sorry yes the bank hol transfers to monday so the remedy date would be 18th first class 20th second class!

17th May if first class- 19th if second class saturday sunday and bank holidays are not counted as working days for delivery but ARE counted during the remedy period

write to them by snail mail fax or e mail- its up to you what you want is a formalised agreement so that there is no argument later on as to what was agreed (IMO)

i would keep sending the £20 BUT still get them to confirm the arrangement in writing- if they dont then threaten to go back to court and get the arrangement finalised

yes, do it as per 5/ in the order if not disclosed what hold has the claimant got on your ex?

you are getting some good advice here i was catching up and saw a conflicting story that your ex was not prepared to make a statement- then you said he would attend court and give a statemtn which is it? if he is saying that she approached him and asked him to give a false statement then you should consider a subpeona for his attendance- how would he feel about this? # get your evidence together (there is not much on your part) and then you must as the order says :- 5. each party shall serve any request for clarification or further information based on any documents disclosed or statement served by another party no later than 14 days after disclosure or service. any such request shall be dealt within 14 days of service. get your application off to the court to force compliance with your request for proof of the £23,000 paid into your account and the other £1214. your witness statement is just a story of the events told in person- what YOU perceived with all of your senses. keep it simple and to the point and avoid any temptation to "slag her off" go back and doubly doubly doubly check your bank accounts - if necessary go to your bank personally and ask them to check again i admit to having a continuing uneasy feeling about your version of how much money she paid into your account her sols should have realised by now that there is a £2000 discrepancy (or they are very very stupid) so that makes me wonder you MUST personally visit the bank and sort this out in your own mind and not just rely on phone calls

it is a very interesting question GH one could argue that if the debtor was the first to suggest termination- then he would have to immediately repay all borrowing whereas if the creditor was the first to suggest it- then the debtor should be allowed to continue repaying monthly payments as per the original agreement if they BOTh suggested it at the same time (agreed by mutual consent) then they have (IMO) agreed to "vary" or "amend" the agreement and the CCA requires a new agreement- signed by both parties to reflect the varied or amended agreement

HOw can something be used to enforce if it is not admitted in evidence? this question makes no sense! please elaborate

apart from the wrongful use of the word rescission instead of repudiation- it is as clear as a pikestaff what the thrust and intent of your letter was your letter did (contrary to what the judge said) tell the creditor that his termination was nonsence you should read my footer but i would say you have very good grounds for appeal- the judge has IMO misdirected himself and has mixed and matched legislation and common law to your disadvantage

now now peter- you have hoisted yourself by your own petard by making statements that you have a photographich memory of written documents so let me remind you of the one you rit yourself Is an inafective DN evidence? Thought the fact that it was ineffective prohibited it from being evidence , or from being part of any enforceent. Something about not being able to take the next step? now you are turning the question from whether an invalid DN is admissable as evidence to one which is whether it is able to enforce an agreement we all know that an invalid DN cannot enforce an agreement (elementary my dear watson)- only a valid one can! now can you please answer the question without ducking and diving around it or the donation will have to go up

a person could "handle" stolen goods "unwittingly"- he would lose the goods to the original owner but not be charged with any offence if he bought or received them in "good faith" i think the debtors unlawfulness could be described as "unwitting" since he expects the creditor to be truthful and as the DN is a prescribed document in which parliament has decreed the creditor must complete and serve "with precision" (and it has been ruled "with no room for error") then the debtor was truly misled even a 12 year old schoolboy could understand that concept- are county court judges that removed from society- that they cant?

i don't doubt you- proof positive then that the law works.............after all wouldnt creditors be champing at the bit to get their second cherry bites in if it did not!! why not put £20 quid in anyway..............deduct it from what you owe a creditor- they wont mind:-)

i notice PB that you are silent on the challenge to your contention that invalid DN's cannot be admitted as evidence do i take it that you concede the point, or are you still thinking about a response it IS important- for the sake of other caggers that this hitherto unknown but vital point of law you have raised ...is clarified as it could have enormous significance on the conduct of many cagger defences

no. it was about his own personal experience whereby a creditor sought repossession of his car via a faulty DN in any event if you beleived that you were referring to one mentioned in a surfaceagent post- that would hardly be the "Usual" reason for a DN- which is what you suggested come on Peter- stop digging and concede a point when you know it is lost- I know its hard to be humble- when youre perfect in every way ............

well said- i think if i may say- where alot of the "debate" has arisen is in the use of the term "the creditor may demand" I am sure that most of us thought that folk who were saying that the creditor "could demand" meant that the creditor could "legally enforce" such a demand when in fact it now transpires that those folk do ACCEPT that the "demand" by the creditor is not legally enforceable. of course a creditor can "demand" anything he likes- just like you and i can- its just that most of us make a presumption before making such statements that what we are talking about are legally enforceable, rather than fanciful demands- if that makes sense

NO usually it is about a bank not providing funds for a project and the other party loosing out because they were unable to either purchase equiptment or proceed. The debtor then sues the bank or creditor for repudiationg the agreement and for the losses involved in loss of ttrade. where on this thread has anyone ever mentioned a dispute along the lines above? come on peter- why are you talking about banks not providing funds for projects? this is a consumer advice group which predominantly addresses consumer credit issues not commercial transactons at least try to keep the ball in the field of play! i cannot ever recall on this site- reading of a cagger who has attempted to claim that a creditor has unlawfully repudiated an agreement by invoking a general term allowing the creditor to terminate In fact the ONLY time i have ever heard mention of it was in the Amex v Brandon case where the creditor "changed tack" mid Default stream in an effort (succesful at the moment) to win the day the only ones i have ever seen (or commented upon personally) have been where the debtor has been in default and the creditor has mucked up the s87 process with respect- it is yourself that is becoming circular in your arguments

then i apologise- for i have not seen a transcipt of PH's letter and had not realised that she had simply refused to acknowledge the agreement and repudiated it i was under the impression that she had referred to the creditors unlawful repudiation- and accepted that slapped hand for me for not reading the actual letter ( i presume that you have!)

really? i thought that most (in fact i would chance my arm and say 99.9999999999999% ) were about the creditor failing to allow the debtor to continue repaying funds he had ALREADY lent to the debtor- on a monthly basis as prescribed in the agreement itself!!

No it does not make the point irrelavant, if it did why have you been arguoing against it for the last 12 months. because i thought (as i suspect many others did) in the absence of the bit i mentioned- that you were arguing that the creditor had a LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE right to simply terminate the agreement and claim immediate payment of sums not yet due dont be sad...thats one long running argument out of the way:lol:

i think the original poster was a family member posting on behalf of getmedebtfree........................and now getmendebtfree has joined the forum in their own right!

if the claimant fails to respond to a CPR31.14 request for documents mentioned in the POC- the next step is to make an application to court to force their compliance.. not to send other requests to the creditor

the first thing i would do is write and ask them why they cannot produce a CA. if they have failed to comply with a s78 request you could make the request under CUPTR if there is no agreement then there is no proof of what interest should be charged in any event i would reserve making offers until such time as offers need to be made , which (IMO) is not now

halleluhah for once i agree with PB- and in any event do not forget that this will not be a BLANKET decision on remedying a bad DN - and that as always every case turns on its own merits so the suggestion that all DN defences are now to be consigned to the waste bin- on the basis of one or two individual decisions is a bit wide of the mark

i think you will find that they can claim s69 or contractual interest from the ccj date to the date of the charging order

well it might not be that bad- creditors have ALWAYS been able to re serve a second DN against a bad first one...............PROVIDED they do so before terminating the agreement. so the judgement may not necessarily be anything other than confirmation of this principle whether it states that a creditor can continue to re serve DN's in ANY circumstances- i doubt but lets wait and see