RBS Mint Loan - Court Action Started & Dodgy DN issues

[Pumpkinhead]

Yep, you did make the comment to me. I'm certain I could have quoted almost verbatim from a lot of the documents I had with me and I have spent ages reviewing, reading, researching and most importantly reaching a real understanding of what this is all about. Within my own line of work I already knew that preparation is often the key to success.

 

I won't be posting anything up that will benefit the other side, but I might like to mess with them a little!!

[gh2008]

Thanks Gh. I've been following the Invalid Default Notices thread which I see you've been busy on today, so follow your last point very much.

 

I enjoy a good argument - well, not argument, debate, discussion whatever you want to call it.

 

I try not to get involved in the name calling stupity that many of the threads seem to become

My feelings are if you can't hold your own in a debate with your peers then how on earth are you going to do it in Court.

 

I am a firm believer that once you throw your toys out then you have lost ......

[Pumpkinhead]

Personally, I'm always very aware of the risk of others trying to manipulate emotional responses. Looking at the behaviours of others from a psychological perspective can be very enlightening and definately enables you to operate from a more strategic base. I suppose some might call in natural cunning!

[gh2008]

Without wishing to appear immodest and accepting that it was only an App hearing, today wasn't half as bad as I'd imagined. I feel positively fired up now!

 

OMG!! what has CAG done to you

 

just thinking back to this post (from a different thread)

 

 

Both my husband and I have both been served claims for the same storecard debt. Is this right? Should both of us reply or just one of us?

 

The debt is under £1k but we just can't afford to pay it back right now.

 

I previously requested the CCA and as it looks to be OK to me I resumed monthly payments. However with ever deepening financial difficulties I decided to write to all my creditors (only those I believe I have valid agreements with) asking them to accept lower payments etc and enclosed a personal budget sheet (from this site). Everyone accepted except for this storecard with a local company (not part of big group). The sent us a DN (again appears valid) and terminated account and followed all correct procedures.

 

They rejected my offer of reduced monthly payments which I have sent twice now.

 

What can I do now? Could I offer to settle the claim by paying a part of the amount owing as a final settlement or is it too late for that?

 

Any advice welcome.

 

 

how times have changed ........

[gh2008]

Personally, I'm always very aware of the risk of others trying to manipulate emotional responses. Looking at the behaviours of others from a psychological perspective can be very enlightening and definately enables you to operate from a more strategic base. I suppose some might call in natural cunning!

 

didn't realise I was being psychoanalysed as well ........ scary .......

[Pumpkinhead]

Yeah - tell you what - fighting consumer credit battles is better medicine than anti-depressants. It has really boosted my self-esteem and made me a much stronger person. I've even amazed myself with how I've been handling all this. It must be true that what doesn't kill you, makes you stronger!

[Gallahad]

Dont try mess with their brains PH the echo would be deafening:wink:

G

[Bigdebtor]

Pumpkin

 

Well done! I think you've got them on the ropes now - I would go in for the kill - but nothing wrong with making it a long slow and painful death - so mess away! . The more of their blood we spill the more likely they are to revert to "ex gratia" deals to avoid the risk of losing in court (again).

 

After some of the recent perverse judgements it's good to see a case where the chances of a win seem so high!

 

BD

[gh2008]

IMHO, you may struggle with a SO app (if it was cut 'n' dried the DJ would have heard your app there and then) - they are playing word games and because they have not submitted their full argument I think there is a chance that the Court would say that they deserve to have their chance and basically that's what a SO app would deny them.

 

Get the official Judgement from yesterday and see what it says then go from there.

[frettful38]

subbing with great interest

[Pumpkinhead]

Quick question as I start preparing my amended defence.

 

Can I prepare a totally different defence if I want to or must I use my original defence as the foundation document and highlight pieces I wish to delete, amend or add?

 

Reason for asking is that the Claimant's amended POC was a copy of the original POC but marked up to show what they wished to delete, add or change.

[Pumpkinhead]

Need some help with query related to the original agreement as I prepare my amended defence. It was for a a fixed sum loan agreement. I'm checking that the agreement contains the prescribed terms and enforceability etc.

 

The agreement does not contain a statement of my rights as (possibly) required by the Consumer Credit Agreements Regulation. The bit YOUR RIGHT TO CANCEL Once you have signed this agreement, you will have a short time in which to cancel it. The creditor will send you exact details of how and when you can do this.

 

I need to find out if this type of agreement should have included this statement. I've been reading the CCA and am finding it difficult to understand what it says.

 

I think the agreement would be classed as a fixed sum unrestricted debtor/creditor agreement. If this is the case, should the "Your Right to Cancel" bit have been included on it?

 

This agreement was for a loan applied for over the phone, so it was covered by the Distance Selling Regs - does this make it exempt from requiring the Your Right to Cancel bit to be on the agreement document itself?

 

I understand there are certain circumtances in which the creditor does not have to put the box in explaining rights, but I can't understand even after referring to the CCA or the Agreement Regs whether my agreement would have been exempt.

 

Here it is http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv213/pumpkinhead50/Mint%20Loan/MintLoanAgreementSide1.jpg

 

I've only included the front of the page, there isn't anything relevant to it on the reverse.

 

Urgent help needed please.

Edited November 12, 2010 by Pumpkinhead
Extra para for clarification

[gh2008]

I'm away at the moment.

That is not a prescribed, but a required term - but only if agreement was cancellable (pre agreement, face to face negotiations andsigned off trade premises)

 

You should ckeck for rights and remedies statement though - that is often left off

again, only required, but it does make agreement improperly executed

 

good luck

gh

[Pumpkinhead]

I think the agreement was cancellable as it was signed away from trade premises and I know that the Distance Marketing Regs applied to it. Not 100% sure what you mean gh by Rights and Remedies statement, but think you mean the box headed "Important Read This Carefully" which is included on the agreement.

 

Other Caggers help/views appreciated esp as gh is away at present

[Pumpkinhead]

If the Right to Cancel bit should have been included, should it have been on the agreement itself or would it have been acceptable for it to be on a separate doc?

[Pumpkinhead]

An interesting development.

 

Those who've been following this thread may remember that back in early Oct (see post 82) I received a letter from the Sols saying amongst other things that they felt my pleadings were equivocal and asked me to confirm whether I believed any part of the agreement was still in effect.

 

I replied to the negative. However, my letter contained other matters and so was sent under a without prejudice heading.

 

Both parties have now submitted their bundles prior to the hearing just before Christmas. Upon receiving mine, the Sols have written asking me again to confirm whether it is my case that any aspect of the agreement still subsists as the only response they’ve had from me regarding this was received in a without prejudice letter.

 

I suspect there must be some sort of problem on their side, but am not sure what it might be. Anyone have any suggestions?

[gh2008]

what's in their bundle? that might give a clue

 

It is obviously central to their argument, but which way is the question ...

[Pumpkinhead]

Yes, that's my thinking too.

 

Their bundle is tiny in comparison to mine. The only "new" document that I haven't seen before is a witness statement from someone who works at RBS. The rest of the bundle consists of documents I've seen before, they've sent me or I've sent them etc.

 

My thought is that it must be something to do with the Witness Statement or possibly their amended POC.

 

I note one of the paragraphs in the Witness Statement by the RBS worker says that she understands it is the Defendant's case that the agreement is at an end. Is she perhaps making reference to my without prejudice letter here?

 

Is it worth me posting up the WS?

[Bigdebtor]

Pumpy

 

It looks as if you might have got them on the ropes - IF you give the right answer.

 

The question is - is it YES or NO?

 

I would think it's now worth seeking advice to see if they can see what the other side's difficulty might be?

 

Good luck!

 

BD

[Undercover-Elsa]

I personally think the clue was in the original question in which they said (if my memory serves me well) that if you stated the the agreement still existed in any way in your view then they would issue a new DN.

Obviously they feel that they can't do this unless you affirm that the contract still exists.

 

So on the face of it it would seem to be of benefit to YOU to state the contract is over, but always expect skulduggery.

 

Might be a good idea to post up the WS

 

Elsa x

[gh2008]

That is certainly my thinking as well.

 

I am struggling to find any advantage to them if you were to believe that the account is terminated.

 

Their actions would lead a 'reasonable person' to believe that it was terminated and they accept that.

 

The WS would be good to have a looksee over

[Undercover-Elsa]

Hi Gh

 

Could it be that they're simply thinking that

a) if PT does accept the termination they can proceed to court without doing anything else (despite the DN..they might be going to chance that..although with Brandon still up in air that could be cause for a stay)

b) If PT rejects the termination and affirms the agreement, they would need to reissue another DN and subsequently terminate again before the court date

 

However, I hope that it's

c) If PT accepts the termination, they would not be keen to proceed because of the DN issue

 

Any other ideas?

 

Elsa x

[pumpytums]

Could they simply be looking for a statement from PT stating that the agreement is now ended and under the terms of the agreement you should now pay any monies owing as you have decided to end it not us.

 

http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv213/pumpkinhead50/Mint%20Loan/MintLoanAgreementSide1.jpg

 

under the important bit.

 

 

They could simply say well you ended the agreement and as you can see it clearly states here that you should now pay the monies owed. They could say that as you ended the agreement the issue of the DN does not apply as we only have to issue a valid one if we demand monies not yet due or terminate the agreement. I think they are trying to move the judge away from their mistakes.

 

Maybe silence would be the best policy who knows.

 

Pumpytums

Edited December 8, 2010 by pumpytums

[gh2008]

Hi Elsa

 

Brandon is IMHO not applicable to this as in Brandon the OC gave him the 14 days from service time - they just worded wrongly and that is the main argument. The DJ ruled that no prejudice was shown as although the wording was incorrect Brandon had no intention of rectifying.

 

This is different, the wording was correct - the dates were wrong and the CCA is quite clear that, in order to be compliant the date needs to be right.

 

BUT jmho and it would be hard, without Counsel, to argue it (in the same way as Carey & McGuffick are misquoted & missused so often )

 

They also haven't, afaik, brought in Brandon and if they did at trial it would be a clear case for calling for an adjournment as it would be a completely new argument from them.

 

I think it's b / c hopefully we'll get a peek at the WS which should give more info.

[gh2008]

Maybe silence would be the best policy who knows.

 

Pumpytums

 

I think this would be my feelings as well - unless ordered by the Court

 

although a careful answer may be needed in preparation for when the question inevitably arises ...

after all - they're the creditor they should know.........