Stubie-One:

Just skeleton arguements to start, the detail goes into your court submission.

S

Now looking for some other obscure act to throw you off course (Hee Hee)

LOL

Just realised I've already sent off my claim (last week in fact) to the second of my creditors!!!!

This is what went on the claim form:

Edit: I shouldn't hijack this thread. Moved my claim details to my own thread.

PS: Don't mind you throwing all or anything to put me off .. it's all good practice for the real thing.

Just skeleton arguements to start, the detail goes into your court submission.

S

Now looking for some other obscure act to throw you off course (Hee Hee)

Stubie-One:

I agree, the s127(3) arguement is the most bullet proof due to the extent that it has been used and the precedents that exist.

I just chucked UTCCR in to see if you were awake (LOL)

S

Sneaky sod!

I actually think the s.59 is a damn good opening gambit. The lack of the Quotations Regs IMO makes it easier since the creditor cannot rely on the pt's being present exempting the application from s59.

I still will use s.61/127.

Incidentally, I've spent hours pawing over Acts and Regs preparing my claim and currently have 5 sides of A4 of detailed Cause of Action citing all the relevant Clauses, Regs and case law.

I assume I don't include all this in my initial PoC just an outline for starters? (I didn't for my Littlewoods claim anyway).

I agree, the s127(3) arguement is the most bullet proof due to the extent that it has been used and the precedents that exist.

I just chucked UTCCR in to see if you were awake (LOL)

S

Stubie-One:

Very good - gonna stop helping you in a minute (LOL) - or maybe 8 days

Thinking about the UTCCR in any guise, I don't think they help you as they will not invalidate the entire agreement, just the offending clause if the agreement is capable of continuing without the clause. In fact, removal of the offending clause would strengthen the plaintiff's case so definately a no go.

S

Not sure if there is any one clause (or multiple clauses) in the prospective agreement that fall foul of UTCCR, it would be more the execution (or lack of) of the agreement that fails.

Stubie-One:

By the Consumer Credit (Quotations) (Revocation) Regulations 1997

"(2) The Consumer Credit (Quotations) Regulations 1989 are hereby revoked"

Sorry

S

15-30. Hmmm, not sure where this leaves us.

Going to do some more reading !!!!!!!

Edit: So as I read it now, the only agreements exempt from s.59 are: agreements for hiring or buying business goods. (1552(2))

Seems very odd to me !

Very good - gonna stop helping you in a minute (LOL) - or maybe 8 days

Thinking about the UTCCR in any guise, I don't think they help you as they will not invalidate the entire agreement, just the offending clause if the agreement is capable of continuing without the clause. In fact, removal of the offending clause would strengthen the plaintiff's case so definately a no go.

S

By the Consumer Credit (Quotations) (Revocation) Regulations 1997

"(2) The Consumer Credit (Quotations) Regulations 1989 are hereby revoked"

Sorry

S

Stubie-One:

basa48:

I did, yes, and it helps identify a prospective or pre-agreement, but being a pedant I was also looking for where any Act or Regs disqualify an antecedent document from being an agreement.

Try this?

Unfair terms

4. — (1) In these Regulations, subject to paragraphs (2) and (3) below, “unfair term” means any term which contrary to the requirement of good faith causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract to the detriment of the consumer.

Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1994

Any help?

S

UTCCR 1994 revoked and replaced by UTCCR 1999 (love - 30 !! lol).

Para 5 is now the clause you've quoted, but Para (4) states:

4. - (1) These Regulations apply in relation to unfair terms in contracts concluded between a seller or a supplier and a consumer.

So not sure it is useful.

I do think the antecedent argument is powerful though.

The ones that were revoked in 1997 perchance??

S

Stubie-One:

You know the "quotations" regs you have referred to recently?

Are they "The Consumer Credit (Quotations) Regulations 1989"?

S

Correct.

basa48:

I did, yes, and it helps identify a prospective or pre-agreement, but being a pedant I was also looking for where any Act or Regs disqualify an antecedent document from being an agreement.

Try this?

Unfair terms

4. — (1) In these Regulations, subject to paragraphs (2) and (3) below, “unfair term” means any term which contrary to the requirement of good faith causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract to the detriment of the consumer.

Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1994

Any help?

S

You know the "quotations" regs you have referred to recently?

Are they "The Consumer Credit (Quotations) Regulations 1989"?

S

Stubie-One:

I thought we had.

Did you see the s56 ref? this will support an s59 arguement.

S

I did, yes, and it helps identify a prospective or pre-agreement, but being a pedant I was also looking for where any Act or Regs disqualify an antecedent document from being an agreement.

When dealing with solictors and barristers et al you have to be very concise with the arguments following a precise order. e.g prove this and this follows, or this points to this which points to that etc, etc.

So much argument is hidden in corners of this Reg or that and the Act rarely identifies the precise Regs.

I'll get the hang of it in a while.