In court tomorrow.

[Amethyst]

Re: In court tomorrow.

Well done Best of luck tomorrow and please let us know how you get on. (just repeated Steven word for word there sorry lol)

[toffee man]

Re: In court tomorrow.

Toffee Man won today as Bryan Carter didn't show up, so all is not lost don't worry. He'd not sent a WS or documents either. (I do think he was lucky and got a good judge so fingers crossed you get the same)

I probably was a bit lucky.But Carters had already shot themselves in the foot by supplying no default notice or a CCA. So the Judge had already discounted their case.

[toomanycalls]

Re: In court tomorrow.

.........final position is adjourned for 28 days.


AK's duty solicitor opened with disallowing my WS due to lateness but the judge conceded that she had already ready it so there was little point in not continuing but he could adjourn if he chose due to unexpected items cropping up.


I argued s61 that the document was incomplete quoting HFO Capital Limited v Roland Wegmuller and that the reason I knew that was because the varied terms had more sections, the DJ seemed unimpressed.


I then spoke of s61(c) and illegible and quoted Cabot V Bachellier but she said that this was that the agreement had to be legible at the time of signing.


I then used the s78 request and illegible quoting Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notice and copies of Documents) Regulations 1983 reg 2(1) and she conceded the point but tried to intimate that the judgement would just be put and inevitable off and extra costs and interest would be incurred.


Then adjourned for 28 days for AK to reconstitute the agreement and suggested perhaps a consent order might be a good idea. Costs reserved because of my late WS.


Any opinions?

[pt2537]

Re: In court tomorrow.

.........final position is adjourned for 28 days.


AK's duty solicitor opened with disallowing my WS due to lateness but the judge conceded that she had already ready it so there was little point in not continuing but he could adjourn if he chose due to unexpected items cropping up.


I argued s61 that the document was incomplete quoting HFO Capital Limited v Roland Wegmuller and that the reason I knew that was because the varied terms had more sections, the DJ seemed unimpressed.


I then spoke of s61(c) and illegible and quoted Cabot V Bachellier but she said that this was that the agreement had to be legible at the time of signing.


I then used the s78 request and illegible quoting Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notice and copies of Documents) Regulations 1983 reg 2(1) and she conceded the point but tried to intimate that the judgement would just be put and inevitable off and extra costs and interest would be incurred.


Then adjourned for 28 days for AK to reconstitute the agreement and suggested perhaps a consent order might be a good idea. Costs reserved because of my late WS.


Any opinions?

you have mis understood cabot v Bachellier, this was a case i dealt with as the fee earner, the issue over legibility was in relation to the s78 reply not under s61(c)

[toomanycalls]

Re: In court tomorrow.

you have mis understood cabot v Bachellier, this was a case i dealt with as the fee earner, the issue over legibility was in relation to the s78 reply not under s61(c)

Thanks for clarifying, always learning...

[pt2537]

Re: In court tomorrow.

Thanks for clarifying, always learning...

Of course an agreement must be legible when you sign it, but of course you would be a complete mcmuffin to sign something you cannot read in any event, so that really does fall away when you think about it.

[Amethyst]

Re: In court tomorrow.

Then adjourned for 28 days for AK to reconstitute the agreement and suggested perhaps a consent order might be a good idea. Costs reserved because of my late WS.

Any sanction on them if they fail to type up the agreement?

[toomanycalls]

Re: In court tomorrow.

Not specified I think but the jist was that it was quite likely possible.

[pt2537]

Re: In court tomorrow.

Not specified I think but the jist was that it was quite likely possible.

dont be too relaxed here, no sanction specified means no sanction at all.

So if they fail to provide a compliant document then you should be preparing submissions to the Court on the basis that the Claim should be struck out.

[toomanycalls]

Re: In court tomorrow.

They have now provided the missing doc and also provided an ammended WS to reflect in time for the new hearing on the 18th. I think on that basis the judge will award to them.

I had emailed AK with a settlement offer but they are not playing ball and want the full amount claimed. Do I have any legal argument to the interest charges? I'm sure I read that they should not be liable to claim interest at least while in breach of the S78 which has only just been satisfied with the new doc.

[Amethyst]

Re: In court tomorrow.

You've a hearing on the 18th - previously adjourned because of illegible /missing docs which have now been provided ?

Might be a help to scan up the docs you have unless you are positive they are enforceable ?

[toomanycalls]

Re: In court tomorrow.

I'm confident that the docs are compliant. They have updated their WS to reflect this and the general acceptance of points from the previous hearing so Its really a matter of course now.

My only question is whether or not I have any argument to the interest added. I think the account had frozen interest at the point of default notice due to a minor payment arrangement if that has any bearing. There is also the questionof if they could continue to add whilst in default of the s78?

[Amethyst]

Re: In court tomorrow.

Did the hearing go ahead yesterday ?