1st credit - claimform 2004 M&S card 'debt'

[dx100uk]

threads merged

 

 

please keep to one thread

 

 

dx

[moving on..]

Hi Shamrocker.

Your comments worry me as I thought no CCA was a complete defence at law?.

not to mention account in dispute over PPI and charges on account.

If not the case, myself and 1000s of other 'laymen' who have faith in these forums and follow the suggested paths are going to have sleepless nights at the thought that at any minute a Judge can suggest on a balance of probabilities there was a CCA and demand payment in full. This account was 2004.

 

If a payment plan cannot be negotiated for whatever reason, is today's Judgement effectively a CCJ?Will there be another hearing to determine payment plan.

Where does she go back to about PPI and charges.First credit or M &S?

Many thanks in advance.

[cfs_too]

Hi,

I'm sorry about the outcome; I'm unable to offer advice on the court case etc.

 

Looking at the previous posts, there is a copy of the CCA attached.

 

I believe the application form doubles up as the CCA agreement for many of the cards around this period of time (I think Amex is another one that used this process).

The application was for an '&more' card, so the Mayhew case would be irrelevant is this particular case.

 

I can't be sure, but my opinion is that the CCA you attached a copy of, could have been sufficient to influence the judge? (Albeit that the T&C etc and variations should be supplied to, but that's a more complex part of this I don't fully understand at a defence level and is best left to the experts on here).

 

I understand your stress, I feel stressed too that this might happen to me in the future. This forum is a great place for help, but I think the outcome has a greater chance of success if questions are asked in the early stages of receiving a court case. I do have first hand experience of this, in 2009 - this forum helped me to fend off a CCJ, for which I am eternally grateful.

 

The key is to ask for help at the very start, especially with help in writing a defence.

 

Did your friend ask for help with her defence?

Did she submit a defence and evidence? There doesn't seem to be a copy or reference to it on the forum.

It looks like the judge said she didn't submit one? Could this be why the case was lost?

 

I'm only asking these questions to see if something was missed, which if this is the case, the next time it happens you can be more prepared for what to expect.

I know this isn't of much help today, but it might make you feel a little more secure if it happens again.

 

Me_too

[AndyOrch]

This thread was only posted post Defence/ Allocation....the Defence was not CPR compliant...but it also sounds like the District Judge wasn't either....you cant win them all but we do have great success on many claims if we can advise from the beginning....see our Financial Legal Success Forum...

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/forumdisplay.php?190-Legal-Successes

 

Regards

 

Andy

[shamrocker]

Moving on.. - the claimant, in many of these cases, will disclose in support of their claim an illegible microfiche copy of the original signed agreement plus a recon version and some statements showing the claimant used the credit facility. The judge is likely to be content with that, which would tally with the experience with your friend today. I hope your friend is ok after the experience, BTW.

 

You need to at least make a 'positive assertion', through witness statements and also in court, as to why the disclosed agreement is absent of prescribed terms and thereby irredeemably unenforceable by virtue of s.127(3) of the CCA. With the so-called original being illegible (or in some cases missing), you are putting the claimant to strict proof to produce a 'true copy' of the signed original - thus showing your assertions to be untrue. Obviously, if the original turns up then you're stumped, but if they had it in their possession they'd have disclosed it already, surely.

 

Pinning your hopes on the defence of "they need to produce the original" won't wash.

 

Sham

[moving on..]

Many thanks everyone.

 

My friend has one other card

think 2004 Barclaycard who also have not produced CCA to date.

 

 

She now feels they will go straight to court .

I am at a loss to help much more ,

it is very hard 3rd hand to help sometimes,

but I do appreciate all help however deflated I sound.

 

 

Perhaps if Barclaycard do go straight to court do not pass go or collect £200 she may be better prepared ,

or at least get legal representation which is what I did suggest months back .

 

I am not sure of the payment process now as I know she cannot pay £4 let alone £4000,

I assume if she cannot agree repayment with First Credit the case heard will automatically be regarded as a CCJ?

 

 

I have advised filling in income and expenditure asap .

 

Can she still claim PPI and charges, via M & S or First Credit?..

..She thinks that will cover nearly all the outstanding amount.

 

Kindest

moving on

[shamrocker]

Hi moving on.. yes, the CCJ will be issued against her unless she pays within the stated timeframe. That's my understanding of it.

 

Does your friend - 1. in employment; 2. own her own home or other property; 3. have savings (think you answered this already)

 

With regards Barclaycard - your friend will stand a better chance by fending off any attempts to enforce from the beginning. Apply pressure via CPR, disclosure, witness statements, etc. Show them they will have to rely on the judge lottery themselves and they may back down and disappear. Taking them on in a better way will never guarantee success, but you'll have a greater chance.

 

With regards PPI - yes, chase the original creditor for them. It could be another battle to get anything though.

 

Sham

[dx100uk]

Barclaycard don't do court they'll sell it on. let that run.

[fletch70]

Just for reference

In Santander v mayhew Ms Mayhew lost on the S78 issue but won on the other issues ,default , S61 . The Judge found that the claimants had supplied the correct documents, the fact that the documents weren't compliant with the law was not the point being questioned there -do you see what I mean?