Jump to content

Tricky Dickie

Registered.
  • Content Count

    268
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Tricky Dickie

  1. Could well be,if you think your agreement is unenforceable and stop paying because of that and tell them so in the main I think they prefer to go and chase someone who they can bully into paying them and who is not going to be a problem for them
  2. If the whole legislative process grinds to a halt as a result of the number of claims that would suit the banks just fine. Their main priority now is playing for time so any delay would be a godsend for them
  3. Its just one more step in a very long and gruelling battle to make the lenders accept they are in the wrong. In the words of Black Adder we will have moved our drinks cabinet 3 feet closer to Berlin.
  4. This information was sent by a solicitor specialising in unenforceability claims to all his clients. I will post any updates. Re: General update on court proceedings I am taking this opportunity to write to you and all clients that have instructed my firm to challenge the enforceability of various types of finance agreements that have been entered into with various lenders. The main purpose of writing is to confirm the progress of a number of claims through the courts that will hopefully in the near future result in lenders accepting that they cannot enforce finance agreements
  5. I think what Daniella Lipszyc was trying to do was to encourage solicitors to sign up for her training courses but for sure she went over the top with that statement. I guess its a lot easier to 'teach' someone to do something than it is to do it yourself as the saying goes. Some of the 'training companies' offering similar tuition are charging 600 pounds per day so if you get 20 in the room and work one day a week for 40 weeks a year thats a cool 480k per year-nice work if you can get it! I understand Ms Lipszyc used to work for one of the first CMCs then left to set up her own business
  6. This information was sent by a solicitor specialising in unenforceability claims to all his clients. I will post any updates. Re: General update on court proceedings I am taking this opportunity to write to you and all clients that have instructed my firm to challenge the enforceability of various types of finance agreements that have been entered into with various lenders. The main purpose of writing is to confirm the progress of a number of claims through the courts that will hopefully in the near future result in lenders accepting that they cannot enforce finance agreemen
  7. AS far as I am aware all this witness statement rubbish the lenders churn out is completely irrelevant. If they do not have the actual piece of paper with your signature on it and all the prescribed terms on it they can quote witnesses and systems all day but they can not enforce the debt
  8. I understand what you are saying and the real point is that under disclosure they will have to send you a copy of exactly what they will produce in court so you can check that the document contains your signature on it and that they actually have it in the first place. A section 77/78 request can be satisfied without having to send the borrower a copy with a signature on it. Some of the stuff that they send in response to a section 77/78 request is a joke for example they send copies of terms and conditions which are clearly dated after the agreement was signed
  9. I stand to be corrected but as far as I am aware the only thing the lender can produce to prove in court that he has en enforceable agreement is the original agreement with an original signature and containing all the prescribed terms in one document. I think this electronic 'balance of probabilities'is irrelevant
  10. If they have an enforceable agreement they can find they will send it straight back to you but the fact is the vast majority of CCA are not enforceable so rather than admit that they just fob you off and keep the DCA s on your back in the hope of getting something out of you
  11. If it goes to court you can make them show you everything they intend to rely on in court by pre action disclosure so you will know well before the trial what they have. I believe that if they have something which they have not disclosed then they can not use it in court
  12. Docman you are correct about the test cases but the point is that all the other cases in the Chester Court at least dealing with unenforceablility are proceeding normally in the Chester Court albeit slowly due to the volume of cases. The problem for the courts of increasing volumes of cases will be brought about due to appeals by debtors or by CMC claims by debtors. Its my guess that many creditors will now be unwilling to take court action due to the unenforceability issue even when the debtor is in default especially if they are aware they do not have an enforceable agreement. CMC s ar
  13. Very interesting debate around this subject regarding the DIY route versus the CMC route and both have merits and drawbacks so its just a matter of personal choice. As stated earlier in this thread the vast majority of people will never be confident enough to try to take on their lender themselves regardless of how much help and information there is on this forum or how much time and effort they spend to understand the process. For these people the CMC route is their only alternative to just giving up and accepting they are going to have to play the lenders game. CMC s can help these peo
  14. I'm with you Docman, There seems to be a lot of confusion about the 'test case' scenario in the judiciary as well as elsewhere. I was at the case conference called by HH Halbert in the Chester County court on 19th May 2009 and the barristers representing a number of lenders agreed with the judge and the barristers for the CMC,s that the basic principles of unenforceability of agreements was not in dispute. HH Halbert stated that these cases which were the great majority would therefore be dealt with in the normal way and scheduled for trial in Chester however he did state that increasing
  15. GM from what you have written above it seems clear that the court accept that the burden of proof is upon the energy supply company to prove the amount they allege you owe is correct which is what I would have expected. However several Caggers on this thread have asserted that it is the responsibility of the person who is alleged to owe the money to prove they do not owe the amount in question which I did not expect would be the case. Your post is encouraging and I will find out for myself on Monday when I appear in court to use a similar argument to that you describe.
  16. I see the name of the company Fretful mentioned has been edited out so I guess mentioning specific companies on here is not allowed-presumably to avoid libel issues etc
  17. On the face of it the claim sounds like a realistic one,most people on here would advise that you use the information you can find on here to do the claim yourself but I know thats not for everyone. Be sure to read the fine print,some of these companies offer a no up front fee service but then ask you to pay a success fee of up to 30% of whatever they have written off for you so be careful. Ask for a copy of their terms and conditions and read them very carefully. I would also suggest that you do some more research to find out: Do they carry out a detailed audit of your agreement to id
  18. I have not heard of them so can not comment a lot depends upon what they claim they can do for you how much it costs whether they have any sort of track record of success and if they are registered with The Ministry of Justice. Incidentally I would be interested to know how they contacted you as there are MoJ rules governing how companies dealing in these sort of claims can promote their services.
  19. So if their priority is to limit the debt ,if I agree to pay the cost of the energy from when the last tenant moved out until another one moves in will they agree not to put in a prepayment meter then as you say the arrears can be sorted out in due course The other thing I don't understand is that the meter is at the moment in a cabinet outside the property on the ground so why do they need a right of entry to disconnect? Also if they are going to fit a prepayment meter where will this be fitted outside too if not what say does the owner have about where the meter goes or do they just
  20. Can anyone answer a simple question . In a dispute between a property owner and an energy provider does the burden of proof lie with the provider to prove a person owes them a specific amount or with the accused person to prove they do not owe said sum of money?
  21. As far as SP is concerned this is a live account,they have concluded I as the owner have responsibility for paying for the services. The same tenant was in the property from when it was completed until a few months ago when they moved out owing me a lot of money. When I went inside to tidy it out I found correspondence addressed to 'the occupier' going back some months then more recent correspondence addressed to 'the occupier/my name' which was the first I knew of any problem. The property is not occupied just now as I am trying to find another tenant I accept I have to pay for the ga
  22. The reason I have come to this forum rather than the utilities is that I have been informed of another case where a TA was not accepted as proof by a utility company that the property owner was not responsible for the debt and any way just at this moment I can not find the original TA-who keeps a 6 month tenancy agreement for 5 years,once it has expired and you have issued a new one its no good to you anyway . Just leaving aside the warrant of entry issue and dealin with the question of who should pay the bill I know that if I was in a dispute which was likely to lead to legal action in a c
  23. I understand about the warrant of entry however the real point is that I wish to dispute the amount they say I owe and I want to know what I can do to get the bailiff to reveal all the information they have so I can use all there info to dispute the amount they allege is owing
×
×
  • Create New...