Hello Folks ! Things are moving at a brisk pace, cannot say too much at this point. I will be keeping the details off this Thread for the time being, as will be explained in due course. As it happens, it appears they also elected to print this whole CAG Thread out and use it against me in an attempt to increase their costs. This was a breach of my Litigation Privilege. It also shows how desperate they are. Matters from here on are strictly 'tactical'.

This case was interesting. The Claimant - a Litigant in Person - lost the case entirely against the Bank and it's top notch firm of London Lawyers who came down on London Fees to Birmingham. On costs however, the above loser was required to pay only 25% of the 150K of costs claimed. This was due to the banks conduct on failing to disclose for two years and also for claiming disproportionate costs etc. by using Barristers on London rates in a provincial Court. That case is a potentially useful reference - with the caveat in latin that I'm "Non gratum anus rodentum" - (lit - 'Not worth a rats a**')

Thanks DD - hope it helps others.

Interestingly, Amex were co-respondents in above Court of Appeal case which it lost.The Court of Appeal used s173(1) as part of its reasoning. Amex, sensibly did not join it's remaining co-respondents in appealing the decision to the House of Lords - where they lost again. There was a second issue in which Amex were joined to OFT. That doesn't affect the above rulings.

Hello Folks ! In support of my Witness Statement (at post #982 ) :- I've reinforced my Authorities Bundle to include case law from the Court of Appeal and House of Lords which both confirm s173(1) prevents contracting out of the provisions in the Act if it is not for the protection of the debtor. The case law was served on Pishcon today and also filed in Court in person - the Court Staff updated my Authorities Bundle in front of me. The case law details are in the attached doc. Pishcon 13 May 2010.doc

Thanks

Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law and litigation privilege Please see the following copyright statement :- This thread exists exclusively to assist me in preparing litigation against another party. As such it is almost certainly protected by litigation privilege. The legal requirements for claiming litigation privilege are well established and are not in dispute. Communications between a solicitor or the client and a third party will be protected by litigation privilege where the communications are for the dominant purpose of obtaining legal advice in connection with, or conducting, litigation reasonably in prospect: Re Highgate Traders Limited [1984] BCLC 151. Copyright Information: All information contained in this website, associated websites, and forum posts are copyright Reclaim The Right Ltd. If you wish to use the information on this site for publication elsewhere, then please email the administrators for permission.

Ok folks - I'm adding a litigation privilege statement in the next post (Courtesy of cagger dad) for reference in my user signature. This is because the other party have previously attempted to misrepresent matters on here.

You're perfectly right - their conduct and various inconsistencies are well documented. This includes includes slurs they made in open Court upon the integrity of my Expert and myself ,in fact their barrister received a verbal warning from the judge. Basically the particular issue (the doc) would fall into 2 basic entities - liability and costs. Liability is one thing and which will be affected by the Default Notice issue, but costs would be affected by their conduct in this litigation - especially their failing to produce the evidence for nearly one year. Their conduct has already been commented on by at least one Circuit Judge already. In the meantime, the Default Notice, ECHR issues and the unsuitability of penalty charge / unfair terms, for determination at Summary Judgment on this credit card are going to be argued out at Appeal. The background is that the claim remains fatally flawed.

I sent them a copy of the report.

Anyone else got a problem opening the doc ?

I received this letter from 'pishcon a few days ago. Anyone read the story of Troy ? I served the following reply on them today - see attached doc. Pishcon 4 May 2010.doc

I will update as things progress. The next hearing date is 25th May.

Intelligence received strongly strongly suggests that there may be a high level of "LODGE_ACTIVITY" to come and much "LINE_DRAWING". I can make no further comment on that.

Hi DD, In short the answer is yes. In more detail :- The 14 day change for Default Notices came into effect on 1st October 2006. This was for Schedule 2 the Consumer Credit Act 2006 Amendments to the CCA 1974. See the link below and scroll down to Schedule 2 :- http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2006/uksi_20061508_en.pdf The actual text in the Consumer Credit Act 2006 is below :- Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14) The Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) (Amendment) Regulations 2006 (No. 3094) says the change from 7 to 14 comes into effect on 19 December 2006 :- The Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) (Amendment) Regulations 2006 Basically the primary legislation (The Consumer Credit Act) will take precedence over the Regulations. So the change over date of 1st Oct. 2006 will apply if there is any doubt.

Good luck tomorrow ;-)

Thanks for your comments folks. The 14 days notice period is yet another issue and one which will effect people across the board - so it's more important from that point of view. I'll use both. All comments welcomed.

It's also wrong in the amount of arrears demanded. They can't demand as arrears on 19th June money which is due for payment in the future on 29th June. That only leaves amounts which are arrears from the previous month i.e. £275.80 which was outstanding for payment. Anything else was not yet arrears. Problem, is that £140 was cleared on 18th June. Which brought the existing arrears down to £135 odd pounds. This puts the arrears demanded in the Default Notice as being well over 100% greater than the actual arrears - and bang into the middle of 'Woodchester & Swayne territory.

Thanks for the offer gez. I suspect if they were reading this the first thing they'd do is squeal that I'd put you up to it ! lol. joking apart did you keep the envelope ?

This was my concern over the various anomalies including the hidden impressions mentioned earlier. Nothing has been straightforward over this matter. The chain of events offered in various Witness Statements has also been inconsistent. Nevertheless I have to accept the experts findings and move on. I need to focus on the Default Notice, which if not as sensational, is potentially fatal to their claim.

HI SB ! Good comments - I've made a note of them. Thanks.

HI Middenmess ! A hidden impression will be obtained from using ESDA (electro static detection analysis), basically a technique to detect any tiny impressions made on a document from say a pen, but which do not have ink on them, and which may not be visible to the naked eye. I think the technique uses tiny iron filings. It's often used to detect forgeries.

Thanks Cab. You are right of course. I'll need to scan their skeleton argument at some point. They were trying to suggest the Practice Direction was outdated and no longer in use.

Here are the statements and DN referred to in the Witness Statement. Statement 5 May 07 Statement 4 Jun 07 Statement 4 Jul 07 Default Notice 19 Jun 07

The agreement is only one issue in the Appeal. I served the following Witness Statement on Pishcon yesterday along with the Expert Report. See Attachment. Witness Statement Apr 14 2010 v2.doc