If the company in india has a uk operation or is working at the behest of a uk company then you can still 'do them'

as noo says, bacause you now have an audience who will hold your hand through every form and every step of taking them to court and through every bit of dross their sols can come up with. As the song says 'you're in the [cag] army now:D.

as usual, bri is trying to create a loophole that does not exist

another company finds cag on a routine web and online publicity search and promptly poos itself then signs up. 192 this morning, KW this afty. call linda and ask for the address for the service of legal papers. Or perhaps you could drive round there without any brakes.

because you live in dawlish warren but you are not a rabbit?. Good point though Deb, these slimy toads will say anything on the phone but in writing, as the Americans say, there is no 'operational deniablity'

good points by deb and ncf

OK so you said they couldnt take you to court because of the dispute and they quoted the first bit of the rankine judgement to say they could? I think the issue is that they were investigating then you moved the goalposted by stopping paying. Personally I think it will always be an uphill battle to convince a judge that he effectively has no right to have an opinion. However, they still didnt have the agreement in court? So you went for a 3.4.2© strike out? Now I think I see why you say you lost but its not over - if I can help let me know

Zoe I applaud your efforts for trying. It will be interesting to see your DPA justification for processing. Shame you still havent answered my earlier question directly because that is basically what this whole thread is about.

and you expected them to say anything else? They dont want you to apply, they want to make you feel like to do so would be idiotic and futile.

zoe, many thanks for not answering the question. You will know when I have contacted you directly when the letter arrives. However I refuse to connect at this point via e-mail as that would place a personal ID with you to link with my cag username and defeat the whole purpose of cag anonymity.

The bit with must in is crucial the rest is a suggestion the bit in green should be removed (obviously). You have to think like a toad when writing such a conditional offer:D.

well vinty if you take out a £20k loan, dont pay it back and dont comply with a court order to pay it back they will get a charge on your house and they may go after a sale order as well. Assuming that they have all the paperwork and you are that stubborn of course

No mobile contracts are not CCA. Still need to send them a prove it letter, that it's your account and the amount is right and they have the right to ask for it. So same basic principle as a CCA but without the CCA (if that makes sense:roll:).

Ah well that's probably the only bit of rankine that is useful, but then again I though their attempt to use 78(6) to prevent court action was foolish - esp. given the judge decided they had 'made up' the disputes by pretending they didnt get the paperwork. I find that most of what companies like scm quote a case law is a bit like rimmer in red dwarf quoting space code - all the right words for all the wrong reasons. dont understand: Lloyds issued complaint reference number (s78 + s61) and sent 3 we are still investigating letters, No final responce ever issued.????

BA if you look at 4 in cpr 19.4: Procedure for adding and substituting parties 19.4 (1) The court’s permission is required to remove, add or substitute a party, unless the claim form has not been served. (2) An application for permission under paragraph (1) may be made by – (a) an existing party; or (b) a person who wishes to become a party. (3) An application for an order under rule 19.2(4) (substitution of a new party where existing party’s interest or liability has passed) – (a) may be made without notice; and (b) must be supported by evidence. (4) Nobody may be added or substituted as a claimant unless – (a) he has given his consent in writing; and (b) that consent has been filed with the court. (4A) The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs may be added as a party to proceedings only if they consent in writing. (5) An order for the removal, addition or substitution of a party must be served on – (a) all parties to the proceedings; and (b) any other person affected by the order. (6) When the court makes an order for the removal, addition or substitution of a party, it may give consequential directions about – (a) filing and serving the claim form on any new defendant; (b) serving relevant documents on the new party; and © the management of the proceedings. So it cannot be done on a whim?

can, worms & tin opener on the go here. Zoe I feel a DPA section 10 unauthorised data processing letter coming on. If I am opted out of the public electoral role, ex-directory, TPS registered and NOT a company director just what information should you be showing as being in the 'public domain'? If anyone wishes to take this further the correct procedure is to contact the ICO and consumer direct with your concerns plus a screen shot of the offending data and send zoe/192 a notice under section 10 of the DPA to stop processing you data - 192 must then either comply within 28 days or give you a legal reason why they feel they have the right to do it - which you may then challenge if you wish.

It means they cannot take you to court. They can ask you to pay and you can say no. You can also say I'll give you x% final settlement if you remove all traces of a default from my cra files. In other words you are in the driving seat. It is worth noting that cca request does not constitute any kind of 'notice of legal intent' or anything. All you are doing is saying do you have a copy of the agreement for me please.

You can only default once technically. Once a default is in place you cannot default on a default. So the answer is yes it is true but that does not stop them.

pumpy, yes they do play silly buggers as you put it in sars, write back with explicit instructions. Some will send what they can get easy and hope that's enough to fob you off yes, no documents the holding defence. Have you got on ewritten? if not do it now!

Kel, what bit of rankine did they use/how? and thats the spirit the battle was lost but not the war!

There's always the potential in the 'judge lottery' as it were and I would never ever say that anything in the English Judicial system can be a 100% dead cert. ......That said, the answer to your question is not that I am aware of. IMO they would have a massive uphill battle because they would have to prove a negative; ie prove that you did not post the V5C or the V890 etc. The law is quite explicit in that if you put it in the post box then legally you sent it and complied with the statute/regulations for vehicle licensing. So I do not see what evidence they could use to trump a sworn statement of postage plus the interpretations act.

Thanks snoops, sorry loo I got caught up in shall we say some 'office politics' this morning, but at least someone sorted you out, thats the main thing

Out of interest in what context? The rankine judgment does not really set any legal precedents. When you start from they took the creditors to court then add in the fact that the judge found them to be disingenuous, there isnt much left. Their argument was mostly based on not being able to begin court action whilst a 78(6) dispute was in place plus some... well.... have a read: Mishcon de Reya, Solicitors, London : News and Events : Articles : Judgment: Basil Rankine vs American Express Services Europe Limited I think item 4 is the most telling.

as in you like the info or you'll delete the offending or you want the cpr 18 in the morning? hopefully at least the first two, the last one is optional and will cost about 15 seconds of my time - I think you're worth at least that loo. you want the notice of assignment which really is more important than the deed. If you want to know all about noa's see john's thread. - John WILL post the link in the morning or risk some bear wrath!