*** DISCONTINUED *** Catalogue debt

[Amethyst]

Re: Catalogue debt

Non compliance with s.78(1) of the CCA having the effect of s.78(6) of the CCA is your primary argument I believe.

They do appear to have clearly stated in their WS that exhibit RC1 is a recon of the original agreement dated November 2000 ( Paragraph 4)

[warwick65]

Re: Catalogue debt

Amethyst
Surley

If there is no agreement from when the account was opened surely the right defence would be that no agreement containing all the prescribed terms was ever signed and as such the agreement would be irredeemably unenforecable as per S127(3)

I would of course also use S78(6) - non ompliance with a CCA request but they can easily overcome that.

As for the default notice- if all they send is a blank DN with no figures in it, how can that be ok.

No amount, no date etc etc

All the screen shot shows is that something claiming to be a DN was sent- doesn't say what the values were or the remedy date

Nafta

I know time is running on but did you ever get legal advice for this as it is 9K

I know that advice can be expensive but many of the arguments are technical and really need a professional to argue them well . https://justbeagle.com/

[Amethyst]

Re: Catalogue debt

Yes as well, but as Di said earlier, and as you have alluded to, iredeemably unenforceable is a tough one to argue. It should of course be included in the WS....as should the DN issue ..... That the claimant has positively stated exhibit RC1 is the agreement from Nov 2000 and it is obviously just not, they don't really have a lot of argument. Not sure how they can easily overcome non compliance with s.78 if there is no agreement mind. At the moment Nafta does not have legal representation so is arguing alone, and experience shows LIPs Judges tend to accept the DN from the screenprint and WS's, and s 78(6) is a easier argument to get a case struck than asking for full declaration of UE, but inviting the judge to consider it within the WS is still warranted.

Are you actually okay timewise for doing the WS - they just sent theirs early ??

[warwick65]

Re: Catalogue debt

It just worries me that they can mock up a recon before court- it might just be that Lowell have just not sent everything or possibly nafta might not have posted everything. All I can see are a set of terms and conditions

[nafta]

Re: Catalogue debt

It just worries me that they can mock up a recon before court- it might just be that Lowell have just not sent everything or possibly nafta might not have posted everything. All I can see are a set of terms and conditions

Thank you all for your responses.
Di has been terribly helpful with all this but unfortunately I just cannot afford legal help.

I have sent everything I have been asked for and also have kept copies of receipts and checked all was received (as far as i know)
If they have sent everything or not I dont know.
All i can do is try and do my WS using all the extremely helpful info and advice from here and hope for the best. My WS has to received by 4pm on the 27th so going to have to get as much information from here and type as crazy top send both copies tomorrow morning with guarantee next day delivery.
Putting the WS is what scares me the most apart from attending the hearing. DoI have to?

[nafta]

Re: Catalogue debt

Just to add so what would my exhibits be for my WS? the RC must be one, DN another stating no notice of default ever received? Sall i just put as exhibits all the documents sent to me by them?

about their WS ; yes they sent theirs early. Does this have any significance?

- - - Updated - - -

Non compliance with s.78(1) of the CCA having the effect of s.78(6) of the CCA is your primary argument I believe.

They do appear to have clearly stated in their WS that exhibit RC1 is a recon of the original agreement dated November 2000 ( Paragraph 4)

Would this one argument be enough for my WS?

[charitynjw]

Re: Catalogue debt

You say you did not sign the agreement therefore you tell the court that and the agreement was therefore improperly executed - look at S60, 61 and 127 of the consumer credit act , particularly S61 (1) a http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/section/61

and S127 (3)

Afternoon, Warwick.

127(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).

The above doesn't state that a signed copy must be produced, only that one had been signed by the debtor.
In the absence of the signed copy, the Claimant (or their sols) would need to convince the Judge that, in the balance of probs, an agreement had to be signed before the account was allowed to be used.

[nafta]

Re: Catalogue debt

Afternoon, Warwick.


The above doesn't state that a signed copy must be produced, only that one had been signed by the debtor.
In the absence of the signed copy, the Claimant (or their sols) would need to convince the Judge that, in the balance of probs, an agreement had to be signed before the account was allowed to be used.

So if there is not signed document? Neither Shop Direct nor Lowell have been able to provide one.

[charitynjw]

Re: Catalogue debt

Hi nafta

In your particular case it's not so much whether or not there was a signed agreement, but that the evidenced recon cannot be accurate as it mentions £12 payments for breach of payment terms.
£12 wasn't the norm until 2006, when the (then) OFT basically told all credit companies that anything over £12 would be investigated as unfair.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.g...ess/2006/68-06

[warwick65]

Re: Catalogue debt

If they can't produce the CCA documents, that is the simplest and best defence. Nothing I am writing changes that, it is just additional ideas in case they can produce the correct documentation.

First you mentioned in August 2015 that you had priority bills. And since then your husband has had major health issues. Could you summarise what the rest of your financial situation is at the moment? Do you have any priority debts (rent / mortgage, council tax, energy bills, HP debts etc)? Your unsecured debts, roughly how much to they add up to not including this Littlewoods debt? Are you renting or buying?

Second, I am guessing Littlewoods increased your credit limit over time. You may have a claim against them for irresponsible lending, see http://debtcamel.co.uk/refunds-catalogue-credit-card/. With a court case in progress however this needs to be turned from a complaint to the lendr to an Unfair Relationship defence. I'm not saying this is going to be easy ... but if your CCA documentation defence runs into trouble, it may be worth looking at this. @Amethyst @Celestine do you think a point needs to be included in the defence lodged at this stage to cover this?

Finally you origianally mentioned a debt to Simply Be. This is probably a good time to ask for the CCA documentation on that. It is much less stressful to do this before court action is started!

Debt Camel made some really good points here that maybe you should consider using in your WS, things such as irresponsible lending and unfair relationships

Afternoon, Warwick.


The above doesn't state that a signed copy must be produced, only that one had been signed by the debtor.
In the absence of the signed copy, the Claimant (or their sols) would need to convince the Judge that, in the balance of probs, an agreement had to be signed before the account was allowed to be used.

Afternoon Charity

That is what i was getting at

So if there is not signed document? Neither Shop Direct nor Lowell have been able to provide one.

Nafta , I am going to assume here that you did not ever sign an agreement
If that is the case you must put in your WS something to that effect , 'At no point did I sign an agreement' It would help if you could remember something about how you opened it , for example 'I opened it by phone'. And remember what charity said, you had to sign the agreement before it was used.
Also include the fact as charity suggested above, what they have produced as the agreement could not possibly have been from 2000 because of the default amounts

But remember you don't have to say EVERYTHING in your witness statement

If we move on to the Default Notice , I can see an entry in the log saying one was sent but I have not seen the recon Lowell sent to you.
A DN must include certain things
the date it was issued
the breach that occured
the amount of money that needs to be paid to remedy the breach
the date the remedy must reach the creditor by [that date is 14 days +an allowance for service by post ( many people say 4 days but if it was sent 1st class it would be 2)]

If the recon they sent you does not include those it is useless and it would need to be mentioned in your WS

Something along the lines of - the claimant have failed to produce a compliant s87(1)default notice because it is not set out in the prescribed fashion

[nafta]

Re: Catalogue debt

Hi nafta

In your particular case it's not so much whether or not there was a signed agreement, but that the evidenced recon cannot be accurate as it mentions £12 payments for breach of payment terms.
£12 wasn't the norm until 2006, when the (then) OFT basically told all credit companies that anything over £12 would be investigated as unfair.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.g...ess/2006/68-06

Ok so as previously said I think this should be my main argument. I have copied and pasted one of the WS example templates and will try an incorporate all this information there. I ahve made copies of all letters sent by me and by them so I have all exhibits ready.

I have never attended a hearing. Does my WS speak for itself or do I have to speak for myself?

[Amethyst]

Re: Catalogue debt

Hi nafta

In your particular case it's not so much whether or not there was a signed agreement, but that the evidenced recon cannot be accurate as it mentions £12 payments for breach of payment terms.
£12 wasn't the norm until 2006, when the (then) OFT basically told all credit companies that anything over £12 would be investigated as unfair.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.g...ess/2006/68-06

That and that the company named on the agreement didn't exist in 2000 ( and the other stuff I listed earlier lol )

[Amethyst]

Re: Catalogue debt

Ok so as previously said I think this should be my main argument. I have copied and pasted one of the WS example templates and will try an incorporate all this information there. I ahve made copies of all letters sent by me and by them so I have all exhibits ready.

I have never attended a hearing. Does my WS speak for itself or do I have to speak for myself?

The judge will read ( hopefully) the Witness Statement before the hearing, but should he/she not, then they will have a copy and you can go through your arguments referring to it as you go.

It is important to show the claimant with your WS you aren't scared of court and have decent arguments to put forward... as quite often once a defendant's WS has been submitted the claimant discontinues.

If you have a bash at it and post it up we can go through and help strengthen bits if needed.

[Diana M]

Re: Catalogue debt

but as Di said earlier, and as you have alluded to, iredeemably unenforceable is a tough one to argue.

Did I ?

Di

[Amethyst]

Re: Catalogue debt

I agree with Debt Camel on the increase limit / irresponsible lending issue btw. I think that could be argued despite there having never been an agreement under unfair relationship. If littlewoods were anything like very they just bumped your limit up every few months if you managed to make even just the minimum payments. ( mine was bumped from £400 to £3k within 2 years while I was only living on child tax credits!)