I've received a court claim form on behalf of Creations they're being represented by Drydens.
The claim is for an account that belonged to the OH from '96 and has been disputed for over 3 yrs. Creations (Adams Card) has not once in all that time taken this step and I'm wondering why now.
The claim form arrived the same day as a pack that contained statements, a default notice dated 2009 which appears to be a sample, another copy of the barely illegible agreement and letter informing me they'd be starting proceedings on the 7 May 10.
I will be responding to the claim with what I have always disputed;
By way of T&Cs they sent a copy of their 06/2000 application form which stated the terms we'd recognise as being prescribed. When requested for the terms pertinent to '96 they just send the same 06/00 blank agreement.
This is the last letter I sent them, they may or may not have received this before taking the step of issuing proceedings
Does anyone seriously think they have a chance with what they're prepared to take to court? or are they trying it on and hoping I will not respond in time?
I've attached the documents for opinion and comment before I respond and fight the claim. I'd can I ask for some help with peer reviewing my defence.
The claim is for an account that belonged to the OH from '96 and has been disputed for over 3 yrs. Creations (Adams Card) has not once in all that time taken this step and I'm wondering why now.
The claim form arrived the same day as a pack that contained statements, a default notice dated 2009 which appears to be a sample, another copy of the barely illegible agreement and letter informing me they'd be starting proceedings on the 7 May 10.
I will be responding to the claim with what I have always disputed;
- The agreement is clearly an application form, though after Carey this is no longer a real reason for dispute.
- The agreement is barely legible
- I have never received a default notice
- I can't see where the prescribed terms are.
By way of T&Cs they sent a copy of their 06/2000 application form which stated the terms we'd recognise as being prescribed. When requested for the terms pertinent to '96 they just send the same 06/00 blank agreement.
This is the last letter I sent them, they may or may not have received this before taking the step of issuing proceedings
7 May 10
Dear Mr Rosser
Thank you for your letter dated 27 Apr 10 the contents of are noted. As you are no doubt aware, the Judgment by HHJ Waksman QC has clarified a number of points in respect of credit agreements.
a. In making an executed agreement, if it fails to conform to requirements made by regulations as to form and content it will be an improperly executed agreement.
b. Further, financial organisations will be required to provide a, True Copy, when disputing any breach of the Consumer Credit Act.
c. The Judge also confirmed what a financial organisation is not permitted to omit from any reconstituted copy of an agreement under Regulation 3 and that any copy should be ‘easily’ legible.
It is clear from what you have sent the agreement is mostly illegible and does not contain the prescribed terms required of the act. If you dispute this please respond where you consider the agreement does comply with the pre-requisites of the act.
You are not permitted to issue court proceedings only the original complainant can do so. Your client to date has not risked court in this matter I see no reason why I should concern myself, however I look forward to seeing your particulars of claim.
Yours Sincerely
Dear Mr Rosser
Thank you for your letter dated 27 Apr 10 the contents of are noted. As you are no doubt aware, the Judgment by HHJ Waksman QC has clarified a number of points in respect of credit agreements.
a. In making an executed agreement, if it fails to conform to requirements made by regulations as to form and content it will be an improperly executed agreement.
b. Further, financial organisations will be required to provide a, True Copy, when disputing any breach of the Consumer Credit Act.
c. The Judge also confirmed what a financial organisation is not permitted to omit from any reconstituted copy of an agreement under Regulation 3 and that any copy should be ‘easily’ legible.
It is clear from what you have sent the agreement is mostly illegible and does not contain the prescribed terms required of the act. If you dispute this please respond where you consider the agreement does comply with the pre-requisites of the act.
You are not permitted to issue court proceedings only the original complainant can do so. Your client to date has not risked court in this matter I see no reason why I should concern myself, however I look forward to seeing your particulars of claim.
Yours Sincerely
I've attached the documents for opinion and comment before I respond and fight the claim. I'd can I ask for some help with peer reviewing my defence.
Comment