RBS Ordinary Cause Citation - old Business Loan With Personal Guarantee

[leedoe]

Hi George i see your options hearing was on the 22nd so the "record" would be closed so how did the pursuers get these docs into probate:confused:

[seriously fed up]

George, maybe I am missing something here, but how bad is this?

If we go through their responses to your defence point by point, it looks something like this

 

re personal guarantee not being covered by the Consumer Credit Act - unfortunately they may be right in this. For one thing the loan was originally a business loan and for another they werent supplying you (personally) with credit.

 

On the other hand, a guarantor is guaranteeing something and not to be able to to demonstrate the terms and conditions of this agreement does seem to me to still be something of a problem for them (the CCA or not notwithstanding).

 

It also seems a bit of nonsense that if they had taken action against your company the claim would have been dismissed as they couldnt produce the original loan document - so they would take action against you for a loan they cant enforce against the original debtor?

 

Sounds a bit odd to me - but maybe not to the Sheriff. So maybe not great, but still something there?

 

passing your personal details to another party sounds a bit technical to me. Have a look in the guarantee agreement they have sent you. Does this allow them to pass your personal details on?

 

The thing is, if the loan is with your company, there is no dispute there - it takes two to tango! The issue is what the limits of their legal rights are under the terms of the guarantee document. But, I dont see this as a big deal

unlike this - this COULD be the poison pill for them.

 

You have alleged that they have failed to produce the original documents and they have replied "Denied under explanation that the Pursuer has produced a copy of the Personal Guarantee upon which they found in the original action".

 

However, and here I am relying on your judgement of your signature, you can argue not only that they have done no such thing, but they have through submission to the court of their action, and the provision of these documents arguably attempted to commit fraud (uttering a document with a signature which they aver to be yours - when its not).

 

This is why you need good professional opinion, because if you stand up in court and say its not your signature, then they are going to say (to quote Mandy Rice-Davies - Profumo affair) "well he would say that, wouldnt he?" Of course you could produce endless examples of your signature, comparisons etc - but a professional opinion is going to be so much better.

 

On this, in particular, you really should get on to Paul that no loan was made to the company.

 

What evidence have they produced here? I suppose they can produce bank statements etc, showing lending and some repayments took place. Problem is that as it was a business loan, the CCA wont apply. But still - what loan?

 

What were the terms?

 

It would be a great deal more powerful if the loan had been to you as an individual (as the CCA would apply), but I would have thought the rules of evidence would still require evidence of what it is that they are requiring you to pay up on as the guarantor. One other connected point here, I was doing some digging on the rights of guarantors and somewhere or other

 

(I think it was another similar site whose name we dare not use here as it causes upset) someone had posted who was in a similar (but not identical) position to your own, who advised to check their sums for what they are claiming. He was getting hit for about £39k, but on checking the details of what they were claiming for he got it down to £26k.

 

Worth a thought if it comes to that as above, they do seem correct in arguing that the Consumer Credit Act does not cover personal guarantee.

 

HOWEVER, that does not lead directly to the conclusion that the OFT guidance doesnt apply here. The Guidance does indeed refer to the CCA, and to the granting of credit licences, but it also says (para 1.7) that "This guidance applies to all consumer credit licence holders and applicants".

 

I would have thought that this group would include RBS? Moreover, while the original agreement was a business agreement, they are pursuing you as a consumer and thus they should surely take this guidance into account. Again, though I dont think this is critically important.

Banking code - pass. Dont know anything about this

As for your replies to their condescendence

 

you admit court jurisdiction

you are asking them to come up with the documents to prove the debt. To the best of my knowledge they havent done this. They have though come up with a "copy" of your guarantee (and I have just had notice of Leedoe's post asking how, if the record had been closed how did they get these two documents into evidence - I would like an explanation of this as well) which is probably fraudulent. BUT YOU NEED THE EVIDENCE MATE!

 

you have been making payments - this shows that you are not just ignoring the matter which will get you a gold star from the court. But take the evidence of this with you - statements etc.

So, as I say, I dont think its all that bad

 

how can they seek to enforce a guarantee for a loan that they cant enforce against the original debtor because they dont have the papers? Bit anomalous (to put it mildly)

 

But the big one is that they are trying to commit fraud with the documents that they have just sent to you. Besides what sort of bother (and I mean their solicitors and not just the bank) they can get into for this, it kind of blows their case away.

 

So, yes you will have to work within the Record - but it might not be all that bad if you get the evidence sorted out.

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello George1958!

 

Thanks for the PM, I regret the Scottish system is way beyond me, but happy to help with any of the basics that are common to most cases.

 

Will keep an eye out, and will jump in to help whenever I can.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[Monty2007]

Hi George

 

I have had a look at your Rule 22.1 Note and cannot see why it would be repelled. It is correctly drafted as far as I can see - was it submitted on time?

 

The Record is very standard and basic, that is why you have a legal debate but you need to get them onto the validity of the documentation which SFU has highlighted is key here and I agree. You need to demonstrate that they have provided a reconstructed document and pull it apart during the legal debate.

 

The OCR process is relatively easy to follow - have you read Hennessey's book on Scottish Civil Litigation? A big title but it is really well written so the basics of process can be understood.

 

My case never got to legal debate so I only know the theory and preparation since I was days away.

 

The legal debate will be led by the Pursuers, you need to have copies of everything you seek to rely on and particuarly copies of the statues and case precedents that you intend to use.

 

Be prepared to argue your case in relation to the CCA and supporting SI and cases, they are all in the thread and you will need to be able just address the key points.

 

I would state that the reconstructed agreement that they have presented is incompetent evidence and stick to that point with the CCA supporting the need for a properly executed agreement in order to enforce.

 

What have the Pursuers sent as their Inventory of Productions?

 

Don't get rattled by the process, for what its worth the Scottish system is easier and more fair than in England. Hence even if you lose the legal debate you get a second chance at the Proof which is where all the evidence is led. The legal debate will just focus on the documentation. You have SFU and BRW on the case and I will re-read the thread and try to see if there is anything else that may be worth considering.

 

When the Sheriff directed my legal debate he stated which parts of the pleas-in-law would form the legal debate (numbered) - did he do the same for you?

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello George1958!

 

I've just re-read the Thread, to try and catch up!

 

This is not direct help, but having just refreshed my Walnut, I thought if I Posted a summary of how I see the key factors, it may help others to stay with this via a simple Summary, so, here goes:

 

 

SUMMARY

 

• Limited Company set up.
  

 

• Limited Company took out an Overdraft with RBS, although there is no sign of a Written Overdraft Agreement between RBS and the Limited Company. This is hard to believe, because it was between RBS and a Limited Company, not between RBS and an individual, so I cannot imagine any bank allowing such an arrangement to be made verbally, i.e. without immediately reducing it to writing the second the arrangement had been agreed verbally.
  

 

• 2004 Limited Company reduced activity and effectively stopped Trading although was not dissolved.
  

 

• RBS extended the Overdraft. No sign of a revised Written Overdraft Agreement to cover the extension.
  

 

• 2007 RBS claim you signed a Personal Guarantee for the Limited Company's Overdraft.
  

 

• For whatever reason, you have been paying towards this Debt, later via an arrangement made with a Consumer Credit Support Group of some sort.
  

 

• 2009 Limited Company dissolved (having not been active since 2004).
  

 

• 2009 Despite your regular monthly payments, RBS came chasing after you for the Limited Company's Overdraft plus Charges plus Interest, based on the Personal Guarantee they say you signed (which they later dated 2007 once they produced some paperwork they claim to be copies of the original papers).
  

 

• 2009 Court Action Commenced.
  

 

I think that's the basics covered, although I'm not sure if the Limited Company's Overdraft was extended before or after they say you signed the Personal Guarantee. If you could let me know, I will edit this Summary, just to help others follow the basics.

 

Moving on...

 

 

2010 During the Legal proceedings, RBS have somehow managed to slip in two Documents to support their claim, namely:

 

• 2007 COPY OF...Personal Guarantor signed by what looks like your Signature, although you seem sure you never actually signed this.
  

 

• 2007 COPY OF..Waiver of Legal Advice signed by what does not look like your Signature, and again, you are sure you never signed this anyway, never having seen it before.
  

 

RBS do not appear to have tried to enforce the Overdraft against the Limited Company, nor against the Directors of that Company. Instead, they have gone straight for you, and yet they do not seem to have any sign of a Written Agreement for the Overdraft, nor one for the later extension to that Overdraft. All they seem to have is two Documents (both recently found and neither formed part of this when they started their Claim against you) relating to a Personal Guarantee, neither of which you believe you signed. One even has a Signature which you say is not even yours.

 

As I see it, this whole case rests on the paperwork, or the lack of it when it comes to the original Limited Company's Overdraft:

 

 

• RBS do not have an Agreement for the Limited Company's Overdraft. I think it inconceivable that a bank would allow a Limited Company to set up an Overdraft on the basis of a Verbal Agreement. Who from the Company made that Verbal Agreement? Who from the bank? It would have had to be an Officer of the Company on the one side and, obviously, an Officer of the bank on the other. It is VIP that you raise this issue. This was not a Private Overdraft, it was a Company Overdraft. A Company is a Legal Entity, one that cannot speak for itself thus, someone had to do the speaking for it. Likewise, a bank is also a Legal Entity, one that also cannot speak for itself thus, someone also had to do the speaking for the bank.
  

 

• No bank in their right mind would not make damned sure they covered their backsides when extending credit to a Legal Entity that was not human. Perhaps this Overdraft was arranged via the Company's Cleaner, and the bank's Tea Lady? I think RBS are taking the pith trying to claim there was no Written Agreement. The reality is far more likely they were so inefficient they never bothered to secure one! If so, then what is the Personal Guarantee guaranteeing?
  
  

 

• RBS have produced what appears to be highly dubious documents in relation to the Personal Guarantee they are claiming you signed in 2007, i.e. well after the Limited Company had become inactive, and after they had extended the Overdraft without any sign of any further Agreement in relation to that extension. It looks to me that their paperwork is deficient in that respect also.
  
  

 

That, I think, is both me and the Thread caught up on the basics! Please let me know if anything is out of sequence or incorrect.

 

I hope this helps.

 

Cheers,

BRW

Edited March 6, 2010 by banker_rhymes_with
Clarity

[George1958]

Many thanks to all who have posted.

 

My laptop keeps cutting out after 5 minutes or so.

 

I'm going down to the local library tomorrow to hog theirs, I've no doubt I'll be called a few names by the other silver surfers.

 

Many thanks again, it really is appreciated.

 

Kind regards

 

George

[seriously fed up]

Just tell them to **** off George. :eek:

OOOOOOOOOOOOOppppppppppppppssssssssssss - forgot you are in Edinburgh! :rolleyes::rolleyes: Well you tell them to "go away!" :D:D:D:D

[George1958]

Good evening all, and in particular SFU, Monty and BRW

 

I've been off-shore for more than the past few days working liking a dog trying to keep on top of my Debt Management Plan, just so I can demonstrate to the Sherrif I was/am serious about not shirking responsibility.

 

At long last I have managed to get a replacement laptop and it's good to be back on the forum. I have had this feeling of impending doom dragging along behind me wherever I go.

 

Maybe being off-line was a good thing as it allowed me to re-focus a bit, I have no doubt I have been well and truly stitched up by the bank, I just hope I have the capacity to convey that to the sherrif and therebye convince him/her that I'm not some chancer trying to run away from the debt.

 

I still have trouble getting my head around a Personal Guarantee (PG) signed in March 2007 for a company who's last published accounts were to March 2004. One thing I positively know is that I did not sign that PG for a company that had no money going through the account.

 

I'm a big guy and been able in the past to extract myself from dangerous situations when the adrenalin kicked in, however the knees never shook as much as they are shaking now.

 

Speak to you all soon

 

Regards

 

George

[andrew1]

As a matter of interest. At what point in this procedure is it likely that RBS would put a Charging Order in against a Directors Guarantee - I appreciate you dispute ever receiving this document or signing it, but once it was passed on to their Debt Management or Collections/Litigation department would it be likely they would do this do you think?

[seriously fed up]

Good man George - got to keep going, because you have a good case. I think BRW has done us all a good turn with his summary, and from this the part that stands out to me - in addition to how likely is a bank to extend an overdraft to a non-trading business and how stupid are you going to have to be to guarantee it? - are the phony sigs on the guarantee document. If this can be proven (and you DO NEED to prove this - you MUST get professional evidence and not just assert) then its not only end of case for them, but disciplinary action for the solicitors at the Law Society for being involved in uttering fraudulent evidence, plus possibly an action by you against RBS for damages for putting forward fraudulent evidence.

Keep right on to the end of the road!

With you

SFU

[sequenci]

 

They cannot. We're talking Scotland here, they could register an inhibition if there is a defaulted decree.

[andrew1]

 

Could they do it if it were England then?

[IdaInFife]

an inhibition can be ordered as soon as a decree is granted and they do not have to wait for a decree to be defaulted

 

in England, a ccj has to be defaulted fo them to apply for a charging order

[sequenci]

 

Thanks for that, my Scottish knowledge isn't very hot!

 

I owe ya!

[andrew1]

 

Ditto , thanks..my English neither!

[sequenci]

 

haha

 

I guess a creditor could apply for a Charging Order in a judgment hasn't been defaulted (and they sure try it!) - the onus would be on the defendant to raise the argument that the judgment is no in default citing Section 86(1) The County Courts Act 1984:

 

Where the court has made an order for payment of any sum of money by instalments, execution on the order shall not be issued until after default in payment of some instalment according to the order.

 

You would then go on to mention Mercantile Credit V Ellis which reinforces that rule.

[George1958]

Thanks everyone for all the information supplied.

 

I will be following up the signature/handwriting pointer soon as.

 

Going back to a possible charge on the house, there is not one at present but I have no doubt they will be one of their targets. Another target they may have is sequestration.

 

Just before I sign off for the evening, I would like to say many thanks again for the support and advice.

 

Kind regards

 

George

[George1958]

Right here goes!!

 

My Debate is less than a week away, and it's with me every minute of every day. You name it, lack of sleep, bad eating, caffeine-infused days, and an irritability to match the most grumpiest of old men, these things all make for a thoroughly miserable time.

 

I have cut myself off from those who are close, to concentrate on me, selfish I know but it's been the only way I've been able to get to this stage, well that and throwing myself into my work.

 

What would help was if I knew what to expect at Debate, and having the correct timing and oratory skills to put the facts of the case.

 

I dread the opposition and the sherriff saying my arguements are irrelevant due to some legality that I messed up on or not been aware of.

 

I have formed my arguments, tried to imagine counter-arguments, made copious notes, ranted at every RBS I have driven past, made various hand gestures at every RBS advert and caption on telly.

 

I have been consumed, well if I wasn't so fat and gristled I would be consumed.

 

Anyway what would really help is if I could get a pointer on what to expect at Debate.

 

Kind regards

 

George

[seriously fed up]

george attached to this is a scan of the chapter in hennessy that deals with debates. This is about the best I can do, as I have never been involved at this stage. I hope it helps.

From a quick look at it, I think the most relevant parts (though I would read it all - other than perhaps the section on the court of session!) are 17.10 - 17.12, and in 17.12, I would particularly draw point 6 to your attention.

If i have time over the next few days I will have a look at this chapter myself - perhaps others might care to have a look and offer advice based on a reading of this chapter and their knowledge of George's case.

hennessy 17.pdf

[George1958]

Good evening All

 

Thanks for the attachment SFU, I was reading that part myself last night from Hennessey, until the eyes started to make the words go all blurry.

 

Anyway, again many thanks for posting so late at night/ early in the morning. I was just rising from my slumber about then to drive to Thurso for an 8 o' clock start. At risk of sounding like The Proclaimers song, after driving more than 500 miles I came home to a huge letter from the Agent for the Pursuer.

 

This saga has more twists and turns than the F1 circuit at Monaco.

 

The cover letter and Minute of Amendment are attached, but it states there is a Minute of Amendment enclosed, and that the Sheriff will be asked to allow the Minute of Amendment.

 

The bank has produced a Personal Guarantee signed and dated by myself in April 2005 for £16K, on behalf of my old company whose last submitted accounts to Companies House was March 2004.

 

I can remember signing documents on that date, and can also remember telling my so-called "Business Advisor" of my plans to effectively cease trading towards the end of 2005, and needing financial help to launch a new company. At no time can I remember signing the PG, although it seems and looks like I did. As an aside this new Company is still going strong and is profitable.

 

This PG differs slightly from the one dated March 2007, in that the word "copy" does not appear anywhere in the document. This 2005 PG has been produced after me being sent a letter from RBS stating that they cannot locate any documents.

 

I'm now off to read Hennessey again, but I would be really glad of some input, however negative that input may be. Hopefully Hennessey will state somewhere I can oppose the Minute of Amendment.

 

I really feel that the bank has bent more than a few rules to generate some business and not acted in my best interests, however I honestly feel I have been well and truly "stitched up" , and presently being well and truly "stitched up" by their solicitors and not being able to do anything about it.

 

Please advise guys, Wits-End is next stop on this journey.

 

Kind Regards

 

George

XX Letter Dated XX Mar 2010.PDF

[seriously fed up]

George the only thing that is attached is a note from the OS advising that they will be asking the court to admit these documents. If you want to oppose it you will need to fill out form G9 (you can get this here - http://www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si1996/Uksi_19962445_en_2.htm - scroll down and you'll find it - need to copy it to a blank Word doc and away you go) and get it round to the court as soon as - or you could oppose at the hearing. They will then complain that you didnt put in your notice of opposition (G9) soon enough, but I think, bearing in mind that the debate is set for Tuesday and you got this stuff today (Thursday), giving you tops four clear days (including the weekend) to respond to this, you would have a good case asking for a continuance.

They really are starting to take the **** on this now. For one thing the Record is supposed to be closed. They will though punt this as crucial evidence that should be admitted - but its not difficult to imagine them jumping up and down if you did the same thing to them. You want to give them as hard a time as you possibly can on this. I would oppose on the grounds of their short notice and that the record is closed and this is contrary to established procedure (unless lawyers use the word closed in a different way from the rest of us) - also they got a continuance last time. Interests of justice etc. However that might just be delaying things (not that that is a bad thing necessarily as long as in the interim we can knock up a defence to blow them away).

However yes, it is getting very confusing - especially at this time of night. Can you advise what it looks as if they are relying on now?

 

1. the personal guarantee that has remarkably floated to the surface just four days before debate, how does this relate to things? Is this your guarantee for the original overdraft? Or for the extended one?
   
2. the fact they have said earlier that they cant locate anything earlier is unfortunate, but there is not much you can do about it - "glory be - we have found it at last"
   
3. what does this do for the other personal guarantee that they put into court and on which their application is based according to their POCs? Will they be taking that out of consideration? If they do does that not reduce the amount they would be chasing you for? Think it was originally 31k so if that document only supports 16K then if they want more they will have to rely on the second guarantee. I would guess they will.
   
4. If they try that then I really hope you have done something about getting the sig on that forensically examined to establish beyond doubt that its not yours - PLEASE tell me that you have George. This would give you the basis for all sorts - for one thing they are uttering a fraudulent document - at the very least its got to cast their other documents in a poor light - and at worst they could end up back in the Sheriff Court on a criminal charge.
   
5. Does this new guarantee look kosher. Dont forget you can do good stuff with Photoshop. For instance - and I just offer this as a remote possibility - you sign guarantee for new business's overdraft, so they take this, make digital copy and with Photoshop insert old company name. Does that sound feasible - and more importantly does it look feasible? Will they be producing the ORIGINAL - not an original copy, but the original ORIGINAL - you cant **** with that!
   

What I was doing before coming to your thread and finding this - so I kind of know how you felt when you got that letter was to look at the Record and how you might address some of the points there:

 

• your response to their condescendence 2 is that they cant produce the terms of agreement, signed by anyone. Now the problem for you here is that a business overdraft is not covered by the CCA, but it is still a contract, and the essence of contract - as opposed to a "unilateral promise" which can be oral - is that its bilateral. So, Mr Bank, where's the proof? The limitation of this is that they will be able to show that lending took place. HOwever, you might still want to press them on whether they could enforce the agreement againts the company - other than the fact its closed down. Suppose it was still going and just not paying back the overdraft, even though the money was there. Could they enforce it without an agreement? If they couldnt, why should they be able to enforce the guarantee against you? Can you enforce a guarantee for an account which isnt enforceable against the original borrower?
  
• more importantly, they are pursuing you as an individual. Now its quite clear that a business overdraft isnt covered by the CCA. But there are "personalising" this by bringing an action against you as an individual. This its ARGUABLE - and I would go no further than this - that the CCA does operate in these circumstances. In other words you might want to argue that as CCA s8 says "8.—(1) A personal credit agreement is an agreement between an individual (" the debtor") and any other person (" the creditor") by which the creditor provides the debtor with credit of any amount. (2) A consumer credit agreement is a personal credit agreement by which the creditor provides the debtor with credit not exceeding £5,000. (3) A consumer credit agreement is a regulated agreement within the meaning of this Act if it is not an agreement (an " exempt agreement") specified in or under section 16." I wouldnt like to give you a guarantee that you will get away with this however - but its worth a try.
  
• Another similar angle depends on the status of what you describe as your "company". Was this a limited company? Or by any chance were you a sole trader/ partnership? If the latter then the CCA does apply. They can call the overdraft whatever they want, but the fact is that they were lending this money to you personally - because YOU were the business!
  
• I still think your best bet is to challenge them on their documentation - as the Banker has said, how likely is it that a bank is not going to have an agreement for a 31k overdraft? Saying that these can be organized over the phone - yes maybe in outline agreement, but I would be pretty sure that they would want to get you in to sign something later on so that they could take you to court if you defaulted. But they are not coming up with this - but they are coming up with your personal guarantees?
  
• Ah yes the personal guarantees. Have you had these looked at by handwriting experts? if they have been and they have concluded that the sig is NOT your own then they have committed a criminal act of forgery and someone could end up in court under s5 (4) (a) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. I would guess the bank - cant see the sols getting in the way of that one - "we didnae ken". But they might get their knuckles rapped by the Law Society if you complained. Please say you have had these sigs analysed because it really is a big point for you which could get the whole case thrown out if the Sheriff is sufficiently ****ed off with them (which he should be btw)
  
• lastly, again as banker pointed out, what they hell were they doing practically doubling the overdraft for a company which had ceased trading three years earlier. Surely you have to demonstrate some sort of credit worthiness, but the fact is that in an active business sense it didnt exist at that point. It would have been bad enough doubling it if it were in trouble, but this was a "dead parrot"
  

Eye on the ball George!

SFU

[George1958]

Good Morning SFU

 

I had found form G9, and was researching to see if this form was applicable in my case, thanks for confirming that it is.

 

The PG for £16K seems to be a copy of an original, whilst the second PG is a copy of a copy. The reason for me stating this is that the second PG states copy, whilst the first PG does not. However, that does not mean to say that an original will appear on the day, they could have just tippexed out the word "copy".

 

If my life depended on it, I would have to say that the first PG looks more real and appliable than the second PG.

 

With regard to getting the signatures forensically examined, I could not afford it at £85 + VAT per hour, with a minimum of 5 hours. However, the girl was kind enough to say, "Why would someone bother forging a signature when it is so easy to copy and paste from one document to another?" I couldn't ask my parents for another £500.

 

I will try an attach the Minute of Amendment this evening, however it basically was changing the status of Personal Guarantee from singular to plural, therefore I would surmise they will be relying on both submitted documents.

 

I have made so many notes that I now need to sit down and file them in some order.

 

Thanks again SFU

 

George

[seriously fed up]

OK "homework" for the weekend George

 

1. yes you must get your notes into order - but to do that you need to come to a view about how best to present your case at the debate. Read the Hennessy chapter - you will be going first
2. re sigs - pity - but I see your point. What I would suggest is getting examples of your sig to cast doubt on the veracity of the copies and at the very least putting them to strict proof which will require them to come up with originals - not just copies. Depending on who the Sheriff is what they are like, they might at least be sympathetic, or in some cases insist on it. On the other hand, one doc was signed three years ago (or thereby) and the other six years ago (or thereby) - I dont know that my sig is the same now as it was then. These things change. But by casting doubt and requiring originals they cant play about with Photoshop - has to be the real thing
3. push them on the overdraft agreement - where is it? As banker says, is a bank really going to effectively lend 16k and not get anything signed. Yes there might be agreement on the phone, but surely they would require to come in afterwards to sign the documents (to completely the formalities)
4. in terms of how to structure your argument for the debate, you will need to stick fairly close to the record, but not slavishly - for instance "no, ok a business overdraft doesnt get the protection of the CCA, but you are now pursuing me as an individual, so it does (you can argue)". But it needs to be clear and it needs to be logical - it would also be good if it could take into account to some extent hwo they might respond. The six bullet points i put in my last post all came from a review of the pleadings of both sides in the record. I am sure you have other points of your own, but I hope they are helpful.

Going to be a long weekend George, but soon be over. I still think the documents and the sigs are important.

SFU

 

Been looking at Mcleod (Consumer law) who has a section on the rights of guarantors. The key section appears to be that the liability of a surety (guarantor) is subject to a number of formal restrictions -

 

1. the guarantee must be evidenced by a signed note - presumably by the surety - so its your sig again George
2. the secured party must first call on the borrower to make good before turning to the surety - have they bothered to do this and can they show this? The fact they dont seem to have a signed agreement for the overdraft could be problematic in them doing so?

[LOVETHEBANKS]

How did you get on with the debate?

[leedoe]

how did you get on at debate George?