Nationwide CCA Court Hearing v Jax

[middenmess]

Re: Nationwide CCA Court Hearing v Jax

I was asking in response to your statement that ''Application forms are agreements'' and not specifically as to the legitimacy of this one which has an 'application' section and an 'agreement' section thereby elevating it to a different stage than just a bare bones 'application.'

[Amethyst]

Re: Nationwide CCA Court Hearing v Jax

Cool, I was responding to your 'Was it an 'Agreement' or an 'Application Form' that you signed?' question. In the vast majority of cases of this type applicaton forms are also agreements. Sorry if I was a bit short, have seen so many people get into poop because their agreement says application form on it so therefore 'must' be unenforceable.

[middenmess]

Re: Nationwide CCA Court Hearing v Jax

Sorry if I was a bit short,

Bit short! LOL!--I cowered in the corner and ducked below the monitor and was waving a white flag :help: when I replied for fear of having the rest of my head bitten off!!

I also crossed my fingers and uttered a quick prayer before I opened your last reply

[Amethyst]

Re: Nationwide CCA Court Hearing v Jax

pmsl, sorry MM xx

[Angry Cat]

Re: Nationwide CCA Court Hearing v Jax

I was asking in response to your statement that ''Application forms are agreements'' and not specifically as to the legitimacy of this one which has an 'application' section and an 'agreement' section thereby elevating it to a different stage than just a bare bones 'application.'

A valid and fair question!

[pt2537]

Re: Nationwide CCA Court Hearing v Jax

Guys

please read Carey v HSBC Bank Plc

(1) It is not sufficient for the piece of paper signed by the debtor merely to cross-refer to the Prescribed Terms without a copy of those terms being supplied to the debtor at the point of signature;
(2) A document need not be a single piece of paper;
(3) Whether several pieces of paper constitute one document is a question of substance not form. In particular a physical connection between several pieces of paper is not necessary in order for them to constitute one document;
(4) Additionally, a physical connection (or one or more physical connections) between several pieces of paper does not necessarily constitute them as one document;
(5) Accordingly, where the debtor’s signature and the Prescribed Terms appear on separate pieces of paper, the questions of whether those pieces of paper together constitute one document is a question of substance and not form.

[jax007]

Re: Nationwide CCA Court Hearing v Jax

So whats the defence again ? (I can't see one still hun sorry)

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...3&postcount=55

22. On 28 June 2010 the Claimant served the following documentation upon the
Defendant:
a) a copy of the reconstituted version of the Agreement;
b) a copy of the front page of the original version of the Agreement; and
c) a default notice;

28 June Eversheds sent the above stuff which included the 'new' default notice for £4393.73 (I never received the 'first' DN!)

arrears and so served on the Defendant a new default notice dated 25 June 2010.
The Defendant was given until 16 July 2010 to pay the arrears of £4,393.73

The 'new' DN stated this figure of £4393.73 - don't know where they got that figure from as everything else states the figure of £5763.63!

debt owed to the Claimant by the Defendant of £5,763.63 ("the Debt")

debt owed to the Claimant by the Defendant of £5,763.63 ("the Debt").

So ... all this said what do you think my chances are especially in view of the fact they have admitted they don't have the orginal whole agreement as per points 8, 9 and 10 of their WS??

[Amethyst]

Re: Nationwide CCA Court Hearing v Jax

Is the £4k figure arrears at the date of the DN, and the £5k figure the total outstanding ?

Personally, I don't rate your chances very highly. Nationwide have been awarded stays and allowed to amend POCs in a number of cases recently after submitting new DNs so you need decent evidence that the recon of the terms of the agreement is not from inception, or they were not sutable under Carey. I don't think there is any argument under Carey tbh, but thats just me.

10. In its original form the Agreement consisted of an application form for credit, with
the customers details and the signature box on one side and all of the key terms
(including all of the prescribed terms required by the Consumer Credit Act 1974
("the Act") and the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 ("the
Regulations")) on the other. This was accompanied by a separate terms and
conditions booklet which set out the remainder of the terms.

Nationwide v Ricky and Nationwide v NP both recently made admissions and offers to pay on installment basis' to save the stress and protect themselves a bit from costs and possible charge orders.

Tell you what tho, interesting that Eversheds have stated a DN DATED 25th June would have been SERVED on 28th. That means they are working on the assumption the Interpretation Act applies, which is contrary to Costa's recent experience in county court.

I assume, as it was the new DN it gave till about 12th July to remedy then.

[middenmess]

Re: Nationwide CCA Court Hearing v Jax

From earlier posts..

Amethyst. Was the claim submitted between these two ?

28/07/09 Eversheds letter – final effort to resolve matter offering £3460 in F&F

Read more at: Nationwide CCA Court Hearing v Jax - Legal Beagles Consumer Forum

Was that you offering to them or t'other way round?

~

Have just come across letter from Eversheds dated 28/06/10 which included a new default notice and also the reconstituted CCA!!! Oops!!

That's a different date than you have posted more recently...

Quote:
22. On 28 June 2010 the Claimant served the following documentation upon the
Defendant:
a) a copy of the reconstituted version of the Agreement;
b) a copy of the front page of the original version of the Agreement; and
c) a default notice;

Read more at: Nationwide CCA Court Hearing v Jax - Page 4 - Legal Beagles Consumer Forum

Read more at: Nationwide CCA Court Hearing v Jax - Legal Beagles Consumer Forum


Probably of no great relevance but might serve to show that their record keeping of dates etc.can be questionable.

Still not sure as to how Evershed's could serve a d/n--if you had rectified how could the account continue as if nothing had happened and if the account had been previously terminated on what account were they serving a d/n?

FMI-when a debt is sold on is it a debt being a sum of money that is bought or an actual live account that has money owed on it?

[jax007]

Re: Nationwide CCA Court Hearing v Jax

Sorry not been on for a while - been in hospital and other stuff!!

I would really really like some help with a Witness Statement if anyone can help please (pt ??) I only have 6 days left in which to submit it!!!

Is the £4k figure arrears at the date of the DN, and the £5k figure the total outstanding ?

The £5K figure has been same throughout (as on original court claim) - the £4K figure popped up in their 'new' DN! (Certainly never had an 'old' DN!!)

Hmmm ... looking thru paperwork - the original court claim form claims £5763.63 (plus court fees making total of 6053.63).

The 'new' DN claims £4393.73 - however, this is in a paragraph which states:

Action required by you: Payment of the overdue minimum payments which at the dte of this notice stand at £4393.73.

Later on it states:

Further action: If you fail to take the action requeired by this notice withing the time provided then the full balance of the agreement which currently stands at £5763.63 will become repayable and the agreement will terminate.

SO ... the £4393.73 must be the arrears???

AND ... as middenmiss says, how can they terminate an agreement which I imagine would have been terminated by the FIRST DN, which I've never seen?? (Although is this grasping at straws?)

Personally, I don't rate your chances very highly. Nationwide have been awarded stays and allowed to amend POCs in a number of cases recently after submitting new DNs so you need decent evidence that the recon of the terms of the agreement is not from inception, or they were not sutable under Carey. I don't think there is any argument under Carey tbh, but thats just me.

The recon T&Cs MUST be from inception as interest rates are same as then.


Do you mean I don't have an argument under Carey or Eversheds can't use Carey?

Nationwide v Ricky and Nationwide v NP both recently made admissions and offers to pay on installment basis' to save the stress and protect themselves a bit from costs and possible charge orders.

PT2357 stated that as they amended their POC then they become liable for costs!!

Tell you what tho, interesting that Eversheds have stated a DN DATED 25th June would have been SERVED on 28th. That means they are working on the assumption the Interpretation Act applies, which is contrary to Costa's recent experience in county court.

This 'new' DN was an attachment with the letter dated 28 June and not sent separately.

I assume, as it was the new DN it gave till about 12th July to remedy then.

16th

[Amethyst]

Re: Nationwide CCA Court Hearing v Jax

If your recon is the same then I don't see any chance (but I've been saying that for months what do I know) but I'll let you wait for PT to answer.

Ricky had his f&f offer accepted (after nationwide amended POC and issued new DN) and has now paid off the debt for around half the court claim and they are withdrawing the claim as settled.

Yes the DN argument is grasping at straws.

[jax007]

Re: Nationwide CCA Court Hearing v Jax

If your recon is the same then I don't see any chance (but I've been saying that for months what do I know) but I'll let you wait for PT to answer.

Thanks Ames - yes I know you have and I have taken notice of this - I am hoping PT will give me some advice here!

Ricky had his f&f offer accepted (after nationwide amended POC and issued new DN) and has now paid off the debt for around half the court claim and they are withdrawing the claim as settled.

Do you know what form the F&F was presented? Was it a monthly payment plan and do you know if the CRF entry shows settled or partly?

Yes the DN argument is grasping at straws.

Hmmm ... thought so!

Read more at: Nationwide CCA Court Hearing v Jax - Page 5 - Legal Beagles Consumer Forum
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
My WS HAS to be in early next week and if I can't get any help with it then I will have no option but to throw in the towel anyway.

[pt2537]

Re: Nationwide CCA Court Hearing v Jax

trouble is

the devil is in the detail, you cant give us all the answers to all the questions needed on here to provide the detail needed to get a witness statement drafted, per my PM

you could get one done on here, dont get me wrong, but it wouldnt be nowhere near what it ought to.

This is the problem.

Speak to CLS they can put you intouch with a Legal aid solicitor, or try CAB and see if they will refer you to the BAR PRO BONO department to get legal help

[Amethyst]

Re: Nationwide CCA Court Hearing v Jax

It was a lump sum F&F.

[jax007]

Re: Nationwide CCA Court Hearing v Jax

It was a lump sum F&F.

Thanx hun - do you know at what point he offered/they suggested this figure?

the devil is in the detail, you cant give us all the answers to all the questions needed on here to provide the detail needed to get a witness statement drafted, per my PM

Thanx for your opinion and advice Paul anyway - I'll take a view and think about it over the weekend but I guess I'll have to concede defeat on this one!