old CCA case stayed- No Default Notice Served - HSBC gold card - back incourt help

[Docman]

Bevvyboy

 

Your amended defence will have to go on the grounds that HSBC have not produced a signed copy of credit agreement which contains the terms required by the Act. The case of Carey v HSBC only applies where a cardholder (debtor) requests a copy of the agreement from the lender under the conditions laid out in S78 of the Act. It does NOT apply where a lender is taking legal action to recover a debt. The lender still have to prove there was an agreement [the Proof Propose as outlined by HHJ Waksman in the Carey case].

 

If the agreement was entered into prior to 6 April 2007 S127(3) of the Act clearly states the court cannot enforce a credit agreement unless a document containing the prescribed terms was signed. If there is no signed agreement pre April 2007, then HSBC cannot win.

 

That said, our District Judges are not expert in all areas of the law (Deputy Disrict Judges can be even worse.) Where they are not familiar with the law, judges tend to follow the 'advice' from the barristers enganged by creditors. Not surprisingly, these barristers tend to lead judges to believe that the Carey judgment allows a 'reconstruction' in place of a signed agreement.

 

Where HSBC required to file an Amended Particulars of Claim? If so, can you post up what they are now claiming. If not, can you type out the words from the original Particulars of Claim?

 

Doc

[Docman]

Have HSBC/DG's admitted they cannot furnish a copy of the signed credit agreement? Have they tried to 'recontruct' the Agreement?

 

Can you post up a copy of the agreement you hold after removing your personal details?

[Docman]

I see CB's comments about the DN and agree but where have HSBC come up with using Carey to recontruct the DN? Are you getting confused between the Default Notice and the credit agreement?