Cabot financila (Vanquis CC) court summons is it too late to use CCA 1974?

[hunni2006]

thanks CB:)

[hunni2006]

quick update,

Directions hearing scheduled for January....

[MilkTrayMan]

Hi hunni2006,

 

U seem unsure of the whole County Court Claims process + are perhaps needlessly worrying about 'what comes next etc', rather than concentrating on more urgent matters to hand.

 

The following links will allow U to have more idea of the timescales involved + what is expected of each party to the proceedings, at each stage...

 

 

Her Majesty's Court Service

 

Civil Procedure Rules + Practice Directions

 

 

...The latter link is especially useful if U wish to 'remind' a DJ of their options at a Directions Hearing.

 

 

[hunni2006]

Hi hunni2006,

 

U seem unsure of the whole County Court Claims process + are perhaps needlessly worrying about 'what comes next etc', rather than concentrating on more urgent matters to hand.

 

The following links will allow U to have more idea of the timescales involved + what is expected of each party to the proceedings, at each stage...

 

 

Her Majesty's Court Service

 

Civil Procedure Rules + Practice Directions

 

 

...The latter link is especially useful if U wish to 'remind' a DJ of their options at a Directions Hearing.

 

 

 

:)thanks MTM, I am unsure!

 

will have a read of the links posted.

 

Thank you:D

[hunni2006]

I've been offline & having PC problems thanks to the efforts of a hacker, (also lost all my notes & files, but hey....what the heck, I'll start again!)

 

The directions hearing in January left me shell shocked and nervous about carrying on, the DJ hadn't even bothered to read the file, was not interested in their non compliance with documents, told me he had a credit card where you 'sign online' and then summed the case up as 'being one of those technical ones!' ( whilst at the same time looking at me as if I was something he'd just stepped on!)

 

the result was that witness statements to be exchanged by end of Feb & hearing 1st week in march. allocation to the small claims for 1 hour

the only directions he gave were

 

• Original docs to be brought to the hearing
  
• Judge may refuse to consider a document if copies not disclosed in advance
  
• No expert evidence without prior approval of the court.
  

 

So...... where to flipping start!

[hunni2006]

I'm busy re reading threads at the moment, but would be gratefull for any pointers in the right direction for examples of witness statements;)

[citizenB]

Hi hunni,

 

A witness statement is unique to each case so there are relatively few "examples".

 

Basically it is a beefed up defence, fine detail in chronological order. I am not sure I can explain it any better than that.

 

In this you will refer to your documents ie exhibits which will need to be attached.

 

That is good the DJ has asked for original documents to be present in court.. especially if the other side havent got them !

[hunni2006]

Hi CB

 

Yes I was pleased with that bit about the docs, but other than that he made no order for the DN or Termination notices or the deed of sale, so I still have had no sight of any of them. and no response whatsoever from morgans to all my requests under CPR, so I'm no further forward with paperwork than I was last year!

 

can I still ask for an order for them to be produced even at this late stage? Or should I just forget them and point out on the day that the documents have not been produced?

[hunni2006]

well.

 

witness statements had to be in by yesterday, & unfortunately, due to the problems I've been having with the puter amongst other things I've had no chance to get advice from here.

 

I've had some help from a friend of a friend who is supposed to be a retired solicitor, & put a witness statement together which was handed in yesterday.

 

Postaman arrived at 12.30 today with a huge trial bundle & separate witness statement from the solicitors and I'm now panicking. hearing is next wednesday and I'm not confident that any of my testimony (defence or witness statement) is detailed enough...

 

witness statement that I submitted is below & I'll scan theirs in ASAP:-

 

 

I am the Defendant in this action.

2. As the Claimant has not produced any original documentation, in particular, the agreement referred to in paragraph 2.1 of the Amended Particulars of Claim my evidence is limited to my submissions on the legal position which I maintain exists between myself and the Claimant.

3. On XXXX 2009, XXXX 2009 and XXXX 2009 I requested relevant information from the Claimant’s Solicitor under CPR rules. To date the Claimants Solicitor has failed to respond to those requests. Copies of my correspondence are hereunto annexed together marked ‘1’

On XXXX 2009, I requested relevant information from the Claimant under s78 of the CCA 1974. Copies of my correspondence are and the replies thereto are hereunto annexed together marked ‘.2’

On XXXX 2009 I gave formal notice to the claimant that the account was in dispute due to their failure to provide a true copy of the agreement. A copy of the correspondence and the reply thereto are hereunto annexed together marked '3'

4. The Claimant has not provided any of the documentation necessary to maintain this action against me, in particular a signed agreement between myself and Vanquis and thereof this action must fail.

 

The relevant Act of Parliament in this Case

 

5. For the avoidance of doubt The Consumer Credit Act 2006 has no application as it did not repeal section 127 (3) of the 1974 Act until the 6th April 2007, some 12 months after the date of the agreement referred to in paragraph 2.1 of the Amended Particulars of Claim (“the agreement”). The Consumer Credit Act 1974 is the relevant act in this case.

 

6. The claimant is allegedly the Assignee of Vanquis yet the best the Claimant can say of its attempts to comply with it's requirements under S136 of the law of Property Act 1925 is contained in Paragraphs 2.3 and 2.5 of the Amended Particulars of Claim.

 

The importance of a copy of the credit agreement and its production before the court

 

7. Firstly, I make reference to Wilson v Robertsons (London) Ltd [2005] EWHC 1425 (Ch) The clear message that emerges from this case is that the Consumer Credit Act is clearly enacted to protect consumers, and therefore the Claimant’s failure to produce the agreement and it's attempts to circumvent this by exhibit “A” to the Amended Particulars of Claim should be noted.

 

8. Even if the Exhibit “A” were a regulated agreement, the document supplied is not compliant with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) (“The Regulations”) see 9.1 below. Whereby it is unenforceable by reason of section 127(3) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

9. The Consumer Credit Act 1974 contains conditions laid down by Parliament which must be complied with if such agreement is to be enforced by the Courts

9.1. Firstly, the Agreement must contain certain prescribed terms under regulations made by the Secretary of State under section 60(1) CCA 1974. Secondly Section 61 (1) of the CCA1974 states (1) A regulated agreement is not properly executed unless (a) a document in the prescribed form itself containing all the prescribed terms and conforming to regulations under section 60 (1) is signed in the prescribed manor both by the debtor and by or on behalf of the creditor or owner, and (b) The document embodies all the terms of the agreement, other than implied terms, and © The document is, when presented or sent to the debtor or hirer for signature is in such a state that all its terms are readily legible.

These are the regulations referred to in 8 above.

 

9.2. The prescribed terms referred to are contained in Schedule 6 column 2 of the Regulations and are inter alia: - A term stating the credit limit or the manner in which it will be determined or that there is no credit limit. A term stating the rate of any interest on the credit to be provided under the agreement and a term stating how the debtor is to discharge his obligations under the agreement to make the repayments, which may be expressed by reference to a combination of any of the following-

 

1. Number of repayments;

2. Amount of repayments;

3. Frequency and timing of repayments;

4. Dates of repayments;

5. The manner in which any of the above may be determined; or in any other way, and any power of the creditor to vary what is payable

 

10. I submit the Agreement falls foul of the Regulations in so far that it's terms are not contained within it. The prescribed terms must be with the agreement for it to be compliant with section 60(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974. They cannot be found in a secondary document as according to section 61(1) (a)(b) &©, the agreement must at the time it is laid before the debtor contain all the terms of agreement

 

11. Furthermore, section 2 of the Consumer Credit Agreement Regulations 1983 clearly states:-

 

2. Form and content of regulated consumer credit agreements

 

[(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (9) below, documents embodying regulated consumer credit agreements (other than modifying agreements) shall contain the information set out in Column 2 of Schedule 1 to these Regulations in so far as it relates to the type of agreement referred to in Column 1.

 

12.For the avoidance of doubt I refer to the judgment of TUCKEY LJ in Wilson and another v Hurstanger Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 299

 

13. As the agreement does not contain these signatures in the prescribed manner it does not comply with section 61(1)(a) CCA 1974, it is improperly executed and only enforceable by order of the Court

 

The Courts Power of Enforcement

 

14. The Court's powers of enforcement, where agreements are improperly executed by way of section 65 CCA 1974 are themselves subject to certain qualifying factors. Section 127 (3) Consumer Credit Act 1974 clearly sets out what is required for the Court to be able to enforce the agreement where section 65(1) has not been complied with, namely :-

 

127(3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a)(signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner).

 

15. The House of Lords in Wilson-v- First County Trust Ltd [2003] All ER made it clear that where a document does not contain the required terms under the consumer credit act 1974 and the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) and Consumer Credit (Agreements) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI2004/1482) the agreement cannot be enforced

 

16. Wilson v First County Trust Ltd - [2003] All ER Provides that a credit agreement must contain the prescribed terms and must be signed in the prescribed manner for the agreement to be enforceable and sets out the consequences of non compliance with the 1974 Act. I refer to the judgment of Lord Nicholls

 

17. In Wilson The House of Lords (and the Court of Appeal before it) held that if the agreement does not contain the prescribed terms The court couldn't issue an enforcement order. It clearly considered it the will of Parliament that where a lender did not comply with the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the Regulations it does not have any recourse, it cannot side step the Regulations by any other means and whether it is considered right or wrong for the debtor not to have to repay an unenforceable is irrelevant.

 

18. The judgment of Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead clearly sets out that without a credit agreement the claimant's case cannot succeed.

 

19. I also refer to the website of Francis Bennion, the drafts person of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and note in particular a PDF document that Mr Bennion has posted ( http://www.francisbennion.com/pdfs/f...974-s127-3.pdf) which states:-

 

"As the draftsman of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 I would like to thank Dr Richard Lawson for his interesting and well-argued article (30 August 2003) on Wilson v First County Trust Ltd [2003] UKHL 40, [2003] 4 All ER 97. Dr Lawson may be interested to know that I included the provision in question (section 127(3)) entirely on my own initiative. It seemed right to me that if the creditor company couldn't be bothered to ensure that all the prescribed particulars were accurately included in the credit agreement it deserved to find it unenforceable, and that the court should not have power to relieve it from this penalty. Nobody queried this, and it went through Parliament without debate. I'm glad the House of Lords has now vindicated my reasoning and confirmed that nobody's human rights were infringed. 167 Justice of the Peace (2003) 773.

 

20. As The Claimant has failed to disclose any form of agreement, it's claim must fail,

 

21. Further to the above, the Claimant has not pleaded or disclosed any default notice. The claimant must under section 87(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 serve a default notice before they can demand payment under a regulated credit agreement. The only inference that can be drawn from this failure is that none was served.

 

The Need for a Default notice

 

22. Failure to serve a default notice is an unlawful rescission of contract, which would not only prevent the Court enforcing any alleged debt, but also allow a claim for damages, Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119.

 

Notice Of Assignment

 

23. The Defendant neither admits nor denies the Claimant’s statement that any accounts was purchased by the Claimant but puts it to strict proof thereof.

 

Conclusion

 

24. For the avoidance of doubt, I deny that I am liable to the Claimant in any manner and I further denied that the Claimant is entitled to the sum claimed or any other relief.

 

25. In the circumstances I respectfully request that the Court makes an order:

 

1. That the claim against me be struck out
   
2. That the Agreement relied upon is irrevocably unenforceable;
   
3. That the Claimant remove any and all credit reference data arising from the unenforceable debt.
   
   

 

 

 

I would be grateful for any comments.

[blueboy987]

Get their witness statement posted, along with any other relevant items - such as the agreement, default notice's and so on if they have supplied them.

 

If you haven't already, I'd suggest you get hold of and print copies of all the case law and statutes you've referred to in your defence and witness statement. You'll need to take these along on the day and understand them.

[hunni2006]

post #23 has the amended POC, just trying to get my scanner to work on the rest of it.

[hunni2006]

Cabot V Hunni pictures by hunni2006_photos - Photobucket

 

letters & default notices never received but included in response to SA request from DCA

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/202646-cabot-financila-vanquis-cc-5.html

 

original thread

 

will post agreement & witness statement next, problems remembering how to use scanner!

[hunni2006]

Cabot V Hunni pictures by hunni2006_photos - Photobucket

 

this has T&C on now... exactly what they claim is the executed agreement... electronic signature.

[citizenB]

Havent had a chance to go through all the documents.. will do that later on. However, the Default notice

 

Dated 13 August 2007 - remedy date 25th August. Was this a 7 day or a 14 day allowance ?

 

If 14 then they havent allowed sufficient time if 7, then it all boils down to whether or not you received it (or how it was posted to you) , whether or not it was in the prescribed format. How much of the arears asked for was made up of unlawful charges.

[hunni2006]

Havent had a chance to go through all the documents.. will do that later on. However, the Default notice

 

Dated 13 August 2007 - remedy date 25th August. Was this a 7 day or a 14 day allowance ?

 

If 14 then they havent allowed sufficient time if 7, then it all boils down to whether or not you received it (or how it was posted to you) , whether or not it was in the prescribed format. How much of the arears asked for was made up of unlawful charges.

 

Hi CB

 

the whole thing is absolutely laughable.

 

they say it was sent in july 07 in pen at the top, the figures are nothing like, also, it says credit limit £17K account balance £18K payment due £22K no wonder they make a packet! lol

 

oh, and I have until 25 april 1992 to pay!:lol:

[cymruambyth]

This from a post by BRW which covers when the 7 days changed to 14

I have used the following paragraphs in a defence which refuted the default notice

 

 

A default notice is a required by S 87(1) of the Act before a creditor can become entitled to take any action in respect of a regulated credit agreement.

 

Furthermore s 88(1) of the Act requires that a default notice must be in the prescribed form. The prescribed format for a default notice is laid down in Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) and subsequent the amendment regulations [Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/3237)].

By Regulation 2(2) of these regulations, any Default Notice must include both a description of the agreement sufficient to identify it and the name and a postal address of the creditor or owner.

By S 88 (2) of the Act, as amended by s14(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 2006 as from 1 October 2006, the specified date must not be less than 14 days after the date of service of the default notice

If the judge had then tried to argue the ‘de minis’ idea, I would have pointed out that parliament thought the issue was so important that it took the unusual step of extending the period from 7 to 14 days in the Act itself, rather than the usual changes to secondary regulations. If the judge was still of the ‘de minis’ mind, I would have said, “OK, please make that clear in your judgment so the circuit judge can overrule you on my appeal.

 

Try to ensure you have all the case law printed with the relevant sections highlighted. A DJ dismissed mine because I didn' have all thye case law for defective DNs!!! (Rumour has it that he should have know some of this:p)

Edited March 4, 2010 by cymruambyth
FONTS!!!

[blueboy987]

Are they claiming that it is a copy of the default notice that was sent or that it is the template for the default notice that was sent? To be honest, it seems to be neither and instead some strange mix of the two. The default notice itself (I assume the covering letter has no relevance) doesn't even have fields for all of the prescribed terms.

[hunni2006]

This from a post by BRW which covers when the 7 days changed to 14

 

I have used the following paragraphs in a defence which refuted the default notice

 

 

A default notice is a required by S 87(1) of the Act before a creditor can become entitled to take any action in respect of a regulated credit agreement.

 

Furthermore s 88(1) of the Act requires that a default notice must be in the prescribed form. The prescribed format for a default notice is laid down in Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) and subsequent the amendment regulations [Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/3237)].

By Regulation 2(2) of these regulations, any Default Notice must include both a description of the agreement sufficient to identify it and the name and a postal address of the creditor or owner.

By S 88 (2) of the Act, as amended by s14(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 2006 as from 1 October 2006, the specified date must not be less than 14 days after the date of service of the default notice

If the judge had then tried to argue the ‘de minis’ idea, I would have pointed out that parliament thought the issue was so important that it took the unusual step of extending the period from 7 to 14 days in the Act itself, rather than the usual changes to secondary regulations. If the judge was still of the ‘de minis’ mind, I would have said, “OK, please make that clear in your judgment so the circuit judge can overrule you on my appeal.

 

Try to ensure you have all the case law printed with the relevant sections highlighted. A DJ dismissed mine because I didn' have all thye case law for defective DNs!!! (Rumour has it that he should have know some of this:p)

 

thank you.

 

finding all the sections of relevant case law is my problem at the moment! all my notes and links were deleted when my computer was hacked so I'm desperately trying to find everything again!

 

Quick question.. ( apologies if it's a dumb one!)

given that witness statements have already been handed in and the claimants solicitor has produced a trial bundle can I still send more information to the court?

 

I'm just worried that I haven't put enough in the witness statement & defence considering the size of their trial bundle & witness statement.

[cymruambyth]

Hi, sorry I'm still working on my 1st trial bundle! I've copied this information in case you haven't seen it. From what I understand (which may be wrong) you need to go through everything that you have given to the court and then find and print all the references in full. If you feel as though you are drowning, press the red triangle for help.

 

Bundles of documents for hearings or trial

3.1

Unless the court orders otherwise, the claimant must file the trial bundle not more than 7 days and not less than 3 days before the start of the trial.

3.2

Unless the court orders otherwise, the trial bundle should include a copy of:

(1) the claim form and all statements of case,

(2) a case summary and/or chronology where appropriate,

(3) requests for further information and responses to the requests,

(4) all witness statements to be relied on as evidence,

(5) any witness summaries,

(6) any notices of intention to rely on hearsay evidence under rule 32.2,

(7) any notices of intention to rely on evidence (such as a plan, photograph etc.) under rule 33.6 which is not –

(a) contained in a witness statement, affidavit or experts report,

(b) being given orally at trial,

© hearsay evidence under rule 33.2,

(8) any medical reports and responses to them,

(9) any experts’ reports and responses to them,

(10) any order giving directions as to the conduct of the trial, and

(11) any other necessary documents.

3.3

The originals of the documents contained in the trial bundle, together with copies of any other court orders should be available at the trial.

3.4

The preparation and production of the trial bundle, even where it is delegated to another person, is the responsibility of the legal representative5 who has conduct of the claim on behalf of the claimant.

3.5

The trial bundle should be paginated (continuously) throughout, and indexed with a description of each document and the page number. Where the total number of pages is more than 100, numbered dividers should be placed at intervals between groups of documents.

3.6

The bundle should normally be contained in a ring binder or lever arch file. Where more than one bundle is supplied, they should be clearly distinguishable, for example, by different colours or letters. If there are numerous bundles, a core bundle should be prepared containing the core documents essential to the proceedings, with references to the supplementary documents in the other bundles.

3.7

For convenience, experts’ reports may be contained in a separate bundle and cross referenced in the main bundle.

3.8

If a document to be included in the trial bundle is illegible, a typed copy should be included in the bundle next to it, suitably cross-referenced.

3.9

The contents of the trial bundle should be agreed where possible. The parties should also agree where possible:

(1) that the documents contained in the bundle are authentic even if not disclosed under Part 31, and

(2) that documents in the bundle may be treated as evidence of the facts stated in them even if a notice under the Civil Evidence Act 1995 has not been served.

Where it is not possible to agree the contents of the bundle, a summary of the points on which the parties are unable to agree should be included.

3.10

The party filing the trial bundle should supply identical bundles to all the parties to the proceedings and for the use of the witnesses.

[hunni2006]

Are they claiming that it is a copy of the default notice that was sent or that it is the template for the default notice that was sent? To be honest, it seems to be neither and instead some strange mix of the two. The default notice itself (I assume the covering letter has no relevance) doesn't even have fields for all of the prescribed terms.

 

This 'default' notice came in a bundle from the DCA in response to a subject access request. There has been no disclosure of any other default notice in any paperwork, either from the original creditor in response to an SA request to them, nor in any of the paperwork handed into court in fact there is no mention of default in their paperwork that I have found so far..

Nor for that matter has there been any disclosure of a termination notice, and the notices of assignment that they say they sent are pretty dodgy too.

cymruambyth thanks for that, it's very helpfull

Edited March 4, 2010 by hunni2006
missed a bit!

[cymruambyth]

As you are short of time, have you thought of sending a pm to Banker_Rhymes_With as he is one of the CAG experts on DNs. If you need I can post a pile of information on the subject, but his input would be invaluable.

[hunni2006]

As you are short of time, have you thought of sending a pm to Banker_Rhymes_With as he is one of the CAG experts on DNs. If you need I can post a pile of information on the subject, but his input would be invaluable.

 

I hadn't thought of doing that, I will pm a link and ask if he is able to have a look in. ( done that now)

Edited March 4, 2010 by hunni2006

[hunni2006]

the legal authority that they are using in my case is this one.

 

In the HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEENS BENCH DIVISION

MANCHESTER DISTRICT REGISTRY

MERCANTILE COURT

23 December 2009

Before :

HIS HONOUR JUDGE WAKSMAN QC

(sitting as a judge of the High Court)

 

neutral citation number: [2009] EWHC 3417 (QB)

 

 

I will scan the whole judgement & put on photo bucket, but in the meantime has anyone heard of it?

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Hunni2006!

 

Not sure what to say about this, because the Claim is just pants from front to back. But here's what I gather so far...

 

• They started a Claim without any sign of a properly executed Regulated Credit Card Agreement in sight, when the date that you signed up for this was still covered by the 1974 Act, so s127(3) still applies. Even if signed on-line, they still have to show that the Prescribed Terms formed part of the Agreement.
  

 

• They started a Claim without any sign of an Assignment in sight. They claim the Debt was bought by a Company with no employees, who are now taking you to Court, which is a bit hard, so their other Company with 400+ cretins on the payroll is doing it all for the Company with none.
  

 

• They started a Claim without any sign of a s87(1) Default Notice in sight, so they started without even knowing if they were entitled to enjoy any s87 benefits.
  

 

• They had their wrists slapped, and came up with a revised POC that wasn't much of an improvement, and still wants interest on top, although they did not say what interest exactly, I assume they are still banging on about s69 County Courts Act 1984 8% which they are not entitled to.
  

OK, I gather a Default Notice thing has popped out of their woodwork, and yet it seems to be one Dr Who would be proud of, because the date to remedy is 14 years before you had even signed up for the nasty Card!

 

Apart from a scrawl on a Notice of (actual) Default, apparently mentioning a date in July 2007, the s87(1) Notice only seems to show a date of 13/08/2007, with a date to remedy of 25/04/1992 (14+ years earlier)!

 

The default sum is highly suspect, they say the limit was £17k, the balance 18k and yet the Arrears were £24k...how did they work that one out?

 

It's rubbish.

 

This is a totally defective something, but it's not a s87(1) Default Notice, nor is it even close to being a legitimate record of a s87(1) Default Notice.

 

They have no right of action, no enforceable Agreement that I can see, and no s87(1) Default Notice that entitled them, or anyone, to enjoy the benefits of s87.

 

I suggest you read x20s Sticky on Default Notices, and then curl up with a copy of Woodchester v Swayne & Co:

 

Woodchester v Swayne & Co [1998] EWCA Civ 1209 (14 July 1998 )

 

The bottom line is:

 

 

• They do not have an enforceable Agreement, because nothing we have seen represents evidence that you signed (albeit on-line) an Agreement that contained the Prescribed Terms.
  

 

• Your Agreement making date means The Consumer Credit Act 1974 applies and not the later 2006 amendment, so your Agreement is covered by s127(3). Unless there is an Agreement signed by you, that contains the Prescribed Terms, then the Court cannot enforce.
  

 

• The s87(1) Default Notice they are claiming was sent, is a bag of spanners. The 14 days apply because 2007 came after 19/12/2006 when the 7 clear days were increased to 14, but that hardly matters, because the Act never said you had to remedy a Default Notice 14 years before the Agreement was even made!
  

 

• They have no right of action, they should not have brought this Claim, and they do not enjoy any s87 benefits.
  

The Judge should throw them out of the window, and allow you full costs, because they have clearly been devious and mischievous all the way.

 

I hope this helps.

 

Cheers,

BRW

Edited March 4, 2010 by banker_rhymes_with
Smily Zap, Typo on 127(3)

[hunni2006]

the legal authority that they are using in my case is this one.

 

In the HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEENS BENCH DIVISION

MANCHESTER DISTRICT REGISTRY

MERCANTILE COURT

23 December 2009

Before :

HIS HONOUR JUDGE WAKSMAN QC

(sitting as a judge of the High Court)

 

neutral citation number: [2009] EWHC 3417 (QB)

 

 

I will scan the whole judgement & put on photo bucket, but in the meantime has anyone heard of it?

 

 

ok, so here's the link to the whole judgement.

 

judge waksman judgement 23 dec 2009 pictures by hunni2006_photos - Photobucket

 

 

and to the summary page itself :

 

judge waksman judgement 23 dec 2009 :: 59 picture by hunni2006_photos - Photobucket

 

and to the witness statement by the DCA, T&C's they say are agreement & default notices.

 

Cabot V Hunni pictures by hunni2006_photos - Photobucket