Cap1 & CCA return

[Having_A_Knightmare]

Cheers PT

 

There really Peed me off at the time and I was fuming so may have been a bit hastly..>LOL

 

Would really like to get them if you can think of anything?

[pt2537]

can crucify them for sure, ive got tons of declarations in the office against NEXT

 

why not just go direct for a declaration?

[Having_A_Knightmare]

Only owe about 300 quid and the interest i am claiming is 700 quid.

 

Would the judge give me the interest back with a declaration?

[pt2537]

Only owe about 300 quid and the interest i am claiming is 700 quid.

 

Would the judge give me the interest back with a declaration?

i think youre screwed, frankly

 

your at the halfway house where as you should be all or nothing

 

it seems your trying to rely upon the doctrine of mistake but not pushing the correct remedy mate

[Having_A_Knightmare]

The other thing that really pees me off is every summons I have had the POC are crap and I have asked them to be thrown out. They never did.

 

On this one the judge has struck it out on his own initiative

[pt2537]

yeah but the reason is that most pleadings will make an allegation of breach of contract, even the most basis allegation

 

HOWEVER,

 

your claim alleges, well i dont know what it alleges and the judge will probably consider that if he cannot identify a valid basis for the claim then its an abuse of process

[diddydicky]

Hi All

 

I need some help!!

 

Basically Next PLC peed me off a few month ago as they reduced my credit limit to the balance.

 

I asked for agreement and they admited they have not got it.

 

I then asked for all the interest I paid for the last 10 years refunding. THey refused and I started Court proceedings for the money.

 

My POC were brief as did ot on line and today had an order form the Court saying its been struck out on no reasonable grounds.

 

I have got a couple of weeks to send a new Statement of Case.

 

Does anybody know if there is any case law where they can not charge interest with out a credit agreement....

 

Cheers

 

HAK

 

i would imagine- that in this case the "boot my well be on the other foot"

 

although there may not have been a properly executed agreement- there was nevertheless "an agreement" and i would imagine you would find it 100% impossible to deny that.

 

if there is no legally enforceable agreement for you to sue on either- then i am sure that you would have been deemed to have "made a gift of the interest you have paid"

 

i would say the chances of you succeeding in reclaiming the interest you paid are zero

 

(sorry if that is not what you want to hear)

[pt2537]

its possible to recover monies paid, but that is under the doctrine of mistake, under the belief that the agreement was enforceable

 

its very tricky though and wouldnt be the place for the CAG to take such arguments forward

[Having_A_Knightmare]

May have to give in on this one ...

 

Will I get stung for costs now as well..

[pt2537]

May have to give in on this one ...

 

Will I get stung for costs now as well..

small claims?

 

or not yet allocated?

 

why give up? its not unwinable

 

House of Lords in Klienwort Benson helps

[Having_A_Knightmare]

Sent in AQ and the judge rules to strike out.

 

Will read the ruling tommow.

 

Cheers PT

[Mightyacorn]

You want a vague POC, try this one:-

 

http://i461.photobucket.com/albums/qq331/mightyacorn2008/NatWest/NatWestCountyCourt0001.jpg

 

I might try that one, how about:-

 

By agreement entered into between the claimant (Mightyacorn) and the defendant (PT 2537) the defendant has failed to pay the sum of £XX,000. The claimant has asked for it, but defendant failed to pay. I now claim £XX,000, plus interest.

 

You gonna cough up the amount PT?

 

Why isn't one like that struck out straight away?

[Having_A_Knightmare]

PT

think I have cracked it

 

Cheers Mate!!!

[pt2537]

lol

 

well i have a great text book from Halsburys on the doctrine of mistake

 

skype me if you need it HAK

[Having_A_Knightmare]

Will do PT

[mot22]

Not sure it's the right place to ask this.

Regarding the Consumer Credit(Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regs 1983(SI 1983/1557)

3(2) There may be omitted from any such copy..

(b) Signature box, signature or date of signature..

 

can anyone explain why this reg was put into the Act?

Many thx..

[car2403]

Not sure it's the right place to ask this.

Regarding the Consumer Credit(Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regs 1983(SI 1983/1557)

3(2) There may be omitted from any such copy..

(b) Signature box, signature or date of signature..

 

can anyone explain why this reg was put into the Act?

Many thx..

 

Because it wasn't easy to reproduce documents in 1983 - they didn't have photocopiers, electronic storage systems or a simply way to reproduce documents required under the Act.

[mot22]

Because it wasn't easy to reproduce documents in 1983 - they didn't have photocopiers, electronic storage systems or a simply way to reproduce documents required under the Act.

 

car2403, thx for the reply. I admit I felt it a simple question but could not reconcile an answer especially in view of how OC's are using that reg as an excuse to not supply a copy of an executed agreement. With such complicated associations and inferences within the Act I just wanted to be sure I hadn't over looked some simialar complicated reason for that reg being included.

 

If I may follow by referring to 3.2 (a)

3.2 (a) any information included in an executed agreement....only which is not required to be included there in by the Act..as to form and content."

 

Would 3.2 (a) not counter the omission within 3.2 (b) ?

ie: is 3.2 (a) saying you cannot leave out things (perhaps signatures !!) that are required to be within an executed agreement.?

 

many thx..

[mot22]

Because it wasn't easy to reproduce documents in 1983 - they didn't have photocopiers, electronic storage systems or a simply way to reproduce documents required under the Act.

 

I meant to also ask if anyone knows if there is any case Law having covered or referred to this or if/how it has been largely accepted by a court ?

Many thx

[uptoeyeballs]

I meant to also ask if anyone knows if there is any case Law having covered or referred to this or if/how it has been largely accepted by a court ?

Many thx

 

 

I guess you mean under s77-79 CCA. If so, look over here:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/240186-dissecting-manchester-test-case.html

 

Though defending a case brought against you is a different thing.

 

uteb

[mot22]

I guess you mean under s77-79 CCA. If so, look over here:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/240186-dissecting-manchester-test-case.html

 

Though defending a case brought against you is a different thing.

 

uteb

thx, but I'm not sure that deals with what I was trying to find out.

My understanding is that the Manchester test case dealt with what is required to comply with a s77-79 request and that a s77-79 request can be complied with by supplying a copy of an executed agreement not having signatures.

 

However has the reason car gave as to pre photo copy machines being the reason as to why we have reg 3.2(b), ever or anywhere been specifically referred to or accepted by a court?

 

hope that makes sense and apologies if this was indeed covered in the Manchester test case uptoeyeballs.

Many thx

[uptoeyeballs]

thx, but I'm not sure that deals with what I was trying to find out.

My understanding is that the Manchester test case dealt with what is required to comply with a s77-79 request and that a s77-79 request can be complied with by supplying a copy of an executed agreement not having signatures.

 

However has the reason car gave as to pre photo copy machines being the reason as to why we have reg 3.2(b), ever or anywhere been specifically referred to or accepted by a court?

 

hope that makes sense and apologies if this was indeed covered in the Manchester test case uptoeyeballs.

Many thx

 

Your'e correct about the Manchester case and car2403 is no doubt correct about the technology issues going back a few decades.

 

I kinda though it was law, so wasn't open for challenge in court.

 

It might help if you explained where you are and what you are trying to achieve. You should also set up your own thread....

 

uteb.

Edited June 19, 2010 by uptoeyeballs
fat fingers

[car2403]

car2403, thx for the reply. I admit I felt it a simple question but could not reconcile an answer especially in view of how OC's are using that reg as an excuse to not supply a copy of an executed agreement. With such complicated associations and inferences within the Act I just wanted to be sure I hadn't over looked some simialar complicated reason for that reg being included.

 

If I may follow by referring to 3.2 (a)

3.2 (a) any information included in an executed agreement....only which is not required to be included there in by the Act..as to form and content."

 

Would 3.2 (a) not counter the omission within 3.2 (b) ?

ie: is 3.2 (a) saying you cannot leave out things (perhaps signatures !!) that are required to be within an executed agreement.?

 

many thx..

 

I meant to also ask if anyone knows if there is any case Law having covered or referred to this or if/how it has been largely accepted by a court ?

Many thx

 

Yes, it would be nice to know which questions you are asking and why, but I think this post clears things up somewhat about signature boxes and may clear up any misunderstanding, or any misleading that has been done in your circumstances?;

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-1193633.html

 

[means2anend]

Because it wasn't easy to reproduce documents in 1983 - they didn't have photocopiers, electronic storage systems or a simply way to reproduce documents required under the Act.

 

 

Ahh!!!

 

But that begs..... Or the right question to ask ought to be why then, since the introduction of reproduction systems (And it has been quite a while now) has not the specific section authorising lack of requirement of a signature not been amended....and to what purpose would that inactivity serve???

 

m2ae:rolleyes:

[means2anend]

car2403, thx for the reply. I admit I felt it a simple question but could not reconcile an answer especially in view of how OC's are using that reg as an excuse to not supply a copy of an executed agreement. With such complicated associations and inferences within the Act I just wanted to be sure I hadn't over looked some simialar complicated reason for that reg being included.

 

If I may follow by referring to 3.2 (a)

3.2 (a) any information included in an executed agreement....only which is not required to be included there in by the Act..as to form and content."

 

Would 3.2 (a) not counter the omission within 3.2 (b) ?

ie: is 3.2 (a) saying you cannot leave out things (perhaps signatures !!) that are required to be within an executed agreement.?

 

many thx..

 

 

Signature has been EXPRESSLY authorised to be omitted...

 

And the secretary of state or Minister responsible under s60 has the power to prescribe by Regulations information to be included or information that may be omitted from Regulations

 

m2ae