Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by diddydicky

  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
  16. thats very interesting...but totally irrelevant .....the case in which you refer to (PH) the judges decisions is an MBNA agreement- please show me the authority that says an MBNA customer is bound by the terms and conditions of an Egg agreeement! Now show me ONE court case in which a judge has used the terms and conditions of an Egg agreement to find against a debtor with an MBNA agreement .......and i will leave this forum forever surely it would have been a lot easier to utter those three little words - begins with I and ends with wrong!
  17. you must disclose to the court and then other side in advance what cases you intend to refer to for authority- just as they must...in order that they can refer to it as well if they need to
  18. not every judge is right- especially county court judges you wave the judges judgement around like it was the holy grail yet not a few posts ago you were arguing that an agreement is still terminated even if the creditor served a bad DN - totally in the face of an APPEAL COURT ruling (which itself upheld a previous (wilson ) HOUSE OF LORDS RULING that a bad DN = the creditor cannot take the next step It is so so hard not to say what one really feels when debating with someone who just contradicts themselves time after time and does not have the humility to admit when he is wrong
  19. no, i have done my research- and what i have posted is word for word the clause in the MBNA agreement and i used it to back up my proposition what you would LIKE it to say and what it DOES say is the difference between your advice being sound or defective- so you ought the check the facts first with respect - why don't YOU do some research and post up an MBNA clause which uses the word END rather than terminate!! in order to validate your claim instead of just picking holes in other peoples research in order to assist you - there are tons of mbna agreement dispute th
  20. Hi BD it was PB who was suggesting that the letter from a debtor (whether or not accepting what the creditor had or had not done...amounted to them terminating the agreement It was pumpkin head i thiunk wasnt it and the dj No peter it was definately YOU on the PH thread several times in fact it was myself that pointed out that this was not possible unless the debtor first repaid everything owed to the creditor - and that no creditor would be mug enough to accept the termination and then try to get their money back off the debtor Yes it was you were incorrect Thi
  21. I refer to your answers to BD I have provided authority for the proposition that the contractual clause CLEARLY states that UNTIL the debtor has repaid ALL liabilities to the creditor- the termination is NOT effective and i have also stated that you will find the same or similarly worded clause in every creditors contractual termination clause At the time that the debtor makes this alleged termination- the parties are nowhere near a courthouse Please provide authority for your proposition that a court can change the terms and conditions of an agreement- against the wish
  22. Hi BD it was PB who was suggesting that the letter from a debtor (whether or not accepting what the creditor had or had not done...amounted to them terminating the agreement it was myself that pointed out that this was not possible unless the debtor first repaid everything owed to the creditor - and that no creditor would be mug enough to accept the termination and then try to get their money back off the debtor My comment was as usual not accepted - "because this one particular judge" in a county court - decided otherwise at the time i did not have an MBNA agreement lyi
  23. first check clause 7 of the agreement to see if that IS the clause you have defaulted on secondly- and personally- it is a toss up with judges as to whether the DN would be deemed invalid on the one hand it is not in prescribed form on the other the judge could argue the fault de minimus on the grounds that you could actually "Gain" extra time to remedy that DN but stating that you "received it" at a later date than you did its a tight call (IMO) if however they have quoted the wrong clause in the DN as well- then it could be argued that the creditor has been cavalier
  24. as is see it- if his dad wants to pay off his sons mortgage (£109K) then you would not have to make any more payments to it- which means you could afford to pay more to restons to pay off the £14,000 restons would not object to him paying off the mortgage- nor would they seek to want to force a sale the more so since you would be able to pay them quicker. it also strikes me that if your ex's dad has got £109K to pay off the mortgage- perhaps you could do a deal with him to pay off restons too and then take repayments direct from you i would guess that in this case - Rest
  25. there are some on e bay being offered around £20-£30 (new one is around £70-£80
  • Create New...