Bankruptcy Petition - Help Needed Please

[Traderx]

also as a minor point, all the cards were not in my real name (as on my NI card) but in my nickname.

Is this helpful?

[Traderx]

ok just called the court and i can fax the 6.19 to them tomorrow as long as they get the original before weeks end

[Traderx]

going to fax the court now

[Viscount Stair]

Sorry not to have been more help. I hope all goes well and I will keep following this.

[Traderx]

no worries

 

received a letter from petitioners solicitors this morning. i ahd hoped for a response to the request for adjournment but no a direct copy of their letter from last november drawing my attention to the BP

 

faxed the court now with my statement.

 

Probably not done it all right but then i am not a solicitor!

[Viscount Stair]

A certain amount of latitude is supposed to be given to litigants in person, so don't worry too much about getting things absolutely right. I'm not privy to what has been put in (which is a wise precaution) but you should, with a following wind, have done enough to get an adjournment to dispute things properly once you have the information.

[42man]

OK with regard to 6.19....

 

The debts claimed by the petitioner are totally disputed.

 

Under section 78 (1) of the Consumer Credit Act A formal written request for any true copies of signed consumer credit agreements was sent to XXXX via recorded delivery on the (date) (see attached document numbered X) – to date they have not sent any copies of any Consumer Credit Agreements

 

 

SECTION 78 (1) CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1974

 

(1) The creditor under a regulated agreement for running-account credit, within the prescribed period after receiving a request in writing to that effect from the debtor and payment of a fee of £1, shall give the debtor a copy of the executed agreement (if any) and of any other document referred to in it, together with a statement signed by or on behalf of the creditor showing, according to the information to which it is practicable for him to refer,—

 

(a) the state of the account, and

 

(b) the amount, if any, currently payable under the agreement by the debtor to the creditor, and

 

© the amounts and due dates of any payments which, if the debtor does not draw further on the account, will later become payable under the agreement by the debtor to the creditor.

 

 

The Consumer Credit Act in section 78(6) States that

 

(6) If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with subsection (1)—

 

(a) he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement;and

 

For the avoidance of doubt the 2006 Consumer Credit Act does not change the above legislation……

 

The Consumer Credit Act 2006 (Commencement No. 2 and Transitional Provisions and Savings) Order 2007 (No. 123 (C. 6))

Citation

1. This Order may be cited as the Consumer Credit Act 2006 (Commencement No.2 and Transitional Provisions) Order 2007.

Interpretation

2. In this Order “the 2006 Act” means the Consumer Credit Act 2006.

Commencement

3. — (1) The provisions of the 2006 Act specified in Schedule 1 shall come into force on 31st January 2007.

(2) The provisions of the 2006 Act specified in Schedule 2 shall come into force on 6th April 2007.

Transitional Provisions

4. Subject to article 5, section 1 of the 2006 Act shall have no effect for the purposes of the 1974 Act, in relation to agreements made before 6th April 2007.

 

5. Section 1 of the 2006 Act shall have effect for the purposes of the definitions of “debtor” and “hirer” in section 189(1) of the 1974 Act wherever those expressions are used in—

 

(a)

 

sections 77A, 78(4A), 86A, 86B, 86C, 86D, 86E, 86F, 129(1)(ba) 129A, 130A and 187A of the 1974 Act;

 

(b)

 

section 143(b) of the 1974 Act in respect of an application under section 129(1)(ba) of that Act; and

 

©

 

section 185(2) to (2C) of the 1974 Act insofar as it relates to a dispensing notice from a debtor authorising a creditor not to comply in the debtor's case with section 77A of that Act,

in relation to agreements made before 6 April 2007.

 

REFERENCE TO CASE LAW

 

• Wilson v First County Trust Ltd [2003] UKHL 40 states that:
  ‘….the effect of the failure to comply with the requirements of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 was that the entire agreement ………….. was unenforceable. The statutory bar on its enforcement extended to First County Trusts's right to recover the total sum payable on redemption, which included the principal as well as interest.’
  

SUMMARY OF WILSON v FIRST COUNTY TRUST LTD (2003) UKHL 40

 

THE WILSON CASE MADE IT CLEAR THAT IN THE EVENT OF NO ACCEPTABLE CONSUMER CREDIT AGREEMENT THEN THE CREDITOR COULD NOT RECOVER MONIES OWED UNDER ORDINARY CONTRACT LAW REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY COULD PROVE THE DEBT EXISTED OR NOT – THIS WAS THE DECISION OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS AND SHOULD THEREFORE BE BINDING IN THIS COURT

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

The law states that without a prescribed agreement the courts may not enforce under 127(3) and

 

1.In the case of Dimond v Lovell [2000] UKHL 27, Lord Hoffmann said , at page 1131:-

 

“Parliament intended that if a consumer credit agreement was improperly executed, then subject to the enforcement powers of the court, the debtor should not have to pay.”

 

2.Sir Andrew Morritt, Vice Chancellor in Wilson v First County Trust Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 633 said at para 26 that in the case of an unenforceable agreement:-

 

“The creditor must…be taken to have made a voluntary disposition, or gift, of the loan monies to the debtor. The creditor had chosen to part with the monies in circumstances in which it was never entitled to have them repaid;”

 

I refer to LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD in the House of Lords Wilson v First County Trust Ltd - [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul) paragraph 29

” The court's powers under section 127(1) are subject to significant qualification in two types of cases. The first type is where section 61(1)(a), regarding signing of agreements, is not complied with. In such cases the court 'shall not make' an enforcement order unless a document, whether or not in the prescribed form, containing all the prescribed terms, was signed by the debtor: section 127(3). Thus, signature of a document containing all the prescribed terms is an essential prerequisite to the court's power to make an enforcement order.”

 

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

A valid credit agreement must contain certain terms within the signature document (s.60(1)(2) CCA 1974). These core terms are the credit limit, repayment terms and the rate of interest (SI 1983/1553 (6 Signing of agreement) which states that the prescribed terms must be within the signature document. (Column 2 schedule 6). s.61(1)(a) states the agreement must contain all the prescribed terms and be signed by both the debtor and on behalf of the creditor.

 

Further, s.127(3) CCA 1974 makes the account unenforceable if it is not in the proper form and content or improperly executed.

 

In Wilson and another v Hurstanger Ltd (2007) it was stated “In my judgment the objective of Schedule 6 is to ensure that, as an inflexible condition of enforceability, certain basic minimum terms are included which the parties … and/or the court can identify within the four corners of the agreement. Those minimum provisions combined with the requirement under s.61 that all the terms should be in a single document, and backed up by the provisions of section 127(3), ensure that these core terms are expressly set out in the agreement itself: they cannot be orally agreed; they cannot be found in another document; they cannot be implied; and above all they cannot be in the slightest mis-stated. As a matter of policy, the lender is denied any room for manoeuvre in respect of them. On the other hand, they are basic provisions, and the only question for the court is whether they are, on a true construction, included in the agreement”.

 

 

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

DEFAULT NOTICE

 

 

The Need for a Default notice

• Notwithstanding the above, it is also drawn to the courts attention that no default notice required by s87 (1) Consumer Credit act 1974 has been attached to the petition.
  

• It is 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
  

• Notwithstanding the above points, 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)
  

• Service of a default notice is a statutory requirement as laid out in sections 87,88 and 89 Consumer Credit Act 1974. Section 87 makes it clear that a default notice must be served before a creditor can seek to terminate the agreement or demand repayment of sums due to a breach of the agreement. therefore without a valid default notice, I suggest the claimants case falls flat and cannot proceed and to do so is clearly contrary to the Consumer Credit Act 1974
  

• 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
  

 

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

 

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

[Traderx]

tks 42 man

 

I have already faxed my 6.19 to the court and sent a signed copy special delivery.

 

My own statement is not a million miles off what you have written anyway though

[Traderx]

A valid credit agreement must contain certain terms within the signature document (s.60(1)(2) CCA 1974). These core terms are the credit limit, repayment terms and the rate of interest (SI 1983/1553 (6 Signing of agreement) which states that the prescribed terms must be within the signature document. (Column 2 schedule 6). s.61(1)(a) states the agreement must contain all the prescribed terms and be signed by both the debtor and on behalf of the creditor.

 

Further, s.127(3) CCA 1974 makes the account unenforceable if it is not in the proper form and content or improperly executed.

 

In Wilson and another v Hurstanger Ltd (2007) it was stated “In my judgment the objective of Schedule 6 is to ensure that, as an inflexible condition of enforceability, certain basic minimum terms are included which the parties … and/or the court can identify within the four corners of the agreement. Those minimum provisions combined with the requirement under s.61 that all the terms should be in a single document, and backed up by the provisions of section 127(3), ensure that these core terms are expressly set out in the agreement itself: they cannot be orally agreed; they cannot be found in another document; they cannot be implied; and above all they cannot be in the slightest mis-stated. As a matter of policy, the lender is denied any room for manoeuvre in respect of them. On the other hand, they are basic provisions, and the only question for the court is whether they are, on a true construction, included in the agreement”.

Wish i had got that bit in though

[42man]

The assignment won't be relative as the debt has not been assigned to a debt collection agency (I believe this is Amex directly and their sols SD)......

[Traderx]

it was with a DCA at one point but now it is AMEX via SD

[Traderx]

on a seperate note i have just received a call from a company called 'telegrams' who have apparently a letter with personal information, and can they have my new address to send it to me.

 

Naturally i refused but has anyone heard of this (i am assuming it is debt related) or this company.

Edited January 20, 2009 by Traderx
misspelled note

[Traderx]

i have now searched the forum and found out about 'Telogram' and capquest !!!

[banker_rhymes_with]

on a seperate note i have just received a call from a company called 'telegrams' who have apparently a letter with personal information, and can they have my new address to send it to me.

 

If you didn't get their number, maybe do a 1471 now to see if it's still on the system.

 

Then check the number out via:

 

WhoCallsMe

 

But if it's part of the Debt Industry, they will probably have hidden their number.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[Traderx]

witheld number.

[banker_rhymes_with]

witheld number.

 

Yep, that figures.

 

Best not to take such hidden number calls, as none are worth taking in my experience. Anyone who is genuine will leave a message anyway.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[Traderx]

I have just received a witness statement from the petitiong solicitors.

 

help!

[Viscount Stair]

Can you scan it up (suitably censored) and we'll see what we do.

[Traderx]

doing it now

[Traderx]

[Traderx]

tell me if i have left any personal stuff undeleted

[Traderx]

[Traderx]

[Traderx]

do you need to see the exhibits?

[Traderx]

hmmm............. guest watching