Another court case - hearing on the 24th August..HELP!

[zhanzhibar]

Re: Another court case - hearing on the 24th August..HELP!

Hi PT

Sorry I think i now know what you mean when you say agreement in here:

i think that we need the agreement referred to within that deed

Nothing to do with my agreement but the agreement stated within the deed as you correctly state...duhhh, zhan! Sorry PT
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

no the deed as we call it, isnt a deed, well it is, but its a supplemental deed, so there is a main agreement somewhere that needs to come outta the woodwork so we can see the definitions used and compare them with the deed we have to see if it holds water

Right, I think I understand, so is that something else I can put in my WS?

[pt2537]

Re: Another court case - hearing on the 24th August..HELP!

read the paragraph below the word "INTERPRETATION"

it should be clear what i mean
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Zhan

your witness statement is the statement of facts, the facts you are going to say at trial

you should be careful that you dont throw everything and the kitchen sink in

[zhanzhibar]

Re: Another court case - hearing on the 24th August..HELP!

read the paragraph below the word "INTERPRETATION"

it should be clear what i mean

got it. I understand now. Since it is an order from the court for them to disclose everything inc "document, contract or deed of assignement", by not disclosing the "agreement" are they not complying ( if this is the right word?)
to the order of the court?

Zhan
your witness statement is the statement of facts, the facts you are going to say at trial
you should be careful that you dont throw everything and the kitchen sink in

Sorry PT I am just a little bit panicking here as I don't have much to go to put in my WS that I need to prepare in the next 24 hours..

[pt2537]

Re: Another court case - hearing on the 24th August..HELP!

ok, the facts, look at it like this

At 17.10 hours on friday 14th May i was driving down abc street when a vehicle driven by Mr M Mouse collided with my car.

Thats facts

you dont need to say that Mr M Mouse was breaking section .... of the road traffic act 1998 and therefore is guilty of driving without due care and attention..............

that is the thing you need to distinguish the two points

[zhanzhibar]

Re: Another court case - hearing on the 24th August..HELP!

Hiya, just found sthg else too. I was double checking the DN, turned out the one they sent me above is not the same as the one I originally received different . Am scanning it as we speak & put it up here in a mo.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Hiya all, here it is, the date is different & the phone number on 3rd para... can this be constitute as forgery?

[TomThumb]

Re: Another court case - hearing on the 24th August..HELP!

Hiya all, here it is, the date is different & the phone number on 3rd para... can this be constitute as forgery?

Calls into serious question there record keeping

S.

[zhanzhibar]

Re: Another court case - hearing on the 24th August..HELP!

Sorry... somethg has gone malfunction...
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Am i right in thinking under CC(enforcement, default & termination Notice) reg 1983 schedule 2 para 3(c)

A specification of:-
if the breach is capable of remedy, what action is required to remedy it & the DATE, being a date (not less than 14 days) after the DOS of the notice....


that you have to state the date in the DN?


I don't think I see any specific date to remedy the breach in either of the DNs

[pt2537]

Re: Another court case - hearing on the 24th August..HELP!

well
lets be clear

the law of evidence hasnt been altered by carey

they cannot reconstitute documents other than credit agreements.

The date for starters is wrong, its a day out, so , thats a problem for them

the 14 days issue i think may struggle due to the Brandon case.

[zhanzhibar]

Re: Another court case - hearing on the 24th August..HELP!

Hiya, another question actually. here is the POC



I am a bit loss here so would appreciate it if someone could clarify what does last para in the POC means?

" Pursuant to clause 7 of the agreement, the claiman also claims contractual interest at rate 17.46% pa from the date...."

I am not sure which para of which agreement the POC trying to state & I don't know whether 17.46% is correct?

[TomThumb]

Re: Another court case - hearing on the 24th August..HELP!

Hiya, another question actually. here is the POC



I am a bit loss here so would appreciate it if someone could clarify what does last para in the POC means?

" Pursuant to clause 7 of the agreement, the claiman also claims contractual interest at rate 17.46% pa from the date...."

I am not sure which para of which agreement the POC trying to state & I don't know whether 17.46% is correct?

Ok they are seeking contractual interest on the outstanding balance up until the judgement...

Paragraph 7 of the agreement they have sent you..(Para 7 of the GE capital bank terms and conditions) is all about the interest they can charge you when you have not paid off the balance. This normally refers to a live agreement tho not a defaulted one.

Personally I thought the amount they can claim is the defaulted amount only as the agreement has ended and no further interest or charges should be added.

I'm sure PT can clarify

S.

[zhanzhibar]

Re: Another court case - hearing on the 24th August..HELP!

I thought I posted the 1st page ofthe order from the court




So what does it mean if they didn't comply in disclosing any one ofthose docs above e.g like the agreement stated within the deed?

[zhanzhibar]

Re: Another court case - hearing on the 24th August..HELP!

Hi all,


Attached is my 1st draft of the WS.

Would appreciate any comments, whether I have missed anything that i should put in or maybe I should leave out some paras .

[zhanzhibar]

Re: Another court case - hearing on the 24th August..HELP!

Hi all, at the moment , I have only 2 points of contention that I put in my WS which are

1) The document provided by Howard Cohen, allegedly a copy of the Consumer Credit Agreement forming the basis of the Claimant’s right to claim is not a true and full copy of the document signed by me for account number 54xxxxx.
2) The copy of the default notice sent to me by the Claimant solicitors (Item I3 of my Disclosure List) is not a true copy, as is clear from the fact that it bears a later date than the original served on me by the Claimant.

I am thinking of a 3rd point i.e that I did not received all documents as ordered by the court. I won't put it in the WS but i was thinking of the agreement stated in the DOA. What do you all think? Should I include this 3rd point?

[zhanzhibar]

Re: Another court case - hearing on the 24th August..HELP!

HI everybody,
My court case is only in a few days time. I received witness statement from CL Finance .






I have been trying to dissect each of their WS's para but I am a little bit worried this time because the key defense points I have are all common sense & that I can't back up my defense with a valid reference to either case law or CCA.
My key argument based on the WS are:

on Para 2 & 10 of the WS :
1)The account number stated in POC as well as in the WS here is clearly not the same as that stated in the so-called agreement so strict proof the claimant that it is the agreement for account number 5xxxxxx. This is so common sense but just to be sure, is there anything in point of law ( CCA or case law) that I could nail my point across.


2)The WS stated that the agreement was for a Debenham store card and yet the default notice as per JPM4 stated “your credit card agreement”. Schedule 2 (1) of Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) (as amended) requires a description of the agreement sufficient to identify it. So is it a store card or is it a credit card? Again in my opinion this is common sense but how to use point of law to argue this case?




On par 5 & 11 of the WS: the DN
I do have a couple of cases to back the point that they produce a recon copy.
i.e hsbc v carey & the possibility of forgery masood case.

para 5 also stated that the agreement is terminated. Question to the experts, is it by law one has to receive a Notice of termination before one's debt being terminated. I ask because I don't think I receive such notice.




Para 6 & 12 of their WS
They have not given me & the court everything. The DOA is only a supplemental to the "agreement" (as PT correctly point out..Thansk!) but because the "agreement" is so commercially sensitive if disclosed come to Claimants competitor and hence apparently it is prejudicial to them. I am thinking that something is not quite right here i.e there is my name on that DOA so surely I should have the rights ( I actually don;t know what rights..data protection..human rights...?) to see the agreement?
Is there any case law whereby the defendants are not given all that is required to prepare defense properly?



Para 8 of the WS:

they say they didn't fail the CPR when putting the claim via online. i.e they don't have to have a back up? Am i right in thinkin that CPR part 6.3 still valid

The online forms service will assist the user in completing a document accurately but the user is responsible for ensuring that the rules and practice directions relating to the document have been complied with. Transmission by the service does not guarantee that the document will be accepted by the specified court.

so therefore they should still have to abide by CPR part 16 & practice direction supplement CPR part 16rule 7.3, right?


Would really appreciate some feedback on this before Tuesday. Thanks everybody.

[pt2537]

Re: Another court case - hearing on the 24th August..HELP!

Zhan,

your argument about the practice direction is in real difficulty, it is not framed in the right manner, needs to focus more on the bulk centre rules, as the pleadings should provide a conciose statement of facts which you are supposed to answer. If they are inadequate then you could argue that they had not foillowed the bulk centre rules which require if they cant plead within (i think) 1024 characters, then they should not use the bulk centre and thus should issue through the county court in the usual manner

that is a stronger approach, but needs putting correctly.

I dont have any time this weekend, so i cant help further sorry