HELP. In Court vs Varde Investments/Hegarty LLP

[Davos2910]

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

Date: 03/07/2012
1) I, David C Fisher of ************************make this statement as my defence to the claim brought by Aktiv Kapital Portfolio As, Zug Branch 1410194438
2) The claimants particulars of claim are vague and fail to disclose any cause of action, they appear to be an abuse of the process in that they fail to deal with the basic rules of pleading in accordance with the CPR even allowing for the constraints of the bulk issue system.
3) The Defendant has no recollection of and makes no admissions regarding the precise purpose of the agreement or of its terms, conditions and other provisions or what would constitute a breach thereof.
4) The Defendant denies that the agreement was a properly executed agreement and denies committing a breach thereof.
5) No documents supporting the claims in the particulars have been offered and despite a request to the claimant via the Court on three separate occasions for further information, none has been forthcoming and as a result I cannot plead in defence to the claim.
6) The claimant pleads that the claim is brought under a regulated credit agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974, yet the claimant claims statutory interest which the claimant should surely know it is not entitled to by virtue of the County Courts (Interest on Judgment Debts) Order 1991 (No. 1184 (L. 12)) in particular section 2 (3) which expressly prohibits such an award.
7) The defendant contends that point 6 in itself amounts to a clear abuse of the process as the claimant would know the law and is trying to bring a claim for monies which it is not entitled to and knows that this is the case.
8) Without clarification of the claimants claim, the defendant is extremely disadvantaged and the claimants claim appears without merit.
9) Further to that above 8 paragraphs, the defendant is unable to plead effectively or at all.

[Guest]

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

I don't know the history here.
the first thing that jumps out is section 6, The clause you refer to is about post judgment interest, not default interest. They are allowed to charge contractual interest on the default sum up till judgment.


D

[Streetwise]

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

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

But it is a credit card agreement from 2002,and if not signed by both parties it is UE,the judge cannot enforce unless signed by the creditor and the debtor, its beyond power.

[Guest]

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

But it is a credit card agreement from 2002,and if not signed by both parties it is UE,the judge cannot enforce unless signed by the creditor and the debtor, its beyond power.

No read the appropriate section of the CCA section 127(3) as said there is no mention of the creditors signature.

D

[Streetwise]

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

No read the appropriate section of the CCA section 127(3) as said there is no mention of the creditors signature.

D

Post 163.:beagle:

[Guest]

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

As Basa says Heph, s127(3) still applies to all CCA agreements executed prior to April 2007. Its NOT a loophole. That is the law. It is for the claimant to prove their case. If there wasnt a signed agreement then it isnt down to your memory!!!! They must produce a copy of the ACTUAL AGREEMENT WITH YOUR AND THERE SIGNATURES.

QCK

Post 163 ?

[Guest]

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

Post 163.:beagle:

Since it seems that you cant be bothered to look it up yourself
Section 127(3)

(3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a)
(signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the
prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the
prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the
prescribed manner

[Davos2910]

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

There is no signed agreement that I have been able to obtain with all the prescribed terms.

[Streetwise]

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

Post 163 ?

That say's it all

[Guest]

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

That say's it all

If it contradicts anything that PT and I have said it is wrong.

D

[Guest]

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

Date: 03/07/2012
1) I, David C Fisher of ************************make this statement as my defence to the claim brought by Aktiv Kapital Portfolio As, Zug Branch 1410194438
2) The claimants particulars of claim are vague and fail to disclose any cause of action, they appear to be an abuse of the process in that they fail to deal with the basic rules of pleading in accordance with the CPR even allowing for the constraints of the bulk issue system.
3) The Defendant has no recollection of and makes no admissions regarding the precise purpose of the agreement or of its terms, conditions and other provisions or what would constitute a breach thereof.
4) The Defendant denies that the agreement was a properly executed agreement and denies committing a breach thereof.
5) No documents supporting the claims in the particulars have been offered and despite a request to the claimant via the Court on three separate occasions for further information, none has been forthcoming and as a result I cannot plead in defence to the claim.
6) The claimant pleads that the claim is brought under a regulated credit agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974, yet the claimant claims statutory interest which the claimant should surely know it is not entitled to by virtue of the County Courts (Interest on Judgment Debts) Order 1991 (No. 1184 (L. 12)) in particular section 2 (3) which expressly prohibits such an award.
7) The defendant contends that point 6 in itself amounts to a clear abuse of the process as the claimant would know the law and is trying to bring a claim for monies which it is not entitled to and knows that this is the case.
8) Without clarification of the claimants claim, the defendant is extremely disadvantaged and the claimants claim appears without merit.
9) Further to that above 8 paragraphs, the defendant is unable to plead effectively or at all.

Do you really want to know what is wrong with this, if not i will save my breath.

D

[Streetwise]

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

Since it seems that you cant be bothered to look it up yourself
Section 127(3)

(3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a)
(signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the
prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the
prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the
prescribed manner

You missed a bit out, after signed by debtor or hirer and by or on behalf of the creditor or owner.

[Streetwise]

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

Since it seems that you cant be bothered to look it up yourself
Section 127(3)

(3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a)
(signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the
prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the
prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the
prescribed manner

Section 61 (1) (a).Legislation.gov.uk

[Guest]

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

Section 61 (1) (a).Legislation.gov.uk

This one

61 Signing of agreement
(1) A regulated agreement is not properly executed unless—


(a) a document in the prescribed form itself containing all the prescribed
terms and conforming to regulations under section 60(1) is signed in the
prescribed manner both by the debtor or hirer and by or on behalf of the
creditor or owner, and

Sanctions for none compliance contained in this one

65 Consequences of improper execution
(1) An improperly -executed regulated agreement is enforceable against the debtor or hirer
on an order of the court only

Court order can
(and would) be obtained by this one

127 Enforcement orders in cases of infringement

(1) In the case of an application for an enforcement order under—
(a) section 65(1)(improperly executed agreements),

With reference to this subsection

(i) prejudice caused to any person by the contravention in question, and the
degree of culpability for it; and

Not this one

3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a)
(signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the
prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the
prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the
prescribed manner).

D

[Guest]

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

You missed a bit out, after signed by debtor or hirer and by or on behalf of the creditor or owner.

Nope doesn't say anything of the sort.
This was all argued many years ago and is supported by shed loads of case law.
Won't argue about this with you any more you will have to learn the hard way it seems.

D