Jump to content

tinkerbell20

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    645
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by tinkerbell20

  1. If they hadn't pleaded it on the POC would that make a difference ?
  2. Yup The Mail bankers must be putting the squeeze on them with threats of reducing overdrafts etc................on the other hand it is the usual badly researched article written by a lazy journalist - after all never let the facts get in the way of a good story................
  3. Can a creditor charge contractual interest after judgment if it is not stated on CCJ? Pal has a charge on home for CCJ issued 2001. Wants to clear it & creditor is asking for another £8,500 interest.
  4. The difference there is that Lloyds Bank are not in debt to you but you are in debt to them. There is case law that states that they can cash the cheque as long as they tell you within reasonable time that they don't accept it as a full & final settlement. This is why when you do a F&F the payment must be made by a third party as they are not indebted to the bank so are giving them something for their acceptance.
  5. on day 14 (5 days after issue) they click a button online for judgment and if your defence hasn't hit that day hey presto default judgment............. \if they do it the normal way it can take the court a week to process their application for judgment and if your defence is a couple of days late it will still be accepted.............
  6. They can also get default judgment very quickly
  7. Well his website is full of all sorts of offers & loans from credit card companies and banks so I guess he is probably not as unbiased as CAG in this area.
  8. use the defence of set off. That way you won't have to counterclaim
  9. I assume that Danielle must have lost a couple of unenforceability claims prior to this stay for her to carry out such an about turn. As Ultimate Law & their clients are seemingly so far the only ones affected it would seem reasonable to suppose that the test cases refer to the ones they have submitted to Chester County Court only and I would suspect s.140 Unfair relationships may well feature as well as the multiple loan arguments that are linked with PPI misselling claims. The multiple loan argument is due to be heard in the Court of Appeal n October (& its legally aided so must be reasonable prospects of success and deemed to be in the public interest) so it would be reasonable to expect all cases following that line to be stayed pending the decision. Ultimate Law are not the instructing solicitors in the Appeal. If you look at the Law Gazette in February she was extolling the virtues of financial misselling claims.
  10. I assume that Danielle must have lost a couple of unenforceability claims prior to this stay for her to carry out such an about turn. As Ultimate Law & their clients are seemingly so far the only ones affected it would seem reasonable to suppose that the test cases refer to the ones they have submitted to Chester County Court only and I would suspect s.140 Unfair relationships may well feature as well as the multiple loan arguments that are linked with PPI misselling claims. The multiple loan argument is due to be heard in the Court of Appeal n October (& its legally aided so must be reasonable prospects of success and deemed to be in the public interest) so it would be reasonable to expect all cases following that line to be stayed pending the decision. Ultimate Law are not the instructing solicitors in the Appeal. If you look at the Law Gazette in February she was extolling the virtues of financial misselling claims.
  11. The test cases i9f properly argued are to be welcomed as it should result in assisting many LIP's by obviating the need to go to court
  12. Yes it does exist. If you were to oppose unreasonably then you could have a cost award made against you.
  13. This is why points like that need to be clarified by the House of Lords - then a DJ won't be able to do that without being given a severe dresssing down each time he is successfully appealed
  14. Yes but unfortunately for MBNA s.61(a) is specific that it must be contained. However hopefully this will be one of the test areas that will be dealt with - though it may need to go to House of Lords as in Wilson & others. It is a very clear point of dispute for the courts to be asked to rule on.
  15. s.61 (a) is applicable here - not confusing at all ...............
  16. Hopefully this is one that will go all the way to the House of Lords - as did Wilson
  17. They would like to think that but unfortunately it doesn't exempt them from the requirements of s.61(a)
  18. Because a particular claims company & their solicitors have issued thousands of claims there
  19. Think you missed a few zero's out there AC........shgould be £500,000,000 or half a billion
  20. Maybe there should be a flood of calls to Chester county court from worried debtors querying the position so that the perception Chester may have that it is all Rankine type claims cases may be changed??
  21. Wonder if it will be treated fairly and QC's appointed to put the debtors arguments forward............. Wouyldn't hold your breath though
×
×
  • Create New...