Why am I not asleep? OK............ let me see........ are you a "shrink"? IF YES can I start with how I was not breast fed when I was a baby and............... Oh heck! I will be honest. I am single, I did not get laid last night and....... :D:D:D Sorry for "mad sense of humour". Have a nice day.

Dupe post

In your answer to your ultimate paragraph once again I am NOT a solicitor and neither do I pose as one. I can ONLY state what I have read and what I have understood and what I have learnt from research. HENCE in answer to your question: The main priorty you have to check is DID YOU GET A RULE 15 Customer care letter???? For the Rule 15 letter says: Rule 15 (Costs information and client care) Solicitors shall: (a) give information about costs and other matters, and (b) operate a complaints handling procedure, in accordance with a Solicitors' Costs Information and Client Care Code made from time to time by the Council of the Law Society with the concurrence of the Master of the Rolls, but subject to the notes. Notes (i)A serious breach of the code, or persistent breaches of a material nature, will be a breach of the rule, and may also be evidence of inadequate professional services under section 37A of the Solicitors Act 1974. (ii) Material breaches of the code which are not serious or persistent will not be a breach of the rule, but may be evidence of inadequate professional services under section 37A. (iii)The powers of the Law Society on a finding of inadequate professional services include: (iv)(a) disallowing all or part of the solicitor's costs; and (v)(b) directing the solicitor to pay compensation to the client up to a limit of £15,000. (vi)Non-material breaches of the code will not be a breach of the rule, and will not be evidence of inadequate professional services under section 37A. This document applies to conduct issues occurring before 1 July 2007. For rules governing conduct after 1 July 2007, see www.rules.sra.org.uk. 01/03/2007 Page 31 of 42 © The Law Society 2007 (v) Registered foreign lawyers practising in partnership with solicitors of the Supreme Court or registered European lawyers, or as members of recognised bodies which are limited liability partnerships, or as directors of recognised bodies which are companies, although subject to Rule 15 as a matter of professional conduct, are not subject to section 37A. However, such solicitors, registered European lawyers and recognised bodies are subject to section 37A for professional services provided by the firm. So...... any of the above breached????????? IF yes then you may have a nice future. :) AND NO! It is NOT the Solicitors complaints service you need. Contact the SRA first and ask for assistance. The Solicitors complaints service does not work on case law but like the OFT and the FOS works on the "law of probability". As to taxation.......... the best I can tell you is that you have 1 year to apply to the court for taxation otherwise you lose the right. Now the problem is you refer to "loan" and "my lender". Dont know what you are on about hence dont think I can reply BUT............. here is some case laws for you REMEMBER.......... once you "cheese off" (to be polite) that solicitor by quoting law to him and telling him/her "can go and jump for their money" then start looking for a new legal representative. :D COMMON LAW DUTIES 1. Duty in contract 9.1 When a solicitor provides services to a client, he will do so pursuant to a contract. Hence the starting point for considering the scope of a solicitor’s duty must be the contractual retainer. As Oliver J observed in the case of Midland Bank Trust Co Ltd v. Hett, Stubbs & Kemp 1 : “The extent of [a solicitor’s] duties depends upon the terms and limits of that retainer and any duty of care to be implied must be related to what he is instructed to do.” Reeves -v- Thrings & Long [1996] PNLR 265 ß------ 1996 CA Sir Thomas Bingham MR, Simon Brown LJ, Hobhouse LJ Legal Professions, Professional Negligence Solicitors were sued for failing to advise their client fully as to the wisdom of the transaction he was entering into. The client was an experienced businessman. Held: (Hobhouse LJ) "Once Mr Reeves was told what the legal position was, he required no further advice from Mr Sheppard in order to evaluate its implications and commercial significance. Mr Reeves was an experienced businessman and under no disability." (Simon Brown LJ) "I cannot accept that Mr Sheppard was under any further duty to his client, any duty to advise him upon the commercial implications or importance of the access provision or to warn him against the risks that it might pose for the future development, operation or sale of the hotel. These matters are well within the client's competence to appreciate and evaluate for himself, business considerations rather than legal ones." (Sir Thomas Bingham MR, dissenting) "It will always be relevant to consider what the solicitor is asked to do, the nature of the transaction and the standing and experience of the client. Thus on the facts here Mr Sheppard was not retained to advise on the wisdom of offering the price Mr Reeves had informally agreed to pay … But it was in my view Mr Sheppard's duty to draw Mr Reeves' attention to any pitfall, particularly any hidden pitfall, the contract might contain." Boston & Co -v- Roberts 17 Mar 1995 CA Legal Professions Solicitors were wrong to accept a bare guarantee on costs where there was a clear doubt as to ability to pay. As to other possible case laws!!!!!!! Stop watching the telly and expecting me to do the research for you. Gave you the link so start doing some work. :D:D At the end of the day......... you know what your case is and I can only "try to understand". Ohhhh and "smilies" are to show you that "no hard feeling" but I do not believe people should be "parrots" and "monkeys". People should learn to research, read, analyse, if need be question and learn.

And to show you that I am really a nice person (well....... not really....... but I love to tell the odd "white lie" once in a while :D) Here is another one that most probably you do not know. Once you get a bill from a solicitor and it is paid (irrespective of how it is paid whether in cash or legal aid) you have the right to apply to the court for what is called "Taxation". Taxation means, "the Court has to decide if the bill was fair". In short is there is any overcharging? Due to what was needed was there extra work done and it could have been less or certain work was not needed? And another one............... Yeah I know I am in a good mood today........ You should receive a statement from your solicitor for work done (even if on Legal aid) every month. Otherwise they are in breach of Rule 15 of the SRA rules. Ohh we go one more. Irrespective of whether you are on Legal Aid or not, did you ever get a Rule 15 Customer care letter from your solicitor advising you things like: Charge per hours. Charge for reading a letter. Charge for writing a letter etc etc??? News for you. That solicitor, if he/she did not send such a letter by LAW is NOT entitled to claim any of his/her charges/costs (except for costs for things like Barristers or like making applications to Courts). And here is the beauty about it......... IF that solicitor failed repeatedly to advise you of the costs/charges you may actually be entitled to compensation.

I know which is why, in the brackets, I said it has nothing to do with a CCA. It was an answer as to whether when a debt is assigned to a DCA if it is absolute or equitable.

Now, IF I had not been going through case laws looking for information, I would not have found that information. ;) Doubt your solicitor or your barrister will tell you about it. :D That is why I advise you once again..... have a good search. Loads of info out there. Paupers Oath, you can just google it to find out more information.

Might be of interest to you: CA = Court of Appeal and HL = House of Lords Barclays Bank Plc -v- O'Brien and Another [1992] 4 All ER 983; [1993] QB 109 22 May 1992 CA Banking, Undue Influence Casemap 1 Citers A bank leaving a husband to explain a proposed charge over the matrimonial home to his wife to secure his business debts, could not enforce that charge against her. There was a presumption of undue influence in the husband which made the charge defective. Kings North Trust Ltd -v- Bell [1986] 1 All ER 423, CA; [1986] 1 WLR 119 1986 CA Banking, Torts - Other Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers The wife claimed to have signed a legal charge in favour of the plaintiffs by virtue of her husband's fraudulent misrepresentation. The charge secured the business borrowings of the husband. She did not get independent advice. Held: The bank had entrusted the charge to the husband to have it signed by her. He was therefore acting as the bank's agent, and it was bound by his misrepresentations, and could not enforce the charge. Dillon LJ made it a necessary condition of such a finding that the creditor had entrusted to the husband the task of obtaining his wife's signature. IF the bank advised you on how to consolidate loans and to secure on property etc etc this may help: Bank of Credit and Commerce International S A -v- Aboody [1992] 4 All ER 955; [1989] 2 WLR 759; [1990] 1 QB 923 1989 CA Slade LJ Banking, Undue Influence Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers In a case where the defendant said that a mortgage had been signed from undue pressure the court may find actual undue influence as opposed to presumed undue influence. Slade LJ said: "Ever since the judgments of this court in Allcard v Skinner a clear distinction has been drawn between (1) those cases in which the court will uphold a plea of undue influence only if it is satisfied that such influence has been affirmatively proved on the evidence (commonly referred to as cases of 'actual undue influence'); (2) those cases (commonly referred to as cases of 'presumed undue influence) in which the relationship between the parties will lead the court to presume that undue influence has been exerted unless evidence is adduced proving the contrary, eg by showing that the complaining party has had independent advice." This one might be what you and Andrew are looking for: British Motor Trust Co Ltd -v- Hyams (1934) 50 TLR 230 1934 Branson J Contract, Banking Casemap 1 Citers Mr Lord acquired two motor coaches under two hire-purchase agreements from the claimants and persuaded his mother-in-law to guarantee his obligations by a contract indorsed on the agreements in the following terms:- "We . . . guarantee the due and punctual payment by the . . . hirer of all . . . moneys payable by him under the within written agreement . . . and we further agree that this guarantee shall not be avoided . . . by the owners and the hirer making any variation in the terms of the said agreement . . . provided that no variation shall make us liable for a greater maximum sum under this guarantee than that for which we are at present or may become liable under the present terms of the said agreement." Mr Lord fell into arrears and the claimant, instead of resuming possession, made a new single agreement with him by which the two earlier agreements were consolidated and the vehicles were regarded as being hired together so that Mr Lord could not acquire property in any one vehicle unless he paid all instalments due on both vehicles. Held: The Court described the clause permitting variation to be:- "so wide that it was almost impossible to put any limit to the power to vary." and added:- "It might be that the position of the debtor was so altered that he would be less able to repay the guarantor, but even such a change was not beyond the very wide power of variation contained in the guarantee." Duty of care by a bank: Woods v Martins Bank Ltd [1958] 3 All ER 166; [1958] 1 WLR 1018; [1959] 1 QB 55 1958 Salmon J Banking, Negligence Casemap 1 Citers If a bank chooses to give advice to a customer, then the Bank’s obligation is to advise with ordinary skill and care. The liability is primarily on contract: “In my judgment, the limits of a banker’s business cannot be laid down as a matter of law. The nature of such a business must in each case be a matter of fact...” and “I find that it was and is within the scope of the Defendant Bank’s business to advise on all financial matters and that as they did advise him they owed a duty to the Plaintiff to advise him with reasonable care and skill.” Salmon J discussed the duties of legal advisers: "it cannot be too clearly understood that solicitors owe a duty to the court, as officers of the court, to go through the documents disclosed by their client to make sure, as far as possible, that no relevant documents have been omitted from their client's ."

No problem. I hope you now understand why I told you to "open your horizons". In the meantime, just in case it may help you (remember: Nobody knows your financial state and your privacy is respected), you do know that IF you have to go to say the High Court of Appeal or anything like that, should your finances be "stretched" OR should you worry about the other sides costs, you can apply for what is called "A Paupers Oath" to the Court. A "Paupers Oath" basically, if accepted by the Hight Court of Appeal will wave your costs and the other sides costs (should you lose). Check about it. ;)

I can tell you that (fair enough this case is about the CCA) in most cases of mobile phones assignments that it is absolute. Read the agreement. IF it says that they have the right to assign also their rights and responsibilites then it should be an absolute assignment.

Let us take a different "angle" to your "Story" (no pun intended). Bank John Story and Partner One of the "angles" I have just pointed you at: Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 is currently one of the leading cases on the test for a duty of care in English tort law. The most recent detailed House of Lords consideration of this vexed question was in Customs and Excise Commissioners v Barclays Bank plc [2007] 1 AC 171, in light of which judgment Caparo must now be viewed. The House of Lords established what is known as the "three-fold test" (a series of three factors), which is that for one party to owe a duty of care to another, the following must be established: Harm must be a "reasonably foreseeable" result of the defendant's conduct; A relationship of "proximity" between the defendant and the claimant; It must be "fair, just and reasonable" to impose liability. So let us look at these three: Harm: Did the bank for example, notify you, draw to your attention as to what the pitfalls will be IF you keep the accounts as you were, did the bank notify you, for example, about joining accounts/refinancing what pitfalls there may be and EVEN hidden pitfalls? (Just let your imagination run loose of what you believe the bank should have done. The bank HAD a DUTY OF CARE). Relationship: There was a relationship between you and the bank as client of said bank. (So that one is definetely proven). Fair just and reasonable to impose liability: You know the anwer to that one. So basically, while you are looking at the CCA and Francis Bennion I am also looking at Tort and Negligence. Do you see now why............ I told you to open your horizons?

Watch how many "avenues" I am going to open for you to learn from. Possible tactics that you can use.....Some of these are from my notes but also did a quick search on Swarb....... And these are but just a few!!!!!! Have you really looked at Case Law? Anything like this????? Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Have you read about "Duty of Care" (which a bank and your councel have to give)? Such as House of Lords - Her Majesty's Commissioners of Customs and Excise (Respondents) v. Barclays Bank plc (Appellants) Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 is a good one and may actually apply to you as it is about Duty of Care and how you cannot be told things that may manipulate you into doing something when otherwise (if you had not received the wrong information) you would not have. Caparo Industries plc v Dickman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Have you read anything like this (shows that solicitors and barristers have now lost their right to immunity)??????? You keep talking about corrupt barristers so have you checked? Arthur J S Hall & Co (A Firm) -v- Simons; Barratt -v- Woolf Seddon (A Firm); Harris -v- Schofield Roberts & Hill (A Firm) [2000] UKHL 38; [2000] 3 All ER 673; [2000] 3 WLR 543; [2000] 2 FLR 545; [2000] Fam Law 806; [2002] 1 AC 615 21 Jul 2000 HL Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Steyn, Lord Hoffmann Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Hutton, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, Lord Millett Professional Negligence, Legal Professions Clients sued their solicitors for negligence. The solicitors responded by claiming that, when acting as advocates, they had the same immunities granted to barristers. Held: The immunity from suit for negligence enjoyed by advocates acting in both criminal and civil proceedings is no longer appropriate or in the public interest and is removed: "The standard of care to be applied in negligence actions against an advocate is the same as that applicable to any other skilled professional who has to work in an environment where decisions and exercises of judgment have to be made in often difficult and time constrained circumstances. It requires a plaintiff to show that the error was one which no reasonably competent member of the relevant profession would have made." Recent changes in procedure designed to reduce vexatious litigation, and the doctrine against collateral attack should be dealt with by more specific remedies. Experience in foreign common law jurisdictions did not indicate a need for the immunity. The courts can be trusted to differentiate between errors of judgment and true negligence. The section did not create a statutory bar on claims in negligence. Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 62 Once again, you talk about corruption in the legal system. How about this one? Bolton -v- The Law Society [1994] 1 WLR 512; [1993] EWCA Civ 32; [1994] 2 All ER 486; [1994] COD 295 8 Dec 1993 CA Sir Thomas Bingham MR Legal Professions Casemap The solicitor who had been admitted to the Roll for two years had disbursed clients money to relatives, as part of the conveyance of property without adequate security but in the expectation that the money would be repaid. The Tribunal found that the solicitor was honest and had not stolen client money "in a premeditated fashion". The Tribunal took the view that ordinarily the conduct would merit striking off but, in light of the facts of the case, it made a more lenient order. The Divisional Court heard fresh evidence of good character and took the view that the suspension was disproportionate, imposing a fine in substitution. Held: The Disciplinary Tribunal's decision was re-instated. The court had given insufficient reason for disturbing it. A solicitor who was in breach of the Law Society's rules should expect severe sanctions. The rules served not just to discipline solicitors, but also to protect the public. The reputation of a profession is more important than the fortunes of any individual mamber. Membership of a profession brings benefits, but also costs. Sir Thomas Bingham MR: "It is required of lawyers practising in this country that they should discharge their professional duties with integrity, probity and complete trustworthiness." and "Because orders made by the tribunal are not primarily punitive, it follows that considerations which would ordinarily weigh in mitigation of punishment have less effect on the exercise of this jurisdiction than on the ordinary run of sentences imposed in criminal cases." As a principle it requires a very strong case to justify interference by the CA in a penalty imposed by the Tribunal, since its members are best qualified to weigh the seriousness of the professional misconduct before them. . . Any solicitor who is shown to have discharged his professional duties with anything less than complete integrity, probity and trustworthiness must expect severe sanctions to be imposed upon him by the Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal. Lapses from the required high standard may of course take different forms and be of varying degrees. The most serious involves proven dishonesty . . If a solicitor is not shown to have acted dishonestly, but is shown to have fallen below the required standards of integrity, probity and trustworthiness, his lapse is less serious but it remains very serious indeed in a member of a profession whose reputation depends on trust. A striking off order will not necessarily follow in such a case, but it may well. The decision whether to strike off of suspend will often involve a fine and difficult exercise of judgment . . . on all the facts of the case. Only in a very unusual and venial case of this kind will the Tribunal be likely to regard as appropriate any order less severe than one of suspension. It is important that there should be full understanding of the reasons why the Tribunal makes orders which might otherwise seem harsh. There is in some of these orders a punitive element; a penalty may be visited on a solicitor who has fallen below the standard required of his profession in order to punish him for what he has done and to deter any other solicitor tempted to behave in the same way. Those are traditional objects of punishment. But often the order is not punitive in intention " and "In most cases the order of the Tribunal will be primarily directed to one or other or both of two purposes. One is to be sure the offender does not have the opportunity to repeat the offence. This purpose is achieved for a limited period by an order of suspension; plainly it is hoped that experience of suspension will make the offender meticulous in his future compliance with the required standard. The purpose is achieved for a longer period, and quite possibly indefinitely, by an order for striking off. The second purpose is the most fundamental of all: to maintain the reputation of the solicitor's profession as one in which every member, of whatever standard, may be trusted to the end of the earth. To maintain the reputation and sustain public confidence in the integrity of the profession it is often necessary that those guilty of serious lapses are not only expelled but denied readmission. If a member of the public sells his house, very often his largest asset, and entrusts the proceeds to his solicitor, pending reinvestment in another house, he is ordinarily entitled to expect the solicitor will be a person whose trustworthiness is not, and never has been, seriously in question. Otherwise, the whole profession and the public as a whole is injured. A profession's most valuable asset is its collective reputation and the confidence which that inspires." p.s. That last one you can use it as an opening statement in a Court application to seek justification for what you were put through.

I never "forcefully" say anything but I do suggest. And the reason I suggested forgetting "what you have been through" is NOT "that it's OK for the Court to refuse to uphold a criminal burden" either. The reason I suggested that, for example, in your case to "forget" what you are so angry about (that happened) is to open your mind while searching for case law that may help in your case. You say "Story is the only CCA case thus far, where Section 8 applies on two count" but is it? No Judge, No barrister, and No solicitor are going to know about every case law that ever happened since ......... let us say........ 1800AD. It might be a case way before the CCA ever came out that is similar to your case. In fact in the McGuffick case the Judge goes back (and refers to) cases from Taylor v Great Eastern Railway Company 1901 and Eastern Distributors Limited v Goldring 1957 (see section 61 and section 62) also in section 94 a foreign Court judgement was referred to (In support of that proposition, Mr Moran relied upon the decision of the European Court of Justice in VTB-VAB NV v Total Belgium NV and Galatea BVBA v Sanoma Magazines Belgium NV) Now once again, I refer you to the first sentence in the preceeding paragraph namely: You say "Story is the only CCA case thus far, where Section 8 applies on two count". You keep referring to the CCA. McGuffick case was also regarding the CCA BUT notice it does NOT have to be a case re the CCA. It can be any case way before the CCA came out or in a country (especially if under Commonwealth rule) where there is no CCA. Perhaps you can maybe find a judgement where it happened in Jamaica (as an example) or in Austrailia or New Zealand, which is similar to yours, has the main basis as yours (or similar) and you can find a Case law judgement that can swing your argument over to you. And that is why I proposed (suggested) you forget what you went through in Court, what you are so angry about. Simply to open your mind and search. I cannot do the research for you. First of all I do not have the time and secondly I do not know your case. BUT, the best thing I can do is try and guide you. Personally, I hope you manage to find something that will swing the whole thing into your favour. But then again, if you just wish to keep on SOLELY about the CCA and Francis Bennion then I believe you are not opening as many "doors of research" as you should.

Read the parts in bold. Now work out where the contradiction stands. In short, IF the borrower does NOT sign the agreement then in the first place there is no agreement hence what can be enforced in Court?

Incidentally...... you asked about Law. Well here is a nice link to you and then you can try and work out "Who is the boss". Passage of a Bill And if you want to go further then Hansard (Debate)

You talk about the Heath case. Read the case laws (as per the link I gave http://swarb.co.uk/liscindex.php). Remember one thing. It does NOT have to be the same (and I mean exactly the same) as per your situation. You can take parts of a case law and what is called "mix and match". (e.g. Wilson v County Trust is used by a lot in relation to the enforcement of agreements BUT really it was about a loan and in relation to other matters). It can be for example about somebody who rented a copier and the agreement was based on the CCA but........... OR for example, you wish to complain about harrassment. Now if you read the rules it says that it is really a criminal offence (s.40 of the Administration of Justice Act) BUT if you then read Ferguson v British Gas (easy to even google it) you will find otherwise and how to argue the fact. Now in Ferguson it relates to a computer generated harrassment. Read the ruling. HENCE if a ruling was made like that regarding a computer what is to stop me using that case law for a human being harrassing me????????!!!!!!!!! Keep an open mind is the main thing.

Staying on the Devil Advocates side again, I never mentioned anything about "Unjust enrichment". IF something is wrong then let the creditor or the debtor take the consequences as deemed fit. What I asked you was: IF a creditor is approached by a debtor to borrow money based on the common facts of "lending" and the law relating to lending whereby: A contract must fill four requirements for it to be a valid contract. A lawfully binding contract that contains the following 4 mandatory elements for it be deemed a lawfully binding, bilateral contract: 1, Full Disclosure. 2, Equal Consideration. ("Consideration" means: something REAL, TANGIBLE and OF VALUE, e.g. money, or an item of value - something you "insert credit company" are trading for my signature / promise). 3, Lawful Terms and Conditions. 4' 'Wet' (hand signed, in proper ink) signatures of BOTH Parties/Meeting of the Minds. if however they have a single signed agreement and they gain your consent to action(either with or without knowlage..tactic consent or aquisition by silence(ie you failed to contact them with your counter claim within the period stipulated)...then you will be found as the debtor by ajudication in a county court. Now let us analyise them: Full disclosure: I am telling you what I want you to do so I will agree to lend you this money. My conditions are XYZ. IF you do not like them go elsewhere. IF you stay then you accept them. Equal consideration: I am giving you money, you are putting your property as colateral. Remember the full disclosure above and have a nice time. Lawful terms and conditions: Well......... you cannot offer me your wife as a temporary deposit for late payments. Neither can you offer me a tip on the next the stock exchange from insider information. Neither will I allow you to use the account for money laundering...... In short........ nothing unlawful when it comes to the terms and conditions A wet signature: You have to sign and I have to sign the agreement with the proviso THAT........ if however I have a single signed agreement and I gain your consent to action (either with or without knowlage..tactic consent or aquisition by silence (ie you failed to contact me with your counter claim within the period stipulated)...then you will be found as the debtor by ajudication in a county court. Now let us forget Story (which you keep bringing up in every post you make). Let us forget what you say about "in Story issued a forged cheque to redeem an existing Yorkshire building society mortgage of £24k in order to obtain the title deeds to our home without our knowledge." which can be challenged as "you gave your consent to action (as in the paragraph above)". That part you can challenge by making a SAR request and see what was said, promised etc in respect of that matter...... So being the devils advocate, you needed help financially. You asked me to help you. I gave you my terms and conditions. You had the right to go elsewhere (heck use Comparethemeerkat.com if you want to). BUT you accepted my conditions. You took my money. So once again, being the devils advocat (and IMPORTANT I am doing this so that you will NOT just accept what others say but you will take my challenge AND find out how to argue it) IF (remember I am using the word IF) I kept to the conditions, I honoured everything, I have been above board then irrespective of whatever why should you not honour your commitments? IF I have done anything wrong then YES please sue me. But you talk about a "handshake being a gentlemans agreement" well......... IF I have been a gentleman with you then should you not be a gentleman back? Ball is in your court. p.s. Forget Story. You seem to just want to argue Story. Answer the above in a fair and open minded reply. THEN you can start learning how to argue Story for when your mind is so embossed in one matter it may be hard to focus on other fact WHICH may then help Story. e.g. I have see a lot of threads saying "Ohhhhhh you went through all of this and etc etc" Yet my mind was not focused on Story OR Hating the banks or Hating the Courts. My mind was open and as I said, when I first read (and I have to be honest I only gave it a brief reading) the first thing I noticed was how much "low relevance your partner had in the hearing" and....... that is what I pointed out to you. And that is what you need to do to be able to learn and find out information.

Playing the "devils advocate" here: You keep talking about Mr Bennion. He drafted a legislation. Is he an MP? A Lord? In the House of Lords? A judge? At least a QC? IF not then with all due respect, YES he drafted a nice piece of law but so does a plumber do a nice piece of work if I ask him to do me a nicely done toilet. Then again....... how I use that toilet is my perogative. Hence, he drafted the CCA. His comments on how it is interpreted by judges and the House of Lords is the equivalent of "I gave birth to you and I deem it fit to tell you how to live your life". Sorry. You "gave birth to a life". Now let it run free and go through its perils. You CAN advise BUT it DOES NOT mean that, that advise is sacro sant. So let us take the argument and I am going to be the Devils Advocate again. You have debts. You ask me to help you out. This is my money. I make the conditions namely: 1: You must first and foremost pay off the debt that you owe. 2: I do not want to be the second charge as I want to be able to enforce if you do not keep to the agreement. 3: You guarantee to pay me £x amount of money a month. 4: In order that you do not enter into any further debt, from what I am lending you you must also pay the fees/charges etc that you will incur with taking this loan out. This is to make sure that you can then maintain to pay the monthly premium you have promised to pay. 5: I am not interested in what you do with what is left over after you have disbursed 4 above. For all I care, the surveyor deemed your property to be worth £XXXXXXXXXX. You have only £xxxxxxx as debt. The rest is available to do as you wish. ALL I SEEK is that there is no other debt WHICH WILL NOT ALLOW ME TO COLLECT ON YOUR GUARANTEE (in this case the property) should you fail to keep to the agreed amount to be monthly paid as I am helping you in securing your debts and consolidating your debts and I just wish to protect my interests. IF you do not like my conditions go and seek a loan elsewhere. You accepted those conditions. You have the freedom of movement to go and seek an alternative loan elsewhere. I DID NOT "trick you" into taking this loan and you are over 18 and you did this volunarily. Neither did I give you any false promises. Now...... answer me on the above. p.s. The above is based on my being the Devils Advocate. Want to see what your reply is.

Oh heck! Irish and female! We ARE in trouble. Hope will not say that is also a "true blonde". :D:D

Darn!!!!!! Now he tells us he is Irish. :D:D Just joking........... ;) Yep, fire up that letter as silverfox rightly told you to send. When you get a reply then post on here. Also as silverfox told you, make sure you bookmark this thread so that you will be able to refer to it easy. Last one........ anybody who posts on your thread (this one) will automatically get an e mail to ANY post made and have their attention drawn to it. IMPORTANT: Do NOT just take any post and act straight on it at the first instance. Unfortunately there are some people who try to trick others into making mistakes (ya know...... desperados who have nothing better to do in life). You are NOT in a hurry to reply to Leeds Losers so wait a bit, if anything posted is wrong somebody will pick up on it and challenge it. Have fun.

1: Wait until you get an e mail telling you where it has been moved to and the title given. 2: Then wait for advise to be given. 3: Give up hope like you said of paying the original creditor. Your debt has been sold on and you now have no agreement with the original creditor and even if you contact them, they will just refer you to Leeds losers. 4: Take note of the advise given. If anything you do not understand ask and see a clarification. 5: Have a Happy New Year. Edit: Besides the good advise given by SilverFox in post above which seems to have been done at same time as mine.

And MOST PROBABLY the "minimum the system will allow before I can even speak to you about minimum monthly payments" is already more then what they paid for the debt in the first place PLUS a nice profit. :eek:

First one is, look at the left hand side at the bottom. You should see a Red circle, a scales and a triangle. Ring (click) the bell (triangle) and then make a nice polite request that your post is moved and a new thread opened in the box that opens up. It is better if you have your own thread as otherwise information may get mixed up and may also confuse you. And BEFORE you "Ring the bell" make sure you do it ON YOUR POST and not mine. ROFL.

Answers with some humour. And a Happy New Year to you, him, her, them and everybody and seeing how I am such a cheeky person also to Lowell Portfolio. :D

Hope the above helps you understand. If I have maybe misunderstood anything that you have said then please tell me. Also please remember, as already said I am not a solicitor and neither do I pose as one. I have just tried to look at your case in a logical sense and tried to explain it in that way.

Having read the transcript from the link that seriously fed up was kind enough to make and in order to try and get more information (might be able to help you understand) I found the following link Part-redemption deal is a single credit agreement - Times Online IF basically you are in the same position as Heath was then to be honest, it does not look very good. IF I remember correctly there is another case law where a couple lost their home. Unfortunately I cannot remember what it was called. Once again, IF I remember it correctly it was something to do with having had the fees added to the amount borrowed as mortgage and they tried to claim it was unenforceable on the basis of Wilson v First Country Trust. (Maybe somebody know what the case is called?) From what I understand, the fact that for example, when you are applying for a mortgage you can have added (to the money borrowed) say your financial consultants fees, the mortgage application fee, the solicitors fee, the surveyor fees and........ even borrow more for say home improvements (let us say your mortgage that you want to redeem was say £20,000 but to cover all the above you now borrow say £40,000) it still falls as one loan and they cannot be classed as being multiple agreements. p.s. Personally, I would wish it was multiple agreements and can then use the Wilson v First County Trust case law as in my last mortgage all the above mentioned (except for the £20,000 home improvement example) were included in my remortgage.