Jump to content


Marlin claimform - HSBC OD debt ****SETTLED VIA MEDIATION****


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5195 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Just trawled through a huge box of paperwork and found an old bank statement for HSBC and looked at the assignment letter and the account numbers are correct. But now Marlin are using their own reference and no mention of previous account numbers

 

 

Please note there is no account or reference number on the Court papers at all

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 169
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Thats a shame as they have got these wrong in the past ...the POCs in Northampton claims are often vague however its when they get to local court stage that they need to get them correct

Live Life-Debt Free

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have thought they would have sent me the info that I requested by now if they have it. Or perhaps they will hold on until the end of the 14 days to make me think I am not going to get it. Oh well. Only 1 more week to go and then I will be asking for help with a defence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know they arent covered by the CCA, but they surely should provide me with statements etc as a lot of this claimed amount is going to be charges.

 

Are you saying its not worth defending as its an overdraft. I did look around the forum and see that you can apply for the judgement to be stayed cos of the charges. At least thats what I understood.

 

Please can someone help me here

Link to post
Share on other sites

PLEASE CAN SOMEONE HELP

 

I have today received a letter from Mortimer Clarke saying

 

We refer to the above matter and in particular your letter dated 27th October.

 

We believe you are making a Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act 1998

 

We charge a fee of £10 for responding with Data Protection requests.

 

Upon receipt of the above payment we will process your request accordingly.

 

 

----------------------------------------------------------------

 

They held off telling us this until their 14 days ran out, so its now closer to us having to defend our case. I had sent the civil recovery letter. What do I do???

 

Are they admitting they dont have the information and should I just hold fire, or should I write again.

 

Please help me urgently

Link to post
Share on other sites

That letter can go in yur defence pack - if Mortimer Clarke don't know the difference between a SAR request and a CPR Part 18 request for information (~as they are taking you to court and have already filed that is what your request was~) it is an ABUSE OF PROCESS

 

So you could state

 

"The Defendent is embarrassed by the lack of informtion supplied by the claimants and submits a letter to the court whereby the claimants solicitors fail to realise that a SAR request is not needed as it is now subject to court proceedings and they should have known this...."

 

somebody else will be along soon - don't wait to the last minute to do the defence either as they might go for judgement via the back door - send in in asap....

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Sillygirl.

 

I do have plenty of time to do my defense as I sent the CPR letter once they started threatening court action as advised by Martin 3030 and they issued the summons after receiving the CPR letter. They have held on right until the last minute to send the letter asking for my £10 to me. It indicates to me that they dont have the information and are trying to put me off, but who knows.

 

Having said that I dont have the time frame to allow them another 14 days if I do send the £10.

 

I did think they were incorrect in asking me for money, but it did send me into a bit of a tailspin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really 42 man, can you help me with this. I do feel a bit out of my depth here, but want to fight this as had been paying Marlin an affordable amount and feel agreived that they have taken the bully stance. In current circumstances if they took it court, they would probably get less than they are being paid, as a relook at our finances would see our disposable income is much less than was reported when we did our DMP, but what worries me is a Charging Order as keep our mortgage up to date despite money problems.

 

BTW, I am still paying Marlin for this debt via the DMP, should I stop

 

Please help me with my defence, it would be much appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the xxxxxxxx County Court

Claim number

 

 

 

 

 

Between

 

 

xxxxxxxxxxx- Claimant

 

and

 

 

- Defendant

 

 

 

Defence

 

1. I xxxxxxxxx of xxxxxxxxxxxxx am the defendant in this action and make the following statement as my defence to the claim made by xxxxxxxxxxxx

 

2. The Defendant is embarrassed in pleading to the Particulars of Claim as it stands at present, inter alia: -

 

3. The claimants' particulars of claims disclose no legal cause of action and they are embarrassing to the defendant as the claimant's statement of case is insufficiently particularised and does not comply or even attempt to comply with CPR part 16. In this regard I wish to draw the courts attention to the following matters;

 

a) The Particulars of Claim are vague and insufficient and do not disclose an adequate statement of facts relating to or proceeding the alleged cause of action. No particulars are offered in relation to the nature of the contract referred to, the method the claimant calculated any outstanding sums due, or any default notices issued or any other matters necessary to substantiate the claimant's claim.

 

c) No account number is contained within the particulars to enable me to identify the account on which this claim is brought

 

d) A copy of any evidence of both the scope and nature of any default, and proof of any amount outstanding on the alleged accounts, has not been served attached to the claim form.

 

4. Consequently, I deny all allegations on the particulars of claim and put the claimant to strict proof thereof

 

 

The Request for Disclosure

 

8. Further to the case, on xx/xx/2007 I requested the disclosure of information pursuant to the Civil Procedure Rules, which is vital to this case from the claimant. The information requested amounted to any default or termination notices, a transcript of all transactions, including charges, fees, interest, alleged repayments by myself and payments made by the original creditor. Also any other documents the Claimant seeks to rely on, including any default notices or termination notice, and a copy of the Notice of Assignment required to give the claimant a legitimate right of action.

 

9. To Date the claimant has failed to comply with my request under the CPR and I have not received any such documentation requested. As a result it has proven difficult to compose this defence without disclosure of the information requested, especially given that I am Litigant in Person ( a copy of the request is attached to this Defence marked CP)

 

 

 

28. Therefore I respectfully request that the court order the claimant produce the above documents before the court to show the form and content of it and that it complies with the regulations, otherwise the courts powers of enforcement are surely limited in these circumstances

 

 

The Need for a Default notice

 

30. Notwithstanding the matters pleaded above, the claimant must under section 87(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 serve a default notice before they can demand payment under a regulated agreement

 

31. It is neither admitted or denied that any Default Notice in the prescribed format was ever received and the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that said document in the prescribed format was delivered to the defendant

 

32. Notwithstanding point 31, I put the claimant to strict proof that any default notice sent to me was valid. I note that to be valid, a default notice needs to be accurate in terms of both the scope and nature of breach and include an accurate figure required to remedy any such breach. The prescribed format for such document is laid down in Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) and Amendment regulations the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/3237)

 

33. Failure of a default notice to be accurate not only invalidates the default notice (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain and Co - [2001] GCCR 2255) but is a unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the court enforcing any alleged debt, but give me a counter claim for damages Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119

 

 

34. In view of matters pleaded, I respectfully request the court give consideration to striking out the claimants case pursuant to part 3.4

(2) The court may strike out a statement of case if it appears to the court -

 

(a) That the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending

(b) That the statement of case is an abuse of the court's process or is otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings; or

© That there has been a failure to comply with a rule, practice direction or court order.

35. If the court considers it in appropriate to use its case management powers, it is requested that the court order the claimant to produce (need to put in here about the overdraft regulations - see bottom) which complies with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 Section 10. Without production of the requested documents the case can not be dealt with justly and fairly, and will severely prejudice my rights to a fair trial as laid out under Article 6 of the Convention rights contained within the Human Rights Act 1998

 

36. Having instigated these proceedings without any legal basis for doing so, having failed to provide sufficient information required under the pre-trial protocols in order to investigate this claim, or indeed to provide a reasonable time period to investigate this matter, and having failed to investigate a dispute as required by the OFT Debt collection Guidelines I believe the Claimant's conduct amounts to unlawful harassment under section 40 of The Administration of Justice Act 1970. Furthermore, the Claimant's behaviour is entirely vexatious and wholly unreasonable.

 

37. In addition, should it be suggested that the claim falls under the Consumer Credit Act 2006, it is drawn to the courts attention that schedule 3, s11 of the Consumer Credit Act 2006 prevents s15 repealing s127 (3) of the 1974 Act for agreements made before s15 came into effect since the agreement is alleged to have commenced in xx/xx/xxx the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is the relevant act in this case.

 

 

 

 

 

Statement of Truth

 

 

I xxxxxxxxxxx, believe the above statement to be true and factual

 

 

Signed .....................

 

Date

 

 

You will need to add these in somewhere or incorporate this in -

 

Overdrafts come under section 10 of the Consumer Credit Act.

 

10.—(1) For the purposes of this Act—

(a) running-account credit is a facility under a personal credit agreement whereby the debtor is enabled to receive from time to time (whether in his own person, or by another person) from the creditor or a third party cash, goods and services (or any of them) to an amount or value such that, taking into account payments made by or to the credit of the debtor, the credit limit (if any) is not at any time exceeded; and

(b) fixed-sum credit is any other facility under a personal credit agreement whereby the debtor is enabled to receive credit (whether in one amount or by

instalments).

(2) In relation to running-account credit, " credit limit" means, as respects any period, the maximum debit balance which, under the credit agreement, is allowed to stand on the account during that period, disregarding any term of the agreement allowing that maximum to be exceeded merely temporarily.

(3) For the purposes of section 8(2), running-account credit shall be taken not to exceed the amount specified in that subsection (" the specified amount") if—

(a) the credit limit does not exceed the specified amount; or

(b) whether or not there is a credit limit, and if there is, notwithstanding that it

exceeds the specified amount,—

(i) the debtor is not enabled to draw at any one time an amount which, so far as

(having regard to section 9(4)) it represents credit, exceeds the specified

amount, or

(ii) the agreement provides that, if the debit balance rises above a given

amount (not exceeding the specified amount), the rate of the total charge for credit increases or any other condition favouring the creditor or his associate comes into operation, or

(iii) at the time the agreement is made it is probable, having regard to the

terms of the agreement and any other relevant considerations, that the debit balance will not at any time rise above the specified amount.

Overdrafts have part V exemptions (form and content) from the Act. This does not mean that they are exempt from the Act. The credit agreement would be in the form of a letter from the bank stating the aount of credit, the APR, charges and cancellation rights. This type of agreement would not be signed by the debtor.

 

To help clarify matters, this is an extract from a Court case Coutts v Sebestyen and this part is part of the summing up by the Judge in relation to overdrafts and The Consumer Credit Act-

 

THE ACT

It is common ground:

 

 

(a) that the agreement for an overdraft of £2,000 in the terms of Coutts' letter dated 5 April 2002 was a regulated debtor-creditor agreement within the meaning of sections 8 and 13© of the Act, providing for 'running-account credit' within the meaning of section 10(1)(a) of the Act (in effect, a revolving credit within the agreed credit limit of £2,000); and

 

 

(b) that, as such, it was subject to the requirements of Part V of the Act (including the requirements as to documentation set out in sections 57 to 63 of the Act) save and in so far as it was excluded or exempted from such requirements.

 

Section 65 in Part V of the Act provides that an "improperly executed" regulated agreement is unenforceable by the creditor without a court order. It is common ground that a regulated agreement is "improperly executed" for this purpose if the requirements of sections 57 to 63 have not been complied with.

 

Section 74 of the Act provides for the exclusion of certain agreements from Part V. It provides as follows (so far as material):

 

"74. – (1) This part …. does not apply to –

 

(a) ….

(b) a debtor-creditor agreement enabling the debtor to overdraw on a current account, …

© ….

(2) ….

(3) Subsection 1(b) … applies only where the OFT so determines, and such a determination –

(a) may be made subject to such conditions as the OFT thinks fit …

(b) ….

(3A) …. in relation to a debtor-creditor agreement under which the creditor is …. a bank …. the OFT shall make a determination that subsection 1(b) above applies unless it considers that it would be against the public interest to do so.

(4) …."

Part VI of the Act relates to matters arising during the currency of credit agreements. Section 82 in Part VI, which is headed 'Variation of Agreements', provides as follows (so far as material):

"82. – (1) ….

 

(2) Where an agreement (a "modifying agreement") varies or supplements an earlier agreement, the modifying agreement shall for the purposes of this Act be treated as –

 

 

(a) revoking the earlier agreement, and

(b) containing provisions reproducing the combined effect of the two agreements,

and obligations outstanding in relation to the earlier agreement shall accordingly be treated as outstanding instead in relation to the modifying agreement.

 

 

(3) ….

(4) If the earlier agreement is a regulated agreement for running-account credit, and by the modifying agreement the creditor allows the credit limit to be exceeded but intends the excess to be merely temporary, Part V …. shall not apply to the modifying agreement.

(5) ….

 

(6) ….

(7) …."

 

 

THE DETERMINATION

 

The Determination (which is signed by the Director of Fair Trading) is made under section 74(3) of the Act. I set it out in full:

"1. Under the powers conferred upon me by Sections 74(3) and (3A) and 133 of the Consumer Credit 1974, I, the Director General, being satisfied that it would not be against the public interest to do so, hereby revoke with effect from 1st February 1990 the Determination made by me in respect of Section 74(1)(b) and dated 3 November 1983 and now determine that with effect from 1st February 1990 Section 74(1)(b) shall apply to every debtor-creditor agreement enabling the debtor to overdraw on a current account, under which the creditor is a bank.

 

 

2. This Determination is made subject to the following conditions:-

 

 

(a) that the creditor shall have informed my Office in writing of his general intention to enter into agreements to which the Determination will apply;

(b) that where there is an agreement between a creditor and a debtor for the granting of credit in the form of an advance on a current account, the debtor shall be informed at the time or before the agreement is concluded:

- of the credit limit, if any,

- of the annual rate of interest and the charges applicable from the time the agreement is concluded and the conditions under which these may be amended,

of the procedure for terminating the agreement;

and this information shall be confirmed in writing.

© that where a debtor overdraws his current account with the tacit agreement of the creditor and that account remains overdrawn for more than 3 months, the creditor must inform the debtor in writing not later than 7 days after the end of that 3 month period of the annual rate of interest and charges applicable.

3. In this Determination the terms 'creditor' and 'debtor' shall have the meanings assigned to them respectively by Section 189 of [the Act]. The term 'bank' includes the Bank of England and banks within the meaning of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act 1879 as amended."

 

Also we need to fit in somewhere about this case -

 

The Defendant denies that he is liable to the Claimant as alleged in the Particulars of Claim, /at all. It is averred that the Claimant has failed to serve a Notice of Assignment in accordance with section 136(1), of the Law of Property Act 1925, in respect of the alleged debt. The amount detailed in the Claimant’s claim, which is likely to include penalty charges, which are unlawful at Common Law, Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company Ltd v New Garage and Motor Company Ltd [1915], under The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Accordingly, the inclusion of penalty charges in the purported Notice of Assignment renders it entirely legally unenforceable. The Claimant has failed to comply with section 136(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925, by furnishing a Notice of Assignment in respect of that which is denied, that is inaccurate, W.F.Harrison and Co Ltd v Burke [1956].

The defendant requires sight of the notice of assignment of the debt. In addition the defendant requires proof of service of the Notice of Assignment in accordance with s196 of the Law of Property Act 1925 which is required to give the claimant a legitimate right of action in their own name since it appears this is an assigned debt. the reason the defendant requests this information is inter alia to clarify the dates are correctly stated on all documents , the defendant notes that if there are errors in the assignment it may be rendered in effectual in law per W F Harrison and Co Ltd v Burke and another - [1956] 2 All ER 169

Link to post
Share on other sites

So if I adapt this to fit my circumstances and post what I intend to use, will you be prepared to have a read through it and make sure its all ok.

 

I will print it off and have a good read through when I feel a little more fresh and can try to get my head around all the jargon

 

Thank you for your help

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hello, I have been unwell and have until the end of the week to get this defence in, need some help. So far I have got

 

In the xxxxxxxx County Court

Claim number

 

 

 

 

 

 

Between

 

 

 

xxxxxxxxxxx- Claimant

 

and

 

 

- Defendant

 

 

 

Defence

 

 

1. I xxxxxxxxx of xxxxxxxxxxxxx am the defendant in this action and make the following statement as my defence to the claim made by xxxxxxxxxxxx

 

2. The Defendant is embarrassed in pleading to the Particulars of Claim as it stands at present, inter alia: -

 

3. The claimants' particulars of claims disclose no legal cause of action and they are embarrassing to the defendant as the claimant's statement of case is insufficiently particularised and does not comply or even attempt to comply with CPR part 16. In this regard I wish to draw the courts attention to the following matters;

 

a) The Particulars of Claim are vague and insufficient and do not disclose an adequate statement of facts relating to or proceeding the alleged cause of action. No particulars are offered in relation to the nature of the contract referred to, the method the claimant calculated any outstanding sums due, or any default notices issued or any other matters necessary to substantiate the claimant's claim.

 

c) No account number is contained within the particulars to enable me to identify the account on which this claim is brought

 

d) A copy of any evidence of both the scope and nature of any default, and proof of any amount outstanding on the alleged accounts, has not been served attached to the claim form.

 

4. Consequently, I deny all allegations on the particulars of claim and put the claimant to strict proof thereof

 

 

The Request for Disclosure

 

5. Further to the case, on xx/xx/2007 I requested the disclosure of information pursuant to the Civil Procedure Rules, which is vital to this case from the claimant. The information requested amounted to any default or termination notices, a transcript of all transactions, including charges, fees, interest, alleged repayments by myself and payments made by the original creditor. Also any other documents the Claimant seeks to rely on, including any default notices or termination notice, and a copy of the Notice of Assignment required to give the claimant a legitimate right of action.

 

6. To Date the claimant has failed to comply with my request under the CPR and I have not received any such documentation requested. As a result it has proven difficult to compose this defence without disclosure of the information requested, especially given that I am Litigant in Person ( a copy of the request is attached to this Defence marked CP)

 

 

 

7. Therefore I respectfully request that the court order the claimant produce the above documents before the court to show the form and content of it and that it complies with the regulations, otherwise the courts powers of enforcement are surely limited in these circumstances

 

 

The Need for a Default notice

 

8. Notwithstanding the matters pleaded above, the claimant must under section 87(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 serve a default notice before they can demand payment under a regulated agreement

 

9. It is neither admitted or denied that any Default Notice in the prescribed format was ever received and the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that said document in the prescribed format was delivered to the defendant

 

10. Notwithstanding point 31, I put the claimant to strict proof that any default notice sent to me was valid. I note that to be valid, a default notice needs to be accurate in terms of both the scope and nature of breach and include an accurate figure required to remedy any such breach. The prescribed format for such document is laid down in Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) and Amendment regulations the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/3237)

 

11. Failure of a default notice to be accurate not only invalidates the default notice (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain and Co - [2001] GCCR 2255) but is a unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the court enforcing any alleged debt, but give me a counter claim for damages Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119

 

 

12. In view of matters pleaded, I respectfully request the court give consideration to striking out the claimants case pursuant to part 3.4

(2) The court may strike out a statement of case if it appears to the court -

(a) That the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending

(b) That the statement of case is an abuse of the court's process or is otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings; or

© That there has been a failure to comply with a rule, practice direction or court order.

13. If the court considers it in appropriate to use its case management powers, it is requested that the court order the claimant to produce the necessary documentation under Section 10 of the Consumer Credit act 10.—(1) For the purposes of this Act—

(a) running-account credit is a facility under a personal credit agreement whereby the debtor is enabled to receive from time to time (whether in his own person, or by another person) from the creditor or a third party cash, goods and services (or any of them) to an amount or value such that, taking into account payments made by or to the credit of the debtor, the credit limit (if any) is not at any time exceeded; and

(b) fixed-sum credit is any other facility under a personal credit agreement whereby the debtor is enabled to receive credit (whether in one amount or by

instalments).

(2) In relation to running-account credit, " credit limit" means, as respects any period, the maximum debit balance which, under the credit agreement, is allowed to stand on the account during that period, disregarding any term of the agreement allowing that maximum to be exceeded merely temporarily.

(3) For the purposes of section 8(2), running-account credit shall be taken not to exceed the amount specified in that subsection (" the specified amount") if—

(a) the credit limit does not exceed the specified amount; or

(b) whether or not there is a credit limit, and if there is, notwithstanding that it

exceeds the specified amount,—

(i) the debtor is not enabled to draw at any one time an amount which, so far as

(having regard to section 9(4)) it represents credit, exceeds the specified

amount, or

(ii) the agreement provides that, if the debit balance rises above a given

amount (not exceeding the specified amount), the rate of the total charge for credit increases or any other condition favouring the creditor or his associate comes into operation, or

(iii) at the time the agreement is made it is probable, having regard to the

terms of the agreement and any other relevant considerations, that the debit balance will not at any time rise above the specified amount.

 

Overdrafts have part V exemptions (form and content) from the Act. This does not mean that they are exempt from the Act. The credit agreement would be in the form of a letter from the bank stating the aount of credit, the APR, charges and cancellation rights. This type of agreement would not be signed by the debtor.

To help clarify matters, this is an extract from a Court case Coutts v Sebestyen and this part is part of the summing up by the Judge in relation to overdrafts and The Consumer Credit Act-

 

THE ACT

It is common ground:

 

 

(a) that the agreement for an overdraft of £2,000 in the terms of Coutts' letter dated 5 April 2002 was a regulated debtor-creditor agreement within the meaning of sections 8 and 13© of the Act, providing for 'running-account credit' within the meaning of section 10(1)(a) of the Act (in effect, a revolving credit within the agreed credit limit of £2,000); and

 

 

(b) that, as such, it was subject to the requirements of Part V of the Act (including the requirements as to documentation set out in sections 57 to 63 of the Act) save and in so far as it was excluded or exempted from such requirements.

 

Section 65 in Part V of the Act provides that an "improperly executed" regulated agreement is unenforceable by the creditor without a court order. It is common ground that a regulated agreement is "improperly executed" for this purpose if the requirements of sections 57 to 63 have not been complied with.

 

Section 74 of the Act provides for the exclusion of certain agreements from Part V. It provides as follows (so far as material):

 

"74. – (1) This part …. does not apply to –

 

(a) ….

(b) a debtor-creditor agreement enabling the debtor to overdraw on a current account, …

© ….

(2) ….

(3) Subsection 1(b) … applies only where the OFT so determines, and such a determination –

(a) may be made subject to such conditions as the OFT thinks fit …

(b) ….

(3A) …. in relation to a debtor-creditor agreement under which the creditor is …. a bank …. the OFT shall make a determination that subsection 1(b) above applies unless it considers that it would be against the public interest to do so.

(4) …."

Part VI of the Act relates to matters arising during the currency of credit agreements. Section 82 in Part VI, which is headed 'Variation of Agreements', provides as follows (so far as material):

"82. – (1) ….

 

(2) Where an agreement (a "modifying agreement") varies or supplements an earlier agreement, the modifying agreement shall for the purposes of this Act be treated as –

 

 

(a) revoking the earlier agreement, and

(b) containing provisions reproducing the combined effect of the two agreements,

and obligations outstanding in relation to the earlier agreement shall accordingly be treated as outstanding instead in relation to the modifying agreement.

 

 

(3) ….

(4) If the earlier agreement is a regulated agreement for running-account credit, and by the modifying agreement the creditor allows the credit limit to be exceeded but intends the excess to be merely temporary, Part V …. shall not apply to the modifying agreement.

(5) ….

 

(6) ….

(7) …."

 

 

THE DETERMINATION

 

The Determination (which is signed by the Director of Fair Trading) is made under section 74(3) of the Act. I set it out in full:

"1. Under the powers conferred upon me by Sections 74(3) and (3A) and 133 of the Consumer Credit 1974, I, the Director General, being satisfied that it would not be against the public interest to do so, hereby revoke with effect from 1st February 1990 the Determination made by me in respect of Section 74(1)(b) and dated 3 November 1983 and now determine that with effect from 1st February 1990 Section 74(1)(b) shall apply to every debtor-creditor agreement enabling the debtor to overdraw on a current account, under which the creditor is a bank.

 

 

2. This Determination is made subject to the following conditions:-

 

 

(a) that the creditor shall have informed my Office in writing of his general intention to enter into agreements to which the Determination will apply;

(b) that where there is an agreement between a creditor and a debtor for the granting of credit in the form of an advance on a current account, the debtor shall be informed at the time or before the agreement is concluded:

- of the credit limit, if any,

- of the annual rate of interest and the charges applicable from the time the agreement is concluded and the conditions under which these may be amended,

of the procedure for terminating the agreement;

and this information shall be confirmed in writing.

© that where a debtor overdraws his current account with the tacit agreement of the creditor and that account remains overdrawn for more than 3 months, the creditor must inform the debtor in writing not later than 7 days after the end of that 3 month period of the annual rate of interest and charges applicable.

3. In this Determination the terms 'creditor' and 'debtor' shall have the meanings assigned to them respectively by Section 189 of [the Act]. The term 'bank' includes the Bank of England and banks within the meaning of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act 1879 as amended."

 

 

Statement of Truth

 

I xxxxxxx, beliece the above statment to be true and factual.

Edited by Craftygirl42
Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems ok to me....it might be worth getting some more opinion though CG42

 

Is there someone I can ask to have a look at it. I just dont want to mess things up as know there will be considerable charges applied to the overdraft and would want the information from Marlin in order to have these knocked off the balance

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes looks ok.

The important thing is that you understand how it all applies in your situ.

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Martin

 

I am not totally understanding it all, but do know that they have to provide me with the documents required. I understand that I would be able to counter claim back some or all of the charges.

 

I wasnt sure though if they would have had to supply a default notice on an overdraft and was a bit confused by some of the wording.

 

Do you have any suggestions of a simpler defence at all

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...