Re: Small claims court statute barred personal loan debt
Sadly this is what happens when you have a LIP (litigant in person) against legally represented claimants. They know all the relevant case law which your average LIP wouldn't be aware of, otherwise you could have argued that, BMW v Hart referred to an unregulated agreement with specific contractual terms and those terms were not a part of your agreement. That wasn't a matter of evidence but interpretation of the law and DJs are not consumer credit specialists. No doubt the BMW argument was put forward by the claimant rather than the judge, and you were not armed with the knowledge to argue.
The £20 payment is a matter of evidence and would require more than a screenshot, I can also do one right one showing you paid £20 last night, that's not evidence.
Originally posted by JunoJuno
View Post
The £20 payment is a matter of evidence and would require more than a screenshot, I can also do one right one showing you paid £20 last night, that's not evidence.



they're a bit confusing those terms, clause G to me though is just a additonal sum to be paid for committing a breach in the first place. Another key difference here is that in BMW, they actually gave notice to terminate and the wording of clause D ix is a bit ambiguous in saying that it may terminate the agreement but doesn't say how. Therefore, someone who has shown their intention not to pay would amount to a repudiatory breach. To accept this they must give notice to terminate, which I don't believe has happened in this case, if it did then BMW might be relevant subject to the date of notice.
Comment