Next Directory and bailiffs help please.

[pt2537]

well, the SOGA is irrelevent, the sale of goods act 1979 as amended deals primarily with the sale of good, it implies terms into consumer contracts, it requires that goods are fit for purpose, as described, etc etc

 

it doesnt deal with the issues which are before the court here, the issue is that they are trying to sue to recover monies for goods supplied on credit under a regulated agreement

 

as for saying ive let myself down, well im merely trying to point out that sometimes, people come on here, read and regurgitate parrot fashion in court and when the other sides advocate throws a spanner in the works, because of a lack of understanding of the subject which they are arguing the person then becomes stuffed as hes been taken off of the CAG script

 

you need to know and understand the subject which you are arguing, so as to be able to counter any attempts from your opponent to take you off track, you need to be able to argue the case

 

and as for "we are not legally trained, so i dont need to defend sarnie2109 the same as you would" well i disagree, the duty is on YOU to take the law to the courts attention, the judge is there to apply the law to the facts as the judge finds them,

 

so the judge will not research the law, it is for you in your submissions to put forward your arguments not for the judge to do the work for you

 

sorry if you dont like what im saying, would you prefer me to say that everythings fine and set you up for a huge fall?

[troubleman]

thanks PT thats made far more sense, i wasnt having a go or trying to be rude.

 

as i say i have a lot of cases going around in my head, and im not trained like you....... but yes i take your point about the scripts from CAG hence my Q's

 

the point about the othersides advocate bringing up a 'spanner' i would simply say that it is not relevant to this case and could we please stick to the facts relating to this case, this case is run on credit and credit alone, so where is the CCA as thats what we are here today to discuss and you client has already admitted that they do not have one, you client has made a grave mistake in allowing credit to be given before the correct procedures had been completed as laid out in the CCAct.

 

i understand a fair amount relating to the CCA, not like you, but then i dont live and breath it 24/7 like you, its just i wanted, if there was any, points that we could bring up if the SOGA is brought up by the advocate and if he tries pushing that point.

 

if you can think of what points/sections, not because their correct, but just think like the otherside for me for a second PT and how/what sections of the SOGA would they feel helps them.. so i can read them and find sections of CCAct or SOGA to retaliate with. but yes i agree soga is not relevant but not being trained i wouldnt be able to retaliate as eloquently as you in regards to the CCAct so would be nice to be able to make some good points as to why the other side should stop going on about the SOGA, make sense??

 

then get the hearing back on the track of the CCA.

 

Appreciate you point about having to show the judge the law, they wont read up on it, but they did say they would take our not being legally trained into account, think she meant give us more time to speak and explain our point and look at references i have highlighted in the CCAct i have printed which we will take with us to court. I ownt be expecting any of that though.

 

i wouldnt expect ANY judge to do anything for me ever!

with respect, ive never seen a DJ thats ever known what hes gone on about to be honest, my point about if we get a cocky/clever lawyer who says the right 'sounding' points and the DJ thinks 'oh well he knows the law and these two debt dodgers are clutching at straws' the DJ will go with his law society mate, the lawyer, im not having a dig in regards to your profession here PT, its just life, wrong! but life.

 

And its not i didnt/dont like what you were saying, christ ive had far worse said to me, and my back is like rhino skin believe me.

Its just i didnt get an 'answer' just you telling me stuff we already knew and not answering my points, no offence meant or taken:).( i respect your opinion and knowledge buddy!)

 

Basicly i think, you think of this from 'your' point of view, with your knowledge. and how you handle yourself and cases in the court room..... ours will go through same procedure but it will be different because your not representing her, i am, and im not legaly trained. (i made a point of saying this last time, and she said thats fine we will take that into account and she was pretty good, not that we were in there long.)

Anyway, my point being and agreeing with yours, about my level of knowledge being a weakness in the court room against the lawyer and his 'spanners' is .....

help me fatten up my arsenal against his SOGA points he will make or enlighten me to where you think they me come from in regard to the SOGA, rightly or wrongly, but if i have an inkling of thier stand point i have a much better chance of not f&^%ing it up.

 

Im only asking about the SOGA, not because i dont understand its not relevant, BUT when i called(recorded) them the other day after getting their paperwork from the court asking for the re-hearing, the guy said hang on ill get the notes......... we have request the case be relisted for evidence to be filed, i asked him for their reasons for doing that, as next say they dont have a CCA,,,,he replied the claimant is looking into your WS and this isnt sued under a CCA matter its not run under that, its sued under a catalogue based account and so we will be defending on services and goods supplied.

there isnt a CCA agreement with next! you apply online or through a magazine or news paper article, nothing is signed.

 

so i said well next gave credit, so its run under the terms of a CCA, he said what do you mean, so i say something is ordered next supply it and its paid for the following month= credit.

he then just backed of and said he will be getting all the documents from next in regard to the WS and will be taken from there (so they may well back out, maybe just maybe! but i doubt it) so i asked him again what exactly are they basing their claims on, he said hang on then said same again, services and goods provided under a catalogue with them.

 

so as you can see their very keen on the idea!!

 

surely these muppets know SOGA's not right:rolleyes:

 

also been thinking of asking you if it would be productive to write to cohens and say listen, here are the facts, are you really wanting to go to court? or do you advise against and wait for court PT

 

 

I always prefer to be told what i NEED to know not what i want to hear

 

Mucho Appreciate your time and opinion on this PT:)

Edited February 20, 2010 by troubleman

[troubleman]

oh forgot to say i included with the WS to court and sent a copy to cohens the video from the BBC news website calledd .. warning "secret" store cards .. in which it shows how the site fools you into a credit based account its only 2.5 mins long but is very good, i wonder what cohens will think after seeing that.

 

BBC NEWS | Business | Warning over 'secret' store card debts

[pt2537]

it may assist to write to them and set out the case, also place them on notice that if they proceed to a contested hearing in full knowledge of the fact that they will not succeed then you may be represented and may seek costs as a result of their unreasonable conduct.

 

Invite them to discontinue the matter, you may be surprised what they do

 

I cant assist any further, im not feeling too well, so i am retiring for the evening

[troubleman]

now were getting somewhere :D thanks !!! it was proably me not explaining/typing it out properly, i hate typing.

 

Ok so i think i need to have more confidence in my gut feelings and what ive learnt with all these CCA stuff.

RE the letter to cohens, im glad you agree, thats how i seeit, cohens are told by next to 'go get our money' and as of yet cohens dont know 'this' account does fall under the CCAct, but think when they get the WS from next and then a letter from us......... fingers crossed.

 

Glad were on the same wave lenght now and hope ive not offended you.

 

hope you feel better!

 

thanks again.

[RaeUK]

...With all due respect to those that have kindly helped us, we have got this far and now we are at the important/difficult stage all the replies and help seem to have dropped off and seem to have been left to help ourselves which i think is not doing this site or the people using it any good at all...

 

troubleman, asking for advice about bailiffs on a bailiff forum will - not surprisingly - elicit many responses about bailiffs. Asking for advice regarding consumer or credit law on a bailiff forum will attract far fewer replies. Should you require it, there appears to be a very good legal forum on this site...

Best wishes.

Rae.

Edited February 20, 2010 by RaeUK
type o

[troubleman]

troubleman, asking for advice about bailiffs on a bailiff forum will - not surprisingly - elicit many responses about bailiffs. Asking for advice regarding consumer or credit law on a bailiff forum will attract far fewer replies. Should you require it, there appears to be a very good legal forum on this site...

Best wishes.

Rae.

 

the thread has progressed from bailiffs, if you feel it should be moved,or would benefit from the move then be my guest . i think its linked from there anyway.

It's sarnie2109's thread, im helping her with the others she has on the other part of the forum.

 

thanks.

[RaeUK]

Au contraire, I have been reading throughout the life of this thread. It doesn't need moving but, as the advice has naturally trickled down due to the progression of subject, I was musing that perhaps you'd gain more response on a more specialist forum. But if you're doing that already then all is well

Best wishes.

Rae

[sarnie2109]

I would like to say a HUGE thank you to everyone for there input but especially PT who took on this for me after Cohens decided to take me back to court.

Today Cohens have discontinued on behalf of Next Directory. :D

 

Thank you so much PT for everything, you have been fantastic, THANK YOU.

[RaeUK]

Well done sarnie and PT

I do like good news...

Best wishes

Rae.

[ploddertom]

For those who think this may refer to me I'm afraid it is not me but a member of the site team pt2537 who should be thanked for his enormous contribution.

 

PT

[RaeUK]

I sit corrected! Well done pt2537.

 

(PT can, of course, have a big handfull of congratulations for what he does here nonetheless! )

 

Rae.

[empowered]

I would like to say a HUGE thank you to everyone for there input but especially PT who took on this for me after Cohens decided to take me back to court.

Today Cohens have discontinued on behalf of Next Directory. :D

 

Thank you so much PT for everything, you have been fantastic, THANK YOU.

 

 

Well done! Did this result from PT's suggestion in #104 above to write and suggest they discontinue?

[pt2537]

lets just say, i wrote to them and they decided not to fight on

[empowered]

lets just say, i wrote to them and they decided not to fight on

 

thanks PT. Currently stuck between a rock and a hard place:p Have consulted local sols who have warned me that representation at final trial on 9th April would be at least £4K and could rise. Wanted to use them as I don't want to fall at the final hurdle but think I'm going to have to do it myself:(

[sarnie2109]

Empowered I HIGHLY reccomend PT2537, he's amazing!!

[pt2537]

thanks PT. Currently stuck between a rock and a hard place:p Have consulted local sols who have warned me that representation at final trial on 9th April would be at least £4K and could rise. Wanted to use them as I don't want to fall at the final hurdle but think I'm going to have to do it myself:(

what is the amount in question?

[empowered]

£5600 + claimants costs of £3K. Bank should read BOS and not RBS!

Basically they don't have original agreement as confirmed in their WS, sent copy of blank template DN only, with computer records showing that it was sent out plus there are about £700 of charges in the amount they are seeking to claim. Sols are SCM in Hove.

 

Here's my thread

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/158754-court-action-rbs-aa.html

 

Many thanks, Debs