Jump to content

kel123

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    517
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

56 Excellent

1 Follower

  1. Hi all, it’s been a while because nothing as been happeningon the debt front – I have been paying the ones that have to be paid andignoring the ones that couldn’t do their jobs properly. In march 2007 I stopped paying a Lloyds credit card because allthey could supply was a CCA with no reference numbers on it what so ever,although it did have a signature. I SAR’ed at the same time and nothingdifferent came back. I officially complained and was given a reference number.Lloyds wrote each month saying that they were investigating, these stopped andI have heard nothing since. I did post the CCA at the time and it was agreed that it wasunenforceable, it is on here somewhere. So mid next year it is also statute barred. The account as now been sold to 1st credit, whohave sent through the assignment and offered a 5% discount. A couple ofsolicitors have tried to phone but I just refused to answer their securityquestions. But today an interlink currier as tried a number of times to delivera letter, my thoughts are that it is the SD that they have been threatening. Because it as been a few years and having experience of ajudge that was not interested in anything pertaining to 1974. I need to make sure of my rights. I know Iwill have to write to them stating account in dispute but being so close to the6 years I am reluctant. Yes there is PPI but again if I go this root I amadmitting the account is mine. I really need a good letter that says the account is notmine and you cannot prove by CCA that it is but if it was, it is in dispute asof 5.5 years ago! I have got all the paper work! (DN 2006)
  2. Hi ec501 The number is listed as a [problem] on various sites. T.S. never got back, perhaps it should be U.S. not T.S. but there again niether did these mupets!
  3. Thanks supasnooper Allthough sequenci mentioned it, I have not been given a forthwith order or a playment plan order (post 255) just judgement for the claiment. Everything I seem to be reading says that I must have defaulted on CCJ payments or be offering too low a payment, inorder for them to apply for CO? scm nor lloyds have been in touch with me to set one up! Is this grounds for an objection?
  4. I have just contacted the court Apparently they have only today sent out the judges orders to me - tommorrow or Monday I should receive them. Final hearing set for 11th june Can someone point to to the implications of a charging order please
  5. Did I say I have not heard anything? well today I have! Land Registry B136(CO) Notice of an application to register a restriction against the land SCM have apparently got an interim charging order made by the court on the 23 april I am totally confussed - should I have known about it. Gods honest truth here, apart from the court order I have had no communication from anywhere.
  6. Hi MDAW The simple answer to appeal is no money and I have not received any communication from anywhere else? My income is £0, I am a kept man:) There is ofcause a family/house DMP? So it's a matter of waiting so that I can react
  7. Update Finally got back from Spain over the week end - after our 7 day enforced stay, it rained for 4 of them:( No, nothing, diddly squot from [problem] but judgement came through the beginning of last week It is ordered that 1. Judgement for the claiment in the sum of £5183.21 2. Counterclaim dismissed 3. The defendant to pay the claiments costs in the sum of £3228.28 4. Permission to appeal redussed One assumes that [problem] now have to go back to court to enforce?
  8. As I understand it; in theory: they should not come after you again and that you are entitled to costs, but I think there are many who realise theory is not practise! I'm with diddy on this, is a bird in the hand worth more than two in the bush? On a level playing field no problems, but! but it is another one of those 'it's your call' kel
  9. Yes! and in my opinion valid, which is why I used them Here is how the DJ justified/got around it When I said s98 is for none default cases and the claim is based on a default and therefore 87/88 applies and the regs (quoted chapter and verse). He said the regs for 87/88 are writen in bad English. (yes he said this) and because no termination letter has ever been sent 87/88 and the regs are not applicable. He also said that they (tother side) are entitled to change their minds about how they are claiming regardless of the PoC. as I have said I am unsure whether he rulled on this but he definately said it is contract law and they can terminate at any time without the need for a Default Notice because it says so in the terms and conditions. So it is a matter of waiting to see what comes through the post.
  10. After time to think I am somewhat confussed and I realise that it is all going to be in the judgement. Yes I lost but I am unsure about the reality of the verdict Under S87/88 the account has never been terminated (this is definately in DJ's ruling) also no early repayment has been asked for (definately DJ's comments but may not be in the ruling). Formal demand is not termination nor is taking me to court, Taking me to court is for the ability to enforce (definately DJ's comments but may not be in the ruling) But S98 is acceptable under contract law (I think this is in the ruling or may not have been ruled upon?) There was no final ruling i.e. you must now pay, only that I lost on all points. If what I have said above is factual (it will not be faraway from this) Where infact does this leave me?
  11. My comments in post 242 are my real pain and the fact that I have not helped move things forward grinds in a bit, I may have hindered things but if it helps others to realise what they can be up against, they can act acordingly. I don't mean don't do it but be ready and prepared. It ended up that I was not fighting tother side I was fighting the establishment (DJ) and it was the DJ who presented their case and presented arguments against mine. I supose I could ask if the DJ was a frustrated barrister that missed the cut and thrust? Would I have done things differently with hindsight - the answer is NO! I have learnt and developed, I may not be able to bring many positives forward but I have a greater understanding of how establishments (DJ) works, again reference post 242 Kel a resiliant old hector
  12. Please someone can you answer this DJ accused me of not forfilling the orders following the adjournment hearing DJ said that the following meant that I had to submit a complete new defence (remember this is only todo with the counterclaim) 2. The defendant shall re-amend his statement of case to set out the true basis of his defenceas outlined to the court that is that the taking out of PPI was a prerequisite of the granting to him of credit facilities and not his eligibility for the same. I did question and DJ said a new defence was ordered Is it me or is this guy dolallytap
  13. Thank you Mydog I am down but not down because I lost, I held my own. It is the final realisation that the law is not the law only if it suits is the law the law and that goes against the grain. I was bought up to beleave in justice and that justice will prevail. this is now filed with the likes of the lock ness monster.
  14. because the trial is now over (forget appeal for now and I mean just for now) when is it in the public domain because I am prepared to name and shame quoting court and trial referance.
×
×
  • Create New...