HELP. In Court vs Varde Investments/Hegarty LLP

[pt2537]

Re: HELP. In Court vs Varde Investments/Hegarty LLP

But what if the creditor didn't sign the agreement.:beagle:

Then the creditor merely need make an application under s65 & 127(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 - what possible prejudice would someone suffer because the creditor didnt sign the agreement?

Id say very little if at all. But the onus is on the debtor to raise an allegation of improper execution so there is the problem

[Davos2910]

Re: HELP. In Court vs Varde Investments/Hegarty LLP

Need a bit more info.

Did you not acknowledge/defend the claim?

Was this a credit card or loan account?

Did you request a copy of the credit agreement?

When was the credit card/loan taken out and how (application form or online)?

Did you get a Default Notice and letter before action?

You might be better starting a new thread.

Hi

I had no opportunity to either acknowledge or defend the claim. The first I knew of any proceedings was when I received a Notice of Transfer of Proceedings from Bromley to Reigate. Then I received and NoToP from Reigate to Horsham. I called and faxed Horsham to ask what it was all about, they told me there was no paperwork and when they received the paperwork I would be copied. The next thing I know is that a Judgement has been entered against me for £15k with a note stating I did not reply.

I did request a copy of the agreement. There was no signature. The application was online and taken out 2005/06. It was a Credit card.

I got sold PPI, when I went to claim they told me I didn't qualify. That's when I started to go down the road of unenforcability.

Based on what I've read with Heph, looks like an IVA is my only option.

I don't know how to start my own thread.

Dave

[Davos2910]

Re: HELP. In Court vs Varde Investments/Hegarty LLP

Hi

I had no opportunity to either acknowledge or defend the claim. The first I knew of any proceedings was when I received a Notice of Transfer of Proceedings from Bromley to Reigate. Then I received and NoToP from Reigate to Horsham. I called and faxed Horsham to ask what it was all about, they told me there was no paperwork and when they received the paperwork I would be copied. The next thing I know is that a Judgement has been entered against me for £15k with a note stating I did not reply.

I did request a copy of the agreement. There was no signature. The application was online and taken out 2005/06. It was a Credit card.

I got sold PPI, when I went to claim they told me I didn't qualify. That's when I started to go down the road of unenforcability.

Based on what I've read with Heph, looks like an IVA is my only option.

I don't know how to start my own thread.

Dave

Have received this evening a form from Horsham CC for a reply to an AOE in the name of Varde. It seems that the right hand doesn't have a clue what the left hand is doing. Varde were substituted by Aktiv Kapital......what now?

Dave

[basa48]

Re: HELP. In Court vs Varde Investments/Hegarty LLP

If you look at Wegmuller you see that he made out his case that the agreement was not compliant.

Hi pt.

Do you know where I can find a copy of the Wegmuller judgement?

It's not on BAILII and I haven't seen a reference to it before.

[mystery1]

Re: HELP. In Court vs Varde Investments/Hegarty LLP

http://forums.all-about-debt.co.uk/blog.php?b=1113

M1

[Streetwise]

Re: HELP. In Court vs Varde Investments/Hegarty LLP

What about Wilson V First county.:beagle:

[pt2537]

Re: HELP. In Court vs Varde Investments/Hegarty LLP

What about Wilson V First county.:beagle:

what about it?

or are you going to argue that that the wilson judgment states the court must see the original?

an interesting argument if you are, but one that sinks faster than the titanic when you realise the Court need only be satisfied that "there was" a signed agreement. The court can reach that conclusion by evidence from the parties without seeing the actual agreement.

I must say for the record that i dont think that line of thought is correct, but after seeing it argued over and over, i have come to accept it and move on and run arguments that do work rather than ones that dont

[Guest]

Re: HELP. In Court vs Varde Investments/Hegarty LLP

what about it?

or are you going to argue that that the wilson judgment states the court must see the original?

an interesting argument if you are, but one that sinks faster than the titanic when you realise the Court need only be satisfied that "there was" a signed agreement. The court can reach that conclusion by evidence from the parties without seeing the actual agreement.

I must say for the record that i dont think that line of thought is correct, but after seeing it argued over and over, i have come to accept it and move on and run arguments that do work rather than ones that dont

Yes i think that this raised it's ugly head in the Carey judgments, the creditor only has to show on the balance of probabilities that an agreement was signed, as per section 127(3)

What if the defense was to make a positive assertion that no agreement was signed, not that they could not remember if one was signed or not.
Would that not make the chances of success substantially better.

D

[pt2537]

Re: HELP. In Court vs Varde Investments/Hegarty LLP

Yes i think that this raised it's ugly head in the Carey judgments, the creditor only has to show on the balance of probabilities that an agreement was signed, as per section 127(3)

What if the defense was to make a positive assertion that no agreement was signed, not that they could not remember if one was signed or not.
Would that not make the chances of success substantially better.

D

Indeed thats the point, the debtor needs to make the positive assertion. If you see Wegmuller you will see the point about the shifting burdens etc and who has to raise what allegation

[Guest]

Re: HELP. In Court vs Varde Investments/Hegarty LLP

Indeed thats the point, the debtor needs to make the positive assertion. If you see Wegmuller you will see the point about the shifting burdens etc and who has to raise what allegation

Perhaps going off subject a bit , but whilst we have you.

I think i remember reading about a similar scenario to the above, and the creditor bringing out a witness to state that no agreement would be issued without a signature, i also seem to remember the witnesses statement was suppressed under hearsay rules, do i have this right?

D

[Davos2910]

Re: HELP. In Court vs Varde Investments/Hegarty LLP

Perhaps going off subject a bit , but whilst we have you.

I think i remember reading about a similar scenario to the above, and the creditor bringing out a witness to state that no agreement would be issued without a signature, i also seem to remember the witnesses statement was suppressed under hearsay rules, do i have this right?

D

I have attached this WS. Let me know what you think.

Thanks

[Streetwise]

Re: HELP. In Court vs Varde Investments/Hegarty LLP

what about it?

or are you going to argue that that the wilson judgment states the court must see the original?

an interesting argument if you are, but one that sinks faster than the titanic when you realise the Court need only be satisfied that "there was" a signed agreement. The court can reach that conclusion by evidence from the parties without seeing the actual agreement.

I must say for the record that i dont think that line of thought is correct, but after seeing it argued over and over, i have come to accept it and move on and run arguments that do work rather than ones that dont

Post 196.:beagle:I would argue that as the creditor failed to sign the agreement,it had not been executed properly and is there for UE.

[Guest]

Re: HELP. In Court vs Varde Investments/Hegarty LLP

Post 196.:beagle:I would argue that as the creditor failed to sign the agreement,it had not been executed properly and is there for UE.

If you look at section 127(3) it says signed by the debtor(nothing about the creditors signature). Section 127(3) is the only cause for absolute unenforceability.

As PT says, it would make the agreement improperly executed, but the court would not find that the debtor had been sufficiently prejudiced to stop enforcement.

D

[Guest]

Re: HELP. In Court vs Varde Investments/Hegarty LLP

I have attached this WS. Let me know what you think.

Thanks

Can't open

[Davos2910]

Re: HELP. In Court vs Varde Investments/Hegarty LLP

It's just a Word Doc.......