HELP. In Court vs Varde Investments/Hegarty LLP

[QCKate]

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

Hi Folks,
Just recieved a massive bundle of documents regarding tomorrows trial from Hegarty, I thought they weren't involved anymore. My latest letters faxed to them by the court do not appear to be in there though. I haven't prepared my stuff in any such a proffesional way so their folder will come in handy tomorrow. There is no signed credit agreement anywhere within it except the ticks in boxes which I posted previously.
Thanks to everytone who has commented and helped me get my head around all this, I will just hope for the best tomorrow.

Cheers.
Heph.

I just looked back Heph and see that you said the original account was not with MBNA. Unless youve signed a later agreement with MBNA its the original they need to produce, Goldfish or whoever. What do they say in there documents about the original creditor. Who? What date? etc etc???

QCK

[Hephaestus]

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

Hi,
They say original agreement was with MBNA dated 3/10/2006.
I wasn't sure what the matter was about at the start of the thread as had to wait till my first court hearing to find out what was going on.
Even though there are an awful lot of documents in Hegartys bundle, everything is typed and could have been knocked up by anyone with a typewriter, there is not a signature to be seen anywhere throughout. I am going to deny everything and see what happens.

Heph

[mystery1]

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

When you took out the card where were you, how did you apply etc etc?

Going to court and just deny deny deny is going to **** off the Judge. You need to have an explanation. If you lose credibility with the judge then whatever they say the judge will go with and you're screwed.

M1

[MIKE770]

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

We had this with O.Hs., original account with another company, MBNA bought a lot of accounts from them, her account was over a phone suppose to have been card for travel points, which turned out to be c card, no agreement signed, but MBNA defaulted on a CCA request for a long time, sold account to DCA who eventually sent a MBNA agreement with O.H. signature on it nothing else, never seen this so called agreement before. Not as if they would of paste job on a bit of paper surely??? all the DCAs now state we have an agreement signed, then have stated we understand the account was bought by MBNA, make out what you like from that.

[Hephaestus]

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

It would appear it was done on internet, but no docs were issued to be signed.
Normally you tick the box and then get sent forms to sign and return before a card is issued. I was never sent any real forms to sign.

Heph

[mystery1]

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

What do you remember ?

M1

[Hephaestus]

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

Thats it, nothing else to remember. I know I never signed anything so was shocked when had a card anyway and it didn't need activation.

[mystery1]

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

You don't remember how you got the card, who from or when ? At all ?

If it was online in 2006 you are in big trouble as a tick box is fine.

M1

[Hephaestus]

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

It was online in 2006. via a tick box like you say.
What does this mean then?

[mystery1]

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

The tick box is allowed as a signature via an act of parliament.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2.../contents/made

M1

[Hephaestus]

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

Ok, too late to back out now, gonna see what happens tomorrow.
There is no indication on the copy of the tick they have sent me as to who it is to, what it is about or anything else. No email address or IP number either.

[Hephaestus]

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

Just got an email fron Hegarty, they are now the solicitors involved and have sent a skeleton argument.
I quoted section 78of the CCA in my initial defence form which was the wrong bit for this particular case.
They quote McGuffick v RBS 2009 and Carey v HSBC 2009 in their reply.
I only added the section 127 of the CCA in the las tcouple of days and they have not responded to that at all. Will bring it up in court and try and wing it. Have submitted it properly albeit very late.
They have not mentioned the tick box thing at all so am still gonna give it a shot. They say the lack of licence on Vardes part makes no difference as they had one when they were assigned the case and had another when they sold it to AK. They quote CCA s 189 (1) with regard to this.
They also say that they did not need a copy of the notice of assignment between MBNA and Varde and it is sufficient that they provided notice of assignment instead.
Looks like its gonna be a long day tomorrow...

Cheers
Heph

[mystery1]

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

Did you send a S78 request and if so what, exactly di you get in response ?

M1

[Hephaestus]

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

Hi,
I did make such a request but they ignored it until the Judge ordered them to comply. They sent
A copy of the agreement ( without signatures)
Statements
Copy of claim form

The notice of assignment and copies of their consumer licences came later with a statement of truth from the account manager for IND. I recieved two identical bundles of these from two different account managers attwo different dates. Their statements were identical except for the names and sigs.

Cheers

Heph

[Hephaestus]

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

Regarding Carey v HSBC

177

1. According to HSBC, p197 is a reconstituted application form. I referred to it above in the context of Issues 1 and 2. The assumed facts here are as follows:
   (1) Ms Carey signed a form which contained, among other things, the entries at p197 including the specific reference to being bound by "the terms and conditions attached"; that form did not itself have the Prescribed Terms stated on the front or the reverse;
   (2) The form (referred to as "a signature page" in the WS from Alan Burden dated 3 December 2009) would have been produced with Ms Carey's details already on, for her to sign once her application, already made, had been approved;
   (3) At the same time as the form was produced electronically, the relevant terms and conditions (including the Prescribed Terms and information) would have been printed off and physically attached to the form by a staple;
   (4) Ms Carey would then have been invited to read the agreement, consisting of the signature page and attached terms and would then have signed and dated the signature page. It would then have been countersigned by the bank;
   (5) The relevant terms and conditions would not have been precisely in the form of pages 198-201 simply because that is a s63 copy with the different cancellation clause. But they would have been the full terms with the Prescribed Terms included either in landscape form (as shown at ppl98-201) or portrait form.

178~~~Ms Tolaney contends that on those assumed facts, the document signed by the debtor did indeed "contain" the Prescribed Terms. I agree for the following reasons:

1. (1) As described, it is hard to see the form and attached terms as anything other than one document. It is not suggested that there were separate page numbers on the terms attached but if there were, on these assumed facts, it would make no difference;
   (2) The signature page itself makes clear that it is incomplete as a document and needs something else because it has no terms on it at all and makes specific reference to the terms "attached"; it only makes sense if something else goes with it; equally pp 198-201 need something to go with them, not least a place for the applicant's details and signature;
   (3) The signature page refers to a credit agreement regulated by the Act and so makes clear that it is the first page of an agreement for which there must be other pages;
   (4) The signature page and terms are presented to the debtor as a package;
   (5) This would satisfy the notion that the Prescribed Terms can be identified within the "four corners of the agreement" - see Hurstanger v Wilson [2007] 1 WLR 2351 per Tuckey LJ at para. 11.
   
   The above text I have highlighted in red seems relevant to me here. I had no such document attached with a staple or signed or countersigned by anybody. No real doc exists.
   I reckon that CCA s127 is applicable in this case regarding my particular situation.
   
   At least, thats what I shall attempt to argue.
   
   Cheers
   Heph.