Warning. They ARE WATCHING US !

[vjohn82]

No I agree people should be made aware... I just think too much is made of the fact that they do it. I'm sure we'd all like to be a fly on the wall in the offices of the DCA that is hounding us ;-)

[rhodium78]

LOL... I agree... especially when they get your long defence or CPR request vjohn82.... LOOOOOOOL... I will be thinking.. WTF happened here! All I want is £2.00 from him and look what he is putting me through.... LOOL

[vjohn82]

Hahaha... well you know... gotta cover all bases

[oilyrag]

All institutions do it, government departments, quangos, local authorities and their town hall hitlers, large commercial interests and of course the financial institutions have whole departments of ghoulish watchers. If you need comfirmation of this just look how fast HMRC are in touch when someone dies to see how much of the estate they can get their hands on. Banks and credit card companies do it. These people even go through hatched matched and despatched columns in local newspapers therefore it should come as no surprise that they have the milk monitors watching here as well. Remember its free training for out of work holders of law degrees masquerading as "trainee solicitors" for credit card companies and outlaw DCAs.

 

regards

oilyrag.

[steve4kendal]

Whilst this is a public forum open to all and therefore anyone can look in and do whatever with what they see, is it correct behaviour for those who stand in a court of law as properly-trained advocates and use such information there? For one thing, we are all supposedly annonymous here and so these people can only guess? Further, what might the judge think when he gets sight of their letter tommorrow which admits such and shows that they are presuming and acting on this guesswork. Perhaps he wont care? Wait and see.

[diddydicky]

one could make out a case (IMO) for the fact that the communications on this forum are in fact privileged, in the sense that the poster is seeking legal advice as to the handling of his case as best he can- and given that he does not have funds to consult a lawyer.

 

IMO the disclosure by the other side of the contents of such postings would be a breach of the rights of the defendant since if he (the defendant) had intended that he would give permission to anyone else, including the other side to reproduce or refer to this in open court -then he would surely have used his real name, and not omitted identifying material from the documents he posted up on the site.

 

my argument to the court would therefore be that the defendant intended that the communications were, in the spirit of the CPR- and given that this was the only method of seeking advice for the reasons previously stated= priveliged correspondence and should not be produced to the court by the opposition.

[rhodium78]

One can always make a case... whether it will be accepted by current thinking is another matter. Litigation privilege is supposed to be "confidential" too... as in USA v Philip tobacco company or something or other.. can't remember the case participants but they did discuss litigation privilege and one of the conditions was confidentiality unfortunately.

 

I would love to see a precedent created as regards forums and litigation privilege but I am not holding my breath.

[vjohn82]

The real crux of litigation privilege diddy is that solicitors should not be breaking this "litigation privilege" - it is completely at the client's discretion whether they do so or not.

 

In other words, the ramifications for legal firms are far higher than us little CAGGER low lifes (their words... not mine)

[rhodium78]

Well... they have the most to gain unfortunately...

 

Costs/fees and reputation....

 

For normal LIPs, it's their livelihood and indebtedness.

[empowered]

Be very very careful when it comes to costs. Barrister informed judge of my log in name and thread title which he then found on his computer....and said because we'd been communicating on a forum and getting all our info/advice, which he deemed as causing extra work for ScM, and promptly awarded them their full £6K costs:eek:

[vjohn82]

Did you win your case empowered?

[cymruambyth]

No they didn't

[vjohn82]

So where's the complaint about costs then? If you lose you pay costs and conduct in and out of court is part and parcel of the conduct courts have to consider.

 

I do have trouble with the fact a defendant can be seen to be wasting the time of a claimant in posting on here because I could have many discussions with a legal rep which the claimant would not be party to. The fact the claimant has chosen to look here is a potential waste of their own time.

 

Odd decision but if you lost the case on fair grounds then you should have negotiated before it went to trial IMO.

[vjohn82]

Just read empowered's thread... very unlucky on the default notice issue... VERY unlucky indeed and I would agree that you should be appealing it. This judgement will be ripped apart by the higher court.

[harrassed senior]

Having had a very frightening experience of being 'stalked' on a web site, not CAG, it can be a terrifying series of events. It would be interesting to know when 'trolling' the various threads, would become 'stalking', and as such harrassment?

[vjohn82]

Having had a very frightening experience of being 'stalked' on a web site, not CAG, it can be a terrifying series of events. It would be interesting to know when 'trolling' the various threads, would become 'stalking', and as such harrassment?

 

Perhaps this will help when you find the other side "stalking" your threads:

 

The legal requirements for claiming litigation privilege are well established and are not in dispute. Communications between a solicitor or the client and a third party will be protected by litigation privilege where the communications are for the dominant purpose of obtaining legal advice in connection with, or conducting, litigation reasonably in prospect: Re Highgate Traders Limited [1984] BCLC 151

 

As this forum qualifies as legal advice I would argue that all exchanges here are between a client and advisor and therefore protected by litigation privilege.

[diddydicky]

i would agree- and furthermore- even if a creditor was able to identify the case from the thread- he would have no proof- nor could he ever have- from that thread- that it was the defendant in the action posting and receiving the advice (unless he has a crystal ball and knows which member of the family is using the computer)

 

if a husband has not been authorised by his wife, or vice versa to act on their behalf- then anything said or done by that person either in correspondence with the claimant, court or posts on a web site- have no more value or authority than any other poster on the forum

 

in other words- the creditor may well be able to identify a case on a forum- but it would be a simple matter to prevent him putting that before a judge unless he has cast iron proof as to who was actually making the posts under that handle

 

and if it was restons- since they are so "concerned" about identity that they will only respond to signed letters- they would shoot themselves right in the foot if they tried this on in court!!

[hardboiled]

My god are these people really that desperate.

[sillygirl1]

On one of the payday loan cases the claimants defence is that the poster has a thread on this website and therefore they are NOT going to be paying - what the thread actually says is that the poster DOES want to pay but not the over inflated amount.

 

We have used this in the defence stating that it is not illegal to post on an open forum.