Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I apologise if I was being unclear. Where it currently stands is that they will have it repair, placing scaffolding in our garden for 5 days. They have moved fast, but we will still have to postpone our contractors, meaning, we won't necessarily have the work done in time for the wedding and therefore will incur additional expenses for either a marquee or a wedding venue. They are vehemently against having any kind of liability in any regard but continue repeating that they are legally entitled to use our garden for their repairs (I believe this is true unless the work can be carried out using a cherry picker). The neighbour seems either indifferent or oblivious to the fact they can't reach all of the side of the roof from the space where they can place the scaffolding. They have asked their roofer of choice about using a cherry picker but the roofer has said it wasn't possible. It's not clear whether the roofer doesn't want to use a cherry picker or whether there is an issue with it. They have told us it is a problem that we are installing a gazebo as it will prevent them to access their roof from our garden in the future?!?  
    • Couldn't agree more, really wanted a true ruling on this just for the knowledge but pretty sure the Judge made some decisions today that he didn't need to?.. maybe they all go this way on the day? We hear back so few post court dates I'm not sure. Each Judge has some level of discretion. Their sol was another Junior not even working at their Firm, so couldn't speak directly for them! that was fortunate I think because if she would have rejected in court better, she might have  been able to force ruling, we are at that point!, everybody there!!, Judge basically said openly that he can see everything for Judgement!!!  but she just said "I can speak to the claimant and find out!" - creating the opportunity for me to accept. I really think the Judge did me a favor today by saying it without saying it. Knowing the rep for the sol couldn't really speak to the idea in the moment. Been to court twice in a fortnight, on both occasions heard 4 times with others and both of my claims, the clerk mention to one or both parties "Letting the Judge know if you want to have a quick chat with each other"! So, it appears there's an expectation of the court that there is one last attempt at settling before going through the door. So, not a Sol tactic, just Court process!. Judge was not happy we hadn't tried to settle outside! We couldn't because she went to the loo and the Judge called us in 10 minutes early! - another reason to stand down to allow that conv to happen. Stars aligned there for me I think. But yeh, if the sol themselves, or someone who can make decisions on the case were in court, I would have received a Judgement against today I think. She was an 'advocate'.. if I recall her intro to me correctly.. So verbal arguments can throw spanners in Court because Plinks dogs outsource their work and send a Junior advocate.
    • that was a good saving on an £8k debt dx
    • Find out how the UK general elections works, how to register to vote, and what to do on voting day.View the full article
    • "We suffer more in imagination than in reality" - really pleased this all happened. Settled by TO, full amount save as to costs and without interest claimed. I consider this a success but feel free to move this thread to wherever it's appropriate. I say it's a success because when I started this journey I was in a position of looking to pay interest on all these accounts, allowing them to default stopped that and so even though I am paying the full amount, it is without a doubt reduced from my position 3 years ago and I feel knowing this outcome was possible, happy to gotten this far, defended myself in person and left with a loan with terms I could only dream of, written into law as interest free! I will make better decisions in the future on other accounts, knowing key stages of this whole process. We had the opportunity to speak in court, Judge (feels like just before a ruling) was clear in such that he 'had all the relevant paperwork to make a judgement'. He wasn't pleased I hadn't settled before Court.. but then stated due to WS and verbal arguments on why I haven't settled, from my WS conclusion as follows: "11. The Defendant was not given ample evidence to prove the debt and therefore was not required to enter settlement negotiations. Should the debt be proved in the future, the Defendant is willing to enter such negotiations with the Claimant. "  He offered to stand down the case to give us chance to settle and that that was for my benefit specifically - their Sols didn't want to, he asked me whether I wanted to proceed to judgement or be given the opportunity to settle. Naturally, I snapped his hand off and we entered negotiations (took about 45 minutes). He added I should get legal advice for matters such as these. They were unwilling to agree to a TO unless it was full amount claimed, plus costs, plus interest. Which I rejected as I felt that was unfair in light of the circumstances and the judges comments, I then countered with full amount minus all costs and interest over 84 months. They accepted that. I believe the Judge wouldn't have been happy if they didn't accept a payment plan for the full amount, at this late stage. The judge was very impressed by my articulate defence and WS (Thanks CAG!) he respected that I was wiling to engage with the process but commented only I  can know whether this debt is mine, but stated that Civil cases were based on balance of probabilities, not without shadow of a doubt, and all he needs to determine is whether the account existed. Verbal arguments aside; he has enough evidence in paperwork for that. He clarified that a copy of a DN and NOA is sufficient proof based on balance of probabilities that they were served. I still disagree, but hey, I'm just me.. It's definitely not strict proof as basically I have to prove the negative (I didn't receive them/they were not served), which is impossible. Overall, a great result I think! BT  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Has an application form ever been enforced in court


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5827 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Has that actually been tested in court Car? Just curious.

 

There have been other threads where applications that conform to the form and content requirements of the CCA have been enforced, yes.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The basic logic is:

 

if an agreement is properly executed it can be enforced by the creditor

 

if it is not, it can only be enforced by a court

 

the court's power in this respect is limited - it cannot enforce an agreement if it is not signed by the debtor or it has any of the prescribed terms missing

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replies guys. Can this be rethreaded in the 'Legal Issues' forum from Post 149 to here (bar Post 150)? Sorry Speedo! So as creditors are seeking to gain charging orders on some debts that are based on application forms doesn't the 7 day rule in Section 58(1) kick in to stop that? That's the 7 days referred to in Section 61(2)(b).

What sort of world do you want your kids to grow up in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replies guys. Can this be rethreaded in the 'Legal Issues' forum from Post 149 to here (bar Post 150)? Sorry Speedo! So as creditors are seeking to gain charging orders on some debts that are based on application forms doesn't the 7 day rule in Section 58(1) kick in to stop that? That's the 7 days referred to in Section 61(2)(b).

 

Am I off the mark here then?

 

I'm not with you?

 

A charging order is an enforcement option under a CCJ that is in default.

 

The original debt isn't secured on land.

 

Maybe you could explain the question again? ;)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I looked at it 'land' was meant to mean property. If I got that completely wrong ok. 'If' I am correct then a CO is a securing of that property is it not? And if that is correct an Application Form/Agreement couldn't, by definition, have been subject to the said 7 day period right?

What sort of world do you want your kids to grow up in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I looked at it 'land' was meant to mean property. If I got that completely wrong ok. 'If' I am correct then a CO is a securing of that property is it not? And if that is correct an Application Form/Agreement couldn't, by definition, have been subject to the said 7 day period right?

 

I don't think that's right, as the CO is a way of enforcing a CCJ and isn't involved in the sale of land, which is where that 7 day period comes from.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know what i'm saying is pretty convoluted, but the CCJ is gained on the strength of the contract. A CO is then obtained on the strength of the CCJ, which is still founded on the said contract. A CO 'secures' the debt. There are 2 competing discourses I guess. Broadly speaking, I don't think any CO's should be granted on CCJ's that relate to unsecured debt. I'm no legal eagle, but I would like to see this tested in court. The question I would ask is what do the hell DO THEY MEAN when crediors use the word 'unsecured'?

What sort of world do you want your kids to grow up in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it will work, matey.

 

The contract effectively "becomes" (that's a layman's way of putting it, it's more technical than that, but lets keep this simple for now) the CCJ once it's enforced. The enforcement action on the CCJ isn't dependant on the contract, then - as a CO is an enforcement option on the CCJ, I can't see how this works in our favour or even if it is needed, IMHO.

 

Broadly speaking, I don't think any CO's should be granted on CCJ's that relate to unsecured debt.

 

Well, I'm with you there, brother - but I can't see it working in all reality.

 

The question I would ask is what do the hell DO THEY MEAN when crediors use the word 'unsecured'?

 

It's anything that isn't secured - meaning not having a security attached, such as property.

 

A credit card, for example, doesn't require a secured order on your property - but the debt could turn in to a CO if you don't pay, get a CCJ and still don't pay.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for entertaining my drivel. :-0 So it seems there is no such thing as an unsecured debt then, unless your don't own a property of course. I'm not happy about seeing loans being advertised on the TV as unsecured when they are certainly not. People may think twice about borrowing if they didn't have the word 'unsecured' shoved in their faces. It should be spelt out to them that a CCJ and a CO is a possibility, whether likely one or not. There is enough pressure to get into debt as it is! People need to be given all the facts. What they then make of these facts is their business. Is this a case for the ASA do you think?

What sort of world do you want your kids to grow up in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you borrow money on a credit card there is no security - it is an unsecured debt. On the other hand a "homeowner loan" like Picture, Welcome and the rest is secured on your property. That's why they are only open to people who own their own homes. If you default on a secured loan like that, then the loan company can reposses your house and sell it to recoup thier money.

 

A credit card comany doesn't have that optin because the loan is unsecured.

 

However, if the get a CCJ and you default on that as well they can apply for a CO. That transforms an unsecurred loan into a secured one.

 

A CO doesn't operate in quite the same way as a secured loan in that the creditor cannot reposses your house (at least I think that is the case) but they do get their share if and when the house is sold.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I have thought this over more. I don't think I am being pedant of the millennium when I say that a debt specifically advertised and sold as unsecured should remain unsecured for the life of the debt. As well as CCJ's leading to CO's there is also the possiblity of creditors petitioning for bankruptcy and folk declaring themselves bankrupt. That's not right. People might have thought twice about taking the credit in the first place if the word unsecured hadn't been falsely used. Solution? If it isn't unsecured don't advertise it as such! 'Oh it was unsecured, but a CCJ was granted and that led to a CO etc.' doesn't wash with me. I am going to see what the ASA have to say on this. It's pretty clear in my head. Maybe i'm just deluded! :lol::lol::lol:

What sort of world do you want your kids to grow up in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have thought this over more. I don't think I am being pedant of the millennium when I say that a debt specifically advertised and sold as unsecured should remain unsecured for the life of the debt. As well as CCJ's leading to CO's there is also the possiblity of creditors petitioning for bankruptcy and folk declaring themselves bankrupt. That's not right. People might have thought twice about taking the credit in the first place if the word unsecured hadn't been falsely used. Solution? If it isn't unsecured don't advertise it as such! 'Oh it was unsecured, but a CCJ was granted and that led to a CO etc.' doesn't wash with me. I am going to see what the ASA have to say on this. It's pretty clear in my head. Maybe i'm just deluded! :lol::lol::lol:

 

If you are then I am deluded along with you. It seems very unfair that an unsecured debt can via a CCJ suddenly become secured on a person's home. There is no way I would have taken any unsecured credit via credit cards had I realised that this could happen. There is no balance either. A person with their own home would/could literally lose everything. Whereas a person who rents and has minimum possessions would at least have a roof over their head.

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are then I am deluded along with you. It seems very unfair that an unsecured debt can via a CCJ suddenly become secured on a person's home. There is no way I would have taken any unsecured credit via credit cards had I realised that this could happen. There is no balance either. A person with their own home would/could literally lose everything. Whereas a person who rents and has minimum possessions would at least have a roof over their head.

 

That's why they ask you if you are renting or own your own home - it's not for market research... they are considering the risk of lending to you.

 

Perversely, you're more likely to be given unsecured credit because you're a home owner, as a result.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perversely, you're more likely to be given unsecured credit because you're a home owner, as a result.
Precisely because, should you default, they can, in principle, get it converted to a secured loan via a CO.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's why they ask you if you are renting or own your own home - it's not for market research... they are considering the risk of lending to you.

 

Perversely, you're more likely to be given unsecured credit because you're a home owner, as a result.

 

Precisely because, should you default, they can, in principle, get it converted to a secured loan via a CO.

 

Thanks guys, this truly is a steep learning curve for me:)

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...