MBNA C/Card so far with 10 to go?

[steven4064]

icepop

 

I've not seen your thread before - thanks to FC for bringing it back to the top. The 'agreement' you posted back in May is definitely just an application form and unenforceable by virtue of s59 of the CCA 1974.

[steven4064]

Hi icepop

 

The image of your agreement doesn't seem to be thee any more. However, I commented back in January that it was just an application form and not enforceable. What this means is that, should they take you to court for the debt, the court would not be able to order enforcement or give you a CCJ. You could write and tell them that you are not going to pay anything else because they have not produced a copy of an enforceable agreement. The debt will still exist, but they wil not be able to collect it. Any default they place on your credit file would be unlawful under the Data Protection Act 1998 because they cannot demonstrate that they have your permission to share your data.

[steven4064]

Yes, expand what I put into a 'proper' letter.

[steven4064]

Link goes to photobucket home page

[steven4064]

Link works now. AS far as I can see it's OK - default notices are not my speciality though

[steven4064]

Don't worry IP, lots of people just got it. It will go away. Webby is on the case.

[steven4064]

IP

 

Could you repost the 'agreement' they sent you - I have new information and would like to see it again.

 

Also, could you summarise where things are at now - I'm afraid I've lost he thread (so to speak )

[steven4064]

Ealier I wrote

The image of your agreement doesn't seem to be thee any more. However, I commented back in January that it was just an application form and not enforceable. What this means is that, should they take you to court for the debt, the court would not be able to order enforcement or give you a CCJ.

Unfortunately, now I have seen the agreement again, this is not correct. Sorry. An application form is not an enforceable document but what MBNA sometimes have done (and have done in your case) is to put the prescribed terms in that tiny column on the left. I couldn't check before because the original scan got removed.

 

I now think this document would be enforceable because s127(3) allows a document with the prescribed terms and a signature to be enforced even if it does not otherwise comply with the CCA.

 

As I requested a couple of posts ago, could you summarise the case - who is suing whom and for what so we can see where we go from here.

[steven4064]

have you put in a defence, if so, what?

[steven4064]

Good. I have asked my colleagues for a second opinion

 

Did MBNA send a lba before their court action? What information have they provided in addition to the application form?

[steven4064]

One final question, did they charge you for PPI - MBNA have been known to even when the 'no' box was ticked.

[steven4064]

Pt's question was whether left hand column on the copy you have is completely legible?

 

Do you have a DMP through CCCA (or anyone else for that matter)? If so, Restons are almost certainly in breach of OFT guidelines on debt collection:

Deceptive and/or unfair methods

2.7 Dealings with debtors are not to be deceitful and/or unfair.

2.8 Examples of unfair practices are as follows:

...

c. refusing to deal with appointed or authorised third parties, such as Citizens Advice Bureaux, independent advice centres or money advisers

d. contacting debtors directly and bypassing their appointed representatives

e. operating a policy, without reason, of refusing to negotiate with debt management companies

 

When is your defence due in?

[steven4064]

Good on both counts - that gives us something to work with. When is the defence due (I presume you have acknowledged their claim as that gives you an extra 2 weeks)

[steven4064]

Sorry - posted at the same time

 

I have got some things together based on this one by pt http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/136439-nationwide-strike-again-2nd-2.html#post1488454 - have a read through and see if you have any thoughts.

 

I will post up what I have got later in the weekend. I'm logging off for tonight now.

[steven4064]

icepop

 

I propose the following defence (modified from one courtesy of pt2537) :

In the xxxxxxxx County Court

Claim number

 

 

 

 

Between

xxxxxxxxxxx- Claimant

 

and

 

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxx - Defendant

 

 

 

Defence

 

1. I name of address am the defendant in this action and make the following statement as my defence to the claim made by name of claimant.

 

2. Except where otherwise mentioned in this defence, I neither admit nor deny any allegation made in the claimants Particulars of Claim and put the claimant to strict proof thereof.

 

3. The Defendant is embarrassed in pleading to the Particulars of Claim as it stands at present, inter alia: -

 

4. The claimants' particulars of claims disclose no legal cause of action and they are embarrassing to the defendant as the claimant's statement of case is insufficiently particularised and does not comply or even attempt to comply with CPR part 16. In this regard I wish to draw the courts attention to the following matters:

 

a) The Particulars of Claim are vague and insufficient and do not disclose an adequate statement of facts relating to or proceeding the alleged cause of action. No particulars are offered in relation to the nature of the written agreement referred to, the method the claimant calculated any outstanding sums due, or any default notices issued required for the claimant to have a legitimate right of action for the purported debt or any other matters necessary to substantiate the claimant's claim;

 

b) A copy of the purported written agreement that the claimant cites in the Particulars of Claim, and which appears to form the basis upon which these proceedings have been brought, has not been served attached to the claim form; and

 

c) A copy of any evidence of both the scope and nature of any default, and proof of any amount outstanding on the alleged accounts, has not been served attached to the claim form.

 

5. Consequently, I deny all allegations on the particulars of claim and do not know what case I have to meet.

6. In respect of that which is denied, on xx/xx/200x I requested that the claimant provide a true copy of the executed credit agreement, which they claim exists between parties pursuant to section 78(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Consumer Credit (Prescribed Periods for Giving Information) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1569) sets out that the claimant must comply with such request in 12 working days of receipt of such request.

 

7. In response to this request, the claimant sent a rather poor photocopy of an application form. It is not possible to determine if all the terms prescribed in Schedule 6 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) are present since the copy is partly illegible and does not comply with Regulation 2 of the Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1557):

 

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 .

 

8. It is my contention that the document sent by the claimant therefore does not fulfil the requirements of the various regulations amending the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and hence that the claimant has not complied with the request under s78(1) of the Act.

 

9. Section 78 (6) consumer Credit Act 1974 sets out the consequences of failure to comply with such request and states:

 

78(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.

 

10. It is drawn to the courts attention that the claimant has failed to comply with my request and is in clear default of its obligations under s78 (1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and it is averred that the claimant has no right of action until such time as the default is remedied and the true copy of the executed agreement is produced before the defendant containing the prescribed terms under Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) and signed in the prescribed manner by the debtor and creditor.

 

11. Therefore since the documents have not been supplied as requested pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 I deny that I am liable to the claimant and put the claimant to strict proof that such enforceable agreement between parties exists.

 

12. The claimant’s failure to provide the credit agreement and other documents referred to within it, along with copies of the default notice impacts upon the courts ability to make an enforcement order and places me at a distinct disadvantage as I am a litigant in person.

 

13. The courts attention is drawn to the fact that the without disclosure of the requested documentation pursuant to the Civil Procedure Rules I have not yet had the opportunity to asses if the documentation the claimant claims to be relying upon to bring this action even contains the prescribed terms required in Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) which was amended by Consumer Credit (Agreements) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI2004/1482). The prescribed terms refered to are contained in schedule 6 column 2 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) and are inter alia: - A term stating the credit limit or the manner in which it will be determined or that there is no credit limit, and a term stating how the debtor is to discharge his obligations under the agreement to make the repayments, which may be expressed by reference to a combination of any of the following--

1. Number of repayments,

2. Amount of repayments,

3. Frequency and timing of repayments,

4. Dates of repayments,

5. The manner in which any of the above may be determined,

or in any other way, and any power of the creditor to vary what is payable.

 

14. I note that these prescribed terms must also be within the Agreement and not in for example a separate document. I refer to the judgment of TUCKEY LJ in the case of Wilson and another v Hurstanger Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 299 "[11] Schedule 1 to the 1983 Regulations sets out the information to be contained in documents embodying regulated consumer credit agreements. Some of this information mirrors the terms prescribed by Sch 6, but some does not”. Contrasting the provisions of the two schedules the Judge said:

 

"33 In my judgment the objective of Schedule 6 is to ensure that, as an inflexible condition of enforceability, certain basic minimum terms are included which the parties (with the benefit of legal advice if necessary) and/or the court can identify within the four corners of the agreement. Those minimum provisions combined with the requirement under s 61 that all the terms should be in a single document, and backed up by the provisions of section 127(3), ensure that these core terms are expressly set out in the agreement itself: they cannot be orally agreed; they cannot be found in another document; they cannot be implied; and above all they cannot be in the slightest mis-stated. As a matter of policy, the lender is denied any room for manoeuvre in respect of them. On the other hand, they are basic provisions, and the only question for the court is whether they are, on a true construction, included in the agreement. More detailed requirements, which are designed to ensure that the debtor is made aware, so far as possible, of specified information (including information contained in the

minimum terms) are to be found in Schedule 1."

 

15. The courts attention is also drawn to the fact that where an agreement does not have the prescribed terms as stated in point 13 it is not compliant with section 60(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and therefore not enforceable by s127 (3). The courts attention is also drawn to the authority of the House of Lords in Wilson-v- FCT [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul) which confirms that where a document does not contain the required terms under the consumer credit act 1974 and the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) and Consumer Credit (Agreements) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI2004/1482) the agreement cannot be enforced.

 

16. I refer to LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD in the House of Lords Wilson v First County Trust Ltd - [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul):

 

“28.........I should outline the salient provisions of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Subject to exemptions, a regulated agreement is an agreement between an individual debtor and another person by which the latter provides the former with a cash loan or other financial accommodation not exceeding a specified amount. Currently the amount is £25,000. Section 61(1) sets out conditions which must be satisfied if a regulated agreement is to be treated as properly executed. One of these conditions, in paragraph (a), is that the agreement must be in a prescribed form containing all the prescribed terms. The prescribed terms are the amount of the credit or the credit limit, rate of interest (in some cases), how the borrower is to discharge his obligations, and any power the creditor may have to vary what is payable: Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983, Schedule 6. The consequence of improper execution is that the agreement is not enforceable against the debtor save by an order of the court: section 65(1). Section 127(1) provides what is to happen on an application for an enforcement order under section 65. The court 'shall dismiss' the application if, but only if, the court considers it just to do so having regard to the prejudice caused to any person by the contravention in question and the degree of culpability for it. The court may reduce the amount payable by the debtor so as to compensate him for prejudice suffered as a result of the contravention, or impose conditions, or suspend the operation of any term of the order or make consequential changes in the agreement or security.

 

“29. The court's powers under section 127(1) are subject to significant qualification in two types of cases. The first type is where section 61(1)(a), regarding signing of agreements, is not complied with. In such cases the court 'shall not make' an enforcement order unless a document, whether or not in the prescribed form, containing all the prescribed terms, was signed by the debtor: section 127(3). Thus, signature of a document containing all the prescribed terms is an essential prerequisite to the court's power to make an enforcement order. The second type of case concerns failure to comply with the duty to supply a copy of an executed or unexecuted agreement pursuant to sections 62 and 63, or failure to comply with the duty to give notice of cancellation rights in accordance with section 64(1). Here again, subject to one exception regarding sections 62 and 63, section 127(4) precludes the court from making an enforcement order.

 

“30. These restrictions on enforcement of a regulated agreement cannot be sidestepped.....”

And further more:

 

“36. In the present case the essence of the complaint is that section 127(3) of the Consumer Credit Act has the effect that a Regulated agreement is not enforceable unless a document containing all the prescribed terms is signed by the debtor

 

“49. .............The message to be gleaned from sections 65, 106, 113 and 127 of the Consumer Credit Act is that where a court dismisses an application for an enforcement order under section 65 the lender is intended by Parliament to be left without recourse against the borrower in respect of the loan. That being the consequence intended by Parliament, the lender cannot assert at common law that the borrower has been unjustly enriched.

 

“50. This interpretation of the Consumer Credit Act accords with the approach adopted by the House in Orakpo v Manson Investments Ltd [1978] AC 95, regarding section 6 of the Moneylenders Act 1927 and, more recently, in Dimond v Lovell [2002] 1 AC 384, another case where section 127(3) precluded the making of an enforcement order. In Dimond's case the restitutionary remedy sought was payment of the hire charge for a replacement car used by Mrs Dimond. The House rejected a claim advanced on the basis of unjust enrichment. Lord Hoffmann observed that Parliament contemplated that a debtor might be enriched consequential upon non-enforcement of an agreement pursuant to the to the statutory provisions. It was not open to the court to say this consequence is unjust and should be reversed by a remedy at common law: [2002] 1 AC 384, 397-398.”

 

17. Notwithstanding the above, it is also drawn to the courts attention that no default notice required by s87 (1) Consumer Credit act 1974 has been attached to the particulars of claim.

 

18. It is neither admitted or denied that any Default Notice in the prescribed format was ever received and the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that said document in the prescribed format was delivered to the defendant.

 

19. Notwithstanding point 18, I put the claimant to strict proof that any default notice sent to me was valid. I note that to be valid, a default notice needs to be accurate in terms of both the scope and nature of breach and include an accurate figure required to remedy any such breach. The prescribed format for such document is laid down in Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) and Amendment regulations the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/3237).

 

20. Failure of a default notice to be accurate not only invalidates the default notice (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain and Co - [2001] GCCR 2255) but is a unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the court enforcing any alleged debt, but give me a counter claim for damages Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119.

 

21. Without disclosure of the relevant documentation I am unable to asses if I am indeed liable to the claimant, nor am I able to asses if the alleged agreement is properly executed, contain the required prescribed terms, or correct figures to make such an agreement enforceable by virtue of s127 Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

22. In view of the matters pleaded above, I respectfully request that the court gives consideration to whether the claimant's statement of case should be struck out as disclosing no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim, and/or that it fails to comply with CPR Part 16 and Practice Direction 16.

 

23. Additionally since the claimant has failed to discharge its obligations under Section 78(1) Consumer Credit Act as stated in points 6 to 11 of this defence, it is requested that the claimant case be struck out pursuant to section 78(6) Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

24. Alternatively if the court decides not to strike out the claimants case, it is requested that the court orders full disclosure of the requested documents pursuant to the Civil Procedure Rules.

 

25. Having instigated these proceedings without any legal basis for doing so, having failed to provide sufficient information required under the pre-trial protocols in order to investigate this claim, or indeed to provide a reasonable time period to investigate this matter, and having failed to investigate a dispute as required by the OFT Debt collection Guidelines I believe the Claimant's conduct amounts to unlawful harassment under section 40 of The Administration of Justice Act1970. Furthermore, the Claimant's behaviour is entirely vexatious and wholly unreasonable.

 

26 Further, I entered into a Debt Management Plan with the debt management company CCCS on date and minimum payments were agreed with all my creditors including the original creditor of the account at the centre of this action. CCCS are my appointed representatives. The claimant was informed of this agreement on 18 March 2008 following my receipt of their Letter Before Action and again on 28 March 2008 after receiving notification of the claimant’s action begun on 25 March 2008.

 

27 The OFT’s Guidelines on debt collection state:

 

Deceptive and/or unfair methods

2.7 Dealings with debtors are not to be deceitful and/or unfair.

2.8 Examples of unfair practices are as follows:

...

c. refusing to deal with appointed or authorised third parties, such as Citizens Advice Bureaux, independent advice centres or money advisers

d. contacting debtors directly and bypassing their appointed representatives

e. operating a policy, without reason, of refusing to negotiate with debt management companies.

…

g. failing to refer on to the creditor reasonable offers to pay by instalments

 

28. It is my contention that the claimant’s debt collection activities (including this action) constitute unfair practices by virtue of points c), d), e) and g) in guideline 2.8

 

29. I respectfully ask the permission of the court to amend this defence when the claimant provides full disclosure of the requested documents.

 

30. Should the issue of the repeal of section 127(3) be brought before the court, it is drawn to the courts attention that schedule 3 of Consumer credit Act 2006 prevents section 15 of the CCA 2006 from having effect on agreements made before 6th April 2007 such as this one. For the attention of the court I reproduce schedule 3 section 11

 

11

The repeal by this Act of-

(a) The words "(subject to subsections (3) and (4))" in subsection (1) of section 127 of the 1974 Act,

(b) Subsections (3) to (5) of that section, and

© The words "or 127(3)" in subsection (3) of section 185 of that Act, has no effect in relation to improperly-executed agreements made before the commencement of section 15 of this Act.

 

Statement of Truth

 

 

I name, believe the above statement to be true and factual

 

 

Signed ..................... (Print Don't Sign)

 

Dated this 25th day of April 2008.

My changes are particularly paras 7-11 and 26-28. I would be grateful for comments on those.

Also the original had the quotation marks in para 14 a bit mixed up - I have put them as I think they should be - could someone check please.

 

Icepop, you will need to fill in the details in red.

[steven4064]

I got myself a little confused there - it is because I don't actually know who the claimant is (I think pt asked that as well)

 

Most of the above is pinched from a defence that pt did for someone else (it's actully been used several times)

[steven4064]

In that case change para 26 to

26 Further, I entered into a Debt Management Plan with the debt management company CCCS in October 2006 and minimum payments were agreed with all my creditors including the claimant, who have been accepting the minimum payments agreed until the start of this action. CCCS are my appointed representatives. I reminded the claimant of this agreement on 18 March 2008 following my receipt of their Letter Before Action and again on 28 March 2008 after receiving notification of the claimant’s action begun on 25 March 2008.

Sorry, I couldn't remember if the claimant was MBNA themselves or a DCA.

[steven4064]

Here you go guys - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/11644-allocation-questionnaires-guide-completion.html

[steven4064]

With the AQ you should include draft order for directions asking for all the information you haven't got like the one on the thread I referenced but modified to suit your case. Personally, I would make it one sided as well - ie don't include anything for you to provide.

[steven4064]

That doesn't matter. Put everything you had in your 'request for information' letter in the draft order for directions - make sure you ask the claimant for it . In the 'other information' bit (Section G on N149, Section I on N150) make it clear that you cannot mount a proper defence without this information you have requested and the 'overiding object' would not be achieved.

 

IN the section that says 'will you be making any applications?' you could say yes - applying to modify defence if and when the claimant provides the information you need.

[steven4064]

Sorry I was away - a bit late but 'yes'

[steven4064]

They have basically made an application to ignore your defence. The hearing is to decide whether the court will allow that.

 

You will get the chance to say something and underline the main points - so make sure you really have them clear in your mind.

 

You have challenged their right to claim that money on the grounds that they cannot prove how much you owe or indeed if you owe anything because the agreement cannot be read.

 

The legislation is quite clear (regulation 2 of the CC(CN&CD)R 1983) - if it is not 'easily legible' it does not comply with s78(1) of the CCA 1974 and it is not enforceable under s127 of the Act because, if it can't be read, then to all intents and purposes it does not have the prescribed terms on it.

 

Unfortunately, however, it's all down to the judge on the day.

[steven4064]

What citizenB says

 

Note that you need to provide a witness statement.

 

The other thing you could do would be to file your own application requesting that their claim be struck out as disclosing no cause of action baecause they have not produced an agreement that complies with s78(1) of the CCA1974 because it doesnt't comply with reg 2 of the CC(CN&CD)R 1983.

 

Further, it doesn't comply with s61 of the CCA1974 and therefore can only be enforced by a court order by virtue of s65 of the Act. However, because it doesn't comply with reg 2, the court is not allowed to enforce it by vitue of s127 of the Act.

 

Of course, you could also point out that the reason you can get a standard defence form a website is that MBNA are well known for the fact that they seem to think the CCA 1974 doesn't apply to them.

 

And you are not asking for information hoping they won't be able to find it just to delay the case, you areasking fro information that they are required by law to provide an have failed to provide - it makes me so cross

 

THe prescribed terms which may be on the agreement but you can't tell because it's illegible are important - How can they show you went over your credit limit if you can't read what the credit limit is? How can they prove you owe that much money when you can't read the APR? How can they say you missed minimum payments when you can't read what the minimum payments are or when they are due? They have not demonstrated cause of action!

 

If they actually have the documents, why don't they just produce them instead of all this.

Edited July 4, 2008 by steven4064

[steven4064]

icepop

 

I have been thinking about a witness statement. I don't want you to go ahead and use this yet, as I would like some input from one of my colleagues (pt2537 or rory, possibly) and some of the other participants on this tread may have useful comments too.

-------------------------------

 

WITNESS STATEMENT

 

-------------------------------

 

 

The claimant asserts that, because my defence is based on a standard defence obtained from ‘certain websites’ that that of itself makes it inappropriate and ineffective – that is plainly absurd. Its appropriateness and effectiveness must depend on whether it is judged to address the issues in dispute. In fact, the fact that a standard defence is available on a website is testimony to the claimant’s notoriety as a company that seems to think that English consumer law does not apply to them.

 

Under s78(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, I am entitled to receive from the claimant a copy of the agreement that governs my dealings with them. The various regulations made by the Secretary of State pursuant to the Act specify copies of which documents I am entitled to receive and the quality I am entitled to expect of those copies. They must be "easily legible and of a colour which is readily distinguishable from the "

 

The documents supplied by the claimant following my request under s78(1) of the Act do not comply with this requirement.

 

Neither do the documents supplied conform to the format specified in s61 of the Act and therefore, according to s65, can only be enforced by a court. However, the courts powers of enforcement are limited by s127(3) to a document "itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement … signed by the debtor".

 

It is probable that the original of the document supplied to me by the claimant complied with this requirement. However, the copy, being only partly legible, does not.

 

The requirement that the prescribed terms should be present is not just of academic interest. The prescribed terms are not only required by law, they are vital to the claimant’s case. How can the court decide if the amount claimed is correct if the APR applied to the account is unknown or unproved? How can the claimant justify their assertion that minimum payments have been missed if the court does not know how the minimum payments are determined or when they are due?

 

The defendant’s continued request for copies of documents is not to "frustrate or delay" proceedings. Rather, it is to allow proceedings to continue justly – to promote the overriding objective. Without documentation complying with regulation, the claimant simply has no case. If the claimant has agreement that governs my dealings with them, why have they not provided a copy?

 

The detailed application of legislation and supporting settled cases is given in the defendant’s defence, q.v.

 

By not producing an original of the alleged agreement, the claimant is also in violation of paragraph 7.3 of CPR Practice Direction 16 which requires that, "Where a claim is based upon a written agreement", "a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement should be attached to or served with the particulars of claim and the original(s) should be available at the hearing".

 

Copies of other documents are subject to the Civil Evidence Act 1995’s provisions on hearsay evidence. Section 2 requires that "A party proposing to adduce hearsay evidence in civil proceedings shall, subject to the following provisions of this section, give to the other party or parties to the proceedings…such notice (if any) of that fact".

 

The claimant has not done so.

 

Further, under s8, any copies should be "authenticated in such manner as the court may approve". The claimant has produced no such authentication.

 

The defendant asserts that the claimant’s case shows disregard for the law – CCA 1974 and the corresponding regulations made by the Secretary of State, the Civil Evidence Act 1995 and CPR Practice Direction 16. It is the claimant not the defendant that is abusing the court process by its disregard of the law and civil procedure.

 

The defendant further asserts that, by not providing evidence of the quality expected by legislation, the claimant’s case does not demonstrate sufficient cause of action.

 

The defendant therefore respectfully asks the court to dismiss the claimant’s application.

 

Further the defendant respectfully asks the court to strike out the claimant’s statement of case under CPR Part 3.4(2)(a) on the grounds that it does not demonstrate sufficient cause of action. (and possibly under CPR Part 3.4(2)(b) on the grounds that it abuses the court process or is otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings).

 

If the court is not minded to strike out the claimant’s statement of case, the defendant respectfully requests that the court orders the claimant to produce documentation in support of it case that complies with the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983, the Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983, the Civil Evidence Act 1995 and CPR Practice Direction 16. In this event, the defendant respectfully requests leave of the court to amend his defence if and when such documents are received.

 

I believe that the facts in this Witness Statement are true.

 

Signed

 

 

Dated this xxth day of xxxxx 2008.

 

Attached documents

You will need to attach copies of the legislation quoted and the settled cases quoted in the defence. If you send pt2537 a PM he shouold be able to provide the latter. I will point you in the direction of the former. Edited July 5, 2008 by steven4064

[steven4064]

Legsligation:

 

CCA1974

CC(CN&CD)R1983

CC(A)R1983

CEA1995

 

You will need to print off and attach to witness statement. You don't need topring the Practice Directions - the court have those.

 

pt may not remember but if you just ask for the cases mentioned in your defence he will point you to them.

Edited July 4, 2008 by steven4064