un1boy - N1 issued for breach of CCA request

[un1boy]

Dad,

 

With regards to:

2. References in this document prefixed (TB) are references to the trial bundle.

 

Do I have to refer to the actual bundle I used in the trial, or the one that I submitted as part of the appeal request? The court bundle is not indexed very well. Also, would he have a copy of that? Can I submit a new, re-indexed bundle?

[dad]

Dad,

 

With regards to:

 

Do I have to refer to the actual bundle I used in the trial, or the one that I submitted as part of the appeal request? The court bundle is not indexed very well. Also, would he have a copy of that? Can I submit a new, re-indexed bundle?

 

Once permission is granted you will be ordered to prepare a new appeal bundle. This can only include evidence that was before the judge, plus any new authorities you want to quote. CPR 52 lays out what should be in the bundle and the order of the documents.

 

In my case I also had a copy of the original bundle as it appeared before the original judge.

[un1boy]

Once permission is granted you will be ordered to prepare a new appeal bundle. This can only include evidence that was before the judge, plus any new authorities you want to quote. CPR 52 lays out what should be in the bundle and the order of the documents.

 

In my case I also had a copy of the original bundle as it appeared before the original judge.

 

ok, so when typing up the doc above, I should refer to the original bundle - do you think I can re-index it though?!

[dad]

do you think I can re-index it though?!

 

If you mean add an index so that it is easier to find things, then I do not see a problem. I do not think you can change the documents around.

 

Dad

[un1boy]

If you mean add an index so that it is easier to find things, then I do not see a problem. I do not think you can change the documents around.

 

Dad

 

Yes, that's what I mean, great thanks.

 

I'll re0index it but not change any of the documents!!

You're a star, thanks!

[un1boy]

Hiya

 

I have at last had a bit of time to start on this document....can you check over what I've done so far? I don't think it's right...

 

SKELETON ARGUMENT FOR THE APPELLANT

 

[The aim of this section is to give the appeal judge a very short introduction to tell the him what it is all about. I think you should aim for about 100 words]

 

1. This is an appeal against an order by xxx dated xxxx. The Appellant claims that the District Judge mis-directed herself as to the law and was wrong. As a result the order made was ultra vires. In addition there were failures to comply with the CPR which (i) fatally undermined the Respondent's counterclaim and (ii) resulted in the parties being on an unequal footing. For example, she had not read either party’s skeleton arguments before the trial and used the first 45 minutes of the trial for this purpose and then relied on information brought up by the Respondent during the trial that was not included in their skeleton arguments, giving the appellant no time to consider his defence.

 

THE TRIAL BUNDLE

 

2. References in this document prefixed (TB) are references to the trial bundle.

 

THE ISSUES

 

[The aim of this section is to pose a series of questions to guide the judge to the decision you want. It should be related to your grounds of appeal. I try to structure it so that all the answers you want are all the same ie all Yes or all No]

 

3. The issues in this claim are:

 

a. Did the Respondent have a credit agreement in accordance with sections 60(1) and 61(1) of the Act at the trial?

 

60 Form and content of agreements

 

(1) The Secretary of State shall make regulations as to the form and content of documents embodying regulated agreements, and the regulations shall contain such provisions as appear to him appropriate with a view to ensuring that the debtor or hirer is made aware of—

 

(a) the rights and duties conferred or imposed on him by the agreement,

 

(b) the amount and rate of the total charge for credit (in the case of a consumer credit agreement),

 

© the protection and remedies available to him under this Act, and

 

(d) any other matters which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, it is desirable for him to know about in connection with the agreement.

 

 

61 Signing of agreement

 

(1) A regulated agreement is not properly executed unless—

 

(a) a document in the prescribed form itself containing all the prescribed terms and conforming to regulations under section 60(1) is signed in the prescribed manner both by the debtor or hirer and by or on behalf of the creditor or owner, and

 

(b) the document embodies all the terms of the agreement, other than implied terms, and

 

© the document is, when presented or sent to the debtor or hirer for signature, in such a state that all its terms are readily legible.

 

 

b. Did the Respondent have other documents required ie the terms and conditions relevant to the original agreement at the trial?

 

c. Should xxxx have read both parties’ documents before the trial?

 

e. Should xxxx have based her judgment on information not contained in the Respondent’s skeleton arguments when the Appellant had no time

to prepare his defence?

 

f. Was xxxx consideration that section 127(3) of the Act does not apply to this agreement?:

 

127 Enforcement orders in cases of infringement

 

(3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a) (signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner).

 

g. Was xxxx consideration that under the balance of probability the original terms and conditions would have included the prescribed terms, despite the fact that the Respondent confirmed they don’t have a copy of them and can’t confirm if the prescribed terms would have been included in them right?

 

If the answer to any question is No then the appeal succeeds.

 

[The last paragraph is telling the judge what is the impact of answers to the questions. It may be that to succeed all of the questions need to be answered a particular way. If your skeleton is good by this stage the judge will have a clear idea of what it is all about, what he is being asked to do (answer the questions) and with any luck have decided you are right.]

 

 

I think that I shouldn't have so much about "Should Deputy Judge have done this" etc, I don't want the new judge thinking I'm moaning about her!!

 

AUTHORITIES

 

[This section sets out the law you are relying on]

 

4. The Claimant will cite the following authorities to establish the points of law below:

a. Industry [2003] UKHL 40 (TB Flag xx): Wilson and others v Secretary of State for Trade and

 

Compliance with certain formalities is an essential prerequisite to enforcement of consumer credit agreements (TB page xx para xx);

 

Where a creditor fails to comply with the CCA74, Parliament intended that the debtor should net a windfall gain ‘pour encourager les autres’ (TB page xx para xx);

 

The provisions of the CCA74 cannot be sidestepped either in equity or through the European Convention on Human Rights (TB page xx para xx ).

b. xxxx v xxxx (TB flag xx):

....

 

The issue with this is that I didn't include any of these in my original bundle - I used the Wilson vs FCT and that's it!

 

Where else should I put the other authorities?

Edited March 10, 2009 by un1boy

[un1boy]

With regards ot the following, what sort of info should I be including in pargraph b? Is it things like:

 

1. I applied under sec 78 for a copy of the agreement

2. They sent an agreement with no prescribed terms and no T&C's

3. I sent letters explaining that it was unenforcbale and withheld payment.

4. I wrote asking for them to remove adverse data and close account in order to sort the problem without involving the court

5. I issued court papers

6. They have defended and counterclaimed despite having no rights to enforce the agreement

7. The Respondent only submitted their skeleton arguments for the trial to me by email the day before the trial and I received them by post on the morning of the trial.

 

BACKGROUND TO THE CASE

 

[This section is to set out all the facts. It is very easy and tempting to start setting out your arguments here, but I suggest not]

 

5. On xxxx The Appellant took out an agreement with the Respondent etc ...

 

6. On xxxx this happened etc etc (See TB page xx paragraph xx)

Edited March 2, 2009 by un1boy

[un1boy]

Am I on the right track here?:

 

ALLEGATIONS

 

[This section is to set out exactly what went wrong. I start with a paragraph listing all the allegations as sub paragraphs. Then go through each one in a separate section. This is where you bring in the law]

 

7. The Appellant alleges that:

 

a. The Agreement produced by the Respondent does not comply with the requirements of the Consumer Credit Act;

b. The Respondent did not supply an agreement that contains the prescribed terms, not the original terms and conditions as required by section 78 of the Act;

c. The Respondent should be aware the agreement is unenforceable due to the fact they are Consumer Credit License holders.

d. The Respondent has no rights to enforce the agreement and therefore to request payment or process account data on the Appellant’s credit files without an agreement that conforms to the Act.

[un1boy]

As for section 8:

 

Consumer Credit Act

 

8. Section 61 of the Consumer Credit Act states...

 

61 Signing of agreement

(1) A regulated agreement is not properly executed unless—

(a) a document in the prescribed form itself containing all the prescribed terms and conforming to regulations under section 60(1) is signed in the prescribed manner both by the debtor or hirer and by or on behalf of the creditor or owner, and

(b) the document embodies all the terms of the agreement, other than implied terms, and

© the document is, when presented or sent to the debtor or hirer for signature, in such a state that all its terms are readily legible.

9. The Agreement produced by the respondent does not include the prescribed terms required by section 61(1)(a) as stated in Statutory instrument 1983 No 1553 “The Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983”. (See TB page xx )

This therefore invokes section 127(3), which states:

127 Enforcement orders in cases of infringement

(3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a) (signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner).

Respondent's Failure to ...

 

10. Part x of the CPR requires that ...

 

11. The Respondent did not...

 

Am I on the right track? And I may be being thick here, but what CPR's should I be referring to here?

[un1boy]

Dad - you mention in the document that the Respondent's Counterclaim doe snot comply with the CPR - is there any reason you think that? I am sorry of I'm being thick here, I'm jsut not sure I understand why it doens't comply.

 

I will be spending more time on this now and aim to have it completed by Friday.

[un1boy]

What about this:

 

 

THE OUTCOME

 

[in this section having taken the judge through the facts and law, then we tie it all back into the questions set above]

 

12. The issues in this claim are:

a. Did the Respondent have a Consumer Credit Agreement in accordance with the Consumer Credit Act, signed by the Appellant at the trial?

 

i. No, the agreement does not contain any of the prescribed terms required under the regulation such as:

 

• The Credit Limit
  
• The total charge for credit
  
• The timing of repayments
  
• The amounts of repayments
  
• The APR
  
• Charges on default.
  

b. Did the Respondent's counter claim comply with the CPR?

i. No, [same as above]

 

[un1boy]

Once we've sorted these, I'll put it all together and post the final draft.

 

Thanks in advance for everyone's help with this......

[atwozee]

Hi Un1boy – reading with interest as I have just received an LBA from DG Sols – I know they haven’t got an agreement containing the prescribed terms so I am looking to counter the s189(4) argument they have used against you.

Wanted to wish you all the best with this appeal as well.

I don’t like the way they have twisted the use of the word embodies within the act but I understand why they are doing it.

If s127(3) was meant to allow the creditor to hide the prescribed terms as defined in schedule 6 of the regs in another document then clearly any old piece of paper would stand up as an agreement and this is clearly a nonsense.

I found this when I did a google search and thought it was bang on the money when it describes how an agreement should be presented for signing – I know it’s only one persons view but it does support your appeal – interestingly it goes as far as to say the prescribed terms must be on the signature page.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ULJ9QW3NQEsC&pg=PA314&lpg=PA314&dq=s189+embodies+credit+agreement&source=bl&ots=E5cTGTbY9A&sig=-FY3Dk3EKGc5GQBM8R3fWd4zTmU&hl=en&ei=_zCsSfCVOOTGjAfSsPnaDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA314,M1

[dad]

Uni,

 

I will respond once you post the complete document. Obviously you delete the bits in [square brackets] from the final version.

 

Dad

[un1boy]

Uni,

 

I will respond once you post the complete document. Obviously you delete the bits in [square brackets] from the final version.

 

Dad

 

Thanks Dad!

 

I was aware that the square brackets get deleted, I was just keeping them in to remind me what each sections for.

 

Am I on the right track with my thoughts of each seciton?

[un1boy]

Hi Un1boy – reading with interest as I have just received an LBA from DG Sols – I know they haven’t got an agreement containing the prescribed terms so I am looking to counter the s189(4) argument they have used against you.

 

Wanted to wish you all the best with this appeal as well.

 

I don’t like the way they have twisted the use of the word embodies within the act but I understand why they are doing it.

 

If s127(3) was meant to allow the creditor to hide the prescribed terms as defined in schedule 6 of the regs in another document then clearly any old piece of paper would stand up as an agreement and this is clearly a nonsense.

 

I found this when I did a google search and thought it was bang on the money when it describes how an agreement should be presented for signing – I know it’s only one persons view but it does support your appeal – interestingly it goes as far as to say the prescribed terms must be on the signature page.

 

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ULJ9QW3NQEsC&pg=PA314&lpg=PA314&dq=s189+embodies+credit+agreement&source=bl&ots=E5cTGTbY9A&sig=-FY3Dk3EKGc5GQBM8R3fWd4zTmU&hl=en&ei=_zCsSfCVOOTGjAfSsPnaDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA314,M1

 

Thanks Atty mate!

 

Yeh, he just bought it up without it being in their bundle or skeleton arguments.

 

He said, "I thought of something on the train up here - if we look at the definitions section of the act, it states...."

 

So, how the hell was I meant to prepare a defence to that? Also, I didn't get their skeleton arguments until the day of the trial......

[affirmation]

subbing

[un1boy]

Here we go...I wasn;t sure what to write in one section:

 

CLAIM NUMBER – [xxxx]

In the xxxx County Court

On Appeal from District Judge xxxx

Uniboy - Appellant

V

xxxx - Defendants

SKELETON ARGUMENT FOR THE APPELLANT

 

[The aim of this section is to give the appeal judge a very short introduction to tell the him what it is all about. I think you should aim for about 100 words]

 

1. This is an appeal against an order by xx dated xx. The Appellant claims that the District Judge mis-directed herself as to the law and was wrong. As a result the order made was ultra vires. In addition there were failures to comply with the CPR which (i) fatally undermined the Respondent's counterclaim and (ii) resulted in the parties being on an unequal footing. For example, she had not read either party’s skeleton arguments before the trial and used the first 45 minutes of the trial for this purpose and then relied on information brought up by the Respondent during the trial that was not included in their skeleton arguments, giving the appellant no time to consider his defence.

THE TRIAL BUNDLE

 

2. References in this document prefixed (TB) are references to the trial bundle.

 

THE ISSUES

 

[The aim of this section is to pose a series of questions to guide the judge to the decision you want. It should be related to your grounds of appeal. I try to structure it so that all the answers you want are all the same ie all Yes or all No]

 

3. The issues in this claim are:

 

a. Did the Respondent have a credit agreement in accordance with sections 60(1) and 61(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended) (“the Act) at the trial?

60 Form and content of agreements

(1) The Secretary of State shall make regulations as to the form and content of documents embodying regulated agreements, and the regulations shall contain such provisions as appear to him appropriate with a view to ensuring that the debtor or hirer is made aware of—

(a) the rights and duties conferred or imposed on him by the agreement,

(b) the amount and rate of the total charge for credit (in the case of a consumer credit agreement),

© the protection and remedies available to him under this Act, and

(d) any other matters which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, it is desirable for him to know about in connection with the agreement.

61 Signing of agreement

(1) A regulated agreement is not properly executed unless—

(a) a document in the prescribed form itself containing all the prescribed terms and conforming to regulations under section 60(1) is signed in the prescribed manner both by the debtor or hirer and by or on behalf of the creditor or owner, and

(b) the document embodies all the terms of the agreement, other than implied terms, and

© the document is, when presented or sent to the debtor or hirer for signature, in such a state that all its terms are readily legible.

 

b. Did the Respondent have other documents required ie the terms and conditions relevant to the original agreement at the trial?

c. Should xxxx have read both parties’ documents before the trial?

e. Should xxxx have based her judgment on information not contained in the Respondent’s skeleton arguments when the Appellant had no time

to prepare his defence?

f. Was xxxx consideration that section 127(3) of the Act does not apply to this agreement correct?:

127 Enforcement orders in cases of infringement

(3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a) (signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner).

g. Was xxxx consideration that under the balance of probability the original terms and conditions would have included the prescribed terms, despite the fact that the Respondent confirmed they don’t have a copy of them and can’t confirm if the prescribed terms would have been included in them right?

h. Did the Appellant have enough time to prepare his defence when he only received the Respondent’s skeleton arguments the night before the trial by email, and the afternoon after trial by post?

If the answer to any question is No then the appeal succeeds.

 

[The last paragraph is telling the judge what is the impact of answers to the questions. It may be that to succeed all of the questions need to be answered a particular way. If your skeleton is good by this stage the judge will have a clear idea of what it is all about, what he is being asked to do (answer the questions) and with any luck have decided you are right.]

 

AUTHORITIES

 

[This section sets out the law you are relying on]

 

4. The Claimant will cite the following authorities to establish the points of law below:

a. Wilson vs FCT Trus

tCompliance with certain formalities is an essential prerequisite to enforcement of consumer credit agreements (TB page xx para xx);

Where a creditor fails to comply with the CCA74, Parliament intended that the creditor should forfeit all rights under the agreement (TB page xx para xx);

 

....

 

BACKGROUND TO THE CASE

 

[This section is to set out all the facts. It is very easy and tempting to start setting out your arguments here, but I suggest not]

 

5. On xxxx The Appellant took out an agreement with the Respondent etc ...

 

6. On xxxx this happened etc etc (See TB page xx paragraph xx)

1. The Appellant applied under sec 78 for a copy of the agreement

2. The Respondent sent an agreement with no prescribed terms and no T&C's

3. The Appellant sent letters explaining that it was unenforcbale and withheld payment.

4. The Appellant wrote asking for them to remove adverse data and close account in order to sort the problem without involving the court

5. The Appellant issued court papers

6. The Respondent has defended and counterclaimed despite having no rights to enforce the agreement

7. The Respondent only submitted their skeleton arguments for the trial to me by email the day before the trial and I received them by post on the morning of the trial.

 

ALLEGATIONS

 

[This section is to set out exactly what went wrong. I start with a paragraph listing all the allegations as sub paragraphs. Then go through each one in a separate section. This is where you bring in the law]

 

7. The Appellant alleges that:

 

a. The Agreement produced by the Respondent does not comply with the requirements of the Consumer Credit Act;

b. The Respondent did not supply an agreement that contains the prescribed terms, not the original terms and conditions as required by section 78 of the Act;

c. The Respondent should be aware the agreement is unenforceable due to the fact they are Consumer Credit License holders.

d. The Respondent has no rights to enforce the agreement and therefore to request payment or process account data on the Appellant’s credit files without an agreement that conforms to the Act.

Consumer Credit Act

 

8. Section 61 of the Consumer Credit Act states...

 

61 Signing of agreement

(1) A regulated agreement is not properly executed unless—

(a) a document in the prescribed form itself containing all the prescribed terms and conforming to regulations under section 60(1) is signed in the prescribed manner both by the debtor or hirer and by or on behalf of the creditor or owner, and

(b) the document embodies all the terms of the agreement, other than implied terms, and

© the document is, when presented or sent to the debtor or hirer for signature, in such a state that all its terms are readily legible.

9. The Agreement produced by the respondent does not include the prescribed terms required by section 61(1)(a) as stated in Statutory instrument 1983 No 1553 “The Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983”. (See TB page xx )

This therefore invokes section 127(3), which states:

127 Enforcement orders in cases of infringement

(3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a) (signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner).

Respondent's Failure to ...

 

10. Part x of the CPR requires that ...

 

11. The Respondent did not...

 

THE OUTCOME

 

[in this section having taken the judge through the facts and law, then we tie it all back into the questions set above]

 

12. The issues in this claim are:

a. Did the Respondent have a Consumer Credit Agreement in accordance with the Consumer Credit Act, signed by the Appellant at the trial?

i. No, the agreement does not contain any of the prescribed terms required under the regulation such as:

• The Credit Limit
  
• The total charge for credit
  
• The timing of repayments
  
• The amounts of repayments
  
• The APR
  
• Charges on default.
  

b. Did the Respondent's counter claim comply with the CPR?

i. No, [same as above]

 

THE COURTS POWERS

 

[This section covers what the impact of answering the question in your favour is and directs the judge to what he can do. We will cover this once the bits above are done]

 

13. ....

 

REQUEST FOR COURT ORDER

 

[This section sets out the order you want the court to make. It is all part of making things easy for the judge.]

 

14. The Appellant respectfully requests the Court make the following order:

a. The judgment of District Judge xxx dated xxxx is set aside.

 

b. etc etc...

[un1boy]

*bump*

[un1boy]

Hi guys,

 

Any ideas/comments on the above - I need to get it posted to the court asap!!

[car2403]

Looks good to me.

 

I'm not sure if there's any value in this, but as you'll need to discuss it anyway later it might just help you clarify your understand, so it might be worth including a section on why you think the original Judgment was flawed and should be reconsidered;

 

- If the Law was misinterpreted, how and why?

- What does that mean?

- Was "fact" decided incorrectly, or was the Law applied incorrectly? How and why?

- What are the arguments against your appeal? I find playing Devil's advocate helps prepare responses in advance, etc.

- What injustice/prejudice has the Judgment caused you?

 

Just a thought.

[dad]

Uni,

 

Here are some thoughts:

 

Here we go...I wasn;t sure what to write in one section:

 

 

Quote:

 

CLAIM NUMBER – [xxxx]

In the xxxx County Court

On Appeal from District Judge xxxx

 

 

 

 

Uniboy - Appellant

V

xxxx - Defendants

 

 

 

SKELETON ARGUMENT FOR THE APPELLANT

 

1. This is an appeal against an order by xx dated xx. The Appellant claims that the District Judge mis-directed herself as to the law and was wrong. As a result the order made was ultra vires. In addition there were failures to comply with the CPR which (i) fatally undermined the Respondent's counterclaim and (ii) resulted in the parties being on an unequal footing. For example, she had not read either party’s skeleton arguments before the trial and used the first 45 minutes of the trial for this purpose and then relied on information brought up by the Respondent during the trial that was not included in their skeleton arguments, giving the appellant no time to consider his defence.

 

THE TRIAL BUNDLE

 

2. References in this document prefixed (TB) are references to the trial bundle.

 

THE ISSUES

 

[The aim of this section is to pose a series of questions to guide the judge to the decision you want. It should be related to your grounds of appeal. I try to structure it so that all the answers you want are all the same ie all Yes or all No]

 

3. The issues in this claim are:

 

a. Did the Respondent have a credit agreement in accordance with sections 60(1) and 61(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended) (“the Act) at the trial?

 

 

[This detail should be lower down - just have the questions here]

 

60 Form and content of agreements

 

(1) The Secretary of State shall make regulations as to the form and content of documents embodying regulated agreements, and the regulations shall contain such provisions as appear to him appropriate with a view to ensuring that the debtor or hirer is made aware of—

 

(a) the rights and duties conferred or imposed on him by the agreement,

 

(b) the amount and rate of the total charge for credit (in the case of a consumer credit agreement),

 

© the protection and remedies available to him under this Act, and

 

(d) any other matters which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, it is desirable for him to know about in connection with the agreement.

 

 

61 Signing of agreement

 

(1) A regulated agreement is not properly executed unless—

 

(a) a document in the prescribed form itself containing all the prescribed terms and conforming to regulations under section 60(1) is signed in the prescribed manner both by the debtor or hirer and by or on behalf of the creditor or owner, and

 

(b) the document embodies all the terms of the agreement, other than implied terms, and

 

© the document is, when presented or sent to the debtor or hirer for signature, in such a state that all its terms are readily legible.

 

 

b. Did the Respondent have other documents required ie the terms and conditions relevant to the original agreement at the trial?

 

c. Should xxxx have read both parties’ documents before the trial?

 

e. Should xxxx have based her judgment on information not contained in the Respondent’s skeleton arguments when the Appellant had no time

to prepare his defence?

 

f. Was xxxx consideration that section 127(3) of the Act does not apply to this agreement correct?:

 

127 Enforcement orders in cases of infringement

 

(3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a) (signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner).

 

g. Was xxxx consideration that under the balance of probability the original terms and conditions would have included the prescribed terms, despite the fact that the Respondent confirmed they don’t have a copy of them and can’t confirm if the prescribed terms would have been included in them right?

 

h. Did the Appellant have enough time to prepare his defence when he only received the Respondent’s skeleton arguments the night before the trial by email, and the afternoon after trial by post?

 

If the answer to any question is No then the appeal succeeds.

 

[The last paragraph is telling the judge what is the impact of answers to the questions. It may be that to succeed all of the questions need to be answered a particular way. If your skeleton is good by this stage the judge will have a clear idea of what it is all about, what he is being asked to do (answer the questions) and with any luck have decided you are right.]

 

AUTHORITIES

 

[This section sets out the law you are relying on]

 

4. The Claimant will cite the following authorities to establish the points of law below:

a. Wilson vs FCT Trust

Compliance with certain formalities is an essential prerequisite to enforcement of consumer credit agreements (TB page xx para xx);

Where a creditor fails to comply with the CCA74, Parliament intended that the creditor should forfeit all rights under the agreement (TB page xx para xx);

 

....

 

BACKGROUND TO THE CASE

 

[This section is to set out all the facts. It is very easy and tempting to start setting out your arguments here, but I suggest not]

 

5. On xxxx The Appellant took out an agreement with the Respondent etc ...

 

6. On xxxx this happened etc etc (See TB page xx paragraph xx)

 

You need to be much more precise

 

1. The Appellant applied under sec 78 for a copy of the agreement When how?

2. The Respondent sent an agreement with no prescribed terms and no T&C's When - what did they send

3. The Appellant sent letters explaining that it was unenforcbale and withheld payment. When what dates

4. The Appellant wrote asking for them to remove adverse data and close account in order to sort the problem without involving the court When

5. The Appellant issued court papers Claiming what

6. The Respondent has defended and counterclaimed despite having no rights to enforce the agreement How did they serve the counterclaim on you (If at all) - Read CPR pt 20 about time limits for counterclaims

7. The Respondent only submitted their skeleton arguments for the trial to me by email the day before the trial and I received them by post on the morning of the trial. Give the dates

 

ALLEGATIONS

 

[This section is to set out exactly what went wrong. I start with a paragraph listing all the allegations as sub paragraphs. Then go through each one in a separate section. This is where you bring in the law]

 

7. The Appellant alleges that:

 

 

a. The Agreement produced by the Respondent does not comply with the requirements of the Consumer Credit Act;

 

b. The Respondent did not supply an agreement that contains the prescribed terms, not the original terms and conditions as required by section 78 of the Act;

 

c. The Respondent should be aware the agreement is unenforceable due to the fact they are Consumer Credit License holders.

 

d. The Respondent has no rights to enforce the agreement and therefore to request payment or process account data on the Appellant’s credit files without an agreement that conforms to the Act.

 

Consumer Credit Act

 

This is where all the detail you currently have in para 3 goes

 

 

8. Section 61 of the Consumer Credit Act states...

 

 

61 Signing of agreement

 

(1) A regulated agreement is not properly executed unless—

 

(a) a document in the prescribed form itself containing all the prescribed terms and conforming to regulations under section 60(1) is signed in the prescribed manner both by the debtor or hirer and by or on behalf of the creditor or owner, and

 

(b) the document embodies all the terms of the agreement, other than implied terms, and

 

© the document is, when presented or sent to the debtor or hirer for signature, in such a state that all its terms are readily legible.

 

 

9. The Agreement produced by the respondent does not include the prescribed terms required by section 61(1)(a) as stated in Statutory instrument 1983 No 1553 “The Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983”. (See TB page xx )

 

This therefore invokes section 127(3), which states:

 

127 Enforcement orders in cases of infringement

 

(3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a) (signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner).

 

 

Respondent's Failure to ...

 

10. Part x of the CPR requires that ...

 

11. The Respondent did not...

 

THE OUTCOME

 

[in this section having taken the judge through the facts and law, then we tie it all back into the questions set above]

 

12. The issues in this claim are:

a. Did the Respondent have a Consumer Credit Agreement in accordance with the Consumer Credit Act, signed by the Appellant at the trial?

 

i. No, the agreement does not contain any of the prescribed terms required under the regulation Which regulation - be precise such as:

 

• The Credit Limit
  
• The total charge for credit
  
• The timing of repayments
  
• The amounts of repayments
  
• The APR
  
• Charges on default.
  

b. Did the Respondent's counter claim comply with the CPR?

i. No, [same as above]

 

THE COURTS POWERS

 

[This section covers what the impact of answering the question in your favour is and directs the judge to what he can do. We will cover this once the bits above are done]

 

13. ....

 

REQUEST FOR COURT ORDER

 

[This section sets out the order you want the court to make. It is all part of making things easy for the judge.]

 

14. The Appellant respectfully requests the Court make the following order:

a. The judgment of District Judge xxx dated xxxx is set aside.

 

b. etc etc...

[millymollymoo]

Hi uniboy

 

I was searching on the net for some case law anf found this. It is not from here but is a similar to you and this person [no name] has produced a very good skeleton argument for the appeal:

 

 

CLAIM NUMBER XXXXXX

XXX (The Appellant)

v.

Phoenix Recoveries (UK) Limited S.a.r.l. (The Respondent)

SKELETON ARGUMENT FOR THE APPELLANT

1. This is an appeal against an order by District Judge Buxton dated 8th September 2008. The Appellant claims that the District Judge mis-directed himself as to the law and was wrong. As a result the order made was ultra vires. In addition there were failures to comply with the Civil Procedure Rules and the Civil Bench Book which (i) fatally undermined the Respondent's claim, and (ii) resulted in the parties being on an unequal footing. Further there was a failure to comply with the provisions and case law of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms which resulted in the Appellant being denied a full and fair hearing.

The hearing will take two hours.

THE FACTS

2. The facts in this appeal are

a. The claim form was received by post on the xxxxxx

b. The claim was issued through the Northampton County Court Bulk Centre

c. The Respondent has admitted in their skeleton argument that the original agreement has been destroyed.

d. A request under Section 77 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 was sent on the xx/xx/2008 and received by the claimant on xx/xx/2008

e. The copy of the agreement misstates the number and amount of repayments and in doing so fails to comply with the mandatory requirements of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983.

f. The District Judge spent 30 minutes discussing the issue raised at (e) above and then asked if I had anything further to say. At that time I believed the District Judge was referring to the discussion about the error in the prescribed terms and I answered that I did not. As I was reaching for the rest of my defence bundle the District Judge gave judgement for the claimant. I challenged the District Judge on this and he stated that I had understood exactly what he meant when he asked if I had anything further and that in any case he saw nothing in my defence bundle that would make him change his mind. This is contrary to the guidelines laid down in Section 8.2 of the Civil Bench Book (August 2006). The Judge refused leave to appeal and also refused to complete a form N460 contrary to the guidance given in the Civil Bench Book (August 2006) Sections 5.2 and 7.6.1.

THE ISSUES

3. The issues in this appeal are

a. Did the Respondent comply with the Civil Procedure Rules in particular CPR 16 Practice Direction 16 paragraph 7.3?

b. Did the Respondent have a Consumer Credit Agreement which complied with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and relevant subsequent Regulations in that it stated all prescribed terms correctly?

c. Did the Respondent prior to making the claim fulfil their obligations under Section 77 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974?

d. Did the court’s refusal to comply with the provisions of the Civil Bench Book (2006) result in the Appellant being denied a full and fair hearing?

If the answer to any question is no then the appeal succeeds.

AUTHORITIES

4. The Appellant will cite the following authorities to establish the points of law below:

a. Wilson v. Hurstanger [2007] EWCA Civ 299

i. Compliance with certain formalities is an essential prerequisite to enforcement of consumer credit agreements.

ii. Objective of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulation 1983 Schedule 6 is to ensure that, as an inflexible condition of enforceability, certain basic minimum terms are included and above all that they cannot be in the slightest misstated.

b. Wilson v First County Trust Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 633

c. Wilson and others v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2003] UKHL 40

i. Compliance with certain formalities is an essential prerequisite to enforcement of consumer credit agreements

ii. Where a creditor fails to comply with the CCA74, Parliament intended that the debtor should net a windfall gain ‘pour encourager les autres’

iii. The provisions of the CCA74 cannot be sidestepped either in equity or through the European Convention on Human Rights

d. Other authorities

Central Trust Plc v Spurway [2005] CCLR 1

Ocwen v Coxall and Coxall [2004] CCLR 7

Ocwen v Hughes [2004] CCLR 4

e. Persuasive argument provided by Francis Bennion the draftsman of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

Consumer Credit and the Total Charge for Credit. Criminal Law and Justice Weekly. 4/03/06

f. Legislation

i. Consumer Credit Act 1974

ii. Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983

iii. Consumer Credit (Total Charge for Credit) Regulations 1980

iv. Bankers Books Evidence Act 1879

g. Guidance

i. Civil Bench Book. August 2006

ii. Trading Standards. Credit Charges and APR

h. Before the European Court of Human Rights

Pronina v. Ukraine. Application No:63566/00 at para 25

Van den Hurk v Netherlands. Applicarion No:16034/90 at para 59

Van Kűck v. Germany. Application No:35968/97 at para 48

i. Domestic courts must give sufficient reasons for their decision to dismiss an argument without consideration.

ii. Domestic courts must make an analysis of the case before dismissing it.

iii. The court is under a duty to conduct a proper examination of the submissions, arguments and evidence adduced by the parties.

ALLEGATIONS

5. The Appellant alleges that:

a. The Respondent failed to enclose a copy of the credit agreement with the claim, neither did they have the original credit agreement available for the court to examine. Such failure is in direct contravention of the requirements clearly laid down in the Civil Procedure Rules, in particular CPR 16 Practice Direction 16 paragraph 7.3. which states:

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”

b. The Respondent states that the original document has been destroyed.

c. The copy of the credit agreement does not comply with the requirements of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and subsequent relevant Regulations in as much as it contains errors in the prescribed terms and fails to meet the requirements of the regulations made under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

i. Consumer Credit Act 1974

S.61.

Signing of agreement.

— (1) A regulated agreement is not properly executed unless—

(a) a document in the prescribed form itself containing all the prescribed terms and conforming to regulations under section 60(1) is signed in the prescribed manner both by the debtor or hirer and by or on behalf of the creditor or owner, and

(b) the document embodies all the terms of the agreement, other than implied terms, and

© the document is, when presented or sent to the debtor or hirer for signature, in such a state that all its terms are readily legible.

ii. The definition of the prescribed terms is contained within the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulation 1983 Schedule 6

d. The Respondent failed to comply with a request under S.77 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 prior to issuing the claim.

e. The District Judge contrary to the requirements of the Civil Bench Book (2006) and S.6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms denied the Appellant the opportunity to present their defence as stated within their trial bundle. By doing so the court infringed the Appellants rights under S.6. The Judges refusal to comply with the Civil Bench Book (2006) in respect of form N460 has prejudiced the successful outcome of the appeal.

THE OUTCOME

6. The issues in the appeal are:

a. Did the Respondent comply with the Civil Procedure Rules in particular CPR Practice Direction 16 paragraph 7.3?

No.

The Respondent has admitted that the original agreement has been destroyed and that they were therefore unable to comply with CPR Part 16. They justify this on the grounds that due to the large number all documents are sent for copying and are then destroyed.

Both the original creditor and the Respondent are large commercial organisations with the capability to know precisely what the Civil Procedure Rules require of them when making a claim as well as possessing the resources to ensure that original documents are stored until such time as they are no longer required.

The Respondent’s skeleton argument attempts to amend the clearly stated provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules by circumventing CPR 16 Practice Direction 16 paragraph 7.3

The fact that the original agreement has been destroyed fatally undermines the claim in as much as there is no means by which the Appellant or the Court may verify the validity of the claim.

b. Did the Respondent have a Consumer Credit Agreement which complied with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and relevant subsequent Regulations in that it stated all prescribed terms correctly?

No.

The prescribed terms referred to in Section 61 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 are contained in Schedule 6 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553).

If the agreement does not contain these terms or they are incorrectly stated then it does not comply with section 60(1) CCA 1974, the consequences of which means it is improperly executed and in respect to the prescribed terms the court is barred from making an enforcement order by operation of S.127 (3) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

The authorities cited make it plain that their Lordships are explicit on the subject of incorrect prescribed terms and how if incorrectly stated the agreement is unenforceable.

Wilson v. Hurstanger [2007] EWCA Civ 299 at para 11 Tukey LJ agreed with the first instance judge who said in respect of the prescribed terms:

“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 section 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; 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.”

Wilson v First County Trust Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 633 at para 26

“The creditor must…be taken to have made a voluntary disposition, or gift, of the loan monies to the debtor. The creditor had chosen to part with the monies in circumstances in which it was never entitled to have them repaid;” Sir Andrew Morritt VC

Wilson and others v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2003] UKHL 40 paras 4 & 71 confirms that errors in the prescribed terms preclude a court from making an enforcement order and that Parliament expressly intended that such errors should render credit agreements unenforceable. At para 49 Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead stated

“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… when legislation renders the entire agreement inoperative, to use a neutral word, for failure to comply with prescribed formalities the legislation itself is the primary source of guidance on what are the legal consequences. Here the intention of Parliament is clear.”

Persuasive argument is provided by Francis Bennion the original draftsman of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 in his statement. Bundle 2 item:-xxxxx

i. “Consumer Credit Act 1974 s 127(3)

 

As the draftsman of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 I would like to thank Dr Richard Lawson for his interesting and well-argued article (30 August 2003) on Wilson v First County Trust Ltd [2003] UKHL 40, [2003] 4 All ER 97.

 

Dr Lawson may be interested to know that I included the provision in question (section 127(3)) entirely on my own initiative. It seemed right to me that if the creditor company couldn’t be bothered to ensure that all the prescribed particulars were accurately included in the credit agreement it deserved to find it unenforceable, and that the court should not have

power to relieve it from this penalty. Nobody queried this, and it went through Parliament without debate.”

167 Justice of the Peace (2003) 773

Although the article discusses the “amount of credit” Schedule 6 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 also defines “repayments” and “amounts of repayments” as also being prescribed terms and therefore subject to the same restrictions by virtue of S127(3) CCA 1974.

The Respondent claims that the credit agreement does not contain any errors and that it is the Capital Bank Group Ledger Account which is in error.

Sainsbury’s Bank is a deposit taker within the meaning of the Bankers Books Evidence Act 1879. . By section three of that Act, in all legal proceedings, a copy of any entry in a bankers book shall be received as prima facie evidence of the existence of such entry and of the matters, transactions and accounts therein recorded.

 

The Capital Bank Group Ledger Account falls within the meaning of the Bankers Books Evidence Act 1879. It defines how monies paid and received are allocated under the agreement. It is a document which forms part of the accounting system of the original creditor and is itself audited both internally and externally by accountants and auditors. As such there is a legal duty placed on the original creditor which ensures that the Capital Bank Group Ledger Account is true and accurate.

The Capital Bank Group Ledger Account was supplied by the Respondent in response to the Section 77 CCA 1974 request. The validity of the document is further supported by the xxxxxxxxx supplied by Sainsbury’s Bank as part of a Subject Access Request made under the Data Protection Act 1998. The request was made in April 2008 and the documents supplied by Sainsbury’s Bank in October 2008.

The alleged credit agreement states that the first repayment should not have been made until 15th June 2004. In fact the Respondent took an earlier repayment in May 2004. This earlier repayment meant that the Appellant did not have the full benefit of the repayment free period. Repayments are a prescribed term under S61 CCA 1974. As a result the agreement misstates the number of repayments and the amounts of repayments contrary to the mandatory requirements of Schedule 6 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983.

In respect of the document fee detailed on the agreement the Consumer Credit (Total Charge for Credit) Regulations 1980 require that the applicable APR is calculated on the basis that certain charges and fees are included in that calculation. The Office of Fair Trading guidelines state clearly that documentation and administration fees must be included in the APR calculation even if they do not themselves form part of the credit. The document fee outlined in the agreement should have been included in the Total Amount Payable.

The effect of the omission of the document fee from the Total Charge for Credit and the additional repayment taken in May 2004 is that the agreement understates the APR. The agreement states an APR of 7.1% while the true APR is 7.3%. This calculation has been carried out using the official Office of Fair Trading calculator, DualCalc.

Schedule 7 (1A) of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) states that the permissible shortfall in the stated APR may be no more than 0.1%

“Permissible tolerances in disclosure of the APR

1A

 

For the purposes of these Regulations, it shall be sufficient compliance with the requirement to show the APR if there is

included in the document--

 

(1) a rate which exceed the APR by not more than one; or

 

(2) a rate which falls short of the APR by not more than 0.1;”

Schedule 1(9) of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 requires that for fixed sum credit agreements there is stated a nominal annual interest rate. This is missing from the agreement

The effect of these errors is that the agreement misstates the total charge for credit, total amount payable, the amount of repayments, the number of repayments, nominal annual interest rate and the APR. It therefore contains errors both in the prescribed terms and in the requirements laid down by the regulations. Statute and case law make it plain that the prescribed terms may not be in the slightest misstated, that no such error can be dismissed as being de minimis, that such an error renders the agreement unenforceable, and that the court is barred from making any such order.

c. Did the Respondent fulfil their obligations under S.77 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 prior to making the claim?

No.

Section 77(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 provides for a debtor to request a copy of the executed agreement and any other document referred to in it, together with a statement signed by or on behalf of the creditor showing, according to the information to which it is practicable for him to refer-

(a) the total sum paid under the agreement by the debtor;

(b) the total sum which has become payable under the agreement by the debtor but remains unpaid, and the various amounts comprised in that total sum, with the date when each became due; and

© the total sum which is to become payable under the agreement by the debtor, and the various amounts comprised in that total sum, with the date, or mode of determining the date, when each becomes due.

Section 77(4) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 provides that:-

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.

Prior to making their claim the Respondent had failed to provide the terms and conditions governing the agreement, whilst to date they have failed to provide a detailed breakdown as per S.77(1)(a)(b) & ©

d. Did the Appellant receive a fair hearing as required by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms?

No

The Civil Bench Book (August 2006) Sections 5.2 and 7.6.1 give guidance to the court in respect of the courts duties.

Section 5.2 states

“When asked to give permission to appeal, do not give judgment before filling out Form N460. Having listened to the arguments, complete the form and, if at all possible, ensure that what you then say in your judgment is precisely that which you have written on the form.……….. If your written reasons differ from your oral reasons, you leave the way open for arguments on appeal.”

Section 7.6.1 states

“If, at the conclusion of a hearing, you are asked for permission to appeal, you should complete Form N460 in every case, whether you refuse or grant the application. It should then be handed to the party who asked for permission. The reason is that this form is one of the documents which an appellant is expected to file with his appellant’s notice.”

By refusing to comply with Sections 5.2 and 7.6.1 the court has prejudiced the appeal in respect of the formulation of the grounds for appeal.

Section 8.2 of the Civil Bench Book (2006) gives the court guidance on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and its applicability in cases such as the hearing before the District Judge.

The last paragraph of Section 8.2 states:

“Article 6 gives a party to a hearing the right to put his case forward under conditions that do not put him at a disadvantage in relation to his opponent. This may require the judge to afford some assistance to creditors or debtors appearing in person. The court is under a duty to conduct a proper examination of the submissions, arguments and evidence adduced by the parties.”

The case law of the ECHR makes plain the courts duty in respect of undertaking a proper examination of the submissions, arguments, and evidence.

Pronina v. Ukraine. Application No:63566/00 at para 25

Van den Hurk v Netherlands. Applicarion No:16034/90 at para 59

Van Kűck v. Germany. Application No:35968/97 at para 48

Contrary to the provisions of the Civil Bench Book (August 2006) and the provisions and case law of the European Court of Human Rights the Court gave summary judgement in favour of the Respondent. The Court did so without giving the Appellant the opportunity to present any of the issues raised within their defence bundle. By refusing to conduct a proper examination of the submissions, arguments and evidence and by refusing to give sufficient reasons for such refusal the District Judge contravened the Appellants rights under Article 6 ECHR.

THE COURTS POWERS

1. Failure to comply with Civil Procedure Rules Part 16 paragraph 7.3

The Respondents failure and subsequent inability to comply with the Civil Procedure Rules fatally undermines their claim. The destruction of the original document and the lack of a duly authenticated copy makes the claim unsustainable, as such it is respectfully requested that in these circumstances the court strike out the Respondents claim.

2. Errors in Prescribed Terms

The statute and case law both agree that there can be no error, no matter how small, in the prescribed terms of a credit agreement, that such errors bar the court from making any enforcement order , that Parliament when enacting the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and subsequent Regulations intended to place a heavy burden of strict liability on creditors to ensure that they produced documentation free from any and all errors, and to provide debtors with the highest level of protection possible.

Under S.61 & S127 of the CCA 1974 and the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) as applied by the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords such an error precludes the court from making an enforcement

Order and therefore the only course of action available is to strike out the Respondents claim.

3. Failure to comply with Section 77 Consumer Credit Act 1974

The requirements of Section 77 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 are explicit. Having failed to fulfil their obligations under S.77 (and having yet to fulfil them) the Respondent still proceeded to issue a claim in the County Court. Section 77(4) precludes this, therefore the actions of the Respondent amount to an abuse of process. It is respectfully requested that in these circumstances the court strike out the Respondents claim.

4. Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms?

Article 6 ECHR

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.”

Section 8.2 Civil Bench Book (August 2006) states:

“Article 6 gives a party to a hearing the right to put his case forward under conditions that do not put him at a disadvantage in relation to his opponent. This may require the judge to afford some assistance to creditors or debtors appearing in person. The court is under a duty to conduct a proper examination of the submissions, arguments and evidence adduced by the parties.”

Contrary to the provisions of S8 of the Civil Bench Book (August 2006) and the established case law of the European Court of Human Rights the Court gave summary judgement in favour of the Respondent. The Court did so without giving the Appellant the opportunity to present any of the issues raised within their defence bundle. By refusing to conduct a proper examination of the submissions, arguments and evidence and by refusing to give sufficient reasons for such refusal the District Judge contravened the Appellants rights under Article 6 ECHR.

In these circumstances it is respectfully requested that the court set aside the order of District Judge Buxton.

REQUEST FOR COURT ORDER

The Appellant respectfully requests the Court make the following orders:

1. The court strike out the Respondents claim.

2. The judgment of District Judge Buxton dated 8th September 2008 is set aside.

Statement of Truth

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

 

 

Signed .....................................................................................................Dated………………………………

 

 

 

Hope its not copyrighted:confused:

 

 

milly X

 

 

P.S wishing you the best of luck!

[un1boy]

Guys - I need to a bit off subject now and talk about the Agreement reegs 1984 - I always thought the prescribed terms were in schedule 1, but the above says schedule 6....any comments on the differences?

[pt2537]

Guys - I need to a bit off subject now and talk about the Agreement reegs 1984 - I always thought the prescribed terms were in schedule 1, but the above says schedule 6....any comments on the differences?

the two schedules kinda interact with each other

 

Schedule 1 is the general terms which must be in the agreement, if they are missing it is improperly executed and only enforceable by order of the court

 

Schedule 6 sets out the terms which MUST be within the agreement , if they arent there then S127(3) operates