Wolfy vs Howard Cohen/C L Finance

[caro]

So nothing to suggest what steps the judge might take (like striking the case out) if they fail to comply?

[bamboo2]

There is no guarantee on anythin[/b]g - the Judge will have their own opinion and information so the key is you have to decide and go for it. Make sure you have as much case law and evidence to hand as this is what is the gold dust in court - if you can show someone else has been in this arena before and made a ruling then the Judge will listen - you need to know your stuff. If the Judge has an opinion that people who try and not pay credit cards are the bad guys your case will be so much the harder - however they are a Judge and need to be mindful of the law - law is open to interpretation however.

 

So far as bringing original agreement to court - in my first case I had 3 different Judge's in different stages and they all had different opinions - anything that has been discussed in court is on tape and you can respectfully remind the Judge that if there is any doubt as to what rulings/directions/admissions have been made ( such as a witness statement) it can always be checked ( as in the case of an appeal for example). Judge's are still entitled to go against their colleagues opinion but not law or evidence given - that is a given.

 

So one Judge said they wanted the original docs and Cohen's were told that if they didn't have them - tough- they shouldn't be bringing the case to court. Mysteriously that Judge didn't hear the case directions - that was another one - then when it came to the final round there was yet another one - I don't know whether the claimant's get to choose the Judge??? Does anyone know? It could be simply how it is that the Claimant's will schedule their case when a particular Judge is working?

 

I have just had a trial ( day 1) where the Judge said that the agreement - a copy from microfiche- was legible even though he had a magnifying glass to read it and it was blown up to A5 size( and was still not legible!). The Claimant's barrister had to read the info on it to him - so he could write it down - to decide if it met the prescribed terms and I argued that it could not possibly meet a legibility definition, particularly as I said the barrister could simply be reading a script from anywhere not the original document, because there was no way anyone could read it - however going through this took a full day almost and the Judge allowed it - said it was enforceable - it was an application form without terms and conditions and I believe redacted - without the original how can we ever know.

 

Does anyone know of a legibility test or legal definition? This could be a key defence - however if it is subjective.......how can there be an argument ?

 

So Wolfy - am I correct in assuming that you have had no sight of this agreement? You would have to plead embarrassed defense and ask for an adjournment as you cannot prepare for something you haven't seen? I turned up at court and their barrister had no skeleton argument - they got a ticking off but it was still allowed to proceed. Prepare yourself to go in blind with whatever you have got - give it your best shot and prepare each argument so you know it inside out - you need to create doubt and confusion as to the validity of their claim - they have to prove it remember

[Wolfy]

I have seen a copy of the agreement, which yes is illegible ( see page one of this thread), however until now they have always said that they have the original agreement but refused inspection. As this is now before a circuit judge, which is only one down froma high court judge, I am hopeful that they will have the experiance to see through Cohen.

[bamboo2]

okidoke

so what possible reason could they have from withholding this document I wonder??? How can they justify it? Have they suddenly found a document by some miracle/ maybe it is different to the one you have seen? Maybe there are some differences? /maybe this new doc makes things legible? My guess would be that there is something on it that alludes to a condition that isn't within the framework of the doc and that would render it as unenforceable and they have had to create a whole strategy for that.

What I would like to bring to light with the Judge's is that although they always have a positive intention - I guess that they want to be seen to do the right thing, as I guess that is the foundation of why they were drawn to this position - however as in many other threads on this forum - in focusing on a small area they often do not see ( or allow other people such as the defendants) to illuminate them to the bigger picture and the bigger scheme of " not the right thing" that these debt companies are running.While focusing blame on the small fish in front of them they are missing the larger fish manipulating the system in a big way.

I caught a scenario on Watchdog the other night where alot of time and effort had gone into catching a rogue trader on a washing machine racket - very worthy cause but affecting a very small number of people. However the time bomb of debt and unprofessional ( to say the least) debt businesses that are going about their business in an extortion trade specifically targeted at vulnerable people ( don't think that is an unfair summary given that they buy these debts for tuppence and still charge the same money as the original debt wherever possible) seems to be totally invisible - a programme on this would be very worthy - maybe the political implications would be too great?

 

If we actually knew how many people are in a debt scenario and banks still trying to offload and hide it through these other companies ( and I guess this is a deliberate strategy) it probably would cause another ripple in the economic pond.

 

The banks do not want to take any responsibility for their greedy schemes.

 

One of your key arguments here is do they own this absolutely because if they are on a scheme - which I suspect most of them are - where if they fail to collect they hand back to the original creditor - then they shouldn't be bringing this case without the original creditor - they have no legal right to do it and shouldn't be wasting your time or the courts.

 

I smell an unsavoury and undeclared relationship with most of these banks and their bedfellows in debt collection - they are very good at that.....

[Wolfy]

Bamboo I don't want to give away to much as no doubt someone will be looking at this thread on Monday morning but be assured I am well prepared.

[caro]

Preparation is key to success IMHO so pleased to hear that Wolfy.