MBNA court Activ Kapital

[The Mould]

You signed an application form for a credit facility with the Claimant which was subject to the Claimants’ assessment thereon in order for him to ascertain what credit limit, if any, he would provide you with. Therefore, the Claimants’ claim that the separate white sheet of paper containing two barcodes with the words “Your credit limit £4,000.00” and “Reference Number 0021340140” forms a part of your said application, cannot possibly be true, because your application was subject to his assessment thereon before approving the same and by his assessment, and only by his assessment, he was able to approve your application and determine the credit limit he was prepared to give you under a regulated agreement.

The matters relied on the Claimant in his summary judgment application are invention and absent of reality.

Kind regards

The Mould

[shamrocker]

You signed an application form for a credit facility with the Claimant which was subject to the Claimants’ assessment thereon in order for him to ascertain what credit limit, if any, he would provide you with. Therefore, the Claimants’ claim that the separate white sheet of paper containing two barcodes with the words “Your credit limit £4,000.00” and “Reference Number 0021340140” forms a part of your said application, cannot possibly be true, because your application was subject to his assessment thereon before approving the same and by his assessment, and only by his assessment, he was able to approve your application and determine the credit limit he was prepared to give you under a regulated agreement.

The matters relied on the Claimant in his summary judgment application are invention and absent of reality.

Kind regards

The Mould

 

Hi The Mould

 

I think I'm starting to focus in on how you're viewing it. I just fear that some clauses will be quoted on the day and it'll blow me out of the water. I'll keep reading and thinking it through though.

 

A couple more queries - on the DN from MBNA, it states "We refer to the above agreement that you have entered into with us. Clause 1 and 8 of that agreement provide that you must make the minimum payment when due.....etc..." Clause 8??? There isn't a Clause 8 on any of these documents.

 

Also, just reading what I believe is the notice of assignment. There isn't any reference to the actual account number which is clearly stated on the DN. In fact, at no time do AK quote the account number in any of their correspondence.

 

How significant are either of the above points?

 

Thanks a million!

 

Sham

[The Mould]

Hi The Mould

 

I think I'm starting to focus in on how you're viewing it. I just fear that some clauses will be quoted on the day and it'll blow me out of the water. I'll keep reading and thinking it through though.

 

A couple more queries - on the DN from MBNA, it states "We refer to the above agreement that you have entered into with us. Clause 1 and 8 of that agreement provide that you must make the minimum payment when due.....etc..." Clause 8??? There isn't a Clause 8 on any of these documents.

 

Also, just reading what I believe is the notice of assignment. There isn't any reference to the actual account number which is clearly stated on the DN. In fact, at no time do AK quote the account number in any of their correspondence.

 

How significant are either of the above points?

 

Thanks a million!

 

Sham

Your point #1 regarding the matters set out in the DN referring to clauses of the agreement is an absolute gem for you and you must refer to this DN at the hearing on Wednesday. These clauses mentioned in the DN would clearly form part of “all the prescribed terms” to the agreement and they are clearly not set out in the agreement relied on by the Claimant. Make 3 copies thereof; you know the rest by now.

My last few posts contain important facts that you must also bring to the Judge’s attention at the hearing on Wednesday.

Kind regards

The Mould

[shamrocker]

Just another 'out of interest' question - for a creditor to sell/assign a debt to a different party, does this need to be stated as a term within the agreement?

 

EDIT: And another question - reading up on s78, with regards to the CCA request I sent to the Claimant in October of last year which yielded nowt - is there anything useful for me in this extract?

 

(6) If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with

subsection (1)-

(a) he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce

the agreement ; and

(b) if the default continues for one month he commits an

offence.

[AndyOrch]

Just another 'out of interest' question - for a creditor to sell/assign a debt to a different party, does this need to be stated as a term within the agreement? Yes and does...comes under third parties

 

EDIT: And another question - reading up on s78, with regards to the CCA request I sent to the Claimant in October of last year which yielded nowt - is there anything useful for me in this extract?

 

(6) If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with

subsection (1)-

(a) he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce

the agreement ; and hes not enforcing it just selling it

(b) if the default continues for one month he commits an

offence. Is no longer applicable

 

Andy

[shamrocker]

Andy

 

Thanks Andy. Would this 'Third Party' term be subject to a particular section of the CCA 1974 and could I also include this as a valid point at the SJ hearing? I think there are other more important points to make, but I'll take what ever ammo I can get with me in case it's needed.

 

On a separate point - I'm still struggling to pin point where it states that an illegible agreement cannot be enforced. Could you point me in the right direction. Is it that 'Legibility of notices and copy documents' information that you mentioned a few pages back?

 

Thanks again!

[AndyOrch]

Thanks Andy. Would this 'Third Party' term be subject to a particular section of the CCA 1974 and could I also include this as a valid point at the SJ hearing?No its straw clutching I think there are other more important points to make, but I'll take what ever ammo I can get with me in case it's needed.

 

On a separate point - I'm still struggling to pin point where it states that an illegible agreement cannot be enforced. Could you point me in the right direction. Is it that 'Legibility of notices and copy documents' information that you mentioned a few pages back? Yes

 

Thanks again!

 

Andy

[shamrocker]

Andy

 

Thanks Andy!

 

With regards to legibility, it states:

 

"The lettering in every notice in a Form prescribed by these Regulations and in every copy of an executed agreement, security instrument or other document referred to in the Act and delivered or sent to a debtor, hirer or surety under any provision of the Act shall, apart from any signature, be easily legible and of a colour which is readily distinguishable from the colour of the paper."

 

Just so I understand this properly - an 'executed agreement' is one that is completed and signed, and would therefore apply to the illegible document that the Claimant has provided me with as evidence?

[AndyOrch]

2 Legibility of notices and copy documents and wording of prescribed Forms

 

(1) The lettering in every notice in a Form prescribed by these Regulations and in every copy of an executed

agreement, security instrument or other document referred to in the Act and delivered or sent to a debtor, hirer or surety

under any provision of the Act shall, apart from any signature, be easily legible and of a colour which is readily

distinguishable from the .

 

(2) The wording of any Form prescribed by these Regulations shall be reproduced in copies of un executed or executed

agreements or in Notices of Cancellation Rights sent [by an appropriate method] under section 64(1)(b) or (2) of the Act

without any alteration or addition, except that--

 

(a) the creditor or owner may enter the name and address of the debtor or hirer in any Cancellation Form prescribed

by these Regulations; and

 

(b) every Form shall be completed in accordance with any footnote.

 

(3) Any such footnote shall not be treated as part of any Form prescribed by these Regulations and may be reproduced

in addition to any such Form.

 

(4) Where any such footnote requires any words to be omitted, those words shall be omitted or deleted.

 

(5) Where words are shown in capital letters in any Form prescribed in Parts I to IV of the Schedule to these

Regulations and are reproduced in copies of in executed or executed agreements they shall be afforded more prominence

(whether by capital letters, underlining, large or bold print or otherwise) than any other lettering in that Form except

lettering inserted in accordance with paragraph (2) above and no less prominence than that given to any other information

in the copy apart from the heading to the agreement or copy, the annual percentage rate of charge for credit, trade names,

names of parties to the agreement or lettering in the document inserted in handwriting.

 

(6) Where words are shown in capital letters in any Form prescribed in Part VI of the Schedule to these Regulations

and are reproduced in Notices of Cancellation Rights sent [by an appropriate method] under section 64(1)(b) or (2) of the

Act they shall be afforded more prominence (whether by capital letters, underlining, large or bold print or otherwise) than

any other lettering in that Form except lettering inserted in accordance with paragraph (2) above.

 

 

3 General requirements as to form and content of copy documents

 

(1) Subject to the following provisions of these Regulations, every copy of an executed agreement, security instrument

or other document referred to in the Act and delivered or sent to a debtor, hirer or surety under any provision of the Act

shall be a true copy thereof.

 

(2) There may be omitted from any such copy--

 

(a) any information included in an executed agreement, security instrument or other document relating to the debtor,

hirer or surety or included for the use of the creditor or owner only which is not required to be included therein by the

Act or any Regulations thereunder as to the form and content of the document of which it is a copy;

 

(b) any signature box, signature or date of signature (other than, in the case of a copy of a cancellable executed

agreement delivered to the debtor under section 63(1) of the Act, the date of the signature by the debtor of an

agreement to which section 68(b) of the Act applies);

 

© in the case of any copy of an in executed agreement delivered or sent to the debtor or hirer under section 62 of

the Act, the name and address of the debtor or hirer; and

 

[(d) in the case of any copy of an executed agreement given to the debtor under section 77(1) of the Act for fixed sum

credit, or under section 78(1) for running-account credit, under which a person takes any articles in pawn, any

description of the article taken in pawn.]

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1983/1557/made

[shamrocker]

I'm just doing some final preparing for tomorrow morning's SJ hearing. I've read on some other threads that Carey/HSBC has been quoted by Claimants as grounds for submitting a reconstituted agreement at trial. I've read some of the Carey/HBSC ruling....I didn't read it all as it was mixing with other stuff in my head and sending it in a bit of a spin, but I think I got the gist of it.

 

I'd just like to get some confirmation of a few aspects in relation to it.

 

My understanding, based mainly on what Andyorch and others have stated on here, is that Carey/HSBC only applies to s78 compliance. In referring to the Carey ruling, it does not therefore give rise to an 'unfair relationship', which (and I am guessing here) would mean breach breach of agreement? However, it would mean the agreement being deemed unenforceable whilst any noncompliance with s78 remains, but can be remedied later....right or wrong?

 

Also, there are implications for 'variable terms & conditions', meaning all versions of the terms since inception would need to be provided....right? Is an example of this where the APR is variable?

 

I know this may not apply too heavily to my situation (or might it?), but I'd rather have an understanding of the fundamentals of it in case it's raised as a bit of a smokescreen.

 

Many thanks!

 

Sham

 

P.S. How might a 2005 agreement be affected?

 

P.S.2. - The Mould, if you are looking in - on the draft WS, you stated "Both agreements, if they are indeed one and the same as implied by the Claimant....". Does it affect things if, after scrutinizing both agreement documents a bit closer, I have identified some notable differences in design/layout that would mean they are not 'identical' as claimed by them? How significant would it be if I point out these differences and thereby cast doubt on the 'reconstituted agreement' being an exact replica of the illegible original?

[The Mould]

I'm just doing some final preparing for tomorrow morning's SJ hearing. I've read on some other threads that Carey/HSBC has been quoted by Claimants as grounds for submitting a reconstituted agreement at trial. I've read some of the Carey/HBSC ruling....I didn't read it all as it was mixing with other stuff in my head and sending it in a bit of a spin, but I think I got the gist of it.

 

I'd just like to get some confirmation of a few aspects in relation to it.

 

My understanding, based mainly on what Andyorch and others have stated on here, is that Carey/HSBC only applies to s78 compliance. In referring to the Carey ruling, it does not therefore give rise to an 'unfair relationship', which (and I am guessing here) would mean breach breach of agreement? However, it would mean the agreement being deemed unenforceable whilst any noncompliance with s78 remains, but can be remedied later....right or wrong?

 

Also, there are implications for 'variable terms & conditions', meaning all versions of the terms since inception would need to be provided....right? Is an example of this where the APR is variable?

 

I know this may not apply too heavily to my situation (or might it?), but I'd rather have an understanding of the fundamentals of it in case it's raised as a bit of a smokescreen.

 

Many thanks!

 

Sham

 

P.S. How might a 2005 agreement be affected?

 

P.S.2. - The Mould, if you are looking in - on the draft WS, you stated "Both agreements, if they are indeed one and the same as implied by the Claimant....". Does it affect things if, after scrutinizing both agreement documents a bit closer, I have identified some notable differences in design/layout that would mean they are not 'identical' as claimed by them? How significant would it be if I point out these differences and thereby cast doubt on the 'reconstituted agreement' being an exact replica of the illegible original?

 

 

The case of Carey deals with a creditor serving a reconstituted agreement in response to his debtors’ CCA request made under s.77/78, so this authority does not apply to the Claimants’ claim or his summary judgment application. Carey is always misquoted and relied in Court by creditors (their representatives) against untrained litigants. Make sure that you take two copies of the Carey judgment (one for you and one for Judge)with you to the Court so if the Claimant or his rep raises this point in his representations on the morrow, you can easily counter-argue that the Carey case does not apply to the circumstances of the Claimants’ claim or his summary judgment application and is therefore of no assistance to this Court, save that the reconstituted agreement presented in evidence by the Claimant might be deemed to satisfy the conditions of both the handed down judgment in Carey and sections 77 & 78 of the CCA 1974, but satisfy nothing more.

Yes, raise all discrepancies of the agreement with the District Judge.

Your argument against the Claimants’ SJ is not solely based on the illegibility of the agreement, it is the fact that whether legible or not, the agreement does not contained all the prescribed terms pursuant to section 61 of the CCA 1974 and subsequent regulations thereof, therefore, by operation of section 127 (3) of the CCA 1974 the agreement is irredeemably unenforceable.

Good luck for the morrow. What time is the SJ hearing?

Kind regards

The Mould

[shamrocker]

Thanks TM

 

The SJ hearing is 11:25am. What time should I aim to arrive at the court?

 

I hadn't made any copies of Carey and printing facilities for this size of document aren't at home - would selective areas be sufficient? I could probably still get the whole documents printed off at a push though.

 

Yes, I am taking the irredeemably unenforceable route with illegibility just being one factor, although in my notes I have The Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983 as another card to play if I'm still struggling to persuade the judge on 'all the prescribed terms are present' alone.

 

I'm just hoping I don't find myself in a two against one situation. I'll give it my best, whatever the case.

 

Sham

[The Mould]

Thanks TM

 

The SJ hearing is 11:25am. What time should I aim to arrive at the court?

 

I hadn't made any copies of Carey and printing facilities for this size of document aren't at home - would selective areas be sufficient? I could probably still get the whole documents printed off at a push though.

 

Yes, I am taking the irredeemably unenforceable route with illegibility just being one factor, although in my notes I have The Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983 as another card to play if I'm still struggling to persuade the judge on 'all the prescribed terms are present' alone.

 

I'm just hoping I don't find myself in a two against one situation. I'll give it my best, whatever the case.

 

Sham

Arrive 1 hr before hearing and tell the Court usher who you are and claim no. and give usher copies of authorities/legislation and any other relevant document and ask him to give these to the District Judge.

The Claimant and or his representative may want to speak with you in private before the hearing, their intention will be to intimidate you and to try and persuade you to concede to the claim. Hold your ground and your nerve and simply brush the vermin off your back politely.

Sending super Godzilla strength & courage and safe return to port after you have fallen them undesirables unto the depths from whence they came………hell that is.

Kind regards

The Mould

[shamrocker]

Thanks The Mould, and for every bit of help you've given me so far. Win, lose or draw, there will always be some gratitude stored inside me that belongs to you and Andyorch.

 

Thanks for the advice with regards the other side's tactics. I'll listen to whatever they say but I intend to make my points in front of the judge and that's what I'll do.

 

It's just another of life's experiences! Let's hope it's a goodun'.

 

Sham

[shamrocker]

P.S. What about varied terms? Does variable APR fall under this and what implications does it have for a creditor that is required to produce T&Cs?

[shamrocker]

Just got back. It's not over but doesn't appear very rosy, with that particular judge anyway.

 

In readiness for the hearing I prepared three files containing the documents I may have referred to in relation to the matter - one for me, one for the judge, one for the other side.

 

I handed the judge's file to the guy in the court, but he brought it back and said the judge requested that I just take it in with me when called to the hearing.

 

The judge opens by stating that half an hour is never long enough to deal with the issues involved, therefore, he will allocate 1hr 30mins on another occasion where each party would prepare a bundle as part of a mini-trial.

 

He was looking disapprovingly at the opposition solicitor, who in turn was quite apologetic. The solicitor, in turn mentions something about the defendant attempting to 'file something this morning' - I'm shaking my head confused. He continues to mention something about taking note of the arguments against and then proceeds to state that he will be relying on Rankin v American Express.....something along the lines of the defence based on a technicality.

 

The judge then turns to me and refers to my attempt to provide him with the prepared file. He stated that he "took a dim view on it". He continued that "those tactics ended years ago and was known as an AMBUSH".

 

Oops!!

 

Then he proceeded to state that he wouldn't oversee the new hearing "because he had already formed a view" and "it would be prejudice" to moi! He gave a bit of, I assume, well intended advice. He said it didn't look good and that I ought to consider my position on the matter....and also made reference to costs increasing.

 

I had a chat with the opposing solicitor afterwards at his request. Without going into detail, I can't really fault what he said as it was a fair assessment of the situation...so I will leave it there.

 

Comments most welcome.

 

Oh, and to top it off, I realised when I got to the court that I had forgotten to pay the Pay & Display parking, having taken a pocket of change with me specifically for that purpose. You know the rest......

 

Not the best of days.

 

Sham

[fredsed]

Hi Sham, sorry to hear that you haven't had the best of day's. Every cloud has a diver lining....or so they say!!! Maybe an honest letter to the council will work, I did the same once and I think they took pity on me and cancelled the ticket! You never know. As for your case I guess if the claimant is prepared at this stage to negotiate with you maybe you can settle this out of court. I'm sure some one will be along here soon to advise.

best wishes.

 

Fred

[shamrocker]

Thanks Fred. I will try contacting the council via email, but I doubt it'll get anywhere. Otherwise, I'll just pay up and forget about it.

 

Yeah, the opposing solicitor gave a good account of the options open to me, and one was to negotiate 'Without Prejudice'. I try and read between the lines a bit and do wonder if that's what they want.

 

I'll wait to hear what some of the usual suspects think before deciding on my next course of action. I do feel that that they should be made to argue their way out of s127(3) based on the agreements they've provided thus far. Their reference to Rankine case today seems like an admission that the technicality can't be defended on it's own merit.

[The Mould]

Thanks Fred. I will try contacting the council via email, but I doubt it'll get anywhere. Otherwise, I'll just pay up and forget about it.

 

Yeah, the opposing solicitor gave a good account of the options open to me, and one was to negotiate 'Without Prejudice'. I try and read between the lines a bit and do wonder if that's what they want.

 

I'll wait to hear what some of the usual suspects think before deciding on my next course of action. I do feel that that they should be made to argue their way out of s127(3) based on the agreements they've provided thus far. Their reference to Rankine case today seems like an admission that the technicality can't be defended on it's own merit.

 

 

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2003/40.html

See the above case of Wilson v First County Trust.

HH JUDGE SIMON BROWN QC sitting in the case of Rankine v American Express [2008]

Paragraph 7.”This judgment will follow the issues that were live, rather than go case by case: (2)

Copy Agreements under Section 78 of the CCA; (4) Cancellable agreement; (5) True

Copies; (6) Default Notices; (7) Default Charges ;

(9) Declaration of Unenforceability and finally the Personal Loan issues”.

See the above Rankine v American Express case Sham and the 7 issues of that case that the Court was called upon to decide and hand down its judgment.

None of these issues are present in the Claimants’ claim or his summary judgment application and you must make this clear to the judge at the new hearing of the SJ. You are not attempting to get out of paying any debt on a technicality or minor breach of the CCA 1974. The agreement relied on by the Claimant is improperly executed and cannot be enforced, this is not a technical argument, this is a statutory provision laid down in statute, the CCA 1974 s.127 (3) (which applies in your case), the Court cannot allow the Claimant to enforce the agreement in contravention of said provision of the 1974 Act.

Compliance with the conditions of s.61 CCA 1974 is mandatory upon any creditor and his failure to satisfy those mandatory conditions will render a pre-2007 credit agreement unenforceable by operation of s.127 (3) of the 1974 Act and the authorities on this point of law.

The Court should not conduct a mini-trial in a summary judgment application, because the proper disposal of an issue under CPR Pt 24 does not involve the Court conducting a mini-trial this has been made clear by the authority of Lord Woolf M. R. in Swain v Hillman [2001] 1 AII E. R. 91.

The judge is prejudice towards you because he views you as a bad debtor who is attempting to get out of paying his debt, his view of you is clearly based on the contents of your Defence (not your 1st witness statement). His opinion does not override the above statute (or any statute).

The Claimant did not succeed today and if you are going to continue to defend, then you need to build on this by way of careful study of all the cases I have cited for you and the legislation which will help you to prepare for the new SJ hearing.

Kind regards

The Mould

[shamrocker]

Thanks The Mould

 

I have much to consider. They clearly did not wish to engage in arguing against my 'technicality', which gives me some hope. Their attempt to provide an acceptable agreement document leaves a lot to be desired and I truly believe that the case should be scrutinised on the point of law you mentioned. As you pointed out, I did get the feeling that the judge took the view of 'aww...not another credit card borrower trying their luck'. I got the feeling that he viewed me with contempt, as if a chancer. To hell with consumer protection laws - if it looks like you spent the money then that's all that matters....why bother with agreements? He had obviously primed the opposing solicitor on my attempt to provide the authority documents to him. It does make you wonder about the extent of the working relationship and mutual understanding that exists there. The opposing solicitor, although I can't fault his behaviour towards me, was obviously friendly with the court usher.

 

Stuff like that makes me more determined to take them on and force them respond to their inadequacies in complying with the law, but I don't know if I'm truly capable. I have learned a heck of a lot in the past few weeks though and my confidence on this area has grown; but that place has a strange effect on you when you sit down and the reality of what's taking place dawns on you. Can I be persuasive enough when placed in that environment again.....hmm. Can I afford to have a judgement made against me...definitely not.

 

Much to think through.

 

Sham

[Ganymede]

Thanks The Mould

 

I have much to consider. They clearly did not wish to engage in arguing against my 'technicality', which gives me some hope. Their attempt to provide an acceptable agreement document leaves a lot to be desired and I truly believe that the case should be scrutinised on the point of law you mentioned. As you pointed out, I did get the feeling that the judge took the view of 'aww...not another credit card borrower trying their luck'. I got the feeling that he viewed me with contempt, as if a chancer. To hell with consumer protection laws - if it looks like you spent the money then that's all that matters....why bother with agreements? He had obviously primed the opposing solicitor on my attempt to provide the authority documents to him. It does make you wonder about the extent of the working relationship and mutual understanding that exists there. The opposing solicitor, although I can't fault his behaviour towards me, was obviously friendly with the court usher.

 

Stuff like that makes me more determined to take them on and force them respond to their inadequacies in complying with the law, but I don't know if I'm truly capable. I have learned a heck of a lot in the past few weeks though and my confidence on this area has grown; but that place has a strange effect on you when you sit down and the reality of what's taking place dawns on you. Can I be persuasive enough when placed in that environment again.....hmm. Can I afford to have a judgement made against me...definitely not.

 

Much to think through.

 

Sham

 

The judge would not have "primed" the other side's solicitor before the trial. That's just conspiracy nonsense. The solicitor will probably attend that Court on a regular basis hence why he/she appeared friendly with the Usher.

 

Don't let any of the above put you off or influence your decision on what to do next.

[The Mould]

The Claimants’ case against you is that your Defence is a bare denial and that you have had the benefit of the credit provided.

Of course you have had the benefit of the credit provided, this is not in issue in this case, and the only issue is this: is the agreement relied on by the Claimant a properly executed one or is it an improperly executed one.

You have legislation of s.61 CCA 1974 and two House of Lords authorities in favour of your case against the claim which all prove that the agreement is improperly executed and therefore irredeemably unenforceable. The Claimant has no argument against the same.

It’s your decision Sham; you do whatever you feel is right and best for you and your family. We will all still support you in whatever you decide to do in this matter.

What track is the claim on and how much is the Claimant claiming?

Kind regards

The Mould

[shamrocker]

The judge would not have "primed" the other side's solicitor before the trial. That's just conspiracy nonsense. The solicitor will probably attend that Court on a regular basis hence why he/she appeared friendly with the Usher.

 

Don't let any of the above put you off or influence your decision on what to do next.

 

When I say 'primed', I mean informed him that I tried to hand in some documents - which he obviously did. They made it sound like I did something underhanded, but it was an innocent action based on well intended advice from The Mould. They weren't needed anyway.

 

I appreciate that being the reason for the friendly rapport with the usher, therefore, I can only wonder if he was held in similar esteem with the judge.

 

I won't let it put me off, but I do think the judge's advice was a little biased and it came as a bit of a blow. Someone like him should appreciate the reason for the law existing and also the consequences for certain persons/parties not adhering to it. You'd swear these finance companies were dishing out interest free loans and being general do-gooders.

[shamrocker]

The Claimants’ case against you is that your Defence is a bare denial and that you have had the benefit of the credit provided.

Of course you have had the benefit of the credit provided, this is not in issue in this case, and the only issue is this: is the agreement relied on by the Claimant a properly executed one or is it an improperly executed one.

You have legislation of s.61 CCA 1974 and two House of Lords authorities in favour of your case against the claim which all prove that the agreement is improperly executed and therefore irredeemably unenforceable. The Claimant has no argument against the same.

It’s your decision Sham; you do whatever you feel is right and best for you and your family. We will all still support you in whatever you decide to do in this matter.

What track is the claim on and how much is the Claimant claiming?

Kind regards

The Mould

 

Thanks The Mould. You summarised it very well above.

 

I suppose today was helpful in that the other side showed their hand. I haven't decided on what to do yet, and it's probably only the judge's 'recommendation' that's given me the dilemma, but I'll take my head off it for a few days as I have some catching up to do with other business, but it will enable me to take a fresh view on it next week. I do feel much more positive reading your assessment of the situation as it has focused me back on the main issues.

 

Presumably you'd be confident about taking this through court if you were in my position?

 

It's a fast track claim for £15.5k plus costs.

 

Thanks again,

 

Shamrocker

[Ganymede]

When I say 'primed', I mean informed him that I tried to hand in some documents - which he obviously did. They made it sound like I did something underhanded, but it was an innocent action based on well intended advice from The Mould. They weren't needed anyway.

 

I appreciate that being the reason for the friendly rapport with the usher, therefore, I can only wonder if he was held in similar esteem with the judge.

 

I won't let it put me off, but I do think the judge's advice was a little biased and it came as a bit of a blow. Someone like him should appreciate the reason for the law existing and also the consequences for certain persons/parties not adhering to it. You'd swear these finance companies were dishing out interest free loans and being general do-gooders.

 

If you go ahead to the trial then there will probably be a Direction to file trial bundles. Usually this should be done no more than 7 but no less than 3 days before the hearing.