CC writ issued against suspected statute barred debt

keeperlit

sourcrates wrote: »

Now that, is a long read for all you insomniacs out there 😉

Just reading it again actually - its a mine of information (for me anyways)...it is making me sleepy tho

keeperlit

Ok guys...I have made some notes on my defence arguments...

If any of you can cast your eyes over them and give me some feedback i'd really appreciate it!

As usual all feedback is gratefully accepted:beer:


• The Pursuers have produced a document which appears to be the contract. The contract is said to be a Credit Agreement in terms of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The contract is illegible. The contract does not meet the requirements for the Consumer Credit Act 1974. There is no cooling off period. There is no vouching or specification for the sum claimed. In addition there is no connection between the two pages of the produced contract and the signed copy does not contain the prescribed terms and conditions. In the absence of vouching or specification for the sum claimed the action is irrelevant.
• The Defender is entitled to fair notice of the quantification of the Pursuers claim. In the absence of fair notice the defender does not know the nature of the debt claimed against him. The action should accordingly be dismissed.
• The action is irrelevant. The Pursuers failed to specify how and in what way they acquired a right of payment of any sums due by the Defender. It is not known and not admitted that any Assignation was intimated through the Defender by way of a written notice. The Pursuers were called upon to lodge a copy of the written notice and confirmation of its intimation on the Defenders. There future to do so will be founded upon.
• The agreement is not a credit agreement in terms of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. In terms thereof the Defender would have had a right to cancel. The provisions of the right to cancel are not incorporated in the document. To the knowledge of the defender these were not intimated to him by post.
• Esto the contract is a Consumer Credit Act agreement in terms of the 1974 act and Esto the Pursuers case is relevant and specific, in any event, the action is time barred.
inappropriate execution of agreement - Section 61(a) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 which states: "A regulated agreement is not properly executed unless it: "...is signed in the prescribed manner both by the debtor or hirer and by or on behalf of the creditor..." The action should accordingly be dismissed.
• In accordance with section 127(3) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. For a credit agreement to be enforceable it must comply with the formalities in the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 and contain all the prescribed terms
1) Amount of credit
There must be a term on the agreement which states the amount of credit which has been issued
2) Credit Limit
The agreement must include a credit limit
3) Repayments
The agreement must contain information on how the debtor is to make repayments. This could be in the form of any of the following points;
a. Amount of repayments to be made
b. Date the repayments are to be made
c. Timing of payments
d. Frequency of payments
e. Total number of repayments (For instance, when a loan is required)
f. The power of the creditor to vary any of the above mentioned
f. The manner in which any of the above is to be determined.
4) Rate of interest
There must be a term referring to the rate of interest to be applied to the credit agreement

With respect to this Credit Card Agreement sections 2, 3 & 4 should be included as a minimum. It is the defendants case that this credit agreement is not enforceable on the grounds that all of the prescribed terms within the meaning of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 were not contained in the document signed by the defendant. It is submitted by the defendant that if all of the prescribed terms are not contained in the agreement itself, then that is fatal to the enforceability of the agreement, and it would not be sufficient if, for example prescribed terms were sent a few weeks later with the credit card
In the absence of these prescribed terms the action is irrelevant and the action should accordingly be dismissed.
• Despite ticking the box marked no in the PPI section, this has been unfairly imposed on my account without my permission. (ruling issued by Judge Jacqueline Smart at South Shields County Court in the case of Lynne Thorius against MBNA) I argue that because of this, this agreement is unfair and unenforceable and the action should accordingly be dismissed.

The defendant has previously requested this information regarding the agreement from MBNA but for whatever reason, it was not forthcoming

sourcrates

Very concise, as good an argument as any !!!

keeperlit

sourcrates wrote: »

Very concise, as good an argument as any !!!

Thanks, appreciate the feedback (brought a slim smile to my face) as its been a long weekend. I'm thinking I may look at getting a solicitor back on board to handle this though. Whilst I kinda enjoy it, its very time consuming!!! Especially as the language used in this profession can be somewhat grandiose and verbose at its best! Is there anyone out there that would take this on - no win no fee..? At least that way I know they're gonna work hard to make sure I win.

happy_bunny_2

keeperlit wrote: »

Thanks, appreciate the feedback (brought a slim smile to my face) as its been a long weekend. I'm thinking I may look at getting a solicitor back on board to handle this though. Whilst I kinda enjoy it, its very time consuming!!! Especially as the language used in this profession can be somewhat grandiose and verbose at its best! Is there anyone out there that would take this on - no win no fee..? At least that way I know they're gonna work hard to make sure I win.

Try AAD forums. They can help with this and getting a good solicitor.