going on in my life atm..stress is a huge factor in exaserbations of this disease and I shall make that clear to the DJ if he decides that it must go to trial. Thank you and please be gentle with me. here goes-

 

 

 

 

Claim no: xxxxxxxxx

Between:

 

In the xxxxxx County Court

 

 

HFC Bank PLC Claimant

 

And

 

 

Nana Defendant

 

 

DEFENCE

 

I, Nana, ,of xxxxxxxxxxx am the Defendant in these proceedings and I make this statement in defence to the claim.

 

The Credit Agreement

 

1. It is not denied that I entered into a Consumer Credit Agreement (the ‘agreement’) with the claimant, which is a regulated agreement and governed under legislation as laid out in the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the ‘Act’) and all subsequent regulations thereof (as amended). It is my assertion that the claimant is not entitled to proceed to enforcement of the sum he claims in these proceedings. I set out my grounds in support of my assertion

 

CCA 1974 s78 Request

 

1. On the 14/10/08 I sent by recorded delivery, a section 78 CCA request to HFC Bank PLC. This was received by the claimant on the 16/10/08.They failed to respond to my request and were therefore in default

A further request was sent to HFC Bank PLC on 14/5/09,also advising that I now considered the account in dispute. A response was received from HFC on the 28/05/09 and that they would be conducting an investigation.

On the 2/6/09 I received another letter from HFC Bank PLC saying that they are still investigating .I have still not received or had any acknowledgement of my Section 78 subsection (1) CCA request. and under the consumer credit act 1974 subsection 6

(a) If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with subsection (1)—

he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement

(a) I respectfully refer the court to a recent High Court Judgment before Lord Justice Patten -IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) Kotecha v Phoenix Recoveries [2011] EWCA Civ 105 Case No: B2/2010/0231 at para 24 of said case His Honour- HELD

It is accepted, and there are first instance authorities for this, that failure to comply with Section 78 does not prevent a creditor from starting proceedings, but it does prevent a creditor from obtaining judgment

　

Notice of sums in arrears

 

1.It is denied by the Defendant that any such notice has ever been served and the Claimant is put to strict proof that this was not the case. The defendant respectfully refers the court to Section 86D of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended)

 

 

 

Defective statutory notice

1. A CPR .31.14 request was sent to Restons on the 6/06/09. I received a copy of the credit agreement and a default notice on the 17/6/09

 

2. I will contend at trial that the Default Notice that Restons will rely on is invalid as It does not allow the required 14 clear days service to remedy the breach. This is considered to be an unlawful rescission of contract. Not withstanding the afore mentioned defect the Defendant will also contend that no statutory notice was ever received by the claimant until said CPR request, and the Claimant is put to strict proof that this was not the case. And therefore this is not a de-minimus issue.

3. On the 4/12/2011 I received a letter from Restons solicitors and contained within this letter was a backdated -re-issued Default Notice. I will also contend at trial that this second default notice is also invalid as the Defendant had no prospect of responding to this said Default Notice and must be regarded as never being served at all on the Defendant. The Claimant is also put to strict proof that this was not the case.

 

4.The Claimant terminated the agreement unilaterally and now seeks to proceed to enforcement demanding the full balance without securing the necessary rights under said act that would allow him, as a matter of law, to do so.

 

a) It is my assertion that the statutory notice (the default notice) served, and relied upon in these proceedings, by the claimant is a defective (bad) notice and in this regard I respectfully refer the court to a recent High Court Judgment before His Honour Judge Chambers QC, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, between; Mr Keith Harrison and Link Financial Limited [2011] EWHC B3 (Mercantile). At para 75 of said case, His Honour HELD;

 

para75. “The notice of enforcement was a statutory pre-condition of enforcement. It was a bad notice and enforcement cannot be attempted in dependence upon it.

However, bad notices can often be remedied by the service of good notices and I see no reason why that should not be so in respect of credit agreements”.

b) It is my contention that His Honour Judge Chambers use of the word ‘often’ in para 75, can only be construed to mean ‘sometimes’, but not ‘always’. It should be noted that said statutory notice relied upon by the claimant is a bad notice and it is a second bad notice served by him. The circumstances to which a bad notice can be made good have not been established, however, it is my assertion that if the creditor should terminate the agreement after having served a bad statutory notice upon the debtor, then the opportunity for him to remedy the bad notice with the service of a good notice has been lost, the bad notice in such circumstances extinguishes the creditor’s right to demand sums not yet due early, but said notice does not extinguish his action of termination, yes the debt would remain, but the creditor’s own action of non-compliance with the statutory requirement imposed upon him under the CCA 1974 (as amended) has deprived him of entitlement to the full balance he claims and only the arrears that were due before he terminated on the foundation of a bad notice, is the sum he is entitled to pursue the debtor for through enforcement.

 

b) It is my assertion that the claimant is responsible for his own actions, whether those actions are rightful ones or wrongdoings.

 

General form of judgement or order

 

1 On the 19/2/2011 I received by way of service a general form of judgement or order by which leave to issue proceedings against me citing the same course of action was granted. A hearing to which I had no prior knowledge until after the fact and to which representations could have been made by the defendant saving the court wasted time and expense.

 

a) I respectfully request that the court takes notice of the claimant’s conduct in these proceedings, as the matter stands, the overriding objectives are not being met nor adhered to by him, as a result, the two parties in these proceedings are not on equal footing, the claimant’s conduct has placed me at an unfair disadvantage and is frustrating these proceedings, which in turn will place an unnecessary burden upon the court’s resources in managing the case and therefore I ask the court to exercise its powers in order to bring an end to the claimant’s nonsense

 

 

 

For all the reasons stated herein, I respectfully request that the court do dismiss the claim without any further notice and that costs be awarded for time spent in research/study, preparing and filing my response to the claim.

 

Statement of Truth

 

I believe the facts stated herein are true.

 

Full name: nana

 

Signed: Dated this xxxxxxx(Defendant)

[pt2537]

But the Creditor CANNOT terminate on the back of a bad notice. That is the whole point, the statute PROHIBITS it.

 

You need to read s87(1) you will see that see that the creditor must serve a notice before he can become entitled to terminate.

 

The word entitled in a statute for the protection of consumers by the provision of information clearly shows that they cannot step outside of this and seek a common law remedy. In any event the common law does not override the will of parliament. The only law that can attack the will of parliament is european law and it can do so because of the European Communities Act 1972!!

 

there is case law which confirms that the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is not defeated by common law either.

 

Also

 

 

Thre are now a number of judicial decisions which the Mould clearly is unaware of, as the Court have, following Harrison dismissed Claims where the notice was bad, citing that no enforcement can be attempted in dependence on a bad notice.

 

I do not believe the moulds arguments will work, i do believe that when faced with that defence Restons will file for summary judgment