Jump to content

diddydicky

Banned
  • Content Count

    8,996
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    17

diddydicky last won the day on July 27 2010

diddydicky had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,570 Excellent

About diddydicky

  • Rank
    Banned

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I am prepared to continue giving advice but will not enter into further argument on the points raised by PB as they are circular you have had his opinion on the DN and you have had mine (plus anyone else who cares to give some advice) in order that the thread does not degenerate into yet another long winded argument on DN's and thus dedtract from what your needs are - you should choose which advice to to act upon in this respect
  2. regrettabl;y not- they will get a member of staff to swear an affidavit that the DN was posted by first class post and the judge will (99- 1) accept it im afraind all the talk of "putting creditors to strict proof" of everything is not as good as it appears at first sight
  3. at the moment event acceptance of UR seems to be a non starter it is only now advisable IMO for someone who is prepared mentally and financially to take the argument through to an appeal- where i beleive the UR argument could be won- but sadly not in the county court in the first instance
  4. exactly, and if the UK adopts the 3 year european SB rules then we will also see lots more court actions there's a price to pay for everything
  5. you have this version of the matter- and i am sure you have had others- make of them what you will
  6. QUOTE and many on here have had DNs represented UNQUOTE an opinion surely and no evidence from the forum to support the opinion in fact i would disagree and say VERY FEW creditors have served second DN's
  7. precisely- it is a strange notice- and one i have not come across before arguably you are right and it gives only 13 days - also of course it is not as prescribed in that it does not show "a date" the creditor will argue however that the debtor is being pedantic since if for instance he received the DN on a monday- only the debtor knows what day it was received- so he could just as easily send the money to the creditor 15 days later by saying he did not receive it until the wednesday i think it would be almost impossible fore the OP to argue that he did not have sufficient time to remedy and he could only really argue that the notice is not as prescribed the comment in the preceeding post is not really of help to you, it merely expresses and opinion without the p[oster having established the facts of the matter whilst it is true that the creditor can do what he likes- it is arguable that he would be "fully entitled" For instance, if the creditor posts a DN first class on a thurdsay- or before a bank holiday - he will NEVER be "entitled" to take the action noted in the DN after 14 days since it is impossible 14 days from the date of the letter- to have given the debtor 14 days after service (unless of course the credtor serves the DN by hand on the day he wrote it similarly- if you have kept the envelope and can show that it was posted second class- then again the creditor may take the action he threatened 14 days later- but he will not be "fully entitled" to do so - even if you do not have the envelope but make a positive assertion that it arrived with you on a date that is commensurate with in having been posted second class- and the judge is minded to accept you as an honest witness- you could still win the day and show that the DN was invalid since again the creditor would have taken the action within 14 days of the date- whereas you would not have had 14 clear days AFTER service upon you is it too much to hope that you still have the envelope? looking again at the DN - is this it? ONE PAGE? if so you are in luck as it it missing important prescribed text!
  8. to be honest (IMO) although the judge might have been "miffed" at their antics- the odds are that she will accept their screen print as evidence that the DN was sent few, if any creditors keep a hard copy of a DN- and rely on the screen print out to show that one was produce (the judge will inevitably say that on the balance of probabilities- this oh so efficient and trustworthy national institution would hardly print off a document and not then post it) of ALl the DN defences- the fact that one was not received is the weakest for the defendant i would say that the DN defence will fail on the grounds of you not having received it UNLESS you can PROVE that other documents- alleged to have been sent- were also not received- but proving non receipt is always an uphill struggle sorry to be the bearer of bad vibes on the DN front but that is the reality (IMO) i am afraid
  9. tell me about it!! however on the bright side i have to say that apart from the argument that the creditors should not allowed to get away with "converting" unsecured loans into secured ones.........and hoping that the recomendations as to a lower limit of £25,000 are adopted i have to say that folk should not otherwise be too fearful of charging orders (in support of judgements made against them) they are much more preferable that AEO's baliffs and the possibility of garnishee orders ( which can have much more far reaching consequences than the initial attempt to grab the debtors bank funds)
  10. i see you are right- it is usually added to the selling fees (unless the house is withdrawn or not sold within a given period (usually after around 6 months on- buyers sols will not accept the original HIP as out of date and will demand another why they were not prepared to give you a copy is strange- after all you could easily get someone to pretend to be interested in buying and they would be given a sight of the HIP- so that argument on their side seems wierd. at least it is small claims so costs will not be huge - and if your credit rating is already trashed than i suppose you lose nowt but i suspect- looking at things from a third party point of view (which is what the judge will do) he will dismiss all the talk of lies and want to concentrate only on the basics which will be- why do you expect not to have to pay for a HIP the other thing i cant understand is why it is the sols suing you in their own name- are they also the estate agent- or has the debt been assigned to them only the person with whom you contracted (verbally or in writing) can have a cause of action against you
  11. i have personal experience of this very thing- however i dont know when the ruling you are referring to was established. i would have thought that what the creditor will do is apply for a redetermination of the payments and if the debtor still can only afford £50 then they will apply for a charging order as security in view of the amount of time repayment will take that is what happened to me ( albeit many years ago)
  12. sorry it wasnt quite clear from your posts so what happened - did the house sell or not sell? otherwise why exactly are you refusing to pay for the HIP? surely you can agree to offer monthly payments to the other side in settlement- you will have to do so if you lose in court and you will avoid a ccj! you can only offer them what you can afford anyway
  13. then i would imagine that the reason the creditor wants a charging order is because at the rate you are paying it will take 16 years to repay it is accepted fact that on average - Brits move home every 7 years (ok it may go up a bit due to the recession) personally i would forestall any court action by agreeing with the creditor to registering a charge- with a provision that provide you maintain payments he will take no further enforcement action- thus saving the court costs being added the creditors fear and argument is that at any time you could sell your house- pocket the change and leave him high and dry IMO the court will be only too willing to grant the security of a charging order because of the size of the debt and the amount of the repayments this is usually all the creditor wants- not to force a sale
  14. then my personal advice to you would be to agree to settle this matter- is it really worth all the aggro and escalating costs? this is a small claims court hearing and the rules of evidence are nowhere near as strict as in a fast track or multi track in short- the judge is going to use his "common sense" it is my opinion that if you go into court citing to the judge that there was "no contract" or that "both executors did not agree" etc etc - that you will get very short shrift the judge (IMO) will take a purely practical view and ignore all and any "perry mason type" of legal arguments and that whoever verbally instructed the Estate agent to market the property knew full well that there would be a cost for a HIP and that it is usual if the property is not sold/withdrawn from sale that the HIP has to be paid for sorry to be harsh- but i think you are wasting your time and money!
  15. most of the agreements dealt with on this forum are OLDER mbna agreements i take your point- mbna clearly realised their mistake and corrected it however the fact remains- the debtors attempt to END the agreement is conditional upon FIRST paying everything owed to the creditor therefore if the repayment is not complied with FIRST then the terminating or ending is not effective
×
×
  • Create New...