Jump to content

ian1969uk

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    415
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ian1969uk

  1. The debt cannot be enforced even by the court until they comply with your request.
  2. I can only assume it's because you quoted some of my original post.
  3. LOL, the BBC reporter passed it to him and I've been asking him some questions so I don't mind that he has it. I'm not offering any settlement, he has nothing on me for me to worry about. His gripe is with CAG and the posts that were here, but my recent post has been CAGBotted so I guess this is the CAG admin dealing with the situation.
  4. You've got to be kidding, right? There are many people here and on other sites that have given absolutely huge amounts of time to research the issues and help other people. Do they ask for money for that? No they don't! I remember one user getting banned for asking someone they were helping to pay the postage to post a court bundle. This was considered asking for payment (it wasn't so imo). However, the point is that this and the other consumer sites are all about helping people in trouble because it's the right thing to do, not because they are getting paid for it. To come on and advertise a service (without actually showing any real evidence that they could do what they said they could do) is just wrong, plain and simple.
  5. That's the bit that bothers me about this, and I have said this to Basil in email away from the forum. He was assisted by CAB, who are (at least in part) publicly funded. So public money was used to gain a judgement that has helped him enormously. That this is then not made available to the public who paid for the CAB in the first place is just, well, appalling.
  6. Hi Basil, any comments on this? Paul, the problem is that Basil is insisting that it won't ever be made public.
  7. Basil, hello, hope you are well today. I can understand that you remain frustrated by people's negative comments but I am not sure the constant threats of legal action are helpful, or indeed constructive, to anyone. If you did take someone to Court over these comments, wouldn't you then have to disclose everything to that party under the CPRs that backed up your claims that they were lying. This would include details of the judgement, thereby bringing this far more into public view, something you obviously don't want.
  8. Not clear on what you are saying here Paul, can you elaborate?
  9. The link to register is on the top left of the forum.
  10. I have had a reply from Midlands Today regarding the story they ran. See here for the details. Tried to link to the thread elsewhere but forgot that the CAG admin were so petty and it doesn't work. You wouldn't think we were all working to the same ends would you...real shame.
  11. Those parts of S127 should never have been removed. There's an easy way for the finance companies to prevent agreements becoming unenforceable, and that's to get off their lazy arses and do things properly.
  12. As Harry Hill would say: "But which is better, a form or a certificate? There's only one way to find out...... FIGHT!!!!"
  13. They have replied to my email, see here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-1336226.html I don't believe a word of it.
  14. OK, they have replied to my email: Dear Ian Thank you for your email. Basil and Amanda are the leading specialists outside of the banks and their solicitors, who know the full legal reasons why credit card agreements are improperly executed and most are unenforceable and can be legally written-off. We have the only judgment in relation to credit card agreement enforceability, as no others are available in public accessible resources. The exact detail of the judgment is our most closely guarded secret and has not been published by the Royal Courts of Justice. The bank in question is not going to make the judgment public for obvious reasons. We hope that this answers your question. Regards Basil & Amanda Looking dodgier by the minute...they have a secret judgement? Yeah, OK.
  15. We have that under control, someone local to them is going to go and see them. Will let you know how he gets on.
  16. I've contacted this couple for a case number so we can find the judgement, did it two days ago but they haven't replied. It's from October according to the TV report and is definitely not yet on any of the court websites....but they aren't all listed there anyway. If we can get a case number, I'll contact the Court direct and get a copy of the judgement even if I have to pay for it. I confess to being a tad suspicious, though, that all is not as it seems.
  17. The Midlands Today program and their website says that they have taken a case through the Court of Appeal themselves, we need to find out what that case is.
  18. It is potentially very good news if we can get details of the judgement, however as yet I cannot find reference to this case on any of the court sites. I have emailed the couple to ask for a court reference number to get a copy of the judgement. So far, they haven't responded, perhaps not surprising as they have set up a site to charge people for doing this for them. As it stands, we can't put in court papers that we saw a couple on the news, so we shouldn't pay, we will need the details for this to be any use. I suspect they just do what we already do in challenging agreements etc, but if the Court of Appeal really has ruled on this, we need those details!!
  19. Is there a statement that they will determine the credit limit and notify you?
  20. Dave, if the default is inaccurate due to the amount being partially made up of penalty charges, then it is invalid. If they have registered a default then on your credit record, you may be able to claim damages. The case law for these is: Woodchester vs. Swayne & Co and Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society
  21. Ruby, for the purposes of a section 77/78 request, they can send a copy without signatures or personal details. This is due to the Copy Docs regulations from 1983.
  22. I'm thinking that if a default and then a termination notice is inaccurate and invalid, then we could argue that a further default notice (corrected) cannot be issued as the agreement is no longer in force. This is the creditors own fault as they have acted unlawfully. If they cannot then follow the correct procedure, then they can't take the next step in issuing court proceedings. Just thinking out loud really, is there any merit in this?
×
×
  • Create New...