Hi Jim I haven't heard that anyone else took this route sucessfully. Wise to keet the correspondence, etc. Probably 7 years is enough though.

Am I missing something here? If the company wasn't incorporated until after the car was purchesed, then the limited company has nothing to do with any of this. What matters is what was the state of things at the time of purchase, surely. It seems to me that Gornal Motor Company LTD didn't exist and that Gornal Motor Company at the time of purchase msut have been the owner 'trading as' Gornal Motor Company. In that case, the owner is personally liable. His limited liability only comes into effect after the incorporation of Gornal Motor Company LTD and is not retrospective. Just for the avoidance of doubt Gornal Motor Company and Gornal Motor Company LTD are two completely different things. THeir only relationship is that they have the same owner and (almost) the same name.

Great result Pete - title changed to reflect chenged status

As to your question about litigation, who do you sue? If the garage is a limited company, you sue the company. If it is someone trading as a sole trader, you sue them by name. If it is a company, you should use their registered address - you can get most information you need from the comapnies house website.

It's a fair point P1 but we would still advise much more caution than we would have done a year ago. Courts have shown themselves very unsympathetic to consumers.

You would think, wouldn't you. Unfortunately, judges are increasingly refusing to deem agreements unenforceable.

I know this may not be what you want to hear but please take note of what dx100uk said. There have been a number of appeal court cases in the last year which have completely changed the way the CCA 1974 is interpreted. It has been ruled that a reconstituted agreement completely satisfies s77/s78 and, effectively, that such an agreement is all that a creditor needs to supply to prove a debt. Further, it is also clear that courts will not declare a credit agreement unenforceable merely because there are technical breaches of the 1983 regulations, including the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983. PrioritOne, I know you have success in using s127, but the world has changed. We need to be much more cautious now. Our advice now is that users should only rely in court on other factors such as faulty DNs (although I suspect this may go the same way as the 1983 regs), mis-sold PPI or, in the case of rolling credit agreements (credit cards, catalogues), default or late payment charges.

Mark Concerning recording, the main area where it comes up on CAG is to do with phone calls. The advice we have been given is that you can record phone calls but you may not share them with a 3rd party without the other party's permission. However, you can use calls to or from you in a court case without having obtained the other party's permission. That seems to agree with what you have posted above.

That would be true in the US but not here

If you are having problems with payday loans, particularly if you are a student, please would you contact me by PM Thanks Steven

You don't need to apologise for starting a new thread - that is the standard CAG thing to do. CPR 31.14 doesn't apply to small claims and it is probable that a judge would not order full disclosure for a SC case either. As they have supplied , I think a court (particularly in the current climate) would rule that they have complied with their obligations under s78 of the CCA 1974. Recent cases have ruled that that is effectively all you are entitled too anyway - a request under CPR or a request for disclosure in directions with the AQ are very unlikely to be granted by the court after these cases. Your only defence is if there is a gross deficiency in the agreement, for example, mis-sold PPI or late payment charges, or the way you have been treated, for example, no DN. Recent cases have shown that courts have no patience with claims based on technicalities in wording/terms/etc in credit agreements. You could try spamheed's suggestion and reply with a counter-offer. If there are late payment charges, these are unlawful and you should counter-claim for them. You can issue a counter claim with the AQ.

Well done Mark - thread title changed as requested

Part 8 is also used for things like personal injury claims, harassment, assignments of contracts. There is a complete list of cases where part 8 must be used here

It may not need a right to cancel box- it depends. It certainly has a "read this carefullly to find out aboutyour rights" box which is almost certainly enough - it may not be a cancellable agreement. Look at the appropriate schedule of the Cojnsumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 for details.

See post #220 What fork-it says is largely correct (the directors don't own the server). This site exists to help its users and has rules to make that possible. Again, as fork-it says, we have to be very careful about libel and any potentially libelous remark is removed immediately and the poster informed. It would be in no-ones interest for the site or its owners to be sued. Other rules exist and are enforced to make sure that everyone benefits from the site.

Any legitimate means is open to them to try and persuade non-paying debtors to pay up. And remember, CAG is not in the business of helping people avoid legitimate debts.

See post #10548

Sorry, I don't understand the question

In the present 'climate', not having the original may not matter too much. Courts are more interested in whether you had the money or not. If you did, they don't seem to care about any of the paperwork

What Bazaar has said is basically true. Unfortunately, courts are allowing reconstituted agreements and recent evidence is that they will not order an original under CPR either. There was a case in the last couple of months where a consumer was told (I think by the court of appeal, although it may just have been the high court) that they were not entitled to an original coopy having been sent a reconstituted one. THe grounds were that a reconstrituted agreement is all that is required under s 78(1) of the CCA 1974.

Good - so some progress

A recent court of appeal judgement has ruled that it is 14 days from the date of posting. So the DN is not invalid. Sorry. (2008 was a leap year). I keep pointing out that recent judgements mean that you are extrmeley unlikely to succeed if all you have is technical breaches of the CCA 1974 and associated regulations. The court will ask "did you borrow the money" and will find for the claimant if the answer is "yes" whatever the breaches (almost) of the CCA 1974.

Possibly, but not enough to make the agreement unenforceable.

I had a look at the agreement posted in post #6. It has all the prescribed terms (under "details of the account") and a signature. It is therefore properly executed and therefore enforceable. Are there any late payment charges? If so, you should counterclaim for them, the interest levied on them and imterest on both either s69 interest or compound interest at their APR in restitution. You will find that interest from 1988 tots up quite nicely. Have a look at my Goldfish thread.

I am currently doing battle with NW too. Their credit card late charges are clearly unlawful, which is why they pay them back without much of a fight