Jump to content


Dissecting the Manchester Test Case....


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4625 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

A CAGger recently defended a multi track claim using the argument that the default notice was ineffective. The CAGger was successful. The Judge allowed the arrears only up to the date of claim however, the judge made the comment that the balance continues to exist and should be paid. Seems to suggest that the debt is now irredeemably unenforceable.

 

PW

 

Excellent! It's difficult to see how the OC can now claim the balance in the courts as he's already had his s87 shot.

 

Is there a link to the cagger's thread?

 

LA

;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 3.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

a cagger recently appeared in court and the judge argued that as he had not been making payments before he received an invalid DN and continued after receiving the DN not to make payments but remained silent on the matter.......that he had not- by his actions shown that his intention was to accept the unlawful repudiation- and his silence was taken to mean that he intended the agreement to endure

 

the judge commented that all he need to have done was not to have remained silent- and indicated his acceptance

 

judge lottery??

 

Cocking hell!

 

Have you got a link to that one DD?

 

LA

;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent! It's difficult to see how the OC can now claim the balance in the courts as he's already had his s87 shot.

 

Is there a link to the cagger's thread?

 

LA

;)

 

There's a thread somewhere....can't find it.

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys

 

Need some help regarding default, termination and the company still persuing payments etc

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/data-protection-default-issues/265833-help-plz-regarding-default.html

 

Thanks

 

Hadituptohere

I'm far from an expert, but learning all the time!!!!!

 

If i've been at all helpful please click my star.

 

Hadituptohere OH V Capital One, **WON**

Hadituptohere V Cabot, (providian/Monument/Barclaycard cc) - ** claim struck out ** due to non complaince of CPR, Wasted Costs applied for, Default Cost Certificate issued by Court, Warrant of excecution and CC Baliffs instructed...lol 😎

Hadituptohere V Cabot, (morgan stanley dean witter/barclays cc) - account in dispute, LBA sent to barclays, awaiting responce, no responce.

Hadituptohere V RBS, default removal x 2, case dismissed, judge used Balance of Probabilities against hard Evidence.

Hadituptohere OH v Santander, Santander issue claim in court, settled out of court via Tomlin, less solicitors fees and interest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

his name will come to me i am sure- my posts only log nback 50 pages but as soon as i remember i will post it up (somoeione else might remember)

 

i think his handle was something to do with sergeant or some such

 

Bill Shidding wasn't it??

Link to post
Share on other sites

the situation can be directly related to taking out a mortgage- the documents clearly advise you to consult a solicitor if you do not understand what you are signing

 

if you ignore that advice and sign anyway- game over (normally)

 

 

"Quote"

 

a person who signs a document, and parts with it so that it comes other hands, has a responsibility, that of the normal man of prudence, to take care what he signs, which if neglected, prevents him from denying his liability under the document according to its tenor...........

 

Lord wilberforce in Gallie V Lee (1971)

 

also........

 

... a man cannot escape from the consequences, as regards innocent third parties, of signing a document if, being a man of ordinary education and competence, he chooses to sign it without informing himself of its purport and effect...

 

Lord Jutice Scott ( Norwich & peterborough b s v steed (1992)

 

this is fine but what is being discussed here is the creditor acting unlawfully outside the terms of the agreement thereby nullifying it. It is NOT a misunderstanding between parties

 

Also even the OFT AND the FSA no longer accept the argument that the debtor must understand the terms because they signed it

Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again I would argue that in receiving a DN the debtor "should seek legal advice" was fine when there was legal aid to pay for it. As we all know that's not now possible so just how is it possible for that person, who's probably skint, able to get qualified legal help, they can't can they & the courts must take that into account when considering a case

Link to post
Share on other sites

his name will come to me i am sure- my posts only log nback 50 pages but as soon as i remember i will post it up (somoeione else might remember)

 

i think his handle was something to do with sergeant or some such

 

BILKO!:-o

 

Dibble!,

 

Kropky!!!!...

 

m2ae:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again I would argue that in receiving a DN the debtor "should seek legal advice" was fine when there was legal aid to pay for it. As we all know that's not now possible so just how is it possible for that person, who's probably skint, able to get qualified legal help, they can't can they & the courts must take that into account when considering a case

 

Agree!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most people just do not understand sections 87 & 88...

 

 

A certain firm of lawyers (I will not name them, but you wouldn't want them to administer your memorial fund), and their repellent barrister often use this point to confuse (some might say mislead) judges.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A certain firm of lawyers (I will not name them, but you wouldn't want them to administer your memorial fund), and their repellent barrister often use this point to confuse (some might say mislead) judges.

 

I am sure that, 'they' do!

Link to post
Share on other sites

this is fine but what is being discussed here is the creditor acting unlawfully outside the terms of the agreement thereby nullifying it. It is NOT a misunderstanding between parties

 

Also even the OFT AND the FSA no longer accept the argument that the debtor must understand the terms because they signed it

 

 

ah yess the OFT (remind me- did they win the case against the banks?) and the FSA

 

and where precisely will their opinions overrule the house of lords and high court rulings exaclty?

Link to post
Share on other sites

'antigone'...appears to be...gone :) having taken the hint, ECPR...what a brave soul, coming on here to post all that drivel :p

 

Almost completely off topic, contradictory and clearly inaccurate. Arguments for the other side need to have some merit to be valuable here, otherwise they're completely pointless.

 

Having clearly lost credibility with that disastrous post #2866, I suggest you keep your drivel to yourselves and go roll your snouts in your own Devil's Advocacy trough.

 

BRW thanks for crystallizing what most of us must have been thinking...;)

Edited by bustthematrix
Error

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...