Jump to content

chelsealove

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    19
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

1 Follower

About chelsealove

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. It's the solicitor's code of conduct and it's here. Although in theory only a client or another solicitor is able to complain about solicitors breaching it, the SRA [now the legal ombudsman] are supposed to be there to stop abuses in general. If you go to rule 7 on Solicitors Code of Conduct on the Solicitors Regulation Authority website, it's there. I've only posted 17 times so i'm not allowed to put a link in! They've obviously not putting the number on there because they don't want complaints. G PS: Toy - no, it's not naive. Debts under 5k fall within the small claims r
  2. I've been called a great deal of things in my life, toymaker, but charmingly naive is a new one. I've seen so many people destroyed at court over the years, either through overconfidence or a belief that the law is so certain that it defies intepretation, that I've come to the conclusion that being a lawyer is more to do with risk - assessment than legal nous. I daresay that nobody believes that Carey is an accurate statement of statute, but it has now become - by dint of the way in which the County Court system works - the dominant precedent on CCA construction. I stand by what I said -
  3. I got given an agreement on A4 paper, Danielle, which they said was the reconstructed contract. I went through it with a fine toothpick and there's things in there that don't seem to match a lot of what's in the original contract [the application form that we all seem to have], but it has all of the key terms. I've read through the Carey judgment a few times and I think the problem with it, speaking as a lawyer, is it can be read in all sorts of ways. The underlying theory, however, is the banks are entitled to "recreate documents", which I think is appalling. If individuals were allowed
  4. I'm reposting this because it was deleted by the consumer forum after Bard complained (obviously without the comments that got me into trouble!) I note that after he complained, he effectively left the thread, which is amusing. He's said some similarly mean things about other people, which I could report him about, but I have neither the time or the inclination. I will repeat one important fact, however - he isn't a lawyer. He has no legal qualifications. Therefore take everything he says with a pinch of salt. I say nothing further on that point. Anyway, here's the deleted post...
  5. What I mean is: for anyone who has something to lose, like me, they'll try to cut their losses. The person who eventually takes them to Court will either be insured to do so, or alternatively will have so little money that they can't afford to settle. They'll fight because they have no choice but to fight. I really hate myself for settling, but my business is doing well and, like I said, I don't want my entire future being decided by a District level judge.
  6. I'm afraid to say that I settled it for a 35% reduction in the amount owed. The problem I had was that the solicitors on the other side were threatening a bill of nearly 20k if it went to Court and I lost. As a solicitor myself, I know that they misrepresent their costs incredibly and 20k was not unrealistic. I wouldn't have survived an overall loss of 30k [who can?], so I cut my losses. Cap One's conduct throughout was appalling. They served on an old address, they produced documents late in the litigation and they pushed the limits of what a "reconstructed document" was. In
  7. No, mate, my guess is they actually are now taking people to trial in the belief that most judges are interpreting Carey as widely as possible [i.e. if the bank produces a statement which states they followed the rules, the judge will accept it in the absence of any contrary evidence]. I've worked a fair bit at County Court level and most DJs are fiercely against unrepentant debtors. I think Carey is the excuse they've been looking for. My trial is in the New Year. I will fight it to the bitter end, because Cap One have behaved shoddily and unethically. If I win, then I'll advertise it a
  8. Hello again, I haven't started a thread, because I'm still not sure whether it's worth my while becoming a "test case" and potentially losing a large amount of money, when I might as well just pay a couple of thousand to get rid of them. I was one of the many people who had the gun put to their head by Cap One last year and told I could repay the outstanding debt at one percentage rate or continue to use it at a 30% interest rate. I chose the former option but I started looking into the law behind CCAs and until Carey came along, I thought I was on fairly secure ground in defending any ac
  9. Hi Craig, Drederick, Rockwell, I have exactly the same Cap1 agreement as Little Lady and it's currently being litigated through the Clerkenwell courts. The counter argument of the solicitors to the sloppiness of the paperwork disclosed is using the latter bit of Carey which states that if you can get a statement from the bank that it was properly executed, then that's enough to get enforcement. Their logic is that the front page of application form is the first part of the contract, but that it arrives with all of the documentation attached [t and cs]. You sign the document to get t
  10. Okay, I think I might have something useful to add to this thread. I've got more or less the same agreement / not agreement with Capital One. They pestered me, then used PW Moody to sue [without the documents], and now have instructed Eversheds to act on the matter post AQ. The debt is about 8k. The agreement is almost identical to floorz. It states clearly that it's an application, like the one in this thread, and the references on the front refer to numbers in the T and C that aren't present on the back. I'll post it at a later date. The difference to the normal threads is that
  11. As i said a while back, I doubt egg will ever want it to go to court for that exact reason - they don't want to know the answer. Be careful though HP Mum... you're correct to be suspicious. I stopped paying my capital one card because it was clearly unenforcable. They waited a year after the default, then served county court papers on an old address of mine, even though they'd been corresponding with me at my new address. Unless you're sharp on court paperwork [i'm fairly lucky cos i'm a lawyer and i have a friendly neighbour back at my old address who passed the papers to me], they'll s
  12. I think in all probability BC do know that they are dealing with the Egg agreements in the sense that you mean. If you look at other threads concerning BC, their reputation is for putting in claim forms and getting a default judgment. Most of the time, the Defendants have either moved on or alternatively don't know what to do with the paperwork. A default judgment occurs if you don't put in a Defence. The Judge won't even bother looking at the paperwork in any detail if you haven't responded to the Claim Form with a Defence. Their logic is undoubtedly if they issue 5000 claim
  13. I think you can assume that defaulting isn't going to bring about any further action, other than debt collectors trying to harass you and an entry on your credit file. As long as you're prepared to suffer that, I doubt egg will do anything further. As I said before, they're not interested in a Court case that sets a precedent one way or another. I defaulted now a few months ago. I told them they could sue me and I would be happy to go to Court. Nothing in response. Egg can go screw themselves. If they want to act like gangsters, they should be treated as such.
  14. One other thing - Bryan Carter aren't putting their SRA number at the bottom of their letter. Report them to the SRA here because they're in breach of the new Solicitors Rules. There is an option in the link for you as a member of the public to "report intelligence anonymously". Give their address. Solicitors Regulation Authority - Contact us What it'll mean is they'll have to get entirely new stationary at huge cost to them, as well as having to throw away thousands of pounds of old stationary. Jokers.
  15. My recommendation is that you ignore the letter btw until you see actual legal paperwork, then go see a lawyer. If they're doing this work bulk, it's highly unlikely they have authority to issue the claim. Also - they don't know that you live permently at that address. If you write to them, you're putting them on notice you DO live there and are open to any kind of action against you.
×
×
  • Create New...