Jump to content

rameses_qc

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    572
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by rameses_qc

  1. Could I just interject? A pre existing medical condition. There is a legal premise called "eggshell skull theory" That means that you take your victim as you find him, so if a pre existing medical condition (even if they didn't know about it) is made worse, then they are STILL liable for the consequences. This applies whether a fit person would have been so affected or not.
  2. I would think that for the first such offence, a fine or suspended custodial sentence may be in order, seeing as the poster has promised to refund the money. However, when it comes to the second conviction (for a similar offence) a custodial sentence is highly likely, with, of course the first suspended sentence added on. When it comes to a third similar offence, you would undoubtedly be looking at near to the maximum if not actually the maximum. All in all I would expect 10 years with the suspended sentences to run concurrently. This is because of the nature of the offences, the poster has indicated a disregard for others and a blatant dishonesty. In effect, he has stolen two valuable items (a car and "machinery") Not to mention Public benefit money, which councils can ill-afford in this time of austerity. The promise of repayment will probably be seen as an attempt to curry favour and an attempt to gain leniency. I would venture that the whole thing would be heard in the Crown Court because of the likely sentence. He needs more than a good solicitor/barrister to keep him out of prison for a few years
  3. A few years ago, a friend of mine was visited by a debt collector's "field agent" My friend politely (as he is very polite and amiable) asked the agent to leave as he didn't want to discuss the matter with him - he had paid the debt 2 days previously - the agent said to my friend that he was coming in anyway. After spending around 5 days in hospital, the field agent decided on a change of career. My friend was, at that time, a bare knuckle fighter of some reknown in the area (but obviously the agent didn't know this) The police did know him very well and took no action against him as they knew that he must have had a good reason to do what he did.
  4. Yes, but it won't. The FCA don't regulate the solicitor, only the DCA, all of which should be closed down in my opinion. However, they can't take action against solicitors. The SRA won't, as it's the DCA trying to fool people, not the solicitor. Solicitors are not bound by the Consumer credit collections legislation as are the DCAs. They're bound by the solicitor's conduct rules. The SRA will say that it's up to the DCA to make sure the debtor knows that the solicitor is employed by them; which it is. I think complaints about DCAs pulling a fast one should ALWAYS be reported to FCA with as much evidence as possible. It's no good going to FCA and telling them DCA did this, or didn't do that. One has to give evidence that this has happened, or it will weaken everyone's complaint
  5. I agree wholeheartedly, but these "rules" are for those not regulated by SRA I agree that any DCA who has an In house solicitor should make it clear that they are an in house solicitor. They shoud state something along the lines of "we will be passing conduct of the account to our in - house solicitor A.N.Other" Some will say that an in house solicitor, as long as he is on the Roll of Solicitors, is a solicitor nonetheless. I agree without question that the DCAs are trying to cause maximum stress. I'm not saying that such occurrences should not be reported to FCA
  6. I'm not suggesting that this practice is acceptable; it's not and it's deceitful as has been said. All I'm saying is in House solicitors are lawful. I agree they should actually tell you that they work for the DCA/Creditor, and that they are part of the same company. Complaints to the SRA with, of course, as much evidence as you can muster, MAY get them interested in looking into this side of the business. Purely from an SRA point of view (and I'm not talking about the consumer credit legislation) They're doing nothing wrong.
  7. Let's just remember. "In house" solicitors are not unlawful, as long as they are entered on the Roll of Solicitors and regulated by SRA. Many companies employ In House solicitors and some employ in house barristers. What is unlawful is a DCA setting up a bogus company which states or gives the impression that they are solicitors when they are not. I'm getting the impression that some are thinking that ALL inhouse solicitors are unlawful. They're not.
  8. Exactly. In Law, reasonable funeral expenses are priority. All other debts must be paid from the remaining estate. If there is none, then they don't get paid. NO-ONE else is personally responsible for the sole debt of a deceased person, whatever these lying toerags tell you. Executors are NOT personally responsible for debts accrued by the deceased; neither is a surviving spouse.
  9. Hmmmm...thanks for the link. Very interesting. It appears that anyone can pretend to be a solicitor and get away with it by saying the recipient "misunderstood" How anyone can misunderstand the words "A.N.Other, Solicitor" is beyond me, but apparently, one of my clients did just that!! They apparently meant that the person was signing on behalf of a solicitor. Didn't say that. Ah well, one law for us and one for them.......
  10. As far as I'm aware, giving the impression you are a solicitor/barrister when you are not is still a criminal offence, is it not? Should complaints go to the SRA as well? They will pursue these fraudsters. (or should do)
  11. Mind you, if they want to visit your doorstep, I'm sure it will make them welcome CCA is spot on
  12. Yes Business to business and business to consumer contracts ARE different. In general terms, businesses are expected to be able to negotiate contract terms more easily than a consumer. In Practice, creditors would usually try for a CCJ in the original country but not enforce it overseas because of the cost (unless it was a huge sum) This is not true for ALL circumstances, but I'm generalising.... and, if I may say, I think the hypothesis is not really relevant, as all contracts I've seen specify which law will prevail. A contract under Scottish Law will become barred in 5 years, wherever the other party moves to. Similarly, a contract under English law will become barred after 6 years, wherever the other party moves to, so it's irrelevant really
  13. I would, if I were you, study the European Law as a whole, in particular horizontal and vertical direct effect, and the jurisdiction of the ECJ in general. The fact remains that for contracts in England the Limitation Act 1980 S5 states that enforcement action cannot be taken after 6 years from the point that the default is made. If the Contract is entered into in England, it CAN be enforced under English Law in Scotland (I'll leave it to your research to find the applicable law (common or statute) ) And...I don't see what non contractual tort has to do with it. Generally, this is only applicable to things that happen which are not covered by the contract Has Rome II Regulation come into effect in England? Has the UK accepted this? European law is VERY complex
  14. Example: You take out a loan in London, move to Glasgow and default. The Law applicable to the loan contract is English Law unless it states otherwise. If you move to Paris and default, English Law still prevails, not French Law.
  15. Hmmmm....Are you 100% sure that this doesn't apply only to commercial contracts (between businesses and not consumer and business)? English common law is law applicable to the whole country and is usually made by Judicial decision
  16. Well, you should usually use the law of the country in which you made the agreement. The agreement will tell you which law is applicable. I doubt whether Scottish Law will apply
  17. Yes. I agree. The poster has no basis in the law of England and Wales for the suppositions (I can't speak for Scottish Law, of course) Buying of "choses in action" is lawful and well established. They have not bought the debt, they have bought (been assigned) the contract which allows them to assume the rights of the original creditor (and sometimes not the duties - but that's another subject altogether) They have NOT "paid off your debt" You CANNOT rely on the poster's interpretation. The poster's words are those of "Freemen of the Land" The Courts do not recognise their arguments and it COULD end up with being in contempt
  18. Trespass is actionable "per se", which means you don't have to show any damge. The damage is the trespass to the land. This is true of trespass to the person (assult/battery) The matter can be heard by a Court without proof of any damage
  19. There's no credit or lending as far as I can see from what you say. Why do you think there is? You should have actually contacted them and cancelled it yourself. If you don't read or understand the terms and conditions of any contract, that makes no difference. If you sign or accept, then you're stuck with it; even if it was written in a language you didn't understand. It's up to you to make sure you understand what you're accepting. Without seeing the actual terms and conditions, I can't really say for sure, but it looks, on the face of it, that you wll not be able to successfully defend the CCJ
  20. I'm never amazed by the calibre of 'person' recruited to the top jobs in this "rotten to the core" industry
  21. Erm...yes you could. It's quite possible. They've been awarded for less. Don't forget these are all tax deductable expenses for the creditor Anyway, the whole thing depends on the circumstances of the case. What are their terms and conditions re cancelling? Did you tell them in the way the terms said? What was the difficulty they caused? Why was it their fault? I think these are the questions that need answering before anyone can advise
  22. A deed is only a way of forming a contract without the usual necessary formalities, and to satisfy the Law of Property Act. There won't be an individual one for each debt. All the law requires is that, in the case of debt assignment, the debtor is notified in writing. Doesn't matter whether the creditor or the debt buyer does it. The deed is private between the buyer and seller, and would give no information anyway.
  23. Yes thank you for the correction. I did, of course mean the notice of assignment, which is all that is required in law. The deed is nothing to do with the debtor.
  24. Well you could see the deed of assignment, yes. You won't be entitled to see the price paid for the debt, as it's nothing to do with anyone but the seller and the buyer. Selling a debt is a separate contract to the actual credit contract between the debtor and the creditor. In any case, these creditors assign hundreds of debts all at once and receive a lump sum for all of them which, as has rightly been stated, the buyer pays a fraction of the face value. If they collect only 2 from a hundred, they will be well on their way to a profit
  25. That's true, but then the doctrine of "Quantum Meruit" would come in; more or less means that you must pay for what was actually done. i don't think there's much the poster can do except come to an agreement with the studio. The debt collector's reply shows a high degree of unprofessionalism, and plain ignorance, so I would not communicate any further with those morons.
×
×
  • Create New...