Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


23 Excellent

1 Follower

  1. Hi flooz. When I get letters from new DCA's I remind them that as they have taken over the responsibilities of collecting the debt they have also taken on the responsibilities of providing requested information:- so please provide. 1. CCA. 2. Default notice. 3. Termination notice 4. Notice of transfer (can't remember the proper name for that one). Keeps them busy for a while.. John
  2. Hi Flooz Nothing happening at the moment, we've had a flurry of letters back and forth but its all smoke and mirrors. But; I'm getting better and I have'nt forgotten. As to your question. Yes Cap 1 sent me terms and conditions and insisted this was all they had to supply. They sent me a schedule of cost and the threats continued up to the day before the hearing. I went to court because they would not (could not)show me a legally binding document. Are you working flooz? because I have been helping a friend who is out of work. He has just had a hearing scheduled for nothing (no court fee's), its similar to yours, he's asked for a company to provide a legaly binding contract or have the one shown (application form) declared unenforceable. If you are certain that the contract you hold is unenforceable its a move that would stop them pulling a rabbit out of the hat at a later date and leave them no room to manourver. You can have copies of what I did if you wish but you will have to PM me you e-mail. John
  3. Excuse me everyone. does anybody have a commission sheet for Blackhorse? Sorry to jump in. Wfs. I have sent you the w/s; sorry for the delay. John
  4. Hi Postei. This might help, have a look at:- C/2001/1317. NCM[2002] EWCA Civ. 250. Wulfsohn V Legal Services Commission. It says an LIP is entitled to 2/3rds the costs of a legal professional. (Although I think you are a professional, can't say what, Patrick won't let me.) john
  5. we tried that but the Judge said we had to show what law had been broken by Finance co. mrsiphone thinks misrepresentation, I'm wondering about Fraud. Should say he was trying to get a document from the FC regarding commissions using 31.16 John
  6. Morning all, I have a note of caution....... I have to be careful what I say here because of watchers. I recently accompanied a friend to court. I have been trying to help him find out if or how much commission was paid to a car dealer on an HP deal. He applied under 31.16 for the underwriting sheet. The judge was brilliant. The correspondant stated that no case was made concerning them, the finance company. The Hurlstanger case was used by us but the judge SPECIFICALY wanted to know what law had been brocken and wanted cases to support it. He said that just saying a secret commission MIGHT have been paid was insufficient. But he has rescheduled the case instead of throwing it out and has refused costs to the finance company until the case is completed. He more or less said that we have a case but are presenting it wrongly. John
  7. Hello Donein, just found you. Toddle is right we need much more info. What professional body? What agreement did you sign? Do you have a copy? What gives them the right to fine you? John
  8. I think its drinking in the twilight zone with you two that got me in this state in the first place. I luuuv youu I do!!!!!!! Where am I, who are you!!
  9. This is NOT and I repeat NOT a political statement. Gordon Brown has a PhD in History. Alistair Darling is a Lawyer George Osbourne has a Degree in Modern History. None of these people have any knowledge of Banking or Economics whatsover. No wonder the city runs rings around them. The only one who has any actual experience of finance is Vince Cable, and he's got about as much chance of being the next Chancellor as I have. (Perhaps he's over qualified).
  10. Information Commissioner. If everybody reports them the Comm. will have to act. John
  11. Hi flooz still battling then. Keep your chin up. John
  12. Well done mate. Just make sure you get a cheque not a credit to some account or other. John
  13. SCHEDULE 2 Conditions relevant for purposes of the first principle: processing of any personal data 1 The data subject has given his consent to the processing. 2 The processing is necessary— (a) for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is a party, or (b) for the taking of steps at the request of the data subject with a view to entering into a contract. 3 The processing is necessary for compliance with any legal obligation to which the data controller is subject, other than an obligation imposed by contract. 4 The processing is necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject. 5 The processing is necessary— (a) for the administration of justice, (b) for the exercise of any functions conferred on any person by or under any enactment, © for the exercise of any functions of the Crown, a Minister of the Crown or a government department, or (d) for the exercise of any other functions of a public nature exercised in the public interest by any person. 6 (1) The processing is necessary for the purposes of legitimate interests pursued by the data controller or by the third party or parties to whom the data are disclosed, except where the processing is unwarranted in any particular case by reason of prejudice to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the data subject. (2) The Secretary of State may by order specify particular circumstances in which this condition is, or is not, to be taken to be satisfied. I'm sorry to disagree with you DD but these are the priciples of Data Control. No mention of conduct of account. Basicly, no permission no processing. Regards John
  • Create New...