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

1 Follower

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
  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 defen
  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
  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
  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
  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 mas
  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...