Jump to content

Leaderboard

  1. Toulose LeDebt

    Toulose LeDebt

    Registered Users

    Change your profile picture


    • Points

      4

    • Content Count

      864


  2. buzby

    buzby

    Registered Users

    Change your profile picture


    • Points

      1

    • Content Count

      14,663


  3. andie_303

    andie_303

    Registered Users

    Change your profile picture


    • Points

      1

    • Content Count

      3,066


  4. saintly_1

    saintly_1

    Registered Users

    Change your profile picture


    • Points

      1

    • Content Count

      12,919


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 13/04/09 in all areas

  1. Walkden is a decent enough centre and you can use all other TF's as well and there are plenty around that area to choose from. Anyway they say 12 month agreement - and the get outs are medical (with appropriate evidence) and relocation to non TF area. However, TF do NOT actively pursue members that cancel their DD's early - the reason given by the director is that they are a 'leisure club' and therefore this is not a great image to uphold when setting DCA's on your door - so they send a max of 2 letters asking you to pay then they leave you alone - and turn your status on their syste
  2. £00.00 ........ as you are a litigant in person
  3. If you can then get the years 2004-2005, 2005-2006, 2006-2007 filled in and do the year 2003-2004 too. I think then you'll have to play it on the fly as your actions really should depend on the bottom line of those returns. Remember gross income-expenses-personal allowance= taxable income. until 2009 the first £2k ish was chargeable at 10% the rest at approx 20% (give or take) The killer is that you then have to take Class 4 NIC's from taxable income at approx 8% Which really means that taxable income X 30% is appproximately the amount due to HMRC for each year. Call t
  4. The Court judgment covered years 1999-2004 inclusive. I didn't spot earlier that he'd filed 2008 already but the reason he faces another action if he's not careful is that tax years 05,06 and 07 have not been submitted (and they weren't included in the original action). Even if you just get 2004-2005 submitted that will buy him some time but at the moment they just look on him as a serial offender. (Believe me I've been there and had the **** treatment from them myself). Sorry to hear about his losses I would be the Worlds worst at coping with something like that, strangely my own ta
  5. Other Information Section I If the court is in agreement, the defendant respectfully requests that special directions may be given as per the attached draft order. The defendant proposes these directions in mind of the Overriding Objectives, and in particular the duty of the parties to help the court further them. The issues outlined below are the crux upon which this claim rests, and the proposed directions identify these issues and will allow them to be assessed in advance of the hearing so that this claim may proceed justly and expeditiously; Without product
  6. Date in force: 31 May 2005: According to the copies of the regulations i have
  7. HMRC would have obtained a judgment against him and then when no/insufficient payments were forthcoming they would go back to Court to attempt and obtain a charging order. Looking at the dates of the missing tax returns I spot 1999 so HMRC would have had to make sure they obtained an order whilst this year was still collectable (tax years go out of date 5 years after the first 31st january after the year to which it relates). They would have had to bring proceedings for the year 1998-1999 by 31st January 2006 to be within time so I suggest the original claim against your B-I-L was made at or
  8. Hi, This may not be the appropriate thread but it is Easter. GK
  9. "Yes of course Mr Spanalot," says the nice friendly judge. "As you have admitted owing the money to whichever DCA is claiming, I award judgment to the DCA. Case over". If you admit you owe the money before the judge, you are tying his hands to award a CCJ aganst you. To get before the judge, you have already stated either you deny owing the debt legally or that you neither deny nor admit the debt. Remember, the key is to keep the judge thinking about the law, not morals or how bad the banks have been.
  10. hi GF, As I see it, you signed a 3 year contract. You should have paid more attention to reading the contract and less time listening to the fibbing employee. You'll know better next time. I agree with Conniff - get the Doc's Cert and send a copy to the gym, saying for medical reasons, you require the cancellation of the m/ship and have cancelled you DD with the bank. You can add that you were blatantly mis-led by the enrolloing employee about cancelling and would argue on that basis but you have no need because of you medical condition. Keep any recordings of the tel cons
  11. Excellent! As you say, you MUST deal with the branch that hand;ed the original sale. Ask to speak with the store manager - or better still, phone in advance (get the full name) and make a mutual agreeable time. Take with you a letter of termination, stating that you are giving notice that the service that Orange is supplying does not meet your requirements. You are therefore returning the phone unused and all the accessories that were originally supplied. You reason for termination are largely irrelevant, you can mention that the coverage isn't good enough for you and that the promi
  12. GE have committed a breach of guidelines/law selling on an account that is lawfully in dispute. The failure of the OC to provide a CCA in fulfilment of you lawful request means that the account is unenforceable until they do. (Never from the sounds of it) Do the claim, defend the entire amount. Submit a holding defence along lines of account sold whilst in dispute with OC over failure to comply CCA etc. State no documentation received as claimant has only had account six days proper defence to follow pending receipt of documentation requested under CPR etc. etc. Contact GR with
  13. How about 'Respectfully Sir, the claimant is asking the court to enforce a credit agreement. The issue is not whether money is owed, but whether a credit agreement is actually enforceable. The claimant is unable to produce the credit agreement, therefore how can the court be sure that should such an agreement exist it was drawn up in accordance with the Consumer Credit Act.' Or modify it if they produce an unenforceable agreement: 'Respectfully Sir, the claimant is asking the court to enforce a credit agreement. The issue is not whether money is owed, but whether a credit agreement is act
  14. Have you reported them to TS and the OFT for breaching OFT guidlines and the CPUTR 2008? YAY WALES FOR THE TRIPLE CROWN - C'MON BOYS!!!
×
×
  • Create New...