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

[CoventryCrusader]

thank you very much for the kind GIFT ....

 

so no i do not owe any money

[Jeff2000]

thank you very much for the kind GIFT ....

 

so no i do not owe any money

 

 

 

Quite.

 

 

And if you do not owe it, then where is there a debt?

[babybear39]

There is no debt...Only promisary notes

[Jeff2000]

There is no debt...Only promisary notes

 

 

 

Precisely!

[babybear39]

There's also no money. So, basically, we're all screwed

[tracybeaker]

subbing with interest

[bushtuckerkid]

Bump!

 

Found this and its very relivant to my current situation and thought it should get another look in for newbies looking for an anser.

 

BTK

[jellybabe]

subbing

[sillygirl1]

With me and the Cap1 card I allegedly had "NO, I NEVER HAD THE CARD IN MY POSSESSION AND HAVE NEVER HAD A CREDIT CARD".... but did Cap1 listen, NOPE. Case discontinued and every attempt to restart it has been met with a copy of the notice of discontinuation and letters of complaint all round. All quiet the last three years though!

[means2anend]

Thats encouraging sillygirl1 as I have just banged off a stern reply to RED...they said that an agent had 'failed to contact me' whatever that means...

 

m2ae

[manchestman]

Forgive me, M2ae, but who is 'RED'? Thanks

[alfwithhair]

Forgive me, M2ae, but who is 'RED'? Thanks

 

Red Debt collections, another barrel scraper DCA

[manchestman]

Ah, ah - Thanks. should have guessed, really.

[jimbo45]

Hi there

I think the point of this thread has been missed -- Let's face it 99.99% of the people DID actually borrow the money .

 

What is normally the problem is that circumstances change so one might have signed an agreement in good faith but then the breadwinner may become ill or due to jobs being off-shored to India and elsewhere people are made redundant or simply lose their jobs making original re-payments impossible.

 

The usually USURIOUSLY high interest rate on these types of loans is "Insurance" for the lending institution against bad debts.

 

Now I think what really galls most people is the fact that these same Banks that have benefited hugely from the largesse of the taxpayer write off the loans AND COLLECT MORE TAX RELIEF whilst selling on the debts to DCA's for a fraction of the original value.

 

And to cap it all we now have a situation where a Court agreed that a Bank can charge 5 GBP A DAY on unauthorized overdrafts -- and it's easy to run foul of this one -- you pay XXXX to an account by the Internet, money is taken OUT IMMEDIATELY, another account say Salary transfer etc gets paid in THE SAME DAY --it won't clear for up to 5 DAYS !!!! yes in 2010 it still takes 5 days to clear -- so your account goes into the red for 4 days -- 20 GBP for "unauthorized overfdraft, 35 GBP for returned payment due to insufficient funds etc etc even though the money has been paid in VIA THE INTERNET.

 

What a total disgrace --no wonder people want to get back at these DISGUSTING AND THIEVING INSTITUTIONS in any way they can.

 

Cheers

jimbo

Edited August 30, 2010 by jimbo45

[blueotter]

Absolutely ,that'd the Halifax you,re talking about isn't it !

The worst IMO of a very very bad bunch.

 

Received s thick envelope yesterday amending my terms and conditions again ! Should imagine they,re probably trying to instigate another set of charges

[basa48]

In answer to the question "You spent the money, now do you owe it?", I would say:

If the court decides the claimant is entitled to demand repayment of the alleged debt, then yes I do owe the money. But it is my contention they do not have that entitlement and that is what I intend to prove to the court.

[Desperate Daniella]

I was asked this question in a court case I am involved in at the moment - nothing to do with banks, but payments of advanced fees against future profits. I was so glad I had read this thread because I answered the judge in the way suggested at the early days of the thread: "I have never denied that I received the funds, it is the terms under which this money was advanced which is at issue here." I was putting in a very late counterclaim - late because of lack of funds - and she postponed the trial date in order for me to do that. I do think that is a very good answer, and I'm sorry and offer apologies for not remembering who exactly said that, but it is brilliant. Thank you. (It's late, I am starving, and I can't see who suggested that in the first few posts.)

 

DD

[Meldrew]

Back to first principles on this topic:

 

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"

 

If the claim includes default or other fees/charges, which of course could not be part of the amount of credit, how about -

"No. I have not spent the amount claimed, and the claimant has not shown that I owe anything to him or anyone else."

 

 

Seemple.

[diddydicky]

it's been covered before but to re iterate

 

it is HIGHLY unlikely that you can deny an agreement

 

what you are seeking to do is show that the "agreement" is not legally enforceable

 

that means that the debt is STILL due and payable but that the claimant cannot use civil law to enforce it

 

so what you DONT want to do is give the judge the impression that you are simply out to avoid the debt

 

therefore the correct response (put in whatever way you want) is that

 

i do not deny a debt to the claimant or an agreement- i deny that the agreement is legally enforceable because:- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

 

YOU COULD ADD:- when the claimant has accepted that the agreement is not legally enforceable it will enable me to seek to reach an amicable settlement with the claimant on any agreed amounts owed

 

 

in short- any "smart arse" type answer which does not acknowlege the above will NOT (IMO) get the judge around to your point of view

[means2anend]

Yse but what have you got to lose...if its legally unenforceable it matters not whether a judge dislikes the fact that you 'do not owe or acknowledge the debt'...he cannot make that which is unenforcable enforcable...this is not a popularity contest!

 

rgds

m2ae

[caro]

Yse but what have you got to lose...if its legally unenforceable it matters not whether a judge dislikes the fact that you 'do not owe or acknowledge the debt'...he cannot make that which is unenforcable enforcable...this is not a popularity contest!

 

rgds

m2ae

 

Since Kneale v Barclays I don't think that argument holds so much water now m2ae.

"In order for the Claimant to consider whether the agreement can be enforced the Claimant must receive a copy of the agreement that he entered into with the credit card company, so that I, on behalf of the Claimant can establish if the agreement was properly executed in accordance with ss60, 61 and 65 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

In order to satisfy myself and the Claimant as to whether they have a case or not it is essential that I see a copy of the actual agreement to allow me to consider if it is properly executed.

The Defendant has complied with their statutory obligations pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974, however they have not assisted my client in supplying a copy of the executed agreement which is essential to consider before the client can contemplate an application for a declaration that the agreement is unenforceable."

 

Full judgment here:- http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2010/1900.html

[PriorityOne]

Seems it was the consumer who brought the case against Barclays here Caro.... which is an entirely different ball game

[caro]

Yes but the judge can ask the question no matter who brings the case P1.

[PriorityOne]

Yes but the judge can ask the question no matter who brings the case P1.

 

Very true.... but the Claimant needs to prove his/her case.... so in the case you mentioned, the consumer (as Claimant) needed to do that; not Barclays. Barclays only needed to defend it and by not providing the Agreement, the Claimant (consumer) was not able to prove whether it was unenforceable or not..... and so lost.

 

[caro]

Fair comment. Thanks.