Twice is not enough


We all know that Nemesis never reads posts and merely jumps in to have his say. Maybe someone said something to him about that, because in this case, he decided to read the draft defence that was posted, twice! He says that he will read again.


OK, he’s back and has [allegedly] had a second read.


This time he gives it his seal of approval, yet he fails to notice that the OP has copied the generic defence template and has not altered the relevant bits. The generic defence has things like (claimant’s solicitors) which need to be removed from the final version. It also has bits in square brackets where a choice has to be made. S77 of the CCA refers to loans while s.78 refers to credit cards and other running credit agreements. The generic defence would apply to both but, at the time of drafting it, one would have to chose one or the other, hence the square brackets. It wouldn’t be that bad if it read just “s77(1)/s78(1) but the brackets give the game away and show that this is a template copied from a website. The whole point of posting it up asking for feedback would be for someone to point out those bits which your average defendant is probably not aware of. After not one but TWO reads, Nemesis still fails to notice them and says it’s “good to go”. There certainly is someone who is good to go somewhere else!


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *