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

[Angry Cat]

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

ahh there is case law that says it is not necessary, to join the party ,

I had this case referred to me a while back , i will go dig it out

One would be most interested to gain sight of the case that was, referred to.

[Amethyst]

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

VanLynn v Pelias 1969 ? Zhan asked me for it a while back to use in the defence. Assume PT means something more recent ? .Some bits in Assignment of rights of action anyway.

The official receiver must bear in mind that with an equitable assignment of a legal chose the assignee may sue the debtor party in his own name but, as the legal title remains vested in the assignor, the company or trustee must be joined in the proceedings before the assignee can recover any damages (Weddell and Another [1988] 1 Ch 26). With an equitable assignment of an equitable chose and where the whole of the interest is vested in the assignee (ie it is an absolute assignment) the company or trustee need not be joined in the proceedings (Cater v Croydon Canal [1834] 4 Y & C Ex 593).

[Wolfy]

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

As debts are a legal chose in action the point remains The assignee cannot sue on his own if the assignment is only equitable.

[Wolfy]

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

PT any sign of that case at all?

[middenmess]

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

Bit of reading from OFT

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/bus...it/OFT1272.pdf

[frisp]

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

Bit of reading from OFT

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/bus...it/OFT1272.pdf

Apologies - probably off topic so happy for someone to move

There is a lot of 'quibbling' (playing on words) in this document

2.28 will help my case as they can't provide the starting document.

2.29-2.30 legibility - They have to provide a legible copy of the actual or reasonable facsimile or reconstitute all the words in the right order for it to become 'kosher' under Carey.

Surely we are able to challenge and ask for proof as to their method of reconstitution, after all if I can't read it how can others and is it reasonable to assume they can not and therefore the copy is not an actual copy.

5.13 - Once proceedings have commenced and all that has been provided is an illegible copy can the defence ask for a stay until a 'true copy' has been delivered.

6.3 - Can a complaint be raised to the OFT regarding non compliance with a request for a true copy and this complaint include a request for them to recover the required documentation.

[middenmess]

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

5.13 - Once proceedings have commenced and all that has been provided is an illegible copy can the defence ask for a stay until a 'true copy' has been delivered.

Read more at: Another court case - hearing on the 24th August..HELP! - Page 6 - Legal Beagles Consumer Forum

In their wisdom the OFT say...

Legibility of any copy
2.29 Any copy must be easily legible, as must any copy of notices of
variation or statement of the terms of the agreement as varied.16 If the
creditor or owner has a poor quality photocopy or microfiche, it should
retype it or repopulate a template of the relevant agreement form with
the details of the specific agreement, so that the copy sent can be easily
read.

[frisp]

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

I still think we can ask for a stay in such a case requesting the provide a true copy or a repopulated template or retyped (word for word) copy and request that they prove without a reasonable doubt how they did it

[pt2537]

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

I still think we can ask for a stay in such a case requesting the provide a true copy or a repopulated template or retyped (word for word) copy and request that they prove without a reasonable doubt how they did it

WHAT?

why stay the claim, its dismissal thats appropriate, see MBNA v McCullagh,

[Amethyst]

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

mmm MBNA v McCullagh - Claim must be dismissed if lender fails to comply with S 78 (havent seen the judgment on it tho or know any more than that) Generally yes, but I think frisp may be referring to his own case which surely they would just type it up for legibility? (its only the front of frisps agreement that's illegible in parts the T&Cs are sound I believe)

[pt2537]

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

there you go, now you have it

[Amethyst]

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

Thanks PT I'll copy it to caselaw too and have a read.

[frisp]

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

mmm MBNA v McCullagh - Claim must be dismissed if lender fails to comply with S 78 (havent seen the judgment on it tho or know any more than that) Generally yes, but I think frisp may be referring to his own case which surely they would just type it up for legibility? (its only the front of frisps agreement that's illegible in parts the T&Cs are sound I believe)

I was sort of referring to my travails with Wescot but in general surely they must produce through what ever means a true copy of what the agreement was or what it said word for word in the right order, or am I barking.

If they do produce a retyped copy from an really illegible original it must be word for word perfect and my point was they should be asked to prover how they did it.

[unluckyjim]

interesting