HFC/Marbles taking me to court in November.**DISCONTINUED**

[citizenB]

 

Originally Posted by pedross

 

 

Therefore, you are correct in my opinion, in saying that LD thought there was a debt but subsequently discovered that it was in fact a 'gift' (case law somewhere).

 

 

Should the issue arise where the claimant seeks to rely upon the fact that they can show that the defendant has had benefit of the monies and therefore the defendant is liable, I refer to and draw the courts attention to the judgment of Sir Andrew Morritt in the case of Wilson v First County Trust Ltd - [2001] 3 All ER 229, [2001] EWCA Civ 633 in the Court of Appeal

 

at para 26

 

 

"In effect, the creditor--by failing to ensure that he obtained a document signed by the debtor which contained all the prescribed terms--must (in the light of the provisions in ss 65(1) and 127(3) of the 1974 Act) be taken to have made a voluntary disposition, or gift, of the loan moneys to the debtor. The creditor had chosen to part with the moneys in circumstances in which it was never entitled to have them repaid;"

Edited September 6, 2009 by citizenB
removed annoying font format commands

[1littleduck]

wow... I guess all I have to do, is get my argument right and understand what I am saying.. (do I have to recite the case law's relevent or can I just read them out?) then HFC will have a problem.. I do hope so, because they are all to willing to get people into debt, but are like vulture's when things go wrong.

[1littleduck]

My defence was written by surfaceagentx20.. they kindly helped me out many months ago..and when I didnt hear from anyone, I thought that hfc was going to drop the case... but they havent.

Do you think I should get a solicitor to go with me, or will I be able to manage this on my own.. (thats if I get my facts right)

[pedross]

My defence was written by surfaceagentx20..

 

surfaceagentx20 is very knowledgable and very well respected on this forum.

 

The defence is very good, your legal arguments are very good and you have lots of time to master this.

 

There are probably lots of similar cases to yours in the courts and a lot will happen before your case so who knows the next development. Hopefully Restons will realise that they would be better off conceding these cases before they get their fingers burnt.

[1littleduck]

I agree pedross, surfaceagentx was brilliant and so are you all. Without you, people like me would loose everything..

As I am un-employed, I am working on a website along with someone who knows what they are doing I will make sure that there is a link on our site to here..(a banner if anyone can help there) and be sure, If my site works, we will be donating every month to this site.

I dont know what I would have done without you all

[citizenB]

wow... I guess all I have to do, is get my argument right and understand what I am saying.. (do I have to recite the case law's relevent or can I just read them out?) then HFC will have a problem.. I do hope so, because they are all to willing to get people into debt, but are like vulture's when things go wrong.

 

As long as you can refer to them in the right context, I doubt you will be expected to know them off by heart

 

Have a read of the following.. will give you a little bit of confidence.

 

First link by BRW

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-2171582.html

 

 

2nd link by tomterm

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/108467-basic-introduction-consumer-credit.html

 

 

HTH

[1littleduck]

Hi all.. sorry it's been awhile, but I have had many problems, and this is now on top of me.

I have been through all of the thread again, and I feel that I am ready except for the s127 that may be spoken about...

I have look around and cant find it to print off and study. Can anyone please help..

The court case is tomorrow.... awwwwwwwwww running out of time.

[ScabHunter]

Here you go, Section 127 in its entirety -

 

127.—(1) In the case of an application for an enforcement order under—

(a) section 65(1) (improperly executed agreements), or

(b) section 105(7)(a) or (b) (improperly executed security instruments), or

© section 111(2) (failure to serve copy of notice on surety), or

(d) section 124(1) or (2) (taking of negotiable instrument in contravention of section 123),

the court shall dismiss the application if, but (subject to subsections (3) and (4)) only

if, it considers it just to do so having regard to—

(i) prejudice caused to any person by the contravention in question, and

the degree of culpability for it; and

(ii) the powers conferred on the court by subsection (2) and sections 135 and 136.

 

(2) If it appears to the court just to do so, it may in an enforcement order reduce or

discharge any sum payable by the debtor or hirer, or any surety, so as to compensate him for prejudice suffered as a result of the contravention in question.

 

(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)

 

(4) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) in the case of a cancellable agreement if—

 

(a) a provision of section 62 or 63 was not complied with, and the creditor or owner did not give a copy of the executed agreement, and of any other document referred to in it, to the debtor or hirer before the commencement of the proceedings in which the order is sought. or

(b) section 64(1) was not complied with.

 

(5) Where an enforcement order is made in a case to which subsection (3) applies, the order may direct that the regulated agreement is to have effect as if it did not include a term omitted from the document signed by the debtor or hirer.

 

SH

[pedross]

Well done SH

 

You beat me by seconds.

[1littleduck]

Thank you both very much.

I seem to be ontop of things now, and will let you know what happens when I return tomorrow.

[1littleduck]

I have noticed .. going through the paperwork, that when I asked in August 2008 for my T&C they supplied them in Sep 2009 and are different to the ones they have supplied to the courts.

The one supplied to me were in a bood type, you can clearly seen the fold lines and the date they were printed (one year almost before they were sent) no many of the sections are the same.

[diddydicky]

if i have read the thread correctly, i cant see any problem with admitting a debt since in 99.999% of cases a debt does exist

 

so long as the argument is put forward that one is disputing not the existence of a debt but rather that it is unenforceable- it would be no business of the court what happens to that debt once it is ruled unenforceable anyway

[citizenB]

God luck for today, littlduck:)

[1littleduck]

Hi all.... well I am back from court, and it went as follows:

The HFC was represented by what she said was an independant solicitor.. In court we did not agree on the legality of the the CA or the DN, and the judge asked her for a witness statement, of which she didnt have.

It has now been adjourned until 15th January, to give her time to comply, send me a copy and then for me to reply.

The judge also held up the APPLICATION form (CA) and said 'this is not good enough'

On leaving the court, the HFC rep did say that bank/solicitors had not complied well with the law, so hopefully, they will drop the case... fingers crossed!

By the way... the judge was lovely... very,very nice to me and made sure that I understood what was going on.

I will post up their witness statement when it arrives.

Thank you all very much for your help with this, and I hope this will give everyone in my position some hope.

[car2403]

Good, good. Get ready for the letter of discontinuance. When will they learn?

[citizenB]

Great news, well done littleduck.

[1littleduck]

Thank you Car2403 and Citizen B ... I really hope so!

[pedross]

Well done littleduck nearly there.

 

Pedross

[1littleduck]

Thank you pedross.

Could anyone please have a little luck at the link below for me.

I have been battleing Nationwide and they have today sent some new stuff from a new solicitor..

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/161804-nationwide-taking-court-action-7.html

Any advise would be helpful.. This again was an application form trying to be a CA.

Thank you.

[1littleduck]

Hi all... I have received this from Restons solicitors..

http://i534.photobucket.com/albums/ee344/gangsta_caz/Hfc2333.jpg

http://i534.photobucket.com/albums/ee344/gangsta_caz/Hfc323.jpg

 

I am not quite understanding what it means... Has the claimant still got to send the courts and me the witness statement by 15th december or have they prosponed this until 23rd feb.. I think they have but would like ot be 100% sure.

Thanks

[car2403]

I am not quite understanding what it means... Has the claimant still got to send the courts and me the witness statement by 15th december

 

Yes.

[1littleduck]

Hi everyone..I have received this today from Restons...They have marked it without prejudice and have also got the name of the ccc wrong..it should be the HFC.

http://i534.photobucket.com/albums/ee344/gangsta_caz/LastScan003.jpg

Should I reply to them and tell then I am in no possition to make any kind of arrangement with them because I am unemployed?

 

Does anyone know the outcome of the test cases as well please.

[citizenB]

littleduck, I will flag your post up for the site team for advice.

 

Did you receive their witness statement by yesterday ?

 

You will find the outcome of the test case (assume you mean the bank charges) in the links below.

 

There is a consortium of Consumer groups who have their heads together on this as there are other avenues to pursue despite the outcome.

 

The Consumer Forums - Announcements in Forum : Welcome to the Consumer Forums

 

The Consumer Forums - Announcements in Forum : Welcome to the Consumer Forums

 

If you keep an eye on the Welcome forums where the announcements will be updated regularly then you shoudl be ok. Do you have a bank charges claim in court ?

[supasnooper]

I'd just ignore it if I were you.

 

Now why would Restons want to offer a settlement before going to a Summary Judgment hearing they have initiated.

 

It's because they know they're stuffed by HFC's defective Default Notice and are trying to spook you into a settlement.

 

Have a look at this thread featuring this motley duo -

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/dca-legal-successes/124572-hfc-no-agreement-amended.html

 

and this one featuring Restons, same modus operandi again

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/dca-legal-successes/170484-fairbyblue-mbna-restons-court.html

[1littleduck]

Awww.. Thank you Citizen B and Supersnooper... I will not respond then.

I have not received anything else from them, so No to the witness statement...and I guess the courts haven't either.

 

The test cases were to see if these creditcard agreements needed to comply with the law..as I understood it anyway..

 

BBC News - Credit card debt cases face showdown as reported, but not sure where to find the outcome... I'll keep checkin the martin's money site..