Well I think it was a win, win, lose judgement!

The judge more or less decided the agreement was unenforceable within the first 5 minutes (that was pretty much a no brainer).

As for the return of the interest, I have to admit I dropped the ball here right from the get go in my original particulars of claim. I had simply asked for a fixed sum in respect of return of the interest we have paid over the years on this account. This wasn't a large amount.

Now the creditor had already agreed not to pursue the sum outstanding on the account – a sum that was larger than the sum I had asked for in return of interest.

Even though the judge agreed there was no enforceable agreement and that this would result in return of the sums of interest, he argued that the sum already 'written off' by the creditor more than compensated for the interest to be returned.

So effectively we came away with nothing more than the amount already written off.

The judge asked me if I was claiming any capital back and I got the impression that the judge might have allowed for the return of all payments and interest on the account, but he could only consider what I had claimed (which was only a small sum of interest).

He argued that I had not effectively demonstrated what amounts of capital sums had been paid and what amounts of interest had been paid. It was all down to my *** poor accounting in the end. I had turned a win into a no win. (But at least I didn't lose). What I can't quite get my head around is if the creditor had written the balance off how can the interest the judge effectively awarded me be 'set off' against an amount already written off?? I suppose he just didn't want to make a cash award against a creditor even though my arguments were sound.

So if any of you want to try your hand (which I really don't recommend !!) do your homework especially the maths. Also I found my notes and arguments were way too long winded. It took too long to find the details in all my copious paperwork. In the end it was all from memory. Still it is done and dusted now.

How right you are. I have seen 4 judges on this case already. Two were very reasonable and clearly just looking at the facts and law, the other two gave the impression they wanted to wipe me off the bottom of thier shoes!

On the unenforceability issue it should be cut and dried, but the repayment of interest is a bit speculative and will depend on the judges bias. I don't hold out too much hope, it all depends upon my nerve in front of the judge. But if I win it could set a very small precedent. My main arguments will be Dimond and Wilson where securities and interest were returned.

Good luck with the judge lottery. Can't help but think that some revel in their unaccountability, on the basis that people can't often afford to appeal.

Oh well, the full trial of the original case of this thread is tomorrow pm. All WS are in and I sent my skele' arguments last week. Let's see how the courts deal with it. They'll either go with the Act and case law or they'll look for any excuse to find for the creditor!

On another separate case I now have an eighth DCA chasing it, so I've sent another 'prove it letter'! (This was a case where I got a default judgement and a settlement amount some time ago, but there is some confusion as whether a default judgement would confer res judicata or estoppel).

On my third account, they have re-issued a new DN (claiming it is a 'copy' of the original) but whilst it is dated the same as the original (i.e. 18 months ago) it has different amounts for remedy! Err, how does THAT work (fraud or just misleading) !!?? LOL!

Fun and games.

The claim that this thread was originally about goes to a CMC this morning.

Still intrigued as to why such a small claim needs a CMC but I'll report back this afternoon.

Edit:

Oh well, that took all of 15 mins!

The judge seemed disappointed I intend to proceed and directed the parties attempt agreement before the trial and was surprised a CMC was directed.

Judge then ordered standard directions, i.e.

Disclosure of all documents the parties intend to rely on.

Originals of all documents to be brought to hearing.

No expert witnesses.

Witness statements to be exchanged and filed with court.

Hearing to last 2 hours!!

Bu*ger!!!

Now I've got a third option to consider!

Effort!!!!! (as my 15 year old would say!)

Just ignore them, life's too short to be bothered with timewasters.

If and/or when they ever get round to deserving a serious reply, only then consider wasting further time.

Well now you've got me thinking!

Do I poke the tiger and risk it biting me on the ass or play the straight game and refer them back to the OC with a list of their illustrious predecessors.

I'm getting bored. My two other creditors have either resorted to making 'special offers' or haven't written to me for 7 months.

Basa

I think you should send them a note suggesting that they look into the history of the account, before they waste their time and money. Give them a few hints as to why this might be the case.

If they are stupid enough to continue, then you could have some fun.

Oh well, as suspected the threat came to nought. We have now received a demand from the seventh DCA/Sols for this account! Wouldn't you think they'd just call it a day and give up?

Deciding now whether to string this latest chancer a line and ask for all documents pertaining to the account (agreement, statements, DN, TN etc.) just for a laugh!

Resurrection

Thanks - I had more or less decided on a game plan as you suggest.

It seems for all the world the DCAs at least are pretending the default judgment didn't happen! I have advised them of that fact but I still get the pay up in 10 days or its the beak for you m'lad!!!

It's more likely I won't go for the SJ because this would cost me £75 !! Let them pay.

huckster - Would this not depend on the POC that they submit ?

Yes it would, hucks.

basa - firstly await to see if their threat is for real or just BS......in the unlikely event a claim does actually appear and rakes up any of the past, then ask for it to be dealt with by way of the former i.e. struck out because the initial claim was undefended and not appealed for such a long time.

If it's the latter i.e. they try to give the impression it's a new claim, then file the same old defence you were going to use previously.....but do also urge the court to take fully into account the settlement already paid (by providing past case reference numbers) and the waste of time the claimant has unreasonably caused to all the parties involved through their past inaction and indecision, particularly stress the waste of the courts time.!

Would this not depend on the POC that they submit ?

If they do issue a claim (and that is by no means certain) I am unsure as to whether to go for an application for summary judgment / strike out on the grounds the matter has already been the subject of a previous claim which was not defended, or just file a defence.

There is no new evidence whatsoever, only such documents as were disclosed originally in response to my s78 request.

Basically I determined that these documents did not represent an enforceable agreement. I stopped payments and asked the creditor to reduce my debt balance to £0.

Of course I was pretty soon defaulted at which time I issued the claim as I posted below. The rest is as posted, i.e. I obtained default judgement and the creditor paid up.

In the meantime the creditor has been using DCAs to threaten court proceedings for the full balance.