Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×
Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

jackreacher

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    357

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by jackreacher

  1. jackreacher
    Read from para1 to I think 28.. Importantly ; para 15 shows you the prescribed terms that 'Must' be in your agreement. (so far they are not) para 21 and 22 show that the Agreement is crap and the debt can not be enforced against you. Check that Clause 2.2 mentioned in the Default notice refers to something relevant in your terms and conditions. If it does not this will also make the DN bad as it refers to nothing and casts doubt upon their evidence. harrison V link explores your Agreement and at para 55 and 7? states not having 14 days makes the DN bad..your Judge should follow this if you show him. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2011/23.html para 11 is about a bad DN and why it is not de minimis to help your argument.
  2. jackreacher
    The agreements were signed after 2012 or you paid until then?
  3. jackreacher
    Hi Metalman..unfortunately I have no experience in mediation (I am too stubborn) looks like you have your hands full of old debts, are they all pre April 2007? Theres not a lot to gain by just having 1 CCJ instead of 2. if non are statute barred or unlikely to be by court, then there are a few ways to play it and better people to advise you. Shamrocker advocates settling if poss. PM him but get him to post as I am interested as to how things are played now.
  4. jackreacher
    Sounds like a plan .. interesting to chew the fat over approaches. The courts seem to appreciate a more open cards on the table approach. 'They had no excuse as we had written several times before the hearing so they had due warning' The judge agreed they won the case.
  5. jackreacher
    I also agree what MB proposes should happen.. However The reality for me and many others was different. For my first 3 cases I played it the 'don't tell them' way... No real joy the claimants didn't give a monkeys about the orders and neither did the judge despite him writing them. I do think if I was represented it would have held some sway but as an LIP ? 'They had no excuse as we had written several times before the hearing so they had due warning' The judge agreed they won the case. I did a similar approach for the wife over the original full agreement with a similar successful result. That's not to say the same thing would definitely happen the next time, but I personally would adopt the open approach for myself should the need occur. At the end of the day they either will be producing the agreement or not, despite any letter I write...the letter just puts things in your favour if they don't.
  6. jackreacher
    In my opinion always best to do it this way,, Firstly it may be the thing that makes them pull out...then on the day when they claim to have overlooked that particular point your case is based on the actual Originals and they have brought genuine Original copies instead ,,you can then turn round with a letter and hand it to the judge. Forcing the judge to make a decision. He has ordered them to be produced and they have disobeyed despite the defendant reminding them. If you just turn up on the day without that letter the judge is less likely to adjourn or give you the win, when they have after all brought so called genuine original copies. Also If they are claiming they are genuine copies of the original there needs to be a signed sheet confirming this by the department head. I can give you more details of this nearer the time . Hopefully this wont happen. The more points you can get in your favour the better.
  7. jackreacher
    The Claimant has been ordered to bring the Originals..not copies to court on the day . Write to the claimants solicitor pointing this out, thereby making them aware you know they must bring the original documentation and you need the originals as you believe what they have provided is not the same agreement as Originally signed.
  8. jackreacher
    Keep demanding the original documents....you will note at point 6 the court has ordered the ORIGINAL documents are brought to court. Keep contesting the prescribed terms and conditions are not what you signed and they need to bring the originals.. Do not let them bring anything other than the ORIGINALS.. Write and email them and point out the Court has ordered the Originals and you demand they obey the Courts orders.
  9. jackreacher
    The above is only if you get forced to court..
  10. jackreacher
    human glitch..lol!
  11. jackreacher
    Blimey i jumped off this thread as others seemed to be better able to take care of you // regarding the default notice can you check clause 1 and 8 actually refer to what they say are there. Also as it stands the DN is defective as it must come with another sheet of paper namely A fact Sheet s88 (4a) of the CCA this is not provided in their evidence. You need to tell the judge you distinctly remember the DN notice coming (perhaps you have a copy that matches theirs!) made a copy and there was no s88(4A) notice included.. .consequently you put the claimant to strict proof that it was. heres a case that won on this very point Was the default notice valid? Under section 87 of the Consumer Credit Act a default notice must be served before any termination or demand for earlier payment. Section 88 of the Act provides that a default notice must be in the prescribed form. The Claimant served a default notice by post of 12th October 2012. The Defendant says that the notice was defective because it gave the wrong figure for the amount due and no OFT fact sheet was included. The Claimant explains that the difference is the amount by which the Defendant’s credit limit had been exceeded and that error was detrimental to the Claimant rather than to the Defendant. It was the Claimant’s case that the OFT fact sheet would have been included with the default notice and in the event that it was not there was a clear statement at the end of the notice that the Defendant should contact the Claimant so that the sheet could be sent. T he Defendant denied that the OFT fact sheet was sent with the default notice, stated that she did not request the sheet and candidly admitted that she might not have read the whole letter. No evidence was adduced before me actively saying the fact sheet had been enclosed. The Claimant invited me to conclude that the defects in the default notice were de minimis but I do not agree. The whole point of a default notice is that the debtor should know exactly what is owed and it is irrelevant that any defect would be to the detriment of the creditor. I accept the evidence of the Defendant that no OFT fact sheet was enclosed and words inviting her to send for the missing sheet are not sufficient to remedy the defect of its absence. It is unfortunately the case that many debtors in the position of the Defendant in this case do not read to the end of letters thus the importance of documents being enclosed.
  12. jackreacher
    Wow! weird ...
  13. jackreacher
    Can you post up the default notice you have received please. As it stands the agreement is definitely bog roll and the arguments are pretty easy to understand and argue. I don't have Carey in front of me but I think Carey V hsbc right near the beginning para 6 -23 or thereabouts sets it all out. At para 15 it sets out the Prescribed terms . These are not present in the documents they claim are Your agreement! Then at para 21 it explains that 'no court can make an enforcement if these prescribed terms are missing' For the no prescribed terms defence this will be your easiest way of proving it to any Judge. They all know Waksman an would not dare go against his understanding of the law. have a read and come back with questions.. Plenty of better and more knowledgeable people than me..just trying to help. Oh! Just wondering why this is not statute barred? Regards Jack
  14. jackreacher
    where is exhibit SLW1 ... SLW5 ? Are those actually blank as per your posting? default Notice? The right to cancel notice is correct for a s78 request (as per Carey) but there should be a more fuller cancellation notice on the copy of the actual document.
  15. jackreacher
    Looks like they are struggling to find the paper work they need to continue. This will make for an easy defence or they may not go to court if handled properly. Fingers crossed.
  16. jackreacher
    I an thinking of defences for you. have you received full response to s78 request? When was the last time you paid or acknowledged the debt. Hve you got records to prove? In your initial response to have you received a default notice? you say "I don't think so". I would immediately ask them for full and accurate copy of your default notice as you have never received one. I see it is an AA credit Card.. Was the agreement signed on banks premises ..how was it obtained?
  17. jackreacher
    What does clause 18 say? Seems unreasonable to me. You are doing everything you can to pay back. You are not behind under your new agreement..Yet you end up with a marker ? The DCA only want to be parasitic..they have no power.
  18. jackreacher
    I understand prescribed terms and Carey and with countless appearences in front of a judge and never losing I can assure you you I have argued the claimant needs to provide a true full agreement with all the terms and conditions as well as the FRC prescribed terms... however it is up to the defendant to state what they have provided unders78 is not true and why..in which case it is turns to the claimant to provide the real documentation. So if 10c is wrong the defendant states this and puts the claimant to strict proof what they have supplied is genuine and the claimant will have to find a full copy of the original signed agreement..(see Carey) All of it, as 10c is not in FRC. So it is important ref s78. Non compliance with s78 if argued properly means the case can not continue until rectified. In my case aginst MBNA (having won a few previous) they had two barristers and a well known legal representative of the claimant. Using Carey, they all had to agree I was correct, the case was adjourned for months while they found a true copy of my agreement not just the prescribed terms. The judge two months later brought this up in his 2 hour verdict saying I was correct. I won but this was important because of costs and the claimant knew the rules but had not followed them. Had I lost they would have been liable up to the last hearing. its up to you but this is what I found to be the reality of the matter regarding s78.
  19. jackreacher
    I don't have any idea what you are on about, this defendants problem is clearly post 2007. I never mentioned any of the above sections for that reason. I am fully aware of Carey and have used it many times. You have missed Dx's point about 10C. S78 is a duty to supply a true copy of the whole of your agreement at the time of signing...(amongst other things). Carey v HSBC made it very clear that the creditor needs to provide a true copy of the executed agreement, and where the original had been varied either a copy of each discrete term that had been varied or a copy of the current terms and conditions as the contract stands at the date of the request. The Creditor does not need to send a photo copy of the original agreement although many people still think (wrongly) that they do. The High Court in Carey ruled that the underlying purpose of s78 is for information, to give you the info you need about the terms of your contract. So a photo copy of the original isn’t needed, but what is needed is the creditor must produce in an easily legible format the 'terms of your contract'... The point Dx is makingand I am highlighting on his behalf , is there is a mistake in the provided T and C's (10C), therefore it is not a 'true copy' . hence the need to read up on s78.
  20. jackreacher
    Thanks Shamrocker, good to see you to and Wow! you have become a legal genius in my abscence. I am just catching up on the changes and in particular how you can defend post april 2007 agreements. Do you know of a useful thread I could read? I don't have any legal challenges myself but SB is coming up on a lot soon and I am expexcting to have to fight my corner. ..although only 1 is post 2007 My latest victory was against a Cardiff speeding camera with the highest catch rate in the country. Postjoining on a thread is on here somewhere. The Cag help was self important non existent and mocking (not like in this section).. won anyway.
  21. jackreacher
    Please post it all up hide any personnel details... We will probably find mistakes in it..this is important. Did they send the default notice copy.
  22. jackreacher
    Metalman ..you need to read a few threads and understand what is happenning. DX is giving you the clues. If they don't supply you with your full agreement including the original Full terms and conditions they are in trouble. Find a thread as to why T&C's are important. S78 is a good place.
  23. jackreacher
    I have withdrawn my comments as I am Not able to help above and beyond the information given, and leave you in the good hands of Andy, Dx and shamrocker.. Padawan
  24. jackreacher
    I didn't feel the need to explain the whole scenario given this was not a team effort. I am grateful for your kind words. But as you ask, my initial feeling was obviously ****ed off with a ticket when I was not aware of the speed limit. I do drive for a living and have not come across this before. I have always been happy to fight the peoples corner if I feel there is justification and the amount of people caught by speed cameras in Cardiff compared to every other city got my spider senses tingling. I made a video coming off the 50mph motorway to past the point of the speed camera following the exact route provided by their photographic evidence. It was clear from 4 lanes out I could not be expected to see the 1, 30mph sign 10 meters before the speed camera. It would be completely against the speed cameras intention of safe driving, having to crane my neck and as buses ran on the inside lane it may well be hidden anyway. I also argued that there should be speed limit signs on either side of a 4 lane highway in order to inform drivers,( if they really wanted to slow drivers down). Their own evidence being that all they had to do was supply 1 speed sign, there after the distance between the lamp posts would indicate a 30mph speed limit. In a friendly business like, off the record discussion they agreed with my points and withdrew any prosecution as it headed to court. As I understand it they will be putting up speed signs so that the inside and outside lanes will be able to see. They will be placed shortly after entering onto the 30mph Rd and with plenty of distance before the speed camera. I now make regular trips to see my daughter in Cardiff and will be keeping an eye on the situation. I personally see nothing wrong with 'vindictive crowing'..when someone says "M = motorway" Instead of telling people why they can't do something against something that is clearly wrong.. we should fight together to get things changed. I didn't feel I got the support I needed here. I am not an educated man ..I needed help! We should have put our heads together and won this together. Regards Jack
  25. jackreacher
    Thanks for some totally crap answers.. Cardiff withdrew their intended prosecution when I pointed out that there should be speed signs on both sides of the carriageway given it was 4 lanes wide. No points, no fine. Honestly if you don't know, don't give out smug answers you make your selves look stupid. I pat myself on the back for fighting alone.. which I have never had to do before on this forum! M also stands for Muppet

Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...