Jump to content

PRBrown

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    75
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

PRBrown last won the day on July 26 2012

PRBrown had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

25 Excellent

About PRBrown

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Absolutely. There's not much point in putting in the effort if you can't be botthered formatting it in the way the court wants. It's all about details, not just the format of your reply, but the efficacy of your arguments, the subtlety and strength of your defence and counter thrust, and the way you conduct yourself. If you can't be bothered with nit-picking detail and crossing all the t's and dotting all the i's then you'll get trampled. This isn't a time for asserting your individuality and cocking-your-snoop at authority. This it the time to buckle down, pl
  2. Yep, CCA the current owner of the debt - the one who instructed the solicitor - not the OC. If I suggested that, I'm sorry, it wasn't intentional and I did mean the current debt owner. The solicitor should pass it on, but as I said don't rely upon it. If you're relying upon the rate of interest difference, you'll need to be extremely robust in your arguments as it could be tough. Don't forget in your initial response to do things like double-line spacing, your full details etc. There's lots of things on the internet regarding the correct format for your reply to
  3. They are playing on your naivity and hoping that you don't act within the timeframes and that they get judgement by default. It's probably not helped by using English terms like "Strict Proof" (that doesn't exist in a Sheriff Court and means nothing). You can't use their inaction as a reason for not responding. If you don't have paperwork then say so, if they haven't fullfilled their S78 obligations then say so in your initial defence. They know they can't just magically produce an agreement in court as a fait accompli so don't worry about that - it would have to be
  4. Unfortunately, when it's an Ordinary Cause you need to pay a fee to inform the court you will be defending. If it is Ordinary Cause (depends on amount) then they won't just be able to produce documents in court. What will follow is a fairly long process of back-and-forward of condescendence's, answers to condescendence, making sure copies of documents that will be relied upon are given to each side, final docoment lists, probably a couple of stays, possible proof, and then debate. They won't be able to just show up in court with the paperwork, and you wil
  5. We own a small business that has ISDN lines installed for a number of years - our account is a business account. We use ISDN for clarity because standard PSTN line quality is extremely poor where we are and we often struggle to hear people on the other end. Our ISDN lines are essential for us. 36 days ago our ISDN lines went down. We've had several dates given to us when work will take place only for the work not to happen. We've been given excuse after excuse, promised things will "be escalated", but nothing makes any difference. We've been "looked after" by their so-called
  6. It's probably also worth pointing out the sentence: "Your contention that the prescribed terms were not included is wholly refuted as you would have received a copy of the prescribed terms and the terms and conditions prior to signing the agreement" which admits that the information they have sent does not include the prescribed terms. OK, maybe not admits, but having to make this sort of statement wouldn't be necessary if what they had sent DID have them. Solicitors will always write with gusto, confidence, and often pomposity, as if everything they say is the absolute truth and that
  7. I'm only speculating, but if the offer was made and accepted by letter, wouldn't that be legally binding? I had a similar issue in Scotland where a company accepted my V small offer (to save time and costs) by letter. A few days later they wrote saying there had been a mistake and that their previous letter should have rejected my offer. I went to a solicitor about it as I had my suspicions and he said it was too late for them, and that by accepting my offer it was binding on them. He wrote to them and I haven't heard a peep from them for several years. By now it would be statute barred.
  8. It's only an example of some of the things you might need to say and the format. What you reply depends entirely upon what you have been sent. If you don't understand the example reply above, or the condescendence you have received, you might want to consult a solicitor. It might be best to post what you have received (minus personal details) to get a more accurate feedback.
  9. You need to decide whether to defend or not. If you are going to defend you need to reply to the condescendence. Something like this might act as a holding action and initial reply - the exact words depend upon what you have received.... If it's any conciliation this was the initial defence used within the last 2 years that resulted in a decree of absolvitor i.e. they lost. They're not likely to get away with "true copies" in Scotland and a s78 defence will work. Check the Scottish Courts site for exact formatting. COURT REF. NO:- DEFENCES
  10. I agree. It can be tempting to "tweak the tiger's tail" when you appear to be in a good position, but my experience has shown me that keeping a low profile is often the better strategy. You can be strong, have great denials, and cutting replies to letters when prompted, but being pro-active just stirs things up when it would be better if they were left alone - let them do the running. A reminder about their failure to comply with your CCA request is certainly in order, but there's no need to say anything about returning the denial slip. They'll know what it means, and if they are daft enou
  11. You're in a position here where you're dealing with someone from England who is applying their experience of English law to their replies. You can use this to your advantage. For instance, we had dealings with an company where the solicitor was based in England and who thought putting "without prejudice" on their letters meant none of the contents of their letters could be put before the court ....little did they understand how different the interpretation is in Scotland compared to England. They wrote extremely freely in their letters and got a shock when we sta
  12. If it's Bank of Scotland then I wouldn't be surprised if they can't find your agreement. I have personal experience of BofS credit card with a large balance where they have admitted they don't have/can't find any paperwork in response to an s78 request. Despite being in a similar situation with a number of cards, this is the only company who have ever admitted that they don't have an agreement. The agreement has never been produced to date and I don't believe it ever will. The card was originally a Marbles card and I don't think they ever got the paperwork when they took over that card - pro
  13. For every CCA request I've made I just get my partner to sign my name on the request letter in her hand. The signature has been nothing like my own but it hasn't stopped anyone sending whatever paperwork they can drag up, and if anything dodgy ever did occur with the signature then it would be easy to show it wasn't mine.
  14. One thing to remember about this process is their solicitors are much better practiced at this than you are and they don't have as much to lose as you. Their paperwork and responses will exude confidence to wear you down mentally so you feel like giving up. Even when their backs are seriously on the ropes and they know they have little chance of winning, their tone won't change. I'm not clear at what stage you're at. Are you still at the period of adjustments or are you much further on? Just because they say it, doesn't make it so. It's up the the Sheriff to decide, and you h
  15. If it's any consolation I'm aware of a recent MBNA case in Scotland where there was an online application and the arguement was based around whether a tick was sufficient substitute for a signature. Although the outcome is subject to a confidentiality agreement I'm aware of the arguements used in defence and the defendant did seem to be happy. I have some notes here, but please take them as they are. They might be relevant to your case and you may be able to extract some information or argument that might be useful to you, but you'd be best to consult a solicitor. 1. Their right t
×
×
  • Create New...