Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by davefirewalker

  1. No Ive been going through one of my many (sort of depressions)....I cant sleep very well, dont get to bed before 2-3 am and up early. I sometimes dont go near my computer for many weeks....(not an entirely bad idea) Anyways...thanks for the support rgds Dave
  2. Got a court date a few weeks back....sometime in june about 23rd I think.. barclays contacted me and offered an extra £20 + ..............to which I waited a while and then refused, I re-filed all docs with the court, and guess what...??? Barclays have folded........They emailed me and wrote offering to pay what I asked for....I refused unless they added the extra £75 for the "lost" hearing as extra costs. I also made sure that they would not come back at me for any of their costs if I discontinued........(you never know) they accepted Just waiting for the money to appear
  3. Unfortunately.....I didnt agree to there being a "test case".....I couldnt have afforded the counsel, I probably would have to defend myself and that wouldnt have been fair on those that were to follow, I'm not the best speaker, I can digest what has been said or written and formulate an answer...but to do it on the fly.....maybe not........so someone else will have to fight that battle.....I have my hands full at the moment keeping my family fed and a roof over us......dont get me wrong ...I am not (yet) at the gates of poverty, but not far short... rgds dave
  4. Hi patrick..... had to have a little giggle about this case though........I didnt know who to take to court Barclaycard....(ex Morgan Stanley / Goldfish ) or HFO.....So I tried my hand with barclays first, this at least tells me that there is something fishy about the assignment....ie it must only be an equitable assignment.....or barclays havent done their homework properly and they have paid me when they didnt have to rgdss Dave
  5. Not too upset..(although it has thrown my party plans into chaos).....its only a single battle.....the war WILL be won Dave
  6. Just got back from court.................... It was like a full blown hearing, they sent a Barrister.....just as well I took my stuff, he may have dismissed me there and then. The DJ was a somewhat stern looking guy who mumbled a lot, but he turned out ok in that he did help me along a little.......so much so, that until the last bit of summing up I thought I had it nailed.... Application to strike out defence refused Application to strike out order re: 6 year limitation period refused will get a date in directions, case in about 8 weeks, skeletons to be filed along with bu
  7. In court tomorrow......... I'm taking everything......(just in case)....got a feeling the judge might not let it go any further and pass a summary judgment ....or the solicitor might just call it a day when he/she sees my bundle..........I hope fingers crossed Dave
  8. look here...they tried the same trick...apparently they do this all the time... Shakespeare62 - v - a NastyBank - The Consumer Forums Dave
  9. I'll tell you in five or six years if you have had no further contact Dave
  10. yes I managed to get it refunded.....there is no tick box for the ppi (payment break plan) and they said I agreed to it on the phone.......they had no recording of the conversation......I didnt expect them to have one either, because i never agreed to it. was yours originally with Providian? Dave
  11. Hi guys..... Just been getting a LOT of flac from equidebt just recently over an MBNA loan.....the flac doesnt bother me and I can handle it (for the moment) BUT.... I thought I'll get the agreement out and have another look at it..... half way through doing that I had my tea and then sort of lost where I was up to (age)............... and then came and had a look on here. Amongst other things that may be wrong with my agreement it has just struck me that this last agreement paid off the previous one and only about £5k was put into my bank account....(this loan was for abou
  12. Hi guys.... with regard to the BC Charges and my objection to a portion of the claim being struck out because its over 6 years, the judge has asked for a hearing on 16 March (30 minutes).....Cant wait !!! Its not for a great deal of money, but its the principle and it will give me some more experience of a courtroom.....(this time as claimant ) rgds Dave
  13. Ok....sorry its been a while....got really tied up in work....didnt have time to think You have to make a decision....!!! on the face of it, the APPLICATION form you filled in DOESNT have the prescribed terms, although it makes reference to terms elsewhere. It doesnt make reference to terms overleaf......so the terms were certainly not "within the four corners" of the agreement. Also on the second page of what you posted they make reference to not being able to determine your repayment schedule etc....this sounds like they DONT have the original terms Dont get misled by the
  14. According to durkin v dsg (as above) and khoprhar v somebody, loss doesnt have to be proved. the potential damage caused by misreporting can be considerable. rgds dave
  15. wouldnt have said so.......its still a regulated loan, but without seeing it cant be 100% Dave
  16. I'm in the middle of something..but I will give it a look over later....looks like one I'm doing for a friend Dave
  17. Might have been.......??? But Kid Galahad was a movie, first starring Edward G Robinson from sometime in the 30's but the most famous one was starring Elvis Presley in 1962 I think rgds Dave
  18. that reply "ages" you......I would put you to be (at a wild guess with no slurs intended) 50+ many people under that sort of age wouldnt Know who "kid gallahad" was!!...(and may not understand the reference) Dave
  19. The law upto the manchester cases basically states that they must supply terms as varied or something like that....meaning upto date terms...they did not need to supply the original ones unless there was a court action, and even then they try to get away with current terms. I havent fully read through the Manchester judgement yet so cant say how it affects the supply of original terms. The oft have just put forward a consultation document for guidelines on what needs to be supplied with a s77-79 request. When the document is finalised it will become clearer rgds Dave
  20. As a bare minimum it should have (1) how much credit (2) how much interest (3) how you will pay it back. if any or all of these are missing you may well have a case for unenforceability. the credit limit can say "we will tell you later" or just "its £ nnnnn" anything else missing and it is only improperly executed and its enforceability will be upto the judge, who will probably make an enforcement order.......he may then decide to change details of the agreement...(or not) depending on how much prejudice has been caused. rgds dave
  21. I am sorry if I upset you.....But facts are facts.......and if I rattled you then good, you need to be made of sterner stuff if you are going up against the big boys, they dont take any prisoners. This thread like all on here is about discussion and debate, and finding answers to problems that would once have had you cowering in the corner, and if we can help some people along the way then thats good too Since Manchester the common understanding now is it is best to defend...if you can. The downside of any defence action is it involves withholding payment and waiting for them to iss
  22. Basically put.....with "offset" they can take money from any account from the same group to pay off any debt to that group.....so if you had a barclaycard and a barclays account, they could take money from your barclays account to pay off your card......without asking you !!! BUT it ONLY applies to companies within the same banking group. that is how I believe it works. rgds Dave
  23. You shouldn't be looking for "subtle" things...... and / or using technical points to try and evade a legitimate debt........ THAT is what the judge will say and are you prepared to stand up and defend it ?? The agreement should contain as a minimum (1) how much you borrowed. (2) how much interest will be applied (3) how you are going to pay it back. IF it has those then your chances of avoiding the debt are slim. I use the term "avoiding" because that is how the judiciary now see this, thanks to the growth of companies set up to claim back money. If however you have a
  • Create New...