smith v llyods black horse and arrow global limited belveder

[gravytrain]

Re: smith v llyods black horse and arrow global limited belveder

I wonder if section 67 cancellation is appropriate, there was anticedant negotiation.
I am not sure where they say agreement was signed, may be a factor if it was signed away from the company premises.
Also the missing dates, but again probably only a section 65 issue.

[pt2537]

Re: smith v llyods black horse and arrow global limited belveder

Lets hope so, there is also the mystery of why it says its for a car loan on the bottom.

yes, indeed there is that too, im not sure the Court would take that as a reason not to enforce though, thats the real difficulty, even if it were improperly executed, the Court would undoubtedly allow enforcement as that term doesnt really place the Defendant at any prejudice.

[gravytrain]

Re: smith v llyods black horse and arrow global limited belveder

I agree, but the problem is, the agreement has run its course, it was 36 months, so has clearly expired if the agreement was from 2006 so i wouldnt expect the Default to be needed. I know its a big if, but nonetheless, i dont think a District Judge would have any real trouble finding that the DN wasnt needed.

I think the issues what are live, are worth using to get the Claimant to accept a lower and manageable payment.

Lets hope so, there is also the mystery of why it says its for a car loan on the bottom.

[pt2537]

Re: smith v llyods black horse and arrow global limited belveder

Some obsevations, although not disagreeing with the advice given.




See above

I agree, but the problem is, the agreement has run its course, it was 36 months, so has clearly expired if the agreement was from 2006 so i wouldnt expect the Default to be needed. I know its a big if, but nonetheless, i dont think a District Judge would have any real trouble finding that the DN wasnt needed.

I think the issues what are live, are worth using to get the Claimant to accept a lower and manageable payment.

[FlamingParrot]

Re: smith v llyods black horse and arrow global limited belveder

got 28 xstention to sort it out

Good news! Have you informed the court about it?

[smith]

Re: smith v llyods black horse and arrow global limited belveder

Some obsevations, although not disagreeing with the advice given.




See above

got 28 xstention to sort it out

[gravytrain]

Re: smith v llyods black horse and arrow global limited belveder

Some obsevations, although not disagreeing with the advice given.

will be aware, we discussed this Blackhorse matter at length earlier.

I do not think that the argument that you did not sign the loan agreement is likely to fail without a fulll experts report on the handwriting and signatures, without such a report it will be your word against the Claimants. A District Judge is more than likely to accept that you signed the agreement.

There is the issue that the agreement seems to be for the purchase of a car ?

The agreement appears to contain all the necessary “prescribed terms” to be enforceable.

The repayments although stated in frequency and sum do not have a commencement date. You could argue that this is a section 127 breach or at least section 61.

The Creditor will not need a default notice, as the loan term was 36 months, so has expired now and therefore the full amount would be due and payable.

I think Smith is saying the the original contract period didn't run it's course in that it was terminated after a few months and sold. If this is the case there would have had to been a DN notice issued prior to termination.

I am concerned about the argument that it is statute barred, as the Claimant has produced evidence of payments, and Faye's account was not entirely clear, this was in part due to the fact that a third party seems to have your papers in this matter. Once you have obtained your papers from this party please do let me know.

Yes I agree there seems to be evidence that the SB was reset

As i discussed with , the best route to move forward would be firstly to seek an extension of time for filing your defence.

Civil Procedure Rule 15.5 allows the parties to agree an extension of time for filing the defence. It allows the deadline to be extended up to 28 days by agreement.

You will need to get the Claimant to agree to this extension, and then once you have agreed an extension you will need to write to the Court and tell them, very important and must be done.

I would suggest negotiating with the creditor unless you can show clearly the debt is statute barred. The following OFT guidance may assist you, as both appear relevant to your situations, so i would suggest discussing the matter with the Claimant, they may well be agreeable to a consent order to allow you to pay the debt at a manageable amount per month.

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/con...ns/oft1373.pdf Mental Health Guidance

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/bus...al/oft1107.pdf Irresponsible lending guidance

told me to ring there solictor to ask for an xstention of 28 days
to get more evedence if they agree phone court xplain to them

then phone solictor state what bin paid on it pluss ppi to be removed
full offer of about 800 by instalments in the way of a tomlin order

See above

[smith]

Re: smith v llyods black horse and arrow global limited belveder

What has PT said about the agreement? He is the expert! :yo:

will be aware, we discussed this Blackhorse matter at length earlier.

I do not think that the argument that you did not sign the loan agreement is likely to fail without a fulll experts report on the handwriting and signatures, without such a report it will be your word against the Claimants. A District Judge is more than likely to accept that you signed the agreement.

The agreement appears to contain all the necessary “prescribed terms” to be enforceable.

The Creditor will not need a default notice, as the loan term was 36 months, so has expired now and therefore the full amount would be due and payable.

I am concerned about the argument that it is statute barred, as the Claimant has produced evidence of payments, and Faye's account was not entirely clear, this was in part due to the fact that a third party seems to have your papers in this matter. Once you have obtained your papers from this party please do let me know.

As i discussed with , the best route to move forward would be firstly to seek an extension of time for filing your defence.

Civil Procedure Rule 15.5 allows the parties to agree an extension of time for filing the defence. It allows the deadline to be extended up to 28 days by agreement.

You will need to get the Claimant to agree to this extension, and then once you have agreed an extension you will need to write to the Court and tell them, very important and must be done.

I would suggest negotiating with the creditor unless you can show clearly the debt is statute barred. The following OFT guidance may assist you, as both appear relevant to your situations, so i would suggest discussing the matter with the Claimant, they may well be agreeable to a consent order to allow you to pay the debt at a manageable amount per month.

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/con...ns/oft1373.pdf Mental Health Guidance

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/bus...al/oft1107.pdf Irresponsible lending guidance

told me to ring there solictor to ask for an xstention of 28 days
to get more evedence if they agree phone court xplain to them

then phone solictor state what bin paid on it pluss ppi to be removed
full offer of about 800 by instalments in the way of a tomlin order

[FlamingParrot]

Re: smith v llyods black horse and arrow global limited belveder

What has PT said about the agreement? He is the expert! :yo:

[smith]

Re: smith v llyods black horse and arrow global limited belveder

ok the credit agreement were it say financial information in both boxes there is no start date or end date on the agreement

and at the bottom of that agreement were i t say signature on the behalf there is no date there on agreement i would like to know would this still make the agreement enforceable or not if not were do i go from there

[smith]

Re: smith v llyods black horse and arrow global limited belveder

hi there pt2537 im online know sorry checked email nothing there

pt 2537 found your email it went to my partners acccount
just emailed you the documents thankyou

[smith]

Re: smith v llyods black horse and arrow global limited belveder

i did reply to your email too, but havent heard back as yet.

hi there pt2537 im online know sorry checked email nothing there

[pt2537]

Re: smith v llyods black horse and arrow global limited belveder

i did reply to your email too, but havent heard back as yet.

[smith]

Re: smith v llyods black horse and arrow global limited belveder

thankyou
pt 2537 just panik stations only a few day

[gravytrain]

Re: smith v llyods black horse and arrow global limited belveder

Good Smith you have had a go, and perhaps PT will put into shape if he gets time, he is, "The man " on this stuff.