Jump to content

Champollion

Registered.
  • Content Count

    14
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Champollion

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. The credit agreement in Richard’s case was indeed irredeemably unenforceable because Richard was entitled to rescind the agreement and he rightly and correctly did so, therefore, when the bank reported the unlawful and false default to the credit reference agencies the agreement was not extant. The forth principle of the Data Protection Act would apply to Richard’s case as regards the bank’s action of reporting said default which the bank knew was wholly factually incorrect. Regards Champollion
  2. Richard When you applied for a mortgage, did the lender(s) state the reason as to why your application was not successful at that time and also, how many different lenders did you make mortgage applications to and did they all state the same reason for declining to provide a mortgage to you? Sorry, I am not prying here, just that if you made more than one application and all the lenders said ‘no’ and gave the same or similar reasons (if they gave any reason(s) at all), such evidence would be material to your case to put before the Sheriff. Again, sorry if this question has
  3. Hi again Richard No problem, looks like this time around, the other blackguards have ‘got away with it’. Attack the bank with all the incontrovertible evidence on the facts, such as your correspondence informing the bank that you had returned the lap-top before any agreement was made and which the bank wilfully disregarded and show the Sherriff that the police are investigating PC World with a view to bring charges against its employee who fabricated the agreement after you had returned the lap-top. The irrefutable fact is that the bank knew that you did not owe it any
  4. Not too late at all Richard, I think based upon your last post that PC World ought to be made defendant party to your claim along with the credit reference agencies. Rule 19.4 Procedure for adding and substituting parties 19.4 (1) The court's permission is required to remove, add or substitute a party, unless the claim form has not been served. (2) An application for permission under paragraph (1) may be made by— (a) an existing party; or (b) a person who wishes to become a party. (3) An application for an order under rule 19.2(4) (substitution of a new party wher
  5. Can you please post up the entire contents recorded in the Will, word for word, minus all personal details. Thanks. Champollion
  6. Hi Richard In law, ordinary folk, such as ourselves, have no standing to bring a criminal prosecution against another (whether against an individual personal entity or body corporate entity) on grounds of fraud, however, under common law, such as the above torts, the position for ordinary folk to bring a civil fraud action against another is entirely different and we have a fundamental right to sue that other entity on grounds of his fraud against us, such right is entrenched in our law and is a fundamental public policy of not just our state but also of member states. All of t
  7. Torts conspiracy to defraud, causing loss by unlawful means, tort of deceit and fraudulent misrepresentation are the torts which I believe apply to the circumstances of your case. The authorities on these torts Scott v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1974] UKHL 4, Lumley v Gye [1853] QB J73, Quinn v Leathem [1901] UKHL 2 and Derry v Peek UKHL [1889] 1 Conspiracy to defraud In Scott, Viscount Dilhorne said in his closing paragraph of his leading judgment that the standard definition of conspiracy to defraud is thus:- “it is clearly the law that an agreem
  8. Hi Richard The problem with pleading defamation is that the limitation period in defamation claims is only one year and defamation claims fall under CPR Part 53 and Practice Direction 53 and the Pre-Action Protocol for defamation must be complied with before any proceedings are issued. In order to avoid res judicata, there must be no congruency between the first claim and the new claim. I think you should base your (new) claim on common law tort and in a short while I will post an authority for you on the principle which I believe apply to the circumstances of your case and t
  9. The gym, Harlands/ XFL have no standing to sue you in this matter. You do not owe them a single penny, because you said you had a 12 month membership contract, that contract has long since expired, therefore, you owe them nothing under a contract and are under no obligation to pay any sum of money to them. By all means give them your new address details (for the sole purpose of any proceedings they commence), in the meantime, as advised, do not talk to them on the phone. Email communications are perfectly acceptable in law and in case you feel the need to settle this di
  10. I see you ticked the ‘no’ box on the application form relating to ppi, but do you know if ppi was included by the creditor? Champollion
  11. The Office of Fair Trading v Ashbourne Management Services Ltd &ors [2011] EWHC 1237 (Ch): Unfair terms in contracts for gym membership, is a case that confirms minimum membership periods of 12, 24 or 36 months in gym contracts are unfair and also minimum periods of one year were unfair where the member could not terminate in circumstances such as illness or injury, and the requirement on early termination to pay all fees to the end of the minimum period without discount was unfair and amounted to a penalty which is unenforceable. Also, in the above case, the Court held that the repor
  12. Hi You offered 3% of around £11k in full and final and the claimant says he will accept? Pay the £330.00 odd pounds in accordance with the terms of your full and final settlement offer and that will be the end of the matter. What were the terms of your full and final payment offer? Champollion
  13. This case HSBC Bank Plc v Brophy [2011] EWCA Civ 67, confirms that a Credit Card Application form constitutes a properly executed agreement under CCA 1974. What is your defence? Because the defence that you have filed is only a holding defence to ensure that the claimant doesn’t get a default judgment against you. Do you know if the default notice was a valid one or not? I have read all of your thread and I think you are skating on very thin ice, £21k is a lot to gamble on and if you can’t defeat the claim you will end up facing a big costs bill on top of that. Champolli
×
×
  • Create New...