Evening all, I have a quick question for you all. I got into a heated argument with one of my store Directors today. Also present was the store Manager who was not involved just a witness. After lunch came to me to ask if we could have a chat tomorrow morning about a few ideas he has. When I pushed him for details he said " I want to chat about the upset we had this morning, nothing sinister just a chat like men do " I then asked if this is a formal meeting or not? his reply " the store manager will be taking notes and the contents will be put in your personnel file ". Now I'm not overly concerned by this but is it legal for the accuser to investigate the accused? I look forward to your replies.

I definitely will. Thank you, I just wanted to know if there was anything that I'm missing or not doing correctly. For example, what would happen if the court finds that my friend has totalled up the total owed slightly incorrectly, maybe out by £50 or so? Do they then act upon this, etc?

Dear All, Kindly help with my counter claim against Capquest. I am making a counter claim against this company having failed to take my written advise regarding my long-running dispute with the credit card company. Summary: I took out the credit card facility some 16 years ago stopped making repayment 7 yeras ago following several months trying to get the card company to investigate a couple of large transactions that I did not make. I also used a claim company to investigate in order to get the card company to respond. The company feighned ignorance of my letters. I have found that the card company had been raiding my other personal accounts to keep the credit card repayment alive so that these personal acconts were sent into deep negative balance even though I had gone into a branch of the bank to close these accounts two years before. (Can they fleece these accounts to death to fund to keep the crad repayment going?) However, their lack of response made my claim company to report the bank to FSA at the time. The card company immediately responded by harrassing me with a dozen or so debt collectors some of whom got their figures wrong on their letter. In face of the challenges, I too put the debt collectors on notice about my post and admin charges for each letter. This seemed to work as they kept changing the battons, hence the so many debt collectors working on behalf of the credit card company. Immediately after the 6-year rule, I informed the card company the account is now statute barred The card company responded by assigning the account to Capquest whom I am now making a counter claim against. The Capquest initially avoided my written charge notices and SAR for a copy of the agreement and went to court to claim the outstanding credit card balance. The court, sensing Capquest's game, ordered them to supply a copy of the agreement, statement and T&C. The so-called 'agreement' is pitiful. Only half-page with part of it hand written. They failed or were unable to supply the T&C. The statements however shows repayments years after I had stopped, supposedly taken from my afore-mentioned defunct personal accounts with the card company. How much can I claim against this vulture capquest? What are the legal basis for doing so? Are there any known legal victories by consumers against these excesses? My total claim - runs into thousands in letters, professional fees, time and, not to mention the harassments and the traumas I had been going through since 2006 when the initial letter was sent to the card company on the unidentified transactions.. Your professional advice/help will be greatly appreciated.

I took out a £200 loan and after four weeks I would need to pay £272. I decided to roll over for another two weeks at £36 which brought my balance down to £236. I rang them up two days before the due date because I was considering rolling it over again and here is an overview of the convo: Me: I would like to pay another £36 and pay £236 in two weeks - like I did two weeks ago. Them: No your final balance will be £272 plus the £36 you want to pay now. A mistake has obviously been made so you now need to pay the proper amount (£272) Me: Well it ain't my fault someone in your office made a mistake. I have it in writing from you what I owe (£236) and you are now penalizing me. It's not as if I rang up knowingly that a mistake might have been made - you have only informed me. I will not be paying the extra due to your mistake. Them: You have to pay as agreed in the terms and conditions otherwise you are stealing from us! Me: Are you accusing me of fraud - it ain't my fault and it wouldn't stand up in court!! What if I hadn't of rang up today? Them: Well you probably would have got away with it. Look, I will let you pay the £236 to close the loan but you will no longer be able to use our service again. Me: But it ain't my fault and that's a bad business model whereby again you are penalizing a valued customer because of a mistake someone in the company made. And you're now admitting that there's a potential flaw in the system/company to a customer because if I did that in my work place I'd get fired. Also these calls are recorded aren't they so your boss can hear you slandering the company. This shut them up and they terminated the phone call. I had taken their name and called back later and asked to speak to someone in charge to make a complaint about them. I spoke to a very helpful person who was apologetic about what happened and said they would listen back to the calls. I said about being accused of wanting to steal, how the employee had spoke about the company and their general aggressiveness. The supervisor agreed that I shouldn't have to pay more and it was at their own fault so agreed to keep my balance at originally agreed amount. I got the sense that they believed what I was saying about this person and their customer service manner. Also why don't they have a contactable email address because my mobile bill has shot up thanks to all this hassle that lasted about half an hour. I know what some will say... never ring a PDL company!

31 days after moving out, my girlfriend has finally been told by letting agent he is going to keep £225 of the deposit for carpets. What does everyone think of the email I have just sent him? HI ..... Following your meeting with C....in the flat, we have contacted Shelter, Citizens Advice and Glasgow City Council regarding the £225 still owed to C.... from the deposit. The advice we have received from all three states the same thing. Unless the rest of the deposit is returned then a claim will be raised through court by Claire against Mr C....... and yourself for the return of the £225 + interest and any legal expenses occurred. All three have also advised that a sheriff will rule in C....... favour for quite a few reasons. These are as follows: 1. Mr C..... has been letting the flat out as an unregistered landlord for around 5 years (something Glasgow City Council are now aware of, also aware that you have been acting on his behalf as an agent without making sure he was registered) 2. Tenancy agreement states there is an inventory, yet C....... signed no such thing when she moved in. Meaning you have violated a term of your own lease AND in court you would need to provide the inventory to show what condition the flat was in when C...... moved in, not the other way about as C...... does not need to prove anything. (But let's mention when she moved in there was the grimy shower, the iced up freezer with food in it, the stains all over the kitchen wall from where a bin had obviously been, the dirty oven, stains on carpets, broken bathroom door handle and lock) 3. You are claiming the £225 for carpets as they have been wrecked. They are cheap, standard carpets put into new builds when first built and have been there for 6-7 years. According to Shelter, for a woman with 3 children it can be expected for there to be spills and stains on the carpets, especially ones which are so old. Also, the fact you stated to me when you came round the first time that it was just general wear and tear and you would speak to the landlord, why now change your mind? When C...... couldn't be there that day all you stated at the initial inspection was for the walls to be painted back to magnolia and for door handles to be cleaned. Carpets were general wear and tear, your words at the time. According to Shelter, changing your mind 31 days after the tenant has moved out (3 days over the reasonable length of time to return deposit) is unacceptable and would again be looked down on by the sheriff. 4. The length of time it has taken you to come to this decision is over the 28 days you had to return the deposit. You claimed that the flat was dusty, what do you expect from a flat that has been empty for a month and last cleaned around 3 weeks ago? Again, Shelter advised that there is no reason for you to have taken so long to come to the decision you have. You ignored C....... texts and calls, never came out when you were supposed to and only ended up coming through after C..... got me to contact you. Even arranging the meeting for the 31/05/12 was met with profanity from yourself when all that was asked was what time you would be arriving at the property. 5. C....... still has a copy of an email she sent to you, probably around a year after she had moved in, telling you about the broken floorboard. She again repeatedly told you about it on several occasions through the years but it was never touched. You left a repair undone that had been reported to you and could have posed a danger to any of the children if C...... hadn't kept a sofa in front of it all the time. 6. C..... is not a professional cleaner, and after speaking to a few other landlords, they hire cleaners to go into any flat once a tenant moves out so it can be PROFESSIONALLY cleaned. This might not be your practice, with the way you ranted about dust and a pen in the en suite, but it seems from your behaviour that you like to get tenants to do all your work to save you money. Despite a month and a half's notice to move out, you turned up 3 weeks before C..... move out date stating all rooms had to be painted back to magnolia. This was despite the fact you gave permission for it to be done DUE TO GENERAL WEAR AND TEAR. C.....did this with no complaints and managed to get the whole house painted back. Like I told you at the initial inspection a few of the rooms needed to be painted as walls do tend to get dirty after 6-7 years without a touch up. You asked C..... how she had done you a favour by painting them, she saved you the money of having to get a painter when really she should have just left them. Again, Shelter advised us that C..... did more than she needed to by painting the flat back to magnolia and that if she wanted she could even try to claim back the cost of paint from yourself in court. (She has the receipts for the paint and brushes bought) 7. C..... has photographic evidence of the state the flat was left in when she moved out. Shelter and Citizens Advice were very helpful today. So, on their advice we are giving you until close of business on Friday 01/06/12 to have the £225 in C...... bank account otherwise we have a printed letter ready to send to Mr C..... (a copy of this email will be included with the letter) and yourself stating our next course of action. Mr C..... will have 14 days to reply to the letter and if no reply is received then papers will be lodged in court through small claims for the money due. Mr C..... will also be made aware of how his agent has spoken to a long term tenancy holder. Asking a mother of 3 young children if she worked and saying that because she didn't work it was no viable excuse for the state of the flat. Even though she has documentary evidence (photos from when she went up to clean the flat) that it was in a clean habitable condition that was no worse than what she moved into. You tried to bring her down for being a mother yet she probably works 100 times harder than you do in a day. After C..... stated she had done you a favour painting the full flat you turned round and said "so I am paying for your children?" This is incorrect. You are paying C... back the rest of the deposit she is owed. C.... also accepts the way she spoke to you was inappropriate but was provoked by the condescending manner she was spoken to throughout the entire meeting. She maintained a civil tone until you began bringing her down and the children were mentioned almost in a derogatory manner. I feel an apology should be made to C..... for this, along with an apology for the aggressive kicking of a pen in the en suite, just because it had been left on the floor, and for the vile language again used by yourself. It is now up to you and Mr C.... what happens next, but I am sure neither of you want to go to court and end up losing more when £225 which is all C..... is asking for. Three independent bodies have all stated that a sheriff will not look lightly on all the above facts (1-7), the main being that there is NO inventory signed by C..... at the start of the tenancy. Glasgow City Council were also really unhappy at how long the flat had been rented out for unregistered, which when asked if a sheriff would look at that as a bad thing, they replied that a sheriff would demand answers as to why the landlord was not registered and would more than likely believe there was a motive behind there not being a registration in place. Hope to hear from you soon Thanks D.....

First hello all - and a big thank you to this site: Okay, I am not going to reproduce the whole of my case here (it will get lengthy...), but focus on the relevant features with respect to a sketch of an argument I am thinking about. I probably won't use this argument in my N244 application to set aside a judgment, mostly because I think I have other tried and true options available, but then if a good response comes, maybe... Case history (super short version) *MBNA credit card... health problems... late payment... negotiation... CCJ... Charging order (note they were ******s, and after they sent the account to Reston's I found out what '******' really means...) Okay, some more relevant background to the issue and argument: *House has NEGATIVE equity and unlikely to improve for a long time *claimaint not seeking to force sale *in fact, claimant refusing to let me IVA or bankrupt *I am making small payments to which they have agreed *they are not charging interest at this point *CCA request produced a statement of account without any mention of default *But account was registered as in default way back when with a CFA Okay, yes, I am aware that the default thing is where I can probably get a set aside on the CCJ and is my best bet, but my argument and question and issue here is a little different: First, why would they take the time and cost etc to pursue this charging order? There is absolutely no hope of recouping losses whatsoever, and may well never be. Answer I think is that it allows them to treat the debt as a secured debt now on paper and, especially by not recognizing this debt as in default anymore, and receiving regular agreed payments, it might almost actually look like a good debt on paper.... This is my guess. Now, if this is what it is about, then this is what they tried to get out of the charging order, right? And in my case, it is conceivable that this can be demonstrated rather well. I think. However, what I am wondering is whether they can seek a charging order NOT to enforce payment of debt (remember, it seems they do NOT want me actually to pay off the debt or negotiate, etc.) but rather to set up a secured debt. The distinction is subtle and it turns on the meaning of 'debt' and other issues, but for example, they could not enforse the debt by lots of means, including sending me to Australia. What I have been looking for here are the precise acts and rules upone which the charging order directions are based - and, importantly, an overview of the principle Stare Decisis over no doubt a long history, and a sense of the basic legal philosophy that has informed the way these charging laws have evolved. So, consider: Suppose the claimant has a judgment and they are now seeking enforcement. Now suppose that I have a goose, and my good just so happens to lay golden eggs from time to time. However, because the goose is rather fussy, it will only do this while in my possession, and for some reason it will only lay eggs for me. And so it is IMPOSSIBLE for me to sell. Now because this goose is so odd it is widely known to perform in this curious way and there are a lot of creditors out there, for example, who would be very happy to trust that I would pay them back if they lent me money. Afterall, I have these golden eggs from time to time... Now, could the claimant seek enforcement NOT by taking the goose from me, nor even the eggs, but rather by having an (IMPOSSIBLE to realize) right to the goose should I ever sell it? Could they then sell this right to another party for the silver they want? Suppose they could, and moreover, they can sell that impossible right for more silver than the ccj they have attached to my a*s. What significance would that introduce? Suppose it was a LOT more... Hopefully my sketch is bringing out the sallient points. Would really love to hear / read some legal thinking on this issue... Cheers! Pilot