Well that's interesting reading RBN. I read the case and started off by thinking you were wrong and it did appear like one agreement. However, it clearly was not. It may have been one total borrowing limit acceptable to the bank but no way could it be one agreement. At the very most they were linked, but all 3 agreements were different types, so even if there was a verbal agreement on the total borrowings it appears to me that you agreed and were given 3 seperate agreements to sign by the bank. Had you have signed 2 and then as you were about to sign the 3rd turned round and said, I have changed my mind I don't want the 3rd amount, then it would have made not the slightest difference to the other 2. The bank would not have said we need to rewrite the deal then because it is not complete. Bad luck on that one. Your time will come. Pedross

I think the post by Redfish is worthy of consideration. However, in my opinion, we should take note of any thoughts on the cases in question and be prepared to have the answers ready if we come across them in court. Starting with the McGuffick case, I do not believe anything has changed. The ruthless lenders have always taken any enforcemant action they choose such as reporting to CRA's, sending dubious letters or phoning 10 times a day. They can still take court action if they choose and they will still not win the unenforceable ones. With regards to Walker, I think Redfish has missed the point. The question of what is credit and what is a charge for credit is a basic question. The Judges were wrong on this occassion but I do not see many people on this site who are using the argument in court. So we carry on as normal but keep our wits about us. When we finally get the right decisions how much will the lenders who think they can do as they wish have to pay out in compensation. All things come to he (or she) who waits - even justice. Pedross

I also believe that Cabot have made it difficult for themselves by lumping the two together. This will give you more options to discredit what they say and play on your strongest defense which appears to be the unenforceable one. Pedross

Hi FL I think it would be a good idea to send a cover letter to Beneficial in response to this. Say you are in receipt of their letter and that you are waiting for a reply to your own requests (copy enclosed) before you can decide what to do. Pedross

I agree with Baggio The law is the law and a clear understanding of the facts will always result in the correct decision. In the Walker case it appears that 3 judges were confused about the legal arguments and the fact it happened will obviously result in a clearer or different version of the argument on appeal.

I think the vedict is wrong because the argument became too complicated. After reading the verdict it would appear to me that the 'Amount of Credit was £18375 and was therefore wrongly stated on the agreement. Therefore the original verdict was correct and the appeal decision was wrong. The case is different from Wilson in my opinion as the arguments regarding 'Amount of Credit' and 'Charge for Credit' are different. Thats how I see it anyway. Pedross

I look forward to any news as well.

Hi Axiom It is a very interesting post and the case is obviously important to many caggers. I think the lack of posts is because it is a very technical point to comment on without thorough research. I would expect them to have good arguments to follow that route so it will be interesting to find out what happens. Pedross

Hi Bazaar I think that is a major argument if it gets to a hearing and I thought I covered it quite well in post 239. It also puts the IOU's into perspective. I think it even more important if she closes the limited company. A new point DD, are you saying all of the money was paid into your company account. Was it a limited company. If not then you and the company are one entity. However, because her company was a limited company they are seperate entities. Thats why it is important that the IOU's are connected to her company and are only due to be repaid from income generated by the work you did.

You need to speak to your solicitor next week and explain this and they should be able to resolve it. The redemption figure should include daily rates if it runs over and to talk about £5000 fees is crazy.

How did you get on in court bebell?

Not important looking at the whole picture.

I love it Pompey has more proof readers than MBNA.

Hi DD When I said I was fed up, I meant that there were so many points in your favour I was getting fed up thinking up more. Just look at all of the helpful posts you are getting. You are in a much better position than your friend was yet you worry about barristers on the other side. You have just proved that you are as good as them. Your friend did not lose by telling the truth, they lost because they did not back up the truth with good legal arguments. You have so many in your favour you are lost for choice. In my books you are favourite to win this so push on. Pedross

There you go again. Why will the judge believe that the loan is nothing to do with the company. If it is nothing to do with the company why did she lend you the money. Just give this your best shot and convince me why she would lend you that amount of money if it was nothing to do with the company. Why did she create an IOU with no conditions or repayment date. Just give me one good reason that they could give were the conditions for repayment. Why did she make you a director of the company if you did nothing at all to create it or develop it. I'm fed up now - let me know when you have answered these and I will type some more. Pedross

I agree with Bazaar If you try and prove to the solicitor that you are going into this all guns blazing you are wasting ammunition. I also like the information on Estoppel provided by Caro. I would do as Bazaar suggests and file it with the court in your WS and supply the solicitor with a copy just before the hearing. It appears to me you have 3 clear issues now which are as follows: 1. The IOU's were to be repaid from the income of the company (if this is accepted by the court then it is game over, the only benefit of a counterclaim is if you have overpaid) 2. Estoppel would prevent the claim from proceeding because the promises of the claimant have not matterialised in the way they should have done and you have made the point sufficiently in your post. 3. One way or another you are owed money. The money owed has settled the debt by contra. You expected the money to be salary and dividends (point 2 again) but it must be just salary as you were a director and not a shareholder (which is allowed Lexis). If the claimant proves to the court that it was not salary then the money is still due as you will show. You need to convince the court that the claimant has not been forthcoming with the true facts of the case and made your defence difficult. Several issues have only been brought to your attention late in the day which has added to your difficulty. I believe that you should bring to the courts attention that the dispute is not about if you owe the money but how it should be repaid. Your verbal agreement is that it was to be repaid from your share of the income from the company and it is therefore irrelevent in what form that income is paid or even if it covers the debt. The claimant owns 100% of the company so it is reasonable to expect her to fund the company and not you. I have read your post again and I think it is a good argument. You just need to be clear in your own head about the individual points and do not mix them up so that if one goes badly you do not start waffling but are clear about the next. Pedross

Hi Caro Thanks for looking in. DD has summed up the claim details in post 227 and I have posted my thoughts on the validity of the IOU's in post 239. Perhaps 'legal bods' was a bad choice of words but some posters have a better legal knowledge than others and I think DD just needs to make sure that she goes in with the correct defence. In fact surfaceagentx20 is a whizz at this type of problem as are others who you may be aware of better than I. Pedross

If the claim was issued from northampton you should be able to do the AoS online.

I am sure CB knows how to find one.

I personally believe that the IOU's are an acknowledgement of a debt and not a promise to pay it as I mentioned in my IOU post. You agreed to repay it from the income that would become due to you from the company. So if you prove the income that you claim has become due I am not convinced that it is a counterclaim. I think it is proof that the debt is being repaid as agreed or has already been satisfied. If they claim that the debt is not yet satisfied in full or at all then until there is more income from the company it cannot be repaid. You were a director of the company so she cannot claim that you were self employed in the work you did while you were a director. Therefore I do not see why you now need to invoice them just provide a breakdown. My defence would be that the agreement was to repay it from income from the company which is why no repayment date could be put on the IOU because it was an unknown date and maybe still is. You must decide if I am on the right track or not it's just my opinion. Pedross

Hi DD This is just my opinion please obtain others. I don't think you should rush the reply I think if you are going to reply it needs to be calculated and accurate. You need some comments from the real legal bods on the site to guide you. The legal case is that they she is claiming the money on the IOU's. She is saying you owe the money and she wants it now. The issue is that you either owe the money with no conditions or you owe the money with conditions. I don't think you dispute that you owe the money but I think that there are conditions as to how and when you should repay it. Therefore my post about the IOU's could be very useful but you need a legal opinion about it. If the situation with the IOU's is as I understood in my post then your point should be that you will claim that the money is not yet due and it is only due from the proceeds of the company. Your next point should then be that if the court does not accept that it is due from the proceeds of the company then the invoice you have produced for work you completed for the company is payment of the debt by crediting the amount against the debt as a contra exercise. Thats a quick thought from me but I really think you need more opinions first. However, if they really have paid the fees (you should check with the court) then you should be planning the defence not playing games with the solicitor. Pedross

Hi Tex You need to submit the AoS within the 14 days and the defence another 14 days. Has the claim been issued by CL finance or Howard Cohen. Does the claim include costs for CL finance on top of the court costs. Are you sure you do not have the DN from HFC they normally issue one. Also change your thread title and add - help - court claim issued! I will try and help you as much as I can but I am tied up at the moment. If you get stuck PM me. Pedross

I am no expert but I read somewhere that they sometimes go on the blink and flash vehicles travelling in the opposite direction. It happened to me once and I never heard a thing. Pedross

It may be you have a capital repyment mortgage and one option would be to change it to interest only. The mortgage would not be reducing but you would be able to offer more off the arrears in theory so it would look better for you with regards to your offer. Pedross

The final point that I would make is to try and locate 'postggi' and ask for advice as he seems to be very knowledgable in this area which I do not claim to be.