What if the Judge asks..................... ....

[cab1ne]

"Butterfly" good thread HAK

[willtheywontthey]

this is frightening!!!!

[PSB123]

From a few cases I have seen here , the judge seems to hold the opinion , that if you do owe the money ..regardless of a CCA or a DN not in order et all, then he will rule for the creditor , regardless of your defence . So , I would say , No .. your honour , I do not owe the money .

I fully agree with this statement as I found out to my dismay today.

[willtheywontthey]

how can judges IGNORE the law?!!!!!!!!! seriously 'how'???? Are they somehow allowed an opinion that over-rules all things - are they gods????

 

Any legal experts able to explain this???

[PSB123]

how can judges IGNORE the law?!!!!!!!!! seriously 'how'???? Are they somehow allowed an opinion that over-rules all things - are they gods????

 

Any legal experts able to explain this???

They are of the opinion that if you owe it then you are morally obliged to pay it. They are not interested in all the goings on in between and how the DCA's bully and lie to grab back the money thay have paid a few pennies to the pound for.

[Viscount Stair]

There are several strands of legal theory based on variants of Legal Realism.

 

The common factor in these theories of law is that the law is what happens in specific cases.

 

An extreme (and extremely cynical) version of this is that the law is not determined by what Parliament or the House of Lords say it is but what district judges say it is.

[andrew0101]

I am wondering if it would be worthwhile actually printing out the relevant section of the CCA 1974 and ask the judge if he is familiar with it and if so could he with his legal wisdom explain it to everyone assembled in court as for a layman it is mighty confusing.............surely getting him to read out the relevant passages make it impossible for him to rule for the creditor if the agreement in question has no prescribed terms on it, plus it removes the chance of a maverick judge taking it upon himself to take the law into his own hands as he would be slated at appeal.

[caro]

Some good answers here, but make sure you don't get the judges back up by not giving a straight answer or suggesting that the question is irrelevant. You want to keep him/her on side, so tread carefully.

[willtheywontthey]

this cannot be right?!?

 

Does the law not say if x is missing etc then it is simply unenforceable? What law therefore makes it enforceable? I mean this is a shocking revelation. I'm sure many people on CAG think their CCAs are unenforceable because of clause this and act that so how come this may not apply in court?

 

I simply do not get it????

[fuzzybobble]

As well as template letters and defence notes. I think CAG needs a list of things to say, and not to say to a judge. A bit like they do in job interviews when they ask akward questions like, "What makes you frustrated?" If you're prepared for likely questions and answers that put the onus on the creditor to prove themselves to the letter of the law, then I think CAG would score a few more victories.

[caro]

Every case is different fuzzybobble, and people have to answer honestly. It's precisely because you can never tell what will be said in court, that it's vital that people understand their own cases, and the laws that affect them thoroughly. That's the way to have answers ready.

[willtheywontthey]

Apologies if I'm repeating myself but if regs etc state debt unenforceable if this or that is missing then why should it matter what we say to the judge???

 

Please somebody explain as I'd only just decided to give up all this paying mimimum payment each month (ie life-time term) with all my salary gone - in fact not enough. I am now approaching a few default issues and I had thought that the lack of prescribed terms would be a clear cut issue and the worst I could face would be years and years of harassment.....

[fuzzybobble]

Wouldn't hurt to cover the common questions though. After all we have to try and stay one step ahead of the DCA's. Sort of a battle of wits. They come up with something, and we have to come up with something to counter it. It's a non stop battle where if we stick to one line of defence, then sooner or later they'll find a way to counteract it.

[fuzzybobble]

Apologies if I'm repeating myself but if regs etc state debt unenforceable if this or that is missing then why should it matter what we say to the judge???

 

Please somebody explain as I'd only just decided to give up all this paying mimimum payment each month (ie life-time term) with all my salary gone - in fact not enough. I am now approaching a few default issues and I had thought that the lack of prescribed terms would be a clear cut issue and the worst I could face would be years and years of harassment.....

 

You're right. But some judges are pro banks. They see litigants in person as 3rd rate, and don't really matter. Then you have to appeal which then starts to get very costly. The courts system is more geared up to the wealthy and how much money you can throw at defending something that should be simple if the law is in black and white. But when you get bankers and judges who are in the freemasons, etc. Then lots of things go on behind closed doors that in a decent society shouldn't happen at all. But we live in a country where corruption and dodgy dealings are rife.

 

That's why it's important that groups like CAG fight them. Lots of little people who would otherwise be walked all over, can now make a stand and make a difference. It will be a long hard fight. But one we can win if for once the people of the UK finally wake up and stick together.

It is starting to happen. But it won't happen overnight.

[willtheywontthey]

I had an inkling thatthe system in this country was geared toward those particular sections of society etc but I still thought that the law was the law and if it was clear-cut it was clear-cut. I also assumed that when the law was not so that this is when judges came to the fore and started creating new laws - with middle finger gesture to Parliament as revenge still for Cromwell?

 

I still do not get it! Please somebody explain how judges can defy clear cut laws? If a law says so and so has to be done then this has to be done??? Is this not so?

[Percival Wigglesbottom]

If I said , I do not owe the money , then I believe I am answering honestly . I am not prejudicing the courts decision nor answering in an ambiguous way . To my belief , I am not liable to the sum that the creditor seeks unless it is proven in a court of law that I am wrong .

[caro]

It's down to interpretation wtwt. We may see the law as clear cut, but there is so much legislation it's impossible to know it all. Judges are human and as we know, to err is human.

[master woody]

this is what i had prepared in my mind

 

Sir…, as you know the law requires a creditor to produce a valid agreement as set out in the 1974 CCA. The act was enacted by government to protect credit consumers, without the agreement I’m unable to check the APR or any other term or condition of the agreement ect, I respectfully ask the court for that protect set out in the act

Then I’d go into the Wilson case in more details with three print outs explaining the case one for me one for the judge and one for the ****

[pinky1977]

subbing

[count orlok]

i would have thought if it was a DCA taking you to court then you could honestly answer no I don't owe the money to them.

[willtheywontthey]

now I do appreciate that one set of law might say this and another completely bit of law will say something else which may contradict that - this is after all a country with no written constitution ... BUT.. which laws exactly can possibly counter the argument against 'unenforcibility' (if that is such a word)

 

To be able to say 'no way' to the prescribed terms (which are defined in law) then a judge would have to make use of some other law which would allow them to 'interpret' things in whatever way they wish?

 

Can anybody explain that? I still do not see how what you say regarding this thread title ie what to say to judge should make one iota of difference unless there is some other legal side we are missing out here????

[Percival Wigglesbottom]

I reckon judges that ask that kind of question are really looking for an easy way out , especially if they aren't familiar with consumer laws . And are banking on your fear of the situation to give the answer both the judge and the creditors solicitor wants . So they can get it over quickly and meet back in the judges chambers for a few brandy's before lunchtime.

 

It's not perjury to say 'no, I don't owe them the money ' . Truth is a state of mind really . Just be sure to adopt the right paradigms of what constitutes you owing the money before you get to court .

Edited March 26, 2009 by Percival Wigglesbottom

[babybear39]

Precedent exists in this argument from the house of lords and the only way to overturn a bad call by the lower courts is to appeal...

Edited March 26, 2009 by babybear39
spelling

[Percival Wigglesbottom]

So why would anyone want to stand up there and be a martyr for some dubious truth and say .. oh .. yes, I owe every penny . Would the judge get the OC's solicitor up next and swear him into admitting they had no valid cca ? I bet they wouldn't . The truth is an ethereal abstraction to them . Play them at their own game and deny everything .

[Kraken1]

twofoot's answer is the only one I'd run with. all the others will help the judge rule for the other chap. Many of the answers here would just get the judge's back up.

 

Perjury might be a state of mind, but it is one based on fact.

 

I still do not get it! Please somebody explain how judges can defy clear cut laws?

 

Because often they are not clear cut. You will see that from threads here; there is often alot of debate about the actual meaning. For example in some cases an agreement is not enforceable without an order of the court. It is therefore the judges decision.

 

CAG has some good advice but sometimes this is too assumptive, one size or strategy does not fit all.