Jump to content


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4480 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Sorry if this has been looked at but I came across this the other day and its a new rankine case

 

I had to post it on the site link ( Mods--its not commercial) as the court doc is word and I couldn't find it on the normal database..i

 

Rankines...they sure are trying hard!

 

Rankine

Live Life-Debt Free

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well spotted B3rty

 

I wish the Rankines would stop - they are giveing us all a bad name :(

Steven

 

Using CAG Toolbar will generate much needed income - Download Here

 

Confused by Simple Interest? Confounded by Compound Interest? Read my Interest Tutorial

My Wins

 GE Money Won unconditionally May 2007

NatWest Won unconditionally August 2007

Brighthouse Won unconditionally August 2007

Goldfish Won unconditionally April 2008 (including CI on the basis of Sempra)

Clydesdale Financial Services (now BPF) Won unconditionally February 2008

 

Any opinions are without prejudice & without liability. Do not take any legal action on my advice alone. Almost everything I know concerning the law I learned from this site.

 

Please note, I will not give advice by PM. Please send a link to your thread and I will do my best to answer there.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't see anything in this to cause problems as they were arguing 127(4) and for most of us its just about prescribed terms which has 127(3) and the case law to back it up

 

Its not easy to understand but I think they were trying a technicallity over the fact that it wasn't a cancellable agreement which must have been cancelled so were using this to get a court judgement in their favour, however the court concluded that the mere fact that the agreement was voluntarily cancellable did not make it statutorily cancellable, and therefore s.127(4) could not apply.

Live Life-Debt Free

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its an old judgment peeps

 

been out for a while and happily forgotten about to be honest, the case was absurd and did not do them any favours

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dat's da bunny, yep.

 

The taxpayer pays for a useless action against companies now subsidised or owned by, wait for it, the taxpayer.

 

And they said Kafka was mad... Visionary, more like, although even he would probably have baulked at the excesses currently ongoing in this land and others. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

It wouldn't have been this Rankine case though, it would haave been their Amex fiasco

Steven

 

Using CAG Toolbar will generate much needed income - Download Here

 

Confused by Simple Interest? Confounded by Compound Interest? Read my Interest Tutorial

My Wins

 GE Money Won unconditionally May 2007

NatWest Won unconditionally August 2007

Brighthouse Won unconditionally August 2007

Goldfish Won unconditionally April 2008 (including CI on the basis of Sempra)

Clydesdale Financial Services (now BPF) Won unconditionally February 2008

 

Any opinions are without prejudice & without liability. Do not take any legal action on my advice alone. Almost everything I know concerning the law I learned from this site.

 

Please note, I will not give advice by PM. Please send a link to your thread and I will do my best to answer there.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great line to use against those that would try to intimidate you with it, though:

 

"We will be using the Rankine case"

"which one? Amex, Tesco's, etc...?"

 

:-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a novice compared to you guys but something strikes me as odd about the rankins?

 

Don't forget I am a distrusting bugger, so! The rankins seem to be setting up judgements that can be used against us.

 

Ok i'm an institution that collects money and legislation is constantly being introduced and used to make my collection activities more difficult and it is effecting my pocket. I have little recourse to get legislation changed so I need to to disarm and dilute what is being used against me. So if I set up cases were I am almost sure I am going to loose, I then take it as far as possible to get the judgement I am seeking. So I set up a patsy to do my bidding.

 

My question is are the Rankins the patsy, are we sure what game they are playing eg scrabble is a game of spelling words - NO - it is a game of using words to your best advantage!

 

This should open up a debate

 

Kel

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...