Tweet
Hi, I wonder if anyone can offer me some advice. I appeared in small claims court yesterday to defend a claim against me. The basis of my defence was that the creditor had not complied with CCA 1974 as no default notice or termination notice had been issued. At a previous hearing which I was unable to attend the Judge ordered that the creditor file and serve representations on how they complied with sections 76,87 and 98 of CCA. I wasn't served any such document and think their assumption was that I would not turn up to the hearing and they were suprised when I did (probably a tactic but maybe a mistake). The judge granted my request for an adjournment on the basis that they hadn't complied with the order and I hadn't a chance to prepare a response to their submission which was good.
Having read through it their argument seems to be that none of the sections of CCA 1974 above were applicable as the debtor has not sought to terminate the agreement, the agreement is not in default and the claim is purely for the collection of arrears owing to them under the agreement. This seems a little strange to me and was wondering if anyone had come accross this before? Full payment on the agreement became due in December 2003 however the proceedings were commenced in October 2009.
I'm a little bit concerned now as the Judge referred to costs and the test of 'unreasonable' possibly hinting that I would become liable for their legal costs if I lose bearing in mind they have employed a lawayer and city chambers to represent them in small claims court. I can't afford to take legal advice and fear I may have to try and settle now as the costs could be more than the original debt which will probably push me to bankruptcy though I really hate the thought of being bullied or frightened in to giving just in because they can afford it and I can't.
Any advice or support very gratefully recieved.
Having read through it their argument seems to be that none of the sections of CCA 1974 above were applicable as the debtor has not sought to terminate the agreement, the agreement is not in default and the claim is purely for the collection of arrears owing to them under the agreement. This seems a little strange to me and was wondering if anyone had come accross this before? Full payment on the agreement became due in December 2003 however the proceedings were commenced in October 2009.
I'm a little bit concerned now as the Judge referred to costs and the test of 'unreasonable' possibly hinting that I would become liable for their legal costs if I lose bearing in mind they have employed a lawayer and city chambers to represent them in small claims court. I can't afford to take legal advice and fear I may have to try and settle now as the costs could be more than the original debt which will probably push me to bankruptcy though I really hate the thought of being bullied or frightened in to giving just in because they can afford it and I can't.
Any advice or support very gratefully recieved.
Comment