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

[sunflower99]

Yes i think as well as knowing the law about unenforceable CCAs it is just as important to explain to judge why you feel you are going down the unenforcable CCA route and get them to see things from our point of view,If i get dragged into court i would make it clear to judge that i was going down CCA route through desperation and for our survial and make him fully aware of the bad behaviour of the banks such as the distressing calls at my work place them humiliating me at work sending embarresing postcards theough the letterbox telling the postman and other household members i am in debt! irresponsilbe lending tempting to vulnerable people The homeowner loan leaflets they enclose with a lot of my statements since dispute etc etc. i may even be tempted to tell him that these actions they do have made me feel like throwing myself under a passing bus throwing all my threatograms with me!

[reggie76]

So if I borrowed money from a creditor for £5k and paid back £5k, not including interest, but they cannot provide a CCA showing how much interest I should pay on that debt do I owe them money? Does a DCA have a right to pursue me for an apparent debt that I owe the original creditor which would/could be for interest charges/ extortionate late payment fees etc?

[creditcardmug]

So if I borrowed money from a creditor for £5k and paid back £5k, not including interest, but they cannot provide a CCA showing how much interest I should pay on that debt do I owe them money? Does a DCA have a right to pursue me for an apparent debt that I owe the original creditor which would/could be for interest charges/ extortionate late payment fees etc?

 

Some of these cards were offered with 0% interest...it could be argued that without a valid legally binding agreement they have no right to apply interest/charges/anything else.

 

In fact if you added up all you have paid, then subtract what you have spent, you have probably overpaid them already:cool:

[underdog13]

Refering to Kraken's post on the previous page;

 

don't agree with this. I think the whole issue folk have is that the judges seek to enforce their idea of justice and to be honest, if the roles were reversed we would all agree with them.

 

The view of what is defined as justice for a debtor is coloured in many ways by the conduct of the creditors in their pursuit of the debts. I doubt anyone here denies that if you borrowed the money you should pay it back. It is the conduct of the pursuer when they they seek the payment back that that then alters folks' general intent. The judge does not see the dca conduct and so acts impartially and decides the case on one overwhelming principle - if you borrowed it, you pay it back.

 

If we change places with the creditors we would also agree. We'd like to believe that we'd be a little more understanding about it if pursuing for a debt owed to us, and would ensure that we complied with all relevant statute and guidance. To be honest, when I was involved in a case pursuing an ex housemate for money owed I didn't. They went out of their way to screw us so we used every tool we had to try and recover the cash. It is amazing how emotion will effect the recovery process and proscribe your tactics. Does anyone here not really relish the idea of really taking a bank to the cleaners over charges and throwing everything they can at them?

 

This is just a symptom of the debtor creditor relationship; if you personalise it then you personalise the money and it becomes yours. This is why I don't subscribe to the wind-up-the-dca strategy when it is not necessary (note: sometimes it is). I don't think it is beneficial in the long run.

 

If anyone disagrees with me then firstly I don't believe you, and secondly, can you lend me a grand for a new fridge? I promise I'll pay you back. Promise!

 

Imagine that you leant money to a friend or relative and then they refused to pay it back to you. Would you want the courts to reject your claim on a technicality or award in your favour?

 

I'm not deliberately trying to attract flaming and criticism for this stance, but what I am trying to do is explain the rationale behind the judges thoughts and his decision making process. This needs to be understood to figure out why this type of question might be asked and how to answer it, although TF has nailed the answer above.

 

The judges are following the above thougt processes - what if this was my money? They are empathising with the creditor. It is because of this that it is fatal to a claim to upset the judge, you need them to empathise with you, not with the creditor. It is not about insisting that the judge rule on the principles of natural justice, or lecturing them about statute, but attempting to get them to side with you and to show them that the creditor's conduct is contrary to the principles of natural justice and that this is why they should look in detail at the technicalities - to find a reason to say no to them. This is the presumption you need to start with - you have probably lost the case when you start because of the default position of they judge (or any normal person) and you need to turn this around.

 

These cases are not about the law, but about presentation, people skills, and salesmanship.

 

Good points, Kraken:)

 

I have been on the other side of the fence, so to speak, three times now.

 

I was ripped off royally by a builder, and had every legal and moral right to sue his proverbial off - but he was penniless and I reluctantly (but practically) accepted that there was no point in suing an empty pot. I could have exacted some revenge by hounding him, but what would it have achieved? If only creditors could be this realsitic and pragmatic.

 

The other two occassions were worse as it was a relative who screwed me over. I cut my losses and cut them out of my life.

 

Don't misunderstand me, I'm no pushover who gives up easily - I'm stubborn as hell, truth be told. Despite this, I'm capable of making a realistic appraisal of the situation and acting accordingly - would that my creditors could:cool:

Edited April 10, 2009 by underdog13

[Docman]

Kracken

 

I don't disagree with you emotionally or morally. And I know many judges will feel the same way and try cases emotionally or in what they consider is the right moral outcome. But the county court is a court of civil law. It is not a court of public opinion responding to emotion nor an ecclesiastical court judging morals. Frankly, it doesn't matter what a district judge feels idividually. The judge is bound by the statute and the decisions of the higher court. That is why I said you will have to force the judge back to the law if he starts going on about emotions or morals.

[sunflower99]

A second DCA who has bought debt for peanuts is in even less of a moral position to say Did you spend the money!and even the oriinal crediter i was surprised to learn does not loose that much in end as they can reclaim bad debts they have written of from insurance or something i beleive.

[sunflower99]

Kracken

 

I don't disagree with you emotionally or morally. And I know many judges will feel the same way and try cases emotionally or in what they consider is the right moral outcome. But the county court is a court of civil law. It is not a court of public opinion responding to emotion nor an ecclesiastical court judging morals. Frankly, it doesn't matter what a district judge feels idividually. The judge is bound by the statute and the decisions of the higher court. That is why I said you will have to force the judge back to the law if he starts going on about emotions or morals.

Well said !

[Gazza112]

I think the best way to handle the case, is to do your Homework on your case and know it inside out.

Keep everything in order, so when the Judge asks you a question you have it to hand.

 

Gaz

[diamondgirl]

A second DCA who has bought debt for peanuts is in even less of a moral position to say Did you spend the money!and even the oriinal crediter i was surprised to learn does not loose that much in end as they can reclaim bad debts they have written of from insurance or something i beleive.

 

Yes the can reclaim from insurance most businesses who deal with credit have insurance against this happening they can usually claim up 3/4 of the debt back. Nice isn't it and it doesn't cost them that much for the insurance. DG

[reggie76]

Oh and the government buys their bad debts and that money is backed up by.............................the UK tax payer!!

[sunflower99]

Yes the can reclaim from insurance most businesses who deal with credit have insurance against this happening they can usually claim up 3/4 of the debt back. Nice isn't it and it doesn't cost them that much for the insurance. DG

so they win on all counts then! They get a lot of the written off debt back and then chase their victim to get the whole amount of them if they can get away with it !

[creditcardmug]

First they sell the debt to a DCA, and get say 10% of face value for it..the other 90% is a loss on their books, which they would have paid tax on so they get back the other 90%..so far they have 100% of it back...then if they have insurance they claim on that too!

 

So its a no-brainer for them...get rid of it at the first sign of a problem, and they are quids in!

 

Plus, they dont have to dirty their hands, or risk adverse publicity by embarking into the murky world of DEBT COLLECTING!

[izools]

... "In the case of Hugh Symons Communications vs Mr Williams of April 2006 it was found that Mr Williams was liable for a debt in excess of £18,000. The judgment was ruled in favour of Hugh Symons without a CCA because the defendant was unfamilliar with the rules of the CCA 1974 and did not recall what information was provided on the original CA. It was later determined, approximately two years later, that the £18,000 debt should have been assigned to Anyd2Phone LTD. The judgment against Mr Williams was set aside when a valid CA was producted clearly stipulating an agreement between Andy2Phone LTD and Hugh Symons Communications.

 

With respect, sir, it is because of cases like this that I would not be in a position to deny or confirm liability of any alleged debt without initially being reminded of what information, if any, was provided by myself on any credit agreement. As a true copy of the CA containing the prescribed terms has not been presented I would not be in a position to accept liability".

 

I know this because I fought the case for Mr Williams

Edited April 10, 2009 by izools

[creditcardmug]

... "In the case of Hugh Symons Communications vs Mr Williams of April 2006 it was found that Mr Williams was liable for a debt in excess of £18,000. The judgment was ruled in favour of Hugh Symons without a CCA because the defendant was unfamilliar with the rules of the CCA 1974. It was later determined in the case of Mr Williams v Hugh Symons Communications, approximately two years later, that the £18,000 debt should have been assigned to Anyd2Phone LTD. The judgment against Mr Williams was set aside when a valid CCA was producted clearly stipulating an agreement between Andy2Phone LTD and Hugh Symons Communications.

 

With respect, sir, it is because of cases like this that I would not be in a position to deny or confirm liability of any alleged debt without initially reminding myself of what information, if any, was provided by myself on any credit agreement".

 

I know this because I fought the case for Mr Williams

 

I suspect that this was because the claim was not correctly defended in the first place

[izools]

I suspect that this was because the claim was not correctly defended in the first place

 

Quite. But it proves the importance of having a valid CA present, and that this can in fact be relied upon when deciding liability.

[creditcardmug]

Quite. But it proves the importance of having a valid CA present, and that this can in fact be relied upon when deciding liability.

 

Yes absolutely, but the problem we are having is that in SOME cases the judge is not following the statutes properly, and is making judgements based to some extent on the morality of the matter.

 

The point being that he has not been guided in the right direction by the defence, and has been persuaded by the claimant:confused: (you have to wonder how this can be possible), when he is there exclusively to follow the statutes to the letter, and SHOULD know the law!

[izools]

Well surely just a straight forward, "I can confirm that I spent monies made available to me by xxxxx but I deny the suggestion that I entered into a valid or appropriately regulated agreement for me to repay any of these monies"

[underdog13]

... "In the case of Hugh Symons Communications vs Mr Williams of April 2006 it was found that Mr Williams was liable for a debt in excess of £18,000. The judgment was ruled in favour of Hugh Symons without a CCA because the defendant was unfamilliar with the rules of the CCA 1974 and did not recall what information was provided on the original CA. It was later determined, approximately two years later, that the £18,000 debt should have been assigned to Anyd2Phone LTD. The judgment against Mr Williams was set aside when a valid CA was producted clearly stipulating an agreement between Andy2Phone LTD and Hugh Symons Communications.

 

With respect, sir, it is because of cases like this that I would not be in a position to deny or confirm liability of any alleged debt without initially being reminded of what information, if any, was provided by myself on any credit agreement. As a true copy of the CA containing the prescribed terms has not been presented I would not be in a position to accept liability".

 

I know this because I fought the case for Mr Williams

 

That's very interesting to know, izools. I have a feeling you are going to be an extremely helpful addition to CAG - welcome aboard:grin:

[Redletter]

I think its a matter of principle especially because you do not owe anything to the DCA and they have given peanuts for it compared to what it was originally worth.

 

What I want to know is;

 

If the banks are happy to 'sell' a debt to a debt collection agency for as little as 3-5% of its value....

 

What would it cost to set up my own 'debt collection agency' and then buy everyone on here's debts for 3% and sell them at cost price hence releasing you all from the burden????!!!!!! Or even buy all of my own as well while Im at it!

[creditcardmug]

Hmmmm....nice idea

[Redletter]

I wonder if its feasible to register as a DCA.

I reckon most people on here know more about the regulations than most of the cowboy DCA's out there.

So what makes them special. Do you have to have acheived a certain level of thickness or arrogance??LOL

[babybear39]

You can read, write and reason which makes you ineligable to be a DCA

[Redletter]

Oh well never mind I could be an MP instead!lol

[underdog13]

I wonder if its feasible to register as a DCA.

I reckon most people on here know more about the regulations than most of the cowboy DCA's out there.

So what makes them special. Do you have to have acheived a certain level of thickness or arrogance??LOL

 

You have to be a living heart and brain donor;)

[Redletter]

Haha that tickled me underdog! So true!