Jump to content

Guardsman

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Guardsman

  1. The judgment was only against me - the point being that my co-guarantors agreed a repayment schedule for full amount (and that's being paid as per schedule) - I (and they) were under the impression that the repayment for everyone was therefore sorted (it's a joint and several guarantee). I continued to get demands - my co-guarantors assured me everything was being paid (which it was and continues to be) and so at first my thought was it was just taking time to work through the claimant's systems - but then I thought I'd better make sure that was the case and so started asking them for details of the debt in case it was something else I didn't know about. Couldn't get an answer to this as I've mentioned. This eventuated in a judgment by default which I'm now trying to get set aside - partly on the basis that they didn't tell me what the detail of the debt was. (I've achieved an insight into the working of claimant's agents I suspect - the bank used different agents to pursue my co-guarantors from the one they used for me. At first I thought this may just be spreading the work around - a pity because of the confusion it causes. Now I'm thinking differently - I think the use of different agents is actually deliberate so that confusion is in fact caused and that - even when they have full agreement for repayment from one source - they can still more easily have others pursued for the same sum. It really is nasty I think).
  2. Judgment against was June. Setting aside hearing was adjourned to September. A very complicated affair altogether too much for here but nub of it is that debt was and is being paid off by other co-guarantors but the bank still pursues me - to the equal incredulity of the co-guarantors who are content with the arrangement of repayment of full debt that they have agreed with the claimant. The queries I was putting in was an attempt to be sure that we were in fact speaking of the same debt but I couldn't get total assurance on this - only a sum which was at the time of issue the same for the debt being paid by the others so it looked likely (if you follow).
  3. Thankyou. I am also keen to demonstrate that they should have responded to queries I made to them over the the past months as a part of my case for setting aside. I didn't use SAR but make phone calls and e-mail requests (which they responded to without answering the queries within). I'm wondering if the following is appropriate ( Is this Guarantee Watertight? Pitfalls in taking English Law Banking Guarantees Remain - Articles - All - Publications - Welcome to Field Fisher Waterhouse LLP ) if you look under 'Duty of disclosure' - you'll see what I mean. Would welcome any thoughts you have - am of course very grateful for your time.
  4. Sorry - in addition to the above - I am hoping to use this as part of a case for setting aside.
  5. Thanks for rapid response. Yes it looks right on Civil Procedure though I'm not sure. It's with reference to a commercial blanket guarantee and a debt being called in reference to that guarantee. I tried - prior to a judgment by default being issued - to get information on what the debt referred to, how it was accounted for etc. but was never told. I now note that the guarantee says under 'Certificate of the Debtor's Obligations' that a statement of amount due will be '... conclusive evidence save in the case of manifest error or any question of law'. So I'm hoping that there is indeed some law or judgment that indicates they should have provided me with more information than simply the sum.
  6. In issuing a claim is there any law which details the information that should be provided by a claimant to the debtor? At the moment all that is being provided is a sum of money value with no further information detailing how that sum was made up.
  7. This is excellent and useful, thank you. I can now add to this to assist anyone else that might follow this thread but there is still something more specific that I'm after which I'll mention. First, further useful information on Civil Restraint can be found here: PRACTICE DIRECTION 3C – CIVIL RESTRAINT ORDERS - Ministry of Justice and here Repeat offence | Features | The Lawyer The specific thing I'm after though is where a debt collector has made an agreement to settle for a full amount with one party but simultaneously pursues another party for the same debt - the parties having joint and several liability. I understand that debt collectors are entitled to pursue all parties for the full amount in a joint and several liability situation but I believe that it must be the case that if an agreement is in place for full and final payment with one party then it would be perverse to pursue others for the same debt. I've very nearly got to it (I think! I would welcome advice I am no lawyer) with JAMESON AND ANOTHER (RESPONDENTS) v. CENTRAL ELECTRICITY GENERATING BOARD (APPELLANTS) AND OTHERS (1998) "But beyond all of that the basic consideration both of policy and principle must be that while those injured by a tort committed by others should be compensated through the processes of the law, they should not be enabled to recover damages twice over. Such a result offends the basic principles of reparation, and, while it was accepted as a possible consequence of the operation of section 4 of the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 it is not to be regarded as an acceptable consequence of an accord and satisfaction. The principle is recognised in England in, for example, Bird v. Randall (1762) 3 Burr 1345, in Australia in Boyle v. State Rail Authority (1997) 14 N.S.W.C.C.R. 374 and in the United States of America in Latham v. Des Moines Electric Light Co. (1942) 26 N.W. 2d. 853".
  8. Thank you for your surprisingly rapid response. I'm hoping for a case judgment or two that I will be able to quote - I suspect it might be a big ask but someone just might know. The key point in my query is that a full debt repayment has been agreed in writing between the creditor and some parties to the joint and several agreement and this repayment schedule is in effect and in force. Nevertheless though the creditor is continuing to pursue other parties for repayment of the full debt thus seeking to duplicate the amount of the debt recovered. It sounds mad - to my mind it is mad but I need to demonstrate this in law. The creditor's view is that as it is joint and several they have rights to pursue all parties in the agreement irrespective of the fact that they are operating an agreed full and final repayment schedule with some parties to the agreement. I should perhaps note that all parties to the joint and several agreement are content with the repayment agreement and are perplexed by the creditor's view on this.
  9. Hi I've really tried but cannot locate the source of the rule or law concerning 'joint and several'. Specifically I need to find where there is clearly something laid down in law that states that when a creditor has made an agreement of a full debt repayment with one or more parties under a joint and several agreement then that creditor must not pursue yet other parties in the same joint and several agreement for the same debt (essentially thereby duplicating the debt repayment). It sounds incredible but it is happening. Of course I would be most grateful for assistance in this.
×
×
  • Create New...