Jump to content

Tricky Dickie

Registered.
  • Content Count

    268
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Tricky Dickie

  1. This is the arguement submitted by the barrister in a case brought by some bank or other against a Mr Mitchell in the Leeds County Court and he was defended by CMC barrister who tried to argue that the fact that the agreement did not clearly state the credit limit rendered the agreement unenforceable. Apparently Judge Langan reserved judgement yesterday but should hand it down in the next couple of weeks. Whichever way it goes the other side is very likely to appeal but if the judgement is found to be against the lender it could have very significant implications One of the prescribe
  2. Same old same old,the journo didn't bother to read the judgement just rewrote previous innacurate stories
  3. unless I am mistaken the 4k would go down as a loss in their profit and loss account so whatever profit they make will be reduced by 4k so they pay corporation tax on 4k less
  4. Wasn't Rankine using this argument so he could 'buy' peoples debts before the MoJ cancelled his registration.
  5. What happened to you is just unbelievable,hope you get a decent judge in your trial. My trial is in Chester not the midlands but I guess there may be judges like the one you describe any where
  6. MBNA are trying to enforce an agreement and I have just found out the trial date is just over a month away. The "agreement" they have sent in response to pre action disclosure is an application forms with my signature on and a completely seperate set of terms and conditions which comply with the CCA( not surprising as they were probably produced last week). MBNA have actually confirmed in writing that they do not have the original agreement as it was copied electronically and destroyed some years ago. They maintain however that the original document did contain these terms and conditions
  7. I hope you are right but if you subscribe to the view that the whole political system is no more than a sham put in place by our real masters to keep the masses from finding out the truth then the possibilities are very different
  8. You are of course correct however the banks still maintain that they have the right to report non payers with unenforceable agreements to CRA's so lets see how things go in a test case in such a situation
  9. Just on the point made above would it be possible for the government to retrospectively amend the Consumer Credit Act or introduce some other legislation to prevent people from challenging their agreements?
  10. Spot on ,the banks and the government know the score and that if everyone challenged their agreements the banks would be in big trouble. If the banks ever admitted what we all know that millions of credit agreements are unenforceable they would have to write off billions of pounds on their balance sheets at a stroke and most of them would have to go bust. So they will drag their feet,pretend its not happening and spread lies and confusion so the general public who mostly believe the crap they are fed will think that unenforceability is an urban myth and so will carry on toing the line. T
  11. RBS just wanted to win something,anything really so the media machine would then spin it into a 'you have to pay back all your debts and more regardless of whether its legal or not' headline. There will be plenty more of these and most people will buy it like all the other crap the media put out.
  12. I think people need to retain a sense of perpective about having DCA 's etc chase you for money. Most people get scared because they don't understand how things work so when DCA's threaten to take your furniture etc people panic because they believe what they are told Once you undrstand that they can do nothing of the sort without going through the whole legal process then you can easily deal with them. I have several agreements I believe are unenforceable and I have paid nothing on them for more than 18 months despite receiving at least 6-8 phone calls a day and regular threatening lett
  13. I agree absolutely,this case was definately the banks clutching at straws to try and find some way to discourage people from challenging their agreements which means that they have already conceded that they are not going to defend successfully the majority of their agreements particularly where they were issued before April 2007 so lets not get too discouraged by this. In the case conference in May at Chester County Court all the solicitors and barristers present agreed with Judge Halbert that the general principals of unenforceable agreements were well established and accepted by everyone.
  14. It is not correct to state that a company who does not charge any up front fees must necessarily take a slice of the settlement figure. CMC's typically work with solicitors who work on a conditional fee agreement basis (no win no fee) and when a solicitor wins a case under such an arrangement he is allowed to claim a success fee of up to 100% of his costs from the lender. The CMC usually has an arrangement with the solicitor that a proportion of this success fee is then paid by the solicitor to the CMC and this is where the CMC generates an income. In many cases the solicitor also has to
  15. The Times article mentions Ultimate Law and its my guess the Times journo just wrote what they told him. It was Ultimate Law who started all the 'false stay' reports back in May after Judge Halbert called the case management conference in Chester.They really do have a knack for getting everything wrong
  16. Times are quoting Ultimate Law again- Daniella Lipsynch- what is her agenda I just can't figure it out. She runs a company which allegedly trains lawyers in consumer law so they can act for clients to write off debts and then keeps rubbishing the process.wtf is that all about
  17. Times are quoting Ultimate Law again- Daniella Lipsynch- what is her agenda I just can't figure it out. She runs a company which allegedly trains lawyers in consumer law so they can act for clients to write off debts and then keeps rubbishing the process.wtf is that all about
  18. Can someone please help me out with a question. Lets say a lender takes action to enforce a debt and under pre action disclosure they send a copy of the agreement which contains breaches of the CCA 1974. They then turn up in court with an agreement with no breaches,can they use this as evidence? Can you argue that the document is inadmissable as it was not disclosed?
  19. It was me who made the comment People are always getting us confused but two dickies are better than one!
  20. If you make payments as required they can't default you or note your credit file with adverse information . If your agreement is not enforceable and you formally advise the lender the agreement is in dispute and you then stop paying then according to the judge in this case during the period of dispute the correct thing for the lender to do is to not to try to enforce the debt or take legal action against you. In the McGuffick case the agreement proved to be enforceable ( or at least all parties agreed it was enforceable-if I was McGuffick I would want it looked at again as I would have no
  21. Halbert did not refer this case to the Commercial Court of his own motion,at the case conference in Chester in May he asked ther assembled legal teams to propose cases to be heard and RBS legal representative asked for this one to be heard.There was no objection from the claimants legal representative so Halbert refered it. Maybe the claimants solicitor should have objected?
  22. Could have been worse the Journo could have quoted Daniella Lipsynk
  23. I wonder how carefully the copy of the alleged executed agreement sent by RBS in May had been audited for all the possible unenforceability issues and whether the claimant and his representative got sidetracked by the CRA reporting issue. If this is the case do they still have the opportunity to review the agreement and contest the enforceability if grounds for this are found?
  24. If I was the borrower I would not accept that. the last sentence clearly states that further documents which have not yet been provided will be required to make the agreement enforceable which is the same position which the borrower started at before he started proceedings but because the lender says 'no problem I have the documents' and the judge says 'there you are then no need to produce them we accept that ' everyone also accepts it. Furthermore, by virtue of section 77(4) the agreement will be valid and enforceable again once the bank has provided the claimant with a signed sta
×
×
  • Create New...