Solicitor bailed out on me

[nicklea]

gem, you appear to be talking very much as though you are thinking about taking your creditors to court. I would strongly advise against doing that. However, it is a totally different story if you are being taken to court as a defendant.

 

Hi stupidboy, I too have been told by my solicitor this week that there is little point persuing unenforceable agreements as the courts really wont support the debtor if they have been paying

 

If you are acting as the Claimanat then I would agree with you. If you are the Defendant then it is another matter all together. Just ask pt2537.

 

I explained that I also had others where I had not been sent the true copy as requested, he explained that it really does not matter nowadays if there is no true copy, I asked about the Carey case where if the account is varied as is with a credit card, does the original still not have to be produced if requested so that comparisons can be made?

 

I presume that you mean you have received a reconstructed agreement in response to a s77/78 request. It is perfectly fine for them to do this. However, it is entirely different if they try to take you to court with this and you took out the agreement before 6th April 2007. In this case they DO need to provide a document with your signature on that has all the prescribed terms from Schedule 6 of the 1983 Regs on it.

 

 

, he said that if there was a fire at the holding bank and all agreements were lost that does not mean the accounts would automatically be written off, so basicaly to forget going the unenforceable cca route,

 

Again, if you are a Claimant then that may be correct. If you are the Defendant and the agreement was made before 6th April 2007 then they would not be able to succeed against a properly argued defence.

 

They are right to say that the debts would not be automatically be written off - why would they do that. But in that situation they would not succeed in any court claim against a properly argued defence.

[nicklea]

Thanks for all the replies folks, I've been a bit busy so haven't been able to spend the time on this.

 

This is going to remain my biggest problem and I guess Christmas is now booked up for me...

 

In essence, it seems to me that nothing has changed IF you are the defendant. They have to prove their case, and it is an issue of enforceability, not liability. Anyone that tries to argue that they are not liable for the (credit card) debt then they will lose. Those that keep to the enforceability argument will win.

 

No signature on a legally enforceable agreement = no enforcement.

 

Or am I missing something?

 

As long as you signed the agreement before 5th April 2007 then this is correct

 

EDIT following rdm2006's comments below

 

As long as the agreement commenced before 5th April 2007 then this is correct

Edited January 22, 2011 by nicklea

[nicklea]

The "agreement" which is actually an application form for another card on my wife's account and is only 2" x 6" without ANY of the requirements that I can see is signed, but is it is dated before the crucial date.

 

I can assure you that it is not a legally enforceable agreement when you read the CCA, but these solicitors are telling me that they can turn up with a reconstituted agreement and show the court what I would have signed, had they retained the original.

 

To take the second part first. If the agreement was commenced before 5th Aprtil 2007 then what they are saying is wrong - end of.

 

However, with regards to the first part, things might get complicated there. From what you have said it sounds like you were an additional cardholder on your wife's account.

 

I would suggest that your liability will come down to two things. First of all, are you jointly and severally liable. In other words, it was your wife's account so did the terms and conditions allow them to come after you as well as her?

 

Secondly, if the terms do allow them to come after you as well as her, was her agreement actually enforceable anyway?

 

So, I would suggest that you neeed to read the terms very closely to see if they can come after you as an additional cardholder

[nicklea]

Yes, but with a separate card and account number - she has not been legally pursued even though she has stopped paying to the same company.

 

Ok, I'm afraid that doesn't make any sense at all. It's either the same account or it isn't. You can have more than one card on an account. They will each have different card numbers, but each card will be linked to the same account.

 

Did you used to get two seperate bills addressed to the two of you individually or was the bill just addressed to one person?

 

Now it sounds as though things have been progressing with the court case and you've come here half way through.

 

Would you mind posting up what was in the particulars of claim in the origianl claim form made against you, including who the claimant is and also what, if any, defence you have put in so far - obviously leaving out any poersonal details?

 

This will enable people to understand what your position is and give further advice from there