Help

[blind-as-a-bat]

Hiya all

 

Sent my S.A.R off last night but i dont know what i should do now as i got an N1 in the post today i got 14 days to respond what do i do now

 

Regards

 

Pompeyfaith

 

Hmmm from the paragraph 3.4

 

http://i321.photobucket.com/albums/nn363/pompeyfaith/WITNESSSTATEMENT1PAGE3.jpg

 

 

add the two together and............

 

The CORRECT result from an SAR fom the claiment would have resulted in no need to request the info from the sols under cpr 18 wouldnt you say?

[blind-as-a-bat]

They are all highly sophisticated financial institutions whose systems and programmes have long since been well geared to the mechanics Consumer Credit Act that has been on the statute book for over 30 years and Regulations of some longstanding and development

 

So you would think issuing a DN correctly would be simple for them then, wouldnt you?

 

Obviously those gears have worn a bit in those 30 years, and lost a few teeth, which could account for the slip, or slack in those gears:rolleyes:

[blind-as-a-bat]

Anyone tell me what this means, if MBNA are taking me to court now come the balance on this statement is NIL.

 

Where has the balance gone ?

 

http://i321.photobucket.com/albums/nn363/pompeyfaith/MBNASTATEMENT.jpg

 

Regards

 

Pompeyfaith

 

 

CHARGE-OFF - An accounting transaction removing an uncollectible balance from the active receivable accounts

 

or

 

A deduction made to charge off a loss, as with a bad debt.

 

Not sure what that means from a legal point of view re your case, or even if its accurate but thats the gist of what google throws up :?

[blind-as-a-bat]

All the best pompeyfaith, hope you get thr RIGHT result:)

[blind-as-a-bat]

The trouble is CB, that i have watched several cases to mine that have almost the same issues, most of them have failed, yet i am still fighting mine, but there is stiill one last chance for mine to fail too, but that is little consollation right know.

 

The fact remains there is no inforcement of any laws, guidlines or anything else, at the end of the day your faced with a court and a judge who may rule on the the law, or who may rule on moralaty, which may not be correct, but unless challenged that judgement will stand, the rankines is a perfect example at its extreme on that one.

 

The trouble is how many hoops do the the ordinary people we see on here, with a just case, need to jump through?

 

Most have not got the knowledge or the strength.

 

How much longer will the credit industry get away with what equates too a misscarage of justice just because the defendant does not have the strength or knowledge to fight it:-?

[blind-as-a-bat]

I had the same problem in my case, the claimant issued a statement of truth that was anything but the truth:rolleyes:

 

But the judge seemed oblivious too that, because he was, he had never seen the statement of truth, as they filed it late, so my siuation was or may be differant, but just make sure s/he has read it before going in for the kill

 

It was not untill i produced a DN that did not match that in the statement of truth he took notice, but still ignored all the other issues as far as i could see:rolleyes:

 

Judges all seem to act very diffeently, so be carefull you use the info wisely and at the correct time;)

[blind-as-a-bat]

Yes CitizenB they are indeed and making a right rash go at it to, their latest offering of a WS is a joke.

 

PF

 

Thats almost as good as cohens produceing a totaly differant DN (including differant logo and a made up post code), together with a copy of an archived agreement that bore no resemblement to the actual copy they included in the witness statement:p in my recent case, lets just hope your judge has the same reaction as mine did;-)

[blind-as-a-bat]

Hmmm if that was a true copy of the default notice it would breach the companies act anyway, as it must bear the companies registered address and registration number according to a letter from companies house someone posted in another thread;) so may be something else to add to the list

 

Question is are they stateing its representation of the DN or a Copy, cant remember how it was worded

[blind-as-a-bat]

Found it 'attached to thes statement DP3 a COPY of the DN'

 

not a representation then, Oh dear:D

 

Oh and on a side note, they should learn how to type inside boxes if they want to construct something that is half way convinceing

[blind-as-a-bat]

Last Activity: Today 14:00

 

Last Activity: Today 15:32

 

 

hope that is not a bad sign:(

 

Hopefully not though:), could be bad connection on his phone, too many beers and small keys..............

[blind-as-a-bat]

Glad you got a result you're reasonably happy with PF.

 

Think the judge was wrong about the DN though, thought once they issued court proceedings that account was deemed to be terminated and they couldn't issue another DN on a terminated account?

 

 

If i understood x20's posts correcly that is correct, any others read it that way?

[blind-as-a-bat]

Indeed the judges point was unless he saw a termination notice he could not give that ruling

 

Hmmm, i see pt lurking, would like to here his view......BUT........

 

After having a simaler judge.......you did OK PF, not the outcome you would have liked maybe, but the best you could expect with a judge judging on morality;-)

 

I would still class it as a win

[blind-as-a-bat]

WTF! It's not a question of proving the debt. Mrs Wilson's debt could be proven:mad: I'm sorry you didn't get a more clued up judge, PF.

 

It seems unfair that the judge should take that view. But as you have said you came away with a result that you were happy with, after all if you hadn't have defended then no doubt you would have ended up with a ccj and possible charge order - so congratulations and well done:)

 

the best you could expect with a judge judging on morality, as i said;-)

 

Unfortunatly that is the lottery, unless you can afford legal help, as i said, i faced the same atitude, cant realy deffend it, but in fairness our judge was trying to find a way to throw it out without losing his morality, we where lucky, the claiment gave him the excuse.

 

Does not make it right they ignore the legaslation, but thats how it is, in some cases, it stinks but it will do your head in if you let it, trust me, i have been struggleing with it since feb, the sooner you let it go, or decide to appeal the better, dont dwell on it, it makes you very bitter.

 

It sounds as PF has the right attitude to me:)

[blind-as-a-bat]

Well at the end of the day they did not get the judgment they wanted and im still the proud owner of my home with no CCJ

 

And they have to swollow £7000 of costs.

 

Its easy to forget its not all about money when you start on this road, its about right and wrong.

 

Unfortunatly whats right and wrong in the eyes of one is differant to someone else.

 

At the end of the day if your goal was to protect your property, then you won, end of

 

The loss of 7k to them (at least on paper) is a bonus:p

[blind-as-a-bat]

Hello PF!

 

 

 

I completely understand, although it angers me the way it went for you.

 

These people know this, and the Judge most of all.

 

The bottom line is the Judge let you down.

 

Cheers,

BRW

 

Indeed Banker the fraud was very clear and the right judgement would have been compensation to me the solicitor knew this hence why he was so keen on a consent order.

 

And after i went in court first time round it was clear as day the judge was having none of it

 

As you know i too had a claiment who commited a fraud by presenting a false document in a statement of truth.

 

While i agree there should have been a lot more said and sanctions against the claiment, the judge awarded us the case, even though he made it clear he would have judged on the moral view and was not intrested in the CCA.

 

That frustrated the hell out of me, still does, even though we got it struck out.

 

Its funny realy when you think about it, i should have been exstatic as we won, but i wasnt.

 

The irony is PF did not 'win' as in getting it struck out, but seems happier than i did, or do with our 'win'

 

Strange world isnt it?

[blind-as-a-bat]

So i think and im sure you will all agree £20 is a small price to pay to get that

 

Its all relative, the amount is irelavent, it is your abilaty to meet it that matters, if you can easily afford it, then yes it is a small price to pay considering the alternative if you persue and lose, and are faced with the other sides legal costs.

 

This is where the legal system fails, you know the result is wrong, but unless you have enough money, indeed enough to clear the debt if you look at it , justice is beyond the means of most as i see it.

 

I agree though underdog13, its hard to see how you could claim the agreemant was not terminated:confused:

[blind-as-a-bat]

This post is in repy to PF post #1594

And will probably get me banned

Its time Cag woke up and smelled the roses, Remember my replies pompeyfaith on the first judgment?

Law and legislation is not enough, and yes i have wasted enough time studying it, and threads on here where it is ignored.

Its wrong, but unless cag can provide legal representation to every case, this is the result you will get

Many magistrates work for big financial institutions on the side as consultants

besides that, the reason why are obvious

Legislation alone will not win a battle, unless someone is willing to fund the appeal. and fund the costs!

The creditors have too much to lose, so has the country's economy

I really hope this post does not get cab botted, but feel it will

if it does, i hope some see it before it does and question why?

Edited January 17, 2010 by blind-as-a-bat

[blind-as-a-bat]

:-|

Any ideas on how CAG would fund legal representation for every case BAAB?

 

It's a self help forum and all we can do is try to provide a place for people to share their information and knowledge. At the end of the day it's down to individuals to do what they think is best for them.

 

Agreed caro, and there is no way cag, or anyone else, could fund it, but thats the problem

 

Im sorry if my posts come accross in a negative tone, but while courts, or magistrates, ignore legislation we are in a no win situation, apart from the few 'lucky ones' that get a magistrate that follows legislation

 

Im sorry caro, this is why i refrained from posting here, i should have stayed quiet

 

Sorry:(

Edited January 17, 2010 by blind-as-a-bat

[blind-as-a-bat]

You're entitled to your opinion, and I agree it's very frustrating. I honestly wish there was more that we could do, but I'm at a total loss to find a better and more successful way ahead.

 

I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall at times..

 

All any of us can do is the best we can.

 

It’s not my opinion, it is a fact of most cases i have followed, here and elsewhere, and please do not do me the disservice by ignoring that fact.

But please don’t get me wrong, I have spent more time than most studying the relevant acts, and if it was down to the letter of those acts I/we could win in most cases.

No, Cag can not help in every case, but can it not help making courts follow legislation?

I already know the answer, but it’s something to think about.....I may not trust the legal system, but I do not under-estimate the power of public opinion....if directed in the right direction.

Can not help but feeling a change of tactics is needed?????

But like I said, maybe i should have stayed silent???