Capital one credit card-Lowell- Bryan carter

[Berniethebolt]

Re: Capital one credit card-Lowell- Bryan carter

I have to agree that this is not a case anyone wants to shout about be it is important to realise what can happen in the real world. It may have been that the defendant was not effective under pressure or not very good at expressing herself or of course it may be that she could not actually recall the events and was trying to give an account, either way the judge was not won over.

[nemesis45]

Re: Capital one credit card-Lowell- Bryan carter

I have to agree that this is not a case anyone wants to shout about be it is important to realise what can happen in the real world. It may have been that the defendant was not effective under pressure or not very good at expressing herself or of course it may be that she could not actually recall the events and was trying to give an account, either way the judge was not won over.

As you admit not a precedent and as such imo not worth disrupting a thread to start another endless discussion, many such decisions such as this are made for more times than they are seen on this forum or any other.

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Capital one credit card-Lowell- Bryan carter

I have to agree that this is not a case anyone wants to shout about be it is important to realise what can happen in the real world. It may have been that the defendant was not effective under pressure or not very good at expressing herself or of course it may be that she could not actually recall the events and was trying to give an account, either way the judge was not won over.

It is important to be aware of the need to make the right impression and I often make a point of asking people how they opened the account because if they want to use s.127(3) for a pre-2007 account they are going to have to go back to that time, sadly most people can't remember a thing which doesn't help. :mmph: Unenforceability under ss.77-79 which is what we use 95%+ of the time here, is only temporary whilst they can't obtain the documents but it you look at the cases that have been to court and won, you'll find most relied on the defendant's own recollection of events and records, such as having kept the original DN, because it's very rare to be able to get a copy of it upon request since banks don't keep copies. :ohwell:

[Berniethebolt]

Re: Capital one credit card-Lowell- Bryan carter

As you admit not a precedent and as such imo not worth disrupting a thread to start another endless discussion, many such decisions such as this are made for more times than they are seen on this forum or any other.

No need to start an endless discussion, just needs people to accept what can happen.
As an example, if they provide a CCA with a signature and all the PT's yet admit they do not still hold the original , by your argument that is unenforceable , I am sure in many cases it would be

[Amethyst]

Re: Capital one credit card-Lowell- Bryan carter

For Ref:

http://www.restons.co.uk/index.php?id=59

In Arrow Global Guernsey Limited v Frost [2013] EW Misc 27 (CC) Mr Recorder Monty QC awarded judgment to Arrow in a claim for monies owed on a credit card.

The rights under the credit card agreement had been assigned by the original creditor to Arrow. The Defence alleged the creditor had breached a number of obligations under the Consumer Credit Act (“the CCA”).

The original credit card agreement (containing the customer’s signature) could not be located. However, Mr Recorder Monty accepted the evidence provided by Arrow that the credit agreement had been correctly reconstituted by the original creditor. The Judge also ruled the obligation under Section 78 had been complied with and disapproved of the ruling in HFO Capital Limited v Robertson.

The Court accepted the account had been properly terminated by a default notice which allowed the required number of days for compliance. Importantly, the Court ruled that it was, in any event, prepared to apply the “de minimis” principle referred to by the Court of Appeal in American Express v Brandon to the default notice. Accordingly, even if the default notice had not allowed the 14 day period this was only a minor breach and as it had not caused any prejudice to Mrs Frost could not render the default notice defective.

In a wide ranging judgment Recorder Monty also accepted that the contact (and attempted contact) by the creditor did not constitute harassment even though Mrs Frost had requested that telephone contact should cease. In view of the earlier Court of Appeal decision in Roberts v Bank of Scotland [2013] EWCA Civ 882 this is a welcome ruling on what constitutes reasonable/unreasonable activity.

and of course http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...l-County-Court


there has been another one too, quite recently, will see if I can find it.

Basically Recons are completely fine, so long as they are the right recon ( surprising how often they just aren't -), and contain the PT. Hence checking the Version and default charges/interest etc. Only circs a recon wouldn't be fine if there WAS NO AGREEMENT originally (eg case of identity theft) but then you'd be arguing different things anyway.

In this case the Recon is fine. (I will add the whole thing to the library when I get chance)