Shame there is no way to check her previous clients or whether she still holds down "a second job"

Hi Humbleman, here is something else - "There are many examples of cases in which the impartiality of a court, tribunal or arbitrator has been challenged. The House of Lords has held that overriding consideration to be taken into account is "....... whether the fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased (Lord Hope in Porter v. Magill [2001] UKHL 67, [2002] 2 AC 357, HL(E) at para 103). The practical application of this test in the context of a complaint that an employment tribunal chairman was biased would be to say "If it would appear to a reasonably informed bystander that the Chairman was showing favour to one side unfairly as against the other, the Chairman would have acted in breach of [his][her] duty" I know this relates to an employment tribunal, but surely all courts would need to adhere to some kind of standard? Linky here - Bias As your DJ did not imply that her preliminary findings were "provisional only" then her statement(s) would have given your proceedings somewhat of an "uneven keel" don't you think? Just to add, you have asked whether retaining a solicitor or counsel from the same firms that represent the banks is a good idea. I would go a small step further and say, as DJs and DDJs are usually still practising solicitors or barristers, how can anyone be sure that your DJ hasn't represented banks in the past (maybe even your claimant). More importantly, isn't currently representing your claimant elsewhere? How would anyone know? Bill

Hi Humbleman, I can appreciate all the hard work and research you put in to your case. To have all that toil swept aside by a blinkered judge is initially soul-destroying (I know only too well). It will make your resolve stronger though, I guarantee it. In the meantime, here is something (relevant) for you to read - "the Court of Appeal ruled that if there was evidence of “an apparent bias” (meaning a possible bias), then inconvenience, costs and delay in finding a substitute judge were not acceptable reasons for the original judge continuing to preside" Linky here- The Law Explored: judicial bias - Times Online All the best, Bill

Hi, Thats why they take your ID:rolleyes:. You are extremely unlikely to get any bird for bunking the train. However, the magistrate may fine you more if you tried to give false details, and then got sussed by the inspector. My advice would be to apologise to the court, for wasting their time in this matter, that it was a one-off and it will never happen again (worked for OJ). Don't worry about that. Unless you are a serial train-bunker. Would you like to re-phrase that!? Bill

Have you actually contacted your debtor to enquire about the reason for the bounced cheque? Have you reason to believe that he had no intention to genuinely make payment? I think you can present the cheque for payment as often as you like, after all, the banks wouldn't stop at one attempt!

When you argue that the DN/TN amount to unlawful rescission (because the notices are ineffective) legally the agreement endures until you "accept". Therefore, you would be liable for any arrears accrued until the acceptance is received by/brought to the attention of the creditor. Unless you get very lucky on the judge lottery. The case law usually relied on (to pay the sum legitimately owing on the date of the DN) is Woodchester vs Swayne. Where a DN that mis-stated arrears left the debtor only liable for the actual arrears accrued up to the date of the DN. Woodchester vs Swayne was a hire purchase agreement for a photocopier, I suspect that the photocopier was repossessed after Woodchester served Swayne with the DN or TN. As such (upon repossession of the photocopier) there were no further arrears to accrue. In any case, Swayne was/is a firm of solicitors, so I would expect them to know all about rescission or repudiation. However, the appeal judgment does not mention whether or not Swayne even counterclaimed for unlawful rescission or, if they "accepted" the rescission. I would still be very appreciative if anybody has the original (pre-appeal) judgment to share. Bill

I'm not quite sure what you mean by experienced, but if you mean "been to court on this subject" then - So long as you are 100% positive of an irregularity with the notices - There is no time limit, but the sooner after receiving the TN, the better. Arrears are accruing up to the date of the acceptance deed/letter.

Hi nks22, I wasn't having a dig at you:D Your quote above is from x20's original post. If I remember correctly, x20's opinion was that any reasonable judge shouldn't require a lip to accept unlawful termination, this can be read in x20's later posts, in the further discussion thread.

Au contraire - ICO Version 3 Defaults: A guidance note 02.08. 2007 The ‘sale’ or assignment of debts on defaulted accounts 52 When the rights to a debt are sold to a third party, the lender has to make sure the records with the credit reference agency are accurate, up to date and adequate. If they want information about the debts to continue on the credit reference file they will need to come to an agreement with the purchaser about who is to be responsible for this. 53 If the purchaser agrees to take control of the record, the customer should be informed that the debt has been sold or assigned and to whom. The credit reference agency file should be changed to show the name of the purchaser and that the rights to the debt have been sold or assigned. The purchaser should then make sure the record is kept up to date including changes to the amount still owed. The purchase should not affect how long the record is kept. It should be removed six years after the default. 54 Where the purchaser of the debt does not agree to take control of the record, the original lender, and at least in part the credit reference agency, will remain responsible if the original record is kept on the file. When the debt is sold or assigned, the customer will no longer owe any money to the original lender. If the record is not removed, the sale or assignment should be recorded and the balance should be shown as zero. The customer should still be told who the debt has been sold or assigned to. The full document is here - http://www.ico.gov.uk/what_we_cover/data_protection/guidance/technical_guidance_notes.aspx

Hi emandcole, Thanks for the thanks;) The time limit is because the whole idea of keeping a credit file is to maintain "accurate and up to date" information. After all, if a creditor could decide when to file a default, it could take them years to get their act together! Bill

Hi Emandcole, A creditor is under an obligation to file accurate information on a borrowers credit file. The creditor is required to file that information "within" 6 months of the default, unless there are extenuating circumstances. You should check the ICO guidance on filing defaults to ensure they have complied. IMHO, if they have not filed a default on your file, they can't be that confident of justifying one. I take it that a possible default has not "dropped off" already? If you claim (in court) that you did not receive a DN in the post, the creditor will almost certainly state (in my experience) that "we didn't get it back". The judge, will probably swallow that whole. I take it that you have done a SAR, and have now received a copy? As far as the DCA chasing a disputed debt, thats what they do. They don't get paid if you don't pay, and they don't know (or care) how the debt accrued. All they know is your name, address/phone number and the sum. What they don't know, they invent;). Cheers, Bill

Hi Mrs L, it seems that HC have been awarded judgment by default because you didn't respond to the claim form. You now have 2 options as far as I'm aware. 1) Try to get the judgment set-aside. This will entail a lot of work. 2) Make an application to have the payments varied. This will have to be done by visiting a court (as you don't have access to a printer). It will also cost £40 (unless you are on benefits). You will need to list your income and expenditure, then the court will "re-determine" your payments in accordance with your disposable income. Here is a link to the court notices, so you can see what you need to complete them. Her Majesty's Courts Service -Forms and Guidance The application notice is N245 If you are on benefits, you will need an up to date letter of entitlement, and an EX160 form I know its difficult to get to grips with initially, but you will have to get a move on to keep some peace of mind. Bill

Soon to be "cattal-trucked" hopefully;).

Current accounts are regulated by the consumer credit act. Save for signing of agreements. Of course, a creditor still needs to prove that they have given O/D facility letters for authorised overdrafts. And/or provided prescribed information within 3 months and 5 days, where the O/D is unauthorised. I believe that a DN is served after a final demand on O/Ds. Overdrafts are "repayable on demand" anyway. I'm sure Vint will add to this. Bill

Can you remember exactly what you wrote on this? Evans fell over themselves to "sell" payment protection insurance, did you have PPI on your account? Its possible that this has been dealt with by CCBC Northampton, as that route is preferred by HC. Judgment by default is their bread and butter. That is a long way off. If it comes to filing an application for a redetermination, you can download it from the county court website, and post it to the court. You have certainly left it far too long, but we will need to know exactly what has happened to date, before any meaningful advice can be given. Above all, do not worry about this, whatever happens, its not the end of the world. Bill

Hi, is this from the court? with a court stamp.

Same here, I switched to firefox, but its still sloooow. Reads - sydicatedsearchresults mystatus fastbox (bit better now)

Hi M, it had a reasonable ending. The judge ruled that the reconstructed DN (which favoured the creditor considerably) was NOT sent. The DN that I had kept was the original, and that the creditor could not claim for arrears after the date that they entered their reconstructed DN as evidence. I had about 25% of the debt wiped, because of their actions. Arrears are a sore subject because they don't need to rely upon DNs or Tns at all, they never had to, even before cca06. As they decided to claim everything as arrears, hence ceasing to rely upon the TN, I merely added the TN to my own relied upon evidence in defence. This was the only case I (75%) lost, but there was a bona-fide QC material-type barrister acting for the claimant, not a sofa-solicitor. It was also my first action to defend, so not too bad really. I learned A LOT from that case. Cheers, Bill

Hi, my thread is here - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/189110-fiddlesticks-i-didnt-know.html I continued commenting in the dodgy DN - Further discussion thread, from about p50 (I think). X20 also made some good comments on that topic. Hope you find my ramblings useful! Just to add - When I said "faulty" I meant in the context of - dodgy duplicate, reconstructed to suit the claimants case, not sent because it didn't exist at that time etc. Such as in your case eddie, where there are 2 DNs with the same date, with significant differences and so on. Bill

Hi eddie, Hopefully you will be able to argue that you did accept the repudiation in some way, such as the date you cancelled the DD to the claimant?. This is usually the case, unfortunately the cca74 has no sanction for termination outside of the rules. Contract law enters the scene at this point. Fortunately though, if the contract remains, what happens to their "cause of action"? If the judge rules that the agreement endures, then only arrears accrued up to the date of the hearing can be claimed (as specified on a compliant notice;) under Sec. 86). If you can prove that the claimant is relying upon a faulty DN in these proceedings, then only arrears accrued up to the date of that DN being entered as evidence, can be claimed (which is exactly what the judge ruled in my own case). Hope this gives you some other avenues to consider. Bill.

Hi Guys, as I lost a case on these grounds (at trial), I feel I need to make fellow caggers aware of the following cautions. 1) Should the DN or TN be ineffective, the agreement will endure until the borrower accepts the repudiation. Continuing non-performance or silence will not constitute acceptance. 2) As the DN or TN is ineffective, the termination is ineffective until the "acceptance" of the unlawful repudiation is brought to the creditors attention. The borrower will be liable for any arrears accrued up to the date of the acceptance (not up to the date/amount stated on the DN, because the DN is ineffective). This is where an acceptance letter/action is time critical. The quicker the acceptance is sent or, an act of acceptance is brought to the creditors attention, the lower the sum of arrears that are recoverable. This is irrelevant where the borrowings are in the form of a fixed term loan. A creditor may bring an action after the specified term of the loan has expired, and not have to rely on a DN or TN as evidence at all. This is because the creditor will not be seeking a remedy to the default, he will only seek to recover arrears. This, of course, is subject to the creditor serving compliant notices under section 86 b, d and f. My main point is to ensure that (in future) caggers will be more aware of the benefits of a timely acceptance, and the pitfalls of leaving it too late. Hopefully, I won't be crucified now. Bill

Thanks Noomill, my point is that these comments are usually buried. Perhaps more prominence could be given to "learned" posts.

Hi, I realise that this is a shot in the dark but, how about "inviting" Judges/Barristers/Solicitors or even Debt collectors to give their anonymous view on a certain point or points raised in threads? Perhaps even choosing a specific point of law to be unpicked/explained every month. We are all aware of the dca employees posting their views on (mainly) newbies threads, perhaps a designated area for their views could be created, in much the same way as "A word from the Banks" board. I would expect there would be less hostility towards their views, if there was a board specifically for them. I understand that the judiciary would rarely contradict brethren, but it is possible if we could appeal to their sense of social justice. It must be amusing to these individuals when/if they glance at some threads. I expect some would even enjoy reading about some unfortunate persons experiences, and then reading the responses, knowing full well that the person in question is on a wild goose chase. All the while, knowing the most appropriate route for them to take. Dream world? Maybe. but stranger things have happened. "Keep your friends close....................." Bill

Hi Shinobi, or you could just cc this back to them (post#1)- (Thou shalt reapeth what thou soweth.) Bill

Take the cheque to a solicitors & ask (= pay!) them to copy it and certify the copy.