G v Bank of Scotland ***Reduced Settlement via Tomlin Order***

[freethemice]

Just waiting for the directions from the alloction questionaire then this is probably going to need a hearing before a judge to decide what information I should be provided to defend and wether the court will accept hearsay evidence to support the claimants entire claim.

[diddydicky]

did you put in a draft order for directions with the AQ?

[bustthematrix]

Stand your ground ftm. As you say, you have nothing to lose and they are bringing the claim so let them prove everything.

 

Sometimes, this is all bluster until the very last day. They may well be hoping you give up and cave in.

[freethemice]

did you put in a draft order for directions with the AQ?

 

Yep - I also attatched the cpr requests to show how I've been chasing to get documents needed to defend and the transcript of the leeds bank of scotland case where they discontinued at the last moment.

 

Hopefully some good directions will result.

 

Can see myself turning up at the court empty handed on this one. I feel defending against hearsay evidence, that has not been properly submitted, gives it a legality it does not deserve.

 

Better to go to court confused - "where is my agreement? where is my default notice?"

 

With 3 account numbers, a microfiche application form and no control over the default notice I would imagine the claimant would find it awkward to explain this mess to a judge.

[freethemice]

Reply from court:

 

TAKE NOTICE that the Allocation and Directions Hearing will take place on 5 August 2010 at XXXX.

at Wakefield County Court, XXXXXXXXX

When you should attend

30 minutes has been allowed for the Hearing

Please Note: This case may be released to another judge, possibly at a different Court

 

Not sure which path to take from here.

I have opened an official complaint with the Halifax over no default notice issued and they have promised to investigate. They confirmed over the phone the date they have for the default notice is 30/12/08 which is mirrored in their earlier letters, the Equifax report and my dsar request but this is just a notice of default rather than a default notice.

Scm claim this date is 28/10/08 but with 'no control over the default notice' I cannot see how they wish to pursue this at court.

 

Do I get my full trial bundle prepared and submit an amended defence and witness statement. or

 

Do I apply for an unless order for disclosure of agreement and default notice mentioned in particulars of claim. or

 

Do I apply for an order to inspect what the claimant has - i.e. a microfiche copy of an application form for a diferent numbered card. or

 

Do I instigate my masterplan and recreate what the default notice would have looked like using default notices available on this site and the 2 default notices I receaved from Halifax Loans before and after the alleged date of this one (both only allowed 4 days to comply). That way I do have a default notice to defend against and the only way Scm can fight this as evidence is by arguing against hearsay. Such arguments would be immeditately reversed to challenge thier hearsay microfische application form.

 

Oh and Scm have offered full and final settlement for the 14k alleged debt at 11k. Still too rich for my blood though.

[freethemice]

Want to be pro-active but it does seem I'm in limbo waiting again.

 

Can't push to inspect the application form on microfische as this would be seen as accepting it as evidence for an agreement.

 

Waiting for Halifax to investigate if they have any record at all of a default notice been posted to me.

 

The claimant has already stated clearly that the microfische application form is all they have because they have "no control over the default notice" and I would suggest this would make it hard for them to admit hearsay evidence to support a default notice.

 

Could do a witness statement to clarify my position - any thoughts?

[diddydicky]

i fail to see how a demand to inspect their microfiche amounts to an admission- if you have previously denied the existence of a properly executed agreement

 

whoever has told you that is (IMO) wrong

 

notwisthstanding which- if the microfiche only contains details of a pre contractual application form then this is not an executed agreement (unless it contained your signature and all of the prescribed terms of the agreement - and embodied all of the other terms of the agreement)

[freethemice]

if all they have is a microfiche- i would not be in a hurry to inspect it myself- since IMO this could be seen as an acceptance of it as a cause of action

 

if they have served a DN at an address at which you have not lived then that is their problem- so if they have - as a result if this DN then demanded the full outstanding balance and/or unlawfully terminated- then the issue of the agreement itself is surely irrelevant (i havent had time to read the whole thread) since you would no longer be bound by any of its terms or conditions in any event

 

"acceptance of it as a cause of action" were the precise words you used DD - I extrapolated a little?

 

Is there anything I can should be doing before the allocation/directions hearing in August?

 

To me they can only progress this with a witness statement and reconstituted agreement but as they have already evidenced the one page 'application form' this would be void due to:

Section 172:

 

172 Statements by creditor or owner to be binding (1) A statement by a creditor or owner is binding on him if given under— section 77(1), section 78(1), section 79(1), section 97(1), section 107(1)©, section 108(1)©, or section 109(1)©. THIS MEANS THAT THE DOCUMENT YOU HAVE SENT IS THE ONLY DOCUMENT YOU MAY NOW RELY ON IN ANY ATTEMPT AT ENFORCING THIS ALLEGED DEBT. Any further documentation they may present is irrelevant as they did not provide it in response to my lawful s78 request.

[diddydicky]

yes i see the confusion

 

I was referring in the one you quoted as to them having a copy of an AGREEMENT on microfiche and in the contex that they had already unlawfully repudiated therefore the agreement was of no further use or consequence- so why bother with trying to inspect a microfiche copy of it

 

 

in the other example i understood that there was simply a dispute as to the agreement-being as the creditor has claimed an APPLICATION on microfiche (not that they had in any event Unlawfully repudiated) and that this was all they had by way of an alleged agreement - which an application form could never be unless it contained all of the prescribed terms and your signature

 

 

to summarise- in the first instance- i understood there to be no denial of an agreement- but that it had in any event been unlawfully terminated- so why risk unearthing an agreement

 

In the second example- just a simple straight denial that an agreement existed ( and i beleive the creditor confirmed they did not have an agreement- just an APPLICATION form- on microfiche- therefore since you are denying (and they have accepted) that there is no agreement- you can safely ask to see the application form that they claim they have on microfiche and which THEY contend represents an agreement

 

you need to see it so you can point out its failings to them!- since they will not readily admit that it does not meet the requirements as an agreement

 

i apologise for the confusion - but it is not always possible to re read threads to pick up the entire gist

 

 

 

i apologise

Edited June 29, 2010 by diddydicky

[freethemice]

It is very confusing whichever way we look at it.

 

At law would already say the agreement (if it ever existed) was breached.

 

Firstly in Feb 2007 when they account transfered my Halifax visa to a higher rate Halifax mastercard without giving me any notice.

8.2 of the terms and conditions they say were active at the time states that they may change the conditions at any time but must give me 30 days notice in writting.

Their own archive notes for the account state that this account was selected for migration on 07/02/07 and migrated on 21/02/07. This is 14 days and there is no record of a letter been sent.

Also they have evidenced literature that states all conditions stay the same which is a downright lie.

 

Secondly if the agreement endured they defaulted this account on 28/10/08 or 30/12/08 depending on which letter you believe. Section 172 would come into play here which states the creditor is bound to his statement and as the first statement of fact dated this at 30/12/08 this should be the only date accepted.

I did receave a notice of default sums dated this date which would tie in and equifax also have the 30/12/08 as default date.

Key thing is they also state they terminated the account on this date so unlawful cessation of contract follows.

 

Thirdly would be their response to my s78 request in Jan 09 which was the one page application form and unreadable terms.

As the interst rate and everything else had changed on this account I believe Halifax should have included my original agreement with this request per the Wakeman ruling.

As this is what they have stated to a valid s78 request they should have to claim solely on this and be denied the opportunity of creating a reconstructed agreement.

They haven't to be fair sent a reconstruction yet just signalled 'these issues can be easily dealt with by means of a witness statement'.

Also they should be denied the requested 'enforcement action' for failure to adhere to a valid s78 request. Sending an application form with a numberer account diferent to that applied for and no explanation was always going to cause confusion.

 

I have a new complaint open with Halifax about the above issues so they cannot claim to have no knowledge of my views. They are still 'investigating'.

 

Or is it the other way round? Do I have to first fight that the agreement never existed as all they have is an application form on microfiche (hearsay) and then if I loose this point at court move onto the unlawful repudiation?

 

Chicken or egg scenario!

Edited July 1, 2010 by freethemice

[freethemice]

Any thoughts on the following proposed letter to ****:

 

Dear SCM Solicitors

CPR31.15 (3rd Request)

Further to the above case number, I have sought a copy of the original executed agreement that you mention in your POC. Despite numerous requests under CPR 31.14, you have failed to supply this document, supplying only a one sided application form for an unrelated card and a section of terms and conditions clearly dated from an earlier period.

You do not even have the original of this unrelated application form and intend to rely on Hearsay evidence in the form of a microfiche copy that has clearly been altered from the point of signing.

I do not agree to your notion of account migration and have evidenced clearly that the new account difered in every way from the old account and so would have required a separate credit card agreement.

I have also evidenced clearly that this process was instigated on 07/02/2007 and completed on 21/02/2007 which would be breach of the terms and conditions as this didn’t allow me 30 days written notice of a change.

You have also stated you cannot provide a Default Notice and indeed are not in control of this document. I cannot understand how your case can proceed when you have no control of this document. Surely to evidence this you do need to have knowledge of this.

 

The documents that you have supplied are inadequate, unenforceable and obviously being unfit for the purpose of my defending your claim.

 

In an attempt to again resolve this issue, I now request again sight of:

1 The original executed agreement.

2 Terms and conditions on which your claim for default and early repayment rests

3 Default notice

I am allowed to request sight of these document under CPR 31.15.

 

You will note that under this rule, you must allow me inspection or the original document within 7 days of the date of this letter.

For the avoidance of doubt I will allow until the 10/07/10 for you to adhere to or challenge this request.

Your behaviour in this matter and failure to allow inspection of any document will be brought to the judges attention in the forthcoming Allocation/directions hearing.

I look forward to your urgent response.

c.c. Wakefield county court Manager

Regards

[gwyther]

Hi

 

I got your message and to be honest the best advice I can give you is listen to what everyone on this forum has to say and dont give in. Dont know if you have read my thread or not but we were days from going to court before they caved in. It is really nerve racking but dont give in.

[freethemice]

Thanks gwyther. Great to have a victorious cagger on board.

Fingers crossed this case goes the same way.

[freethemice]

I would suggest I either send the letter in post 111 or the following witness statement with a strike out requst. Comments suggestions always welcome.

 

Witness satetement

 

I, xxxx of xxxx, xxxx am the defendant in these proceedings and I make the following statement in support of my application to request that the court use it’s powers to strike out the claimants claim under CPR3.4 2 a, b, and/or c.

 

1/ .The Defendant admits applying for a Visa branded credit card with Halifax card services and acknowledges that this company is now a subsidiary of the Claimant Bank of Scotland.

2/. The Defendant believes that this application was successful and that the Halifax visa card can reasonably be believed to be referred to as account number abc.

3/. The Defendant admits to agreeing to the Halifax’s telephone offers of balance transfer from higher interest cards for the life of the balance at interest rates below 6.9%.

4/. The Defendant admits to using Credit Card Cheques, supplied by the Halifax, to facilitate balance transfer from higher interest cards for the life of the balance at interest rates below 6.9%.

5/. The Defendant is confused as to whether any Credit Card was actually received in response to the application dated 21/03/07 but can positively assert no card was signed and no spend was made using the card if this was provided.

6/. The Defendant maintains that no agreement was signed for card number abc and no agreement has been provided by the Claimant to evidence this claim.

7/. Without an agreement of any kind in place the Defendant can only state that the balance transfers provided were an informal arrangement with no set schedule of repayment and no fixed interest rate.

8/. The Defendant asserts that this application form was signed at the Westgate, Wakefield branch of the Halifax and that no terms and condition were provided with the application form.

9/. This is not suprising as I was not keen to apply for the card and the only way the young assistant could pursuade me to sign the pre-printed application form was with the promise of low interest life of balance transfers.

10/. This was solely the purpose for this application and solely what the account was used for.

11/. At no time was this an agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974 and so the Claimant is denied enforcement action through the courts.

12/ The Defendant admits to receaving a mastercard numbered cde from the Halifax plc in early 2007, and acknowledges that this company is now a subsidiary of the Claimant Bank of Scotland.

13/. Without any proof to the contary been evidenced the Defendant ascertains that this card was sent speculatively by the Halifax plc and as such is unsolicited goods.

14/. The Defendant admits to spending on this card but wishes to make it clear the card was never signed. As all the purchases made on this card were online no card signature was necessary.

15/. No agreement was signed to or agreed to on account number cde so this cannot be regulated by the consumer credit act and the Defendant is confused as to why the Claimant would issue court proceeding without an executed agreement for card number cde.

16/.The Claimant has concucted an elaborate story about account number abc been migrated to account number bcd and then this card been lost or stolen and replaced with account number cde.

17/. The Defendant has consistently denied this story and has asked for proof that the migration was legal and agreed to.

18/. The Defendant broke his foot around August 2007 and was forced to take lower paid part time work.

19/. Due to a lower income and the Halifax’s constant adding of penalty charges on a current account, the Defendant wrote to all its Creditors in July 2008 and at the same time contacted the Consumer Credit Counselling Service to organise lower payments and reduced interest rates.

20/. Halifax plc agreed to these reduced payments and it is my belief they then defaulted and terminated account number cde on 31/12/2008 to stop interest charges been applied.

21/. While at the time I appreciated this gesture and started a reduced payment plan I now understand that this action was an unilateral cessation of contract.

22/. I have accepted this unilateral cessation of contract and if the Claimant is able to find an executed agreement for card number cde they would be entitled to the arrears genuinely due at the time of termination - 31/12/2008.

23/. Without an executed agreement the claimant has shown no cause of action.

24/. In order to see if the high interest rate on card number cde was agreed to the Defendant applied to see his executed agreement on 27/08/08. As this request was apparently lost the Defendant re-applied in January 2009.

25/. In response to this request the Claimant provided the Defendant with a one page application form for account number abc and a sheet of terms and conditions that was unreadable.

26/. The Defendant was confused to receive a document proporting to be a Credit Card Agreement for card number abc when he had specifically asked for a copy of the executed Agreement for card number cde and opened up a complaint with the Claimant.

27/. The claimants response was to re-send the same application form with a different set of terms and conditions clearly dated from before this application form was signed.

28/. With a totally invalid request to a correctly worded Section 78 request the Defendant took the decision to stop paying the Claimant in Feb 2008. This decision was taken solely to force the Claimant to produce a valid section 78 request.

29/. Many letters were sent back and forth between February 2009 and October 2009. The claimant introduced the notion of account migration and informed me of the default and termination date of this account both dated 31/12/2010.

30/. The Defendant repeatedly told the Claimant that:

The Claimant had not produced the agreement asked for in a valid s78 request.

The Claimant had not provided the Defendant with a Default Notice prior to termination

The Claimant having terminated the account without a Default Notice had unilateraly ceased any contract that may have been in force and that as no proof of such a contract had been provided the Claimant was precluded from taking the next step enforcement action.

31/. The Defendant has failed to produce any agreement to support their claim for moneys due under card number cde. This is dispite a section 78 request for this document dated 27/08/08 & January 2009. A data subject access request dated August 2009. Three cpr31.14 letters dated 14/12/09, 15/03/10 & 14/04/10. Two cpr31.15 requests to view these documents dated 11/05/10 & 24/05/10.

32/. The Claimant has failed to evidence anything which would be regulated by The Consumer Credit Act 1974 (The Act). Further and alternatively, if the court should decide that the Hearsay evidence provided by the Claimant constitutes an agreement, it is denied that the agreement was properly executed and/or is now enforceable in whole or in part.

 

32/ The alleged agreement which the claimant has admitted as evidence is the only evidence the court should now consider in relation to this case. By virtue of section 172 of the consumer Credit Act 1974 the Claimant is bound to its statement that this represents the agreement covering account number cde.

33/. The Claimant has only provided a copy of a microfiche copy and therefore this is hearsay evidence. The date of signature on the alleged agreement is 21/07/2003 so s127(3) of the consumer credit act 1974 which was otherwise repealed in the 2006 act still remains in effect for this alleged agreement.

34/. The Claimant has refused all attempt by me for inspection of the documents needed to defend my case and have admitted that the Default Notice they allege was sent is ‘beyond their control’

35/. The Defendant can only conclude the agreement stated in the Claimants particulars of claim and the Default Notice stated in the Claimants particulars of claim rest entirely on hearsay evidence.

36/. No notice has been given to the court or the the Defendant of Intention to admit Hearsay evidence as required by the civil Evidence act 1995.

37/. The Claimants entire claim can be struck out due to cpr 3.4.2 as either :

 

• part a) an abuse of process for not having the documents needed to show reasonable grounds or
  
• 
  
• part b) that the statement of case is an abuse of process as it is speculative in nature or
  
• 
  
• part c) for the claimants continued refusal to let me inspect documents.
  

37/. All things considered I can only conclude the claimant claim is speculative in nature and an abuse of process as described in a near identical case at the Leeds Combined court - Mitchell vs. Bank of Scotland (june 2009) and respectfully request that it is struck out with cost awarded to the Defendant.

 

38/. The Defendant has made the Claimant aware of all the above points and can confirm no viable legal challenge has been received to my statements.

[diddydicky]

now you may need to get further advice on this one but i beleive that you would be wrong to make reference to the fact the the agreement was NOT regulated by the consumder credit act

 

as far as i am aware- even if it is not a valid agreement it is stil regulated by the consumer credit act.

 

it would IMO be to your detriment to claim otherwise

 

put simply you are saying that you entered into an agreement with the lender but you deny that the agreement was ever properly executed and /or legally enforceable

[freethemice]

Think the best bet is to scrape a couple of hundred quid together and go over the case with an appropriate solicitor.

These are highly complex issues and I do need to get this right.

It should be reclaimable if I win and if I loose - well just a drop in the ocean compared to the total debt.

Thanks all who've have helped so far it is v appreciated.

[freethemice]

This would seem like a diferent way to challenge the authenticity of documents receaved.

32.19

(1) A party shall be deemed to admit the authenticity of a document disclosed to him under Part 31 (disclosure and inspection of documents) unless he serves notice that he wishes the document to be proved at trial.

 

(2) A notice to prove a document must be served –

(a) by the latest date for serving witness statements; or

 

(b) within 7 days of disclosure of the document, whichever is later.

 

If I serve notice that I doubt the authenticity of the application form (which rests on microfiche) the terms and conditions (from an earlier date) and the default notice (which they have no control) of I can then better insist these documents are proved at trial.

Otherwise by this rule I will be deemed to admit the authenticity of these.

[freethemice]

Have put my concerns re disclosure and no copy of the other sides allocation questionaire to Wakefield county court.

They put it to the judge same day who now wants a 15 minute hearing to discuss this at which time I will be able to find out if he does want me to submit a formal order for disclosure or if he is happy to do this as part of the courts case management powers.

Given the level of evidence submited sofar I may just push for a strike out.

"The claimant has admitted they do not control the default notice in their letter dated XXXXXX denying me inspection of this. I fail to see how they can proceed without control of this information."

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 .

The Court has no power to order a declaration as to the enforceability of the agreement in these circumstances. Section 142(1) of the Act provides as follows:

"Where under any provision of this Act a thing can be done by a creditor or owner on an enforcement order only, and either:

(a) the court dismisses (except on technical grounds only) an application for an enforcement order, or

(b) where no such application has been made or such an application has been dismissed on technical grounds only, an interested party applies to the court for a declaration under this subsection,

the court may if it thinks just make a declaration that the creditor or owner is not entitled to do that thing, and thereafter no application for an enforcement order in respect of it shall be entertained".

Thus the power to make a declaration under s.1 42(1) exists only in case where the court could grant an enforcement order. The court cannot do so in a case where a defective default notice has been served and accordingly there is no power to make a declaration in this regard.

 

If anyone has any relavant caselaw or other statues to support this I would be grateful for your contributions.

[freethemice]

Hearing for allocation directions coming up in around 4 weeks. The judge has my application for an unless order with the Allocation Questionaire but I do feel like a strike out could be argued.

Would like to stick to one simple issue but which one is more persuasive.

 

Failure to let me inspect documents despite 2 cpr31/15 requests.

 

Conflicting dates and addresses in statements for the default notice along with an admition by the claimant that they are 'not in control of this document.'

 

Failure to explain 'account migration' and how a balance can be transfered from 6.9 life of balance to a higher interest mastercard without any notice.

 

Application form (diferent card number) void due to section 59 as an application that sought to bind me into a regulated agreement.

 

Application form should now be struck out from evidence due to failure to let me inspect under cpr31.15.

 

Default notice should be struck out as it rests solely on microfiche and the claimant has evidenced hearsay without informing me or the court as per cpr rules.

 

Also what paperwork should I take and should I send copies to the other side before hand.

Thoughts, ideas, suggestions all welcome.

[citizenB]

FTM, I have flagged your post for attention of the site team

[freethemice]

Unless someone has a better advice I will go through all my letters and count how many times I have now asked for the default notice and proof of postage. Copy these letter and take them to court along with the letter from scm stating "this is not in our control"

 

I will then mention that I applied for an unless order for disclosure but subsequently the Claimant has admitted, by letter, that disclosure of the default notice would never be possible. In the circumstances I do not feel that the case can continue while preserving my rights to a fair trial as stated under the Human rights act.

Will you please... grovel, grovel. Consider using your case management powers under cpr to strike out the claimants case.

 

Go for the big one and then, if refused, asking for the unless order to view the microfiche would seem like a consolation measure.

 

Belt and braces approach would also make me want to take a witness statement and a skeleton argument and a breakdown of costs incurred to date with me as well.

If I am wrong please tell me where so I don't look like a complete charlie.

 

Thanks...

[citizenB]

This is a case management hearing you are attending isnt it ? I would certainly have all the paperwork with you JIC and see no reason why you cant take a breakdown of your costs and the WS and Skeleton argument with you. Although they may not be required, it is always best to err on the side of caution.

 

I will flag your post up for the site team.

[freethemice]

This is a case management hearing you are attending isnt it ?

This is a case management Hearing/allocation and also as it was on the Aq's discussion about the unless order for disclosure -hopefully! 30 mins allowed.

I would certainly have all the paperwork with you JIC and see no reason why you cant take a breakdown of your costs and the WS and Skeleton argument with you. Although they may not be required, it is always best to err on the side of caution.

 

I will flag your post up for the site team.

 

 

Thanks for your help in this

[citizenB]

FTM, your strategy in posts 120 and 121 has been given the thumbs up

[freethemice]

Thanks it is appreciated.

 

I also want to get one more letter to Scm before the hearing. Does the following sound coherent:

 

Notice to admit facts

 

cpr 32.18

 

Dear Scm,

 

Following the recent ruling in the Supreme court, 7th July 2010, Southern Pacific Securities 05-2 Plc (in substitution for Southern Pacific Personal Loans Limited) (Respondent) v Walker and another (Appellants) The need for prescribed terms to be present in any agreement have been reaffirmed at the highest level. I quote:

 

12. The Act and the Regulations distinguish between ‘prescribed terms’ and

‘required terms’. In the case of an agreement predating 6 April 2007 such as the

agreement which is the subject of this appeal, by section 127(3) of the Act a failure

properly to include a prescribed term in the agreement renders the agreement

wholly unenforceable, whereas a failure properly to include a required term merely

means that the agreement is enforceable only by court order under section 65(1) of

the Act. In the case of the agreement in this case, the prescribed terms were: a term

stating the amount of credit (Agreements Regulations reg 6(1) and Sch 6, para 2), a

term stating the rate of any interest on the credit to be provided under the

agreement (ibid Sch 6, para 4) and a term stating how the debtor is to discharge his

obligations under the agreement to make the repayments (ibid Sch 6, para 5).

 

In your submission to court and me dated 28/04/2010 you evidence an application form marked as H1 which states:

“Attached to this application form you will find important information about your account. Some of which is repeated in the Halifax Credit Card Conditions. You will find a copy of these conditions in your Halifax Credit card application pack.”

You go on to evidence in H2 a “clear reconstituted version of the executed agreement which includes the Full Terms and Conditions of the Credit Card.”

Clearly you are trying to persuade that the application form and terms and conditions form one binding document. This cannot be the case.

Clearly on the application form is states “some” of which are repeated” signalling clearly that the attached form cannot be the same as the Full Terms and Conditions you have evidenced (H2). Some not all!

Also please note I have the transcript of information submitted to the House of Lords by Hbos October 2003 which clearly states that late and overlimit fees quoted in your submission (term 1.6) as been both £20 were in 2003 both raised to £25. You reconstitute a document and cannot even get a basic figure like overlimit charge correct. This is a clear warning to the courts to be careful when presented with 'reconstituted' evidence by a bank. You are either very careless with this process or seek to decieve for corporate gain.

 

Can you now clearly admit to me under cpr 32.18, whether you do have in your possession the original document alleged to be attached to the application form described as “important information about your account”. This is not to be confused with the terms and condition which (if provided) would have been in leaflet form in a credit card application pack!

Clearly if you are trying to convince the judge that important prescribed terms would have been on this separate document and attached to the application form you do need to supply a basic level of proof. I have told you and Halifax on several occasions that only a one sided application form was presented to me for signature at the Halifax Westgate branch on 21/07/2003. This was unsigned by the Halifax so was never executed and contained none of the prescribed terms which would permit enforcement under section 127 of the consumer credit act.

You are again invited to prove your case or discontinue at your earliest convenience.

 

House of Commons - Treasury - Written Evidence

http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2009_0217_Judgment.pdf

 

According to legal scholar Sir John William Salmond, a contract is "an agreement creating and defining the obligations between two or more parties".

Edited July 15, 2010 by freethemice