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

[Having_A_Knightmare]

DO YOU OWE THE MONEY!!!!

 

This is been mentioned on several threads at the moment and I thought I would try and get it into one.

 

The big day arrives the Claimant has no CA or with no perscribed terms and you are going to use 127(3) of the CCA 1974.

 

The judge turns around and says: Well have you spent the money and do you owe it"

 

Please comment on this as the more ideas the better for the big day.

 

Cheers

 

HAK

[twofoot]

I cannot be sure sir as I owe lots to several companies and I've had several companies chasing the same debt on more than one occasion. It's a job to know who I owe the money to, that's why I requested the appropiate paperwork.

[lunar jim]

How about 'Respectfully Sir, the claimant is asking the court to enforce a credit agreement. The issue is not whether money is owed, but whether a credit agreement is actually enforceable. The claimant is unable to produce the credit agreement, therefore how can the court be sure that should such an agreement exist it was drawn up in accordance with the Consumer Credit Act.'

 

Or modify it if they produce an unenforceable agreement: 'Respectfully Sir, the claimant is asking the court to enforce a credit agreement. The issue is not whether money is owed, but whether a credit agreement is actually enforceable. The claimant has produced an agreement which is clearly not drawn up in accordance with the Consumer Credit Act and I ask the court to consider this when passing judgement.'

 

I've not actually been to court but do people think these are reasonable statements?

[cerberusalert]

DO YOU OWE THE MONEY!!!!

 

If there's a legally enforceable written agreement I do.

[mr.ton]

Has the judge not heard of the words "I dont know"

[sleepingdog]

I must suscribe to this as there has already been some good answers and I am sure more will follow, ( good thread HAK ) .

sleepingdog

[PGH7447]

Morally Yes I probably do, however I only owe this to the original creditor, who then failed in their duties to ensure the credit agreement they are now relying on is valid under Consumer Law, so in hindsight No I do not owe the money

[42man]

With the greatest of respect sir/madam in the case of Wilson vs FCT/Woodchester/Khorapor it was never denied that the money was owed it just wasn't enforceable....

[Viscount Stair]

There is also another angle to this in most credit card cases:

 

Whilst you might have spent money advanced to you, you have been making payments over the years. One exceeds the other but, more often than not, it will be what you have repaid that exceeds the amount advanced rather than the other way around.

[tosh1]

subbing

[bartezno1]

subbing

[JrnyFan4Life]

With all due respect Sir, isn't that what we're here to find out?

[alfwithhair]

subbing with interest

[angel_1]

hiya great thread HAK

 

am subbing,,,,

 

i like 42man responce,,,,as at the end of the day, showing precedent must outweigh any moral obligation far more in my humble opinion.....as that is the law we all seek to follow.....

 

laters dudes

 

angel x

[Having_A_Knightmare]

I found this reply I had on my PC from ages ago:

 

I would have bluntly answered " I had a card with them, but it's so long ago i don't have my original copy of the agreement. the creditors company recommended people keep original paperwork for 6 months. Further, the Money Laundering Regs make it a serious criminal offence punishable by 10 years in prison for each director of the company, for the claimant not to keep this paperwork, so I believe that they must have a copy of the agreement.

 

I've asked them for a copy of the agreement on 4 occasions, and made it clear to the claimant I would settle with them when I saw that agreement. Until I can see what I actually signed up for, i honestly don't know how much I am liable for, if anything."

[fuzzybobble]

My answer would be.....

 

The me owing money issue doesn't come into it. However for the DCA to legally ask me to pay them any sum of money depends on the lawful enforceability of the agreement they claim gives them the right to demand money from me. And this is the reason why we're all here today.

My defence points to missing terms, etc, that render the application form/"agreement" unenforceable, even in a court of law.

By the end, I should imagine that any money payable will actually be from the DCA to me, for my costs to have to defend a claim they had no hope of winning in the first place.

 

To the DCA representaive....

 

Mr Gingerbread man is going to get you at playtime.

[noomill060]

In the event of no CCA, one could say that in equity all capital borrowed has been repaid.

 

With no CCA, there is no proof that you ever agreed to pay interest, which is what the alleged debt consists of.

 

Get your statements, add up all you borrowed, add up all youve paid. If youve repaid more than you've borrowed, then all that is left is interest and charges.

 

If they have no agreement, then they have no proof that you ever agreed to pay interest.

[millymollymoo]

subbing

[cymruambyth]

Subscribing, one guest ......mmmm i thought there would be more:p

[Having_A_Knightmare]

Subscribing, one guest ......mmmm i thought there would be more:p

 

Hope its not the Judge Club:eek:

[Lula]

subberling LOL this is interesting

[MrMT]

How about...

 

"This is what we're here to find out, Sir.

I personally want to know if...

(a) I owe them or,

(b) they owe me

[cashins]

sub - interesting

[42man]

....

Edited March 27, 2009 by 42man

[Percival Wigglesbottom]

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 .

Edited March 26, 2009 by Percival Wigglesbottom