Phoenix Recoveries v Kotecha Jan 2011

[cymruambyth]

Re: Phoenix Recoveries v Kotecha Jan 2010

Great, I've tried the direct access route; 'I have a fair grasp of the legal concepts .... we the small sums involved....may not be financially viable to be represented....'
I'm back on my own again, so any advice gratefully accepted!

[cymruambyth]

Re: Phoenix Recoveries v Kotecha Jan 2010

Thanks pt, I'll see if there is anyone who is local, understands the CCA, can work on the date I need, is direct access and not too expensive!

[Ihaterbs]

Re: Phoenix Recoveries v Kotecha Jan 2010

[QUOTE=pt2537;194748]Ahh

Therein lies the difficulty faced by a litigant in person, as most banks will have counsel, and by contrast, the lip is on his own.

It seems to me that unless you have counsel in your corner you have an uphill struggle[/QUOTE

Agreed.

[pt2537]

Re: Phoenix Recoveries v Kotecha Jan 2010

It is my OH's case, we have applied for me to represent him; he was with me on the 2 failures and doesn't think it is worth fighting, so I have been trying to negotiate a f&f. Negotiations began before this result (unsucessfully so far .....) and court is within the next 10 days.

id suggest getting Counsel to represent you, if you win, the opponents will pay the costs of the barrister in any event, so if your case is that strong then you should nt have any thing to worry about

[cymruambyth]

Re: Phoenix Recoveries v Kotecha Jan 2010

It is my OH's case, we have applied for me to represent him; he was with me on the 2 failures and doesn't think it is worth fighting, so I have been trying to negotiate a f&f. Negotiations began before this result (unsucessfully so far .....) and court is within the next 10 days.

[pt2537]

Re: Phoenix Recoveries v Kotecha Jan 2010

Unfortunately in this court it does appear to be the case. in my first case the DJ was on good terms with the barrister, who had to explain who the SRA were to him.

This is why I am trying to negotiate a f&f as well as looking for anything to help in the next imminent case

you are trying to settle? a case where there are no statutory terms anywhere? with the Devendra Kotecha Judgments?

I dont follow?

[cymruambyth]

Re: Phoenix Recoveries v Kotecha Jan 2010

Unfortunately in this court it does appear to be the case. in my first case the DJ was on good terms with the barrister, who had to explain who the SRA were to him.

This is why I am trying to negotiate a f&f as well as looking for anything to help in the next imminent case

[pt2537]

Re: Phoenix Recoveries v Kotecha Jan 2010

Unfortunately on the balance of probabilities they would have been attached; also on the balance of probabilities i would not have paid the arrears on the DN even though he agreed it did not allow enough time because i hadn't paid it in the intevening years.

Ahh

Therein lies the difficulty faced by a litigant in person, as most banks will have counsel, and by contrast, the lip is on his own.

It seems to me that unless you have counsel in your corner you have an uphill struggle

[cymruambyth]

Re: Phoenix Recoveries v Kotecha Jan 2010

That was my second brush with the DJ, the first time he allowed SCaM to change the details of the POC in court; it referred to the wrong clauses in the t&cs but as this was small claims and it was pleaded as an administrative error it was ok!

[cymruambyth]

Re: Phoenix Recoveries v Kotecha Jan 2010

Unfortunately on the balance of probabilities they would have been attached; also on the balance of probabilities i would not have paid the arrears on the DN even though he agreed it did not allow enough time because i hadn't paid it in the intevening years.

[pt2537]

Re: Phoenix Recoveries v Kotecha Jan 2010

Unfortunately one of my local DJs decided that a seperate leaflet of T&Cs was actually attached to the reply card (3 pages which were obviously folded due to the format and page numbering), even though neither side had suggested this, which is why I'm a little jaded

but if there are no prescribed terms on any document submitted as the agreement, then as a matter of legal submissions, it is not enforceable

[cymruambyth]

Re: Phoenix Recoveries v Kotecha Jan 2010

so if i signed a post it note,

that would be a binding document? of course not

The problem is that the signature is not the only requirement of s61 is it? it is the signing of a document containing the prescribed terms which is the prerequisite for the document to be properly executed, without this the document is improperly executed, and s127 operates on the courts discretion

Unfortunately one of my local DJs decided that a seperate leaflet of T&Cs was actually attached to the reply card (3 pages which were obviously folded due to the format and page numbering), even though neither side had suggested this, which is why I'm a little jaded

[pt2537]

Re: Phoenix Recoveries v Kotecha Jan 2010

For agreements prior to the 6th April 2007 the subsection 127(3) still applies.

erm sorry if i wasnt clear

s127 controls the courts discretion on a section 65 issue.

that is what i meant

[basa48]

Re: Phoenix Recoveries v Kotecha Jan 2010

...........s127 operates on the courts discretion

For agreements prior to the 6th April 2007 the subsection 127(3) still applies.

[pt2537]

Re: Phoenix Recoveries v Kotecha Jan 2010

Thank you for your comments.
As for s 61, my signature is there and although it is only a squiggle for the OC a DJ at my local court informed me that it was industry practice for a cross or date stamp to be suffucient!

so if i signed a post it note,

that would be a binding document? of course not

The problem is that the signature is not the only requirement of s61 is it? it is the signing of a document containing the prescribed terms which is the prerequisite for the document to be properly executed, without this the document is improperly executed, and s127 operates on the courts discretion