Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


shakespeare62

Shakespeare62 - v - a NastyBank

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3221 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

They sure have some front. Firstly they introduce this very late (hot off the Press as it were) just ahead of the last Hearing to try and panic S62 into banging out, then they say it's the original in Court, plus their Witness says it's the original in a Witness Statement, then today they fight tooth and claw to make the Court use their Expert Witness instead of S62's, and then, when they don't get their way, they start to snivel that it might have been a reconstruction after all.

 

 

'Oh what a tangled web they weave

When first they practice to deceive...'

 

Hitler diaries, anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello Cab1ne!

 

This is really only applicable to Court related documents IMHO. The Consumer Credit Act 1974 is amply covered by The Interpretation Act 1978, and the subsequent Queens Bench Practice Direction 1985 that clarified the time scales for Service via 1st (+2 Working Days) and 2nd Class (+4 Working Days) Post.

 

CPR does not even mention 2nd Class Post for example.

 

But CPR is useful to argue that even CPR defines time scales for Service via Post, so Amex and others have to allow for transit time if they elected to use Post rather than personal service, i.e. to ensure the Consumer is given the correct number of clear days (7 or 14, depending on when the Default Notice was issued).

 

In the case of all Amex DNs we have seen, they have failed to do so.

 

Oh dear. How sad. Never mind. :D

 

Cheers,

BRW

 

thanx BRW,

 

i hope one of them is relevent, i would personally go for the Interpretation Act 1978, it rather does appear to be covered in the cca 1974 act, (never really looked at it that way) cheers M8

 

cab


Cab1ne-Lombard-Shoosmiths **Claim Recieved**

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?181761-Cab1ne-Lombard-Shoosmiths-**Claim-Recieved**/page25

Summary Judgement 01/02/2011 **REFUSED** set for trial "May 23rd To June 30th 2011"

DISCONTINUED 3rd MAY 2011 **WON**

 

santander" Responsible Lending!!!!!!!

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?219431-quot-santander-quot-Responsible-Lending!!!!!!!

 

Capquest "V" Cab1ne

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?262962-Capquest-quot-V-quot-Cab1ne

 

"STAYED"

 

CAB "Sittin Tight"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Cab1ne!

 

I think it's important to focus on the fact that The Consumer Credit Act 1974 is an Act that is covered by s7 of The Interpretation Act 1978:

 

7

 

References to service by post.

 

Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression “serve” or the expression “give” or “send” or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.

Because that was a little vague on the time scales, the 1985 Queens Bench Practice Direction elaborated on that to define 1st and 2nd Class Post.

 

CPR is CPR, an Act is an Act, if you see what I mean. If an Act mentions Service by Post (that is not otherwise excluded from using The Interpretation Act 1978 ), then the 1978 Act covers it, as does the 1985 clarification via the later Practice Direction (PD).

 

I think this is important, because if you let them rely upon CPR rather than The Interpretation Act 1978, i.e. when it suits the banks' purposes, they could then potentially see off people who have had their defective Default Notices served via 2nd Class Post (or worse, such as Business Post etc).

 

So, use CPR only as a background example to show that even CPR allows for Service. The key is to ram it up them that Default Notices are actually covered by a specific Act and a related PD when it comes to their Service via Post.

 

IOW, don't walk in to Court relying upon CPR in this case, because you have a more powerful weapon in your arsenal.

 

Cheers,

BRW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done Shakespeare :-D

 

It would seem Amex are bringing big guns to more cases...

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/amex/198761-im-amex-help-defence-3.html

 

OP is in need of help with MdR.

 

S.


Are You as Anonymous on CAG as You Think You Are? *Link*

 

The CAG is a free help site,should you be offered help that requires payment,please report it to site team.

 

Deal with your debts:

STEP ONE - Dont Panic! | STEP TWO - Priority & Non Priority Debts | STEP THREE - Personal Budget Sheet | STEP FOUR - A SAFE bank Account | STEP FIVE - Dealing with Priority Debts | STEP SIX - Non-priority Debts | STEP SEVEN - Non-Priority Debt-Repayment Opt1 | STEP EIGHT - Non-Priority Debt-Repayment Opt2 | STEP NINE - Perils of Consolidation | STEP TEN - RE-Evaluate Frequently

 

***** SERIOUSLY IN DEBT, DONT KNOW WHAT TO DO, TRY NationalDebtLine's MoneySteps *****

 

 

IMPORTANT: Please take my advice in the spirit it is given and on the basis that I am expressing my opinion, These opinions are not endorsed by CAG in anyway and are offered informally without prejudice or warranty of any kind. These opinions are solely based upon the knowledge I've gained from this fantastic site and life in general. I have NO legal training.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is important, because if you let them rely upon CPR rather than The Interpretation Act 1978, i.e. when it suits the banks' purposes, they could then potentially see off people who have had their defective Default Notices served via 2nd Class Post (or worse, such as Business Post etc).

 

You mustn't let them rely on CPR. DNs are served before the instigation of legal action & service of them would therefore come under the Interpretation Act.

 

IMO CPR only comes into effect once legal action is contemplated/instigated. At the DN stage, they are giving you the opportunity to rectify the default & if you did so, legal action would not even be in the frame so CPR would not be applicable.


Any knowledge I possess or advice I proffer is based solely on my experiences in the University of Life. Please make your own assessment of legality, risks & costs before taking any action.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait for the disappearing agreement trick courtesy of the unsealed envelope on arrival to the expert witness.......... dare they attempt it? :eek:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello FG!

 

You mustn't let them rely on CPR. DNs are served before the instigation of legal action & service of them would therefore come under the Interpretation Act.

 

IMO CPR only comes into effect once legal action is contemplated/instigated. At the DN stage, they are giving you the opportunity to rectify the default & if you did so, legal action would not even be in the frame so CPR would not be applicable.

 

Absolutely.

 

Cheers,

BRW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello Cab1ne!

 

I think it's important to focus on the fact that The Consumer Credit Act 1974 is an Act that is covered by s7 of The Interpretation Act 1978:

 

Because that was a little vague on the time scales, the 1985 Queens Bench Practice Direction elaborated on that to define 1st and 2nd Class Post.

 

CPR is CPR, an Act is an Act, if you see what I mean. If an Act mentions Service by Post (that is not otherwise excluded from using The Interpretation Act 1978 ), then the 1978 Act covers it, as does the 1985 clarification via the later Practice Direction (PD).

 

I think this is important, because if you let them rely upon CPR rather than The Interpretation Act 1978, i.e. when it suits the banks' purposes, they could then potentially see off people who have had their defective Default Notices served via 2nd Class Post (or worse, such as Business Post etc).

 

So, use CPR only as a background example to show that even CPR allows for Service. The key is to ram it up them that Default Notices are actually covered by a specific Act and a related PD when it comes to their Service via Post.

 

IOW, don't walk in to Court relying upon CPR in this case, because you have a more powerful weapon in your arsenal.

 

Cheers,

BRW

 

so basically stick to the big queeny guy on the bench and use the cpr bit just to enhance mr bickfords ramblings:grin: "got it"

 

cab


Cab1ne-Lombard-Shoosmiths **Claim Recieved**

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?181761-Cab1ne-Lombard-Shoosmiths-**Claim-Recieved**/page25

Summary Judgement 01/02/2011 **REFUSED** set for trial "May 23rd To June 30th 2011"

DISCONTINUED 3rd MAY 2011 **WON**

 

santander" Responsible Lending!!!!!!!

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?219431-quot-santander-quot-Responsible-Lending!!!!!!!

 

Capquest "V" Cab1ne

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?262962-Capquest-quot-V-quot-Cab1ne

 

"STAYED"

 

CAB "Sittin Tight"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well done dude superb news


http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

 

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by patrickq1 are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they aint gonna perjure themselves i think not s62


http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

 

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by patrickq1 are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonder where guest is tonight? :D

 

I've seen the CPR, and the QB direction on service, but I'm absolutely sure some Law Lord or other has made a statement/authority. Done a couple of searches, but can't find it. Will keep trying. (Oh why didn't I copy it?:mad:)

 

Absolutely agree that an ACT is an ACT, but it's clear that some judges, like some DCAs, just don't get the fact that it's written in stone, and not actually open to their interpretation.

 

xx

 

DDxx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i can see a discontinuance on its way....go for costs ,imo i wouldnt allow them one inch to get away with the possible charge of perj? this would also put to everyone that RECONSTRUCTIONS are dead in the water ?


http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

 

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by patrickq1 are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perjury is the least of it, if the document is proven not to be the original. There was malice aforethought here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vexatious litigant

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

 

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by patrickq1 are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course there was, dp77. :)

 

Just look at all the people who have looked at these "agreements" :D and been told they are the "real thing".

 

Good luck - I'm sure you have ammunition now.

 

DDxx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's quite apt that "For a few dollars more" is on Channel 5 right now.

 

It's seems Amex will tyr just about anything in their desperate bid to dupe the judiciary of this country!


The REAL Axis of evil: Banks, Credit Card Companies & Credit Reference Agencies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

brilliant...!!!

 

well done Shakey..


If my advice helped you please click my star

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few things need to happen before we get too excited; the document needs to be delivered back to the defendant, and then the defendant's expert needs to confirm his opinion that the document is not the original.

 

Given that the litigant has insisted (more than once) that this document IS the original I would not be surprised if it went missing, or they ask for a discontinuance, or come up with some other way of avoiding facing the bullet.

 

I can't see MdR meekly handing this document over and then waiting politely for the defendant's expert to declare it a fake - that drops their client right in it, not to mention their own barrister.

 

Wish I knew more about the legal implications here, but I assume none of them are good for the claimant if the document is a mock up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i can see a discontinuance on its way....go for costs ,imo i wouldnt allow them one inch to get away with the possible charge of perj? this would also put to everyone that RECONSTRUCTIONS are dead in the water ?

 

did i not read somewhere that one party can now oppose a discontinuance under CPR (for instance where it might be in the public interest for the matter to be decided)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly, I would tend to agree with you. It may well go missing, although I'm sure even the judge wouldn't believe that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was agreeing with dp77's post.

 

Other DD, that would be a good idea (unless of course they offer Shakey a six figure sum in which case he should go for it!)

 

Daniella xx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done! Subbing with interest.

x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was agreeing with dp77's post.

 

Other DD, that would be a good idea (unless of course they offer Shakey a six figure sum in which case he should go for it!)

 

Daniella xx

 

well within the bounds of possibilities that they will offer a settlement together with a gagging order

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...