Tweet
Hello Everyone,
I am confused and need some guidance, as I have to submit my witness statement in the next few days.
Breif history:
Earlier this year, MKDP issued a court claim against me relating to a pre-2007 Barclaycard (under £3000). I never signed an agreement - but likely signed an application form around 1998. I have followed all the advice on various forums and issued the relevant defence and CPR 31.14 which was ignored. I have also sent various S.78 requests dating back years.
Situation:
They have come up with a reconstituted agreement, which is essentially a set of terms and conditions, as well as a statement. they admitted they do not hold the originals, and seemed pretty confident at the preliminary hearing. (casually commenting they tear up agreements)?!
My whole approach has been that as the agreement is pre-2007, and as per Carey Vs HSBC, they would still need to produce an original agreement, and not a reconstituted copy.
Now I am concerned that something may have changed, is this still the correct defence, or should I follow a different track?
Please advise as I am not sure what to do now.
Thanks,
noway55
I am confused and need some guidance, as I have to submit my witness statement in the next few days.
Breif history:
Earlier this year, MKDP issued a court claim against me relating to a pre-2007 Barclaycard (under £3000). I never signed an agreement - but likely signed an application form around 1998. I have followed all the advice on various forums and issued the relevant defence and CPR 31.14 which was ignored. I have also sent various S.78 requests dating back years.
Situation:
They have come up with a reconstituted agreement, which is essentially a set of terms and conditions, as well as a statement. they admitted they do not hold the originals, and seemed pretty confident at the preliminary hearing. (casually commenting they tear up agreements)?!
My whole approach has been that as the agreement is pre-2007, and as per Carey Vs HSBC, they would still need to produce an original agreement, and not a reconstituted copy.
Now I am concerned that something may have changed, is this still the correct defence, or should I follow a different track?
Please advise as I am not sure what to do now.
Thanks,
noway55
