RBS Mint Loan - Court Action Started & Dodgy DN issues

[Bigdebtor]

I agree with GH - they have treaste dyou very badly - totally disrespectfully. This is just their cat and mouse act at work.

 

I would check out the train situation to confirm if a train journey this morning was possible for them - as "unable" might just be "couldn't be *rsed". If it actually was quite easy to get from their offices to court then I would let the Judge know that - and that you had tried to contact them to ascertain if they were going to turn up.

 

BD

[car2403]

I'm not one for peeing on bonfires, but it's entirely possible it's the Barrister that can't get to their place of work to then get to the Station to be prepared for the hearing.

 

On the other hand, I've probably had one too many mulled wines - don't worry, I'm not batting for the other side! (Not yet, anyway, as the pay cheque isn't big enough!)

[Bigdebtor]

Car

 

I agree that is a possible situation - but that doesn't excuse their high handedness in ignoring Pumpy and letting her make a very difficult journey when they knew it was going to be a waste of time and money as they weren't going to be there themselves.

 

I still think it could be worth finding out the travel situation between their office and the Court - even just as a poke in the eye that this one is NOT going to take anything lying down. Any chance of Pumpy claiming wasted costs and LIP time for this morning?

 

BD

 

PS I don't like mulled wine myself on principle - I don't think any God-given drink should be adulterated or diluted - it's quite weak enough already! In any case the purer the drink the less the hang over!

[gh2008]

I'm not one for peeing on bonfires, but it's entirely possible it's the Barrister that can't get to their place of work to then get to the Station to be prepared for the hearing.

 

On the other hand, I've probably had one too many mulled wines - don't worry, I'm not batting for the other side! (Not yet, anyway, as the pay cheque isn't big enough!)

 

Fully appreciate that - I obviously didn't make my own point clear which was that ph had contacted the office yesterday asking that very question yet they did not have the decency (even today) to have replied.

 

Personally, I would not make a big song and dance, just add it quietly to the list. As a one-off it would be disregarded as a continuation of the months of hassle from them it just adds to the picture.

 

BTW What are you thoughts re the argument in the skeleton/overall?

[diddydicky]

the barrister may well not have been coming from their offices or even home

 

 

many barristers are peripatetic

 

perhaps they never intended to turn up anyway and took advantage of the weather situation to prolong things a bit more!

[gh2008]

perhaps they never intended to turn up anyway and took advantage of the weather situation to prolong things a bit more!

 

hmmmm interesting thought .... indemnity costs anyone .......

[frettful38]

the barrister may well not have been coming from their offices or even home

 

 

many barristers are peripatetic

 

 

perhaps they never intended to turn up anyway and took advantage of the weather situation to prolong things a bit more!

 

Well with the wages they were on they could have flew in by helicopter LOL!!!!!!

[Pumpkinhead]

I know the individual lives in the same place her chamber is based AND I know that the trains were running this morning from there to here. I shall just add it to my list. They are not going to win anyway!

 

Still perhaps I will drop a line to the judge, just to put it on record.

[Bigdebtor]

I wonder if the barrister was double booked? - It seems ot happen quite often! Any way to find out?

 

BD

[diddydicky]

I know the individual lives in the same place her chamber is based AND I know that the trains were running this morning from there to here. I shall just add it to my list. They are not going to win anyway!

 

Still perhaps I will drop a line to the judge, just to put it on record.

 

i would urge caution in making any accustations

 

it is not unusual for the brief to be changed at a late stage and although you know where she lives you do NOT know what her movements are or where she was previously attending a court

 

keep to the matters in hand and resist the "point scoring" (IMO)- it will NOt endear you to the judge

[Bigdebtor]

Pumpy

 

DD is probably right - he usually is! However I agree it's VERY tempting - but probably too risky!

 

After all the judge probably used the same tactics when (if?) he was much younger and would not like to see a fellow member of his learned profession taken down a peg or two by a stroppy LIP.

 

I wonder if one way to rub their noses in it would be to ask the law firm to ring your mobile to confirm when they have actually set out for court next time - to save you yet another wasted journey?

 

BD

[gh2008]

Sorry, dd is not *probably* right - he is DEFINITELY right!!

 

It's happened, just add it to the list and get over it

 

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter, just a very very tiny piece in a much bigger jigsaw

[Bigdebtor]

GH I suspect that'll be a "don't do it" then? -I can be quite perceptive and pick up on quite subtle vibes at times8-)

 

I take it the "probably too risky" also warrants a DEFINITELY too?

 

I know you're right - but it would be really nice to shaft these arrogant lawyers - as well as their clients!

 

BD

[Pumpkinhead]

I shall bide my time and not make a fuss about their lack of manners. I am looking to win the war not just a battle.

Have a Merry Christmas everyone and thanks for all your help and interest!

[gh2008]

I shall bide my time and not make a fuss about their lack of manners. I am looking to win the war not just a battle.

Have a Merry Christmas everyone and thanks for all your help and interest!

 

 

... and a very Happy Christmas to you too

[Undercover-Elsa]

Merry Christmas GH and PH...

Let's hope the New Year is a just and fruitful one

 

Elsa xx

[gh2008]

I have also offered them the chance to end this all now without costs etc, on the basis that if they don't and fail in Court as they will, that I will then ask the Court for a great deal of costs to be considered.

 

Thanks everyone for all your help. Will update you when next anything happens.

 

Remember (and use) this it could prove useful (this was back in July)

[Pumpkinhead]

Thanks Gh. No new date set yet.

[Pumpkinhead]

New date set for end of Feb!

[emandcole]

Great thread and some interesting arguments, always good to throw things about in order to help strengthen your own point of view. Think this is a very important thread given the current climate of consumer rights getting increasingly undermined so will be watching this closely. The Brandon v Amex farce should have been heard by then too so although there are differences the common theme of 'dodgy' default notices might work together very nicely and will hopefully aid your own arguments to some extent.

 

As Surfaceagent wrote some time ago now the law does tolerate contract breaking so any claim the claimant may try to force that RBS Mint issued a termination when technically it can't have done due to a dodgy DN (meaning the agreement endures) should be easily countered. The everyday person is not responsible for the failures of a bank and is perfecly entitled to take the banks word for it when the bank insists and acts as if the agreement is indeed terminated. Look forward to seeing how this goes and the very best to you Pumpkinhead.

[Pumpkinhead]

The BIG DAY is this Friday. My plans for this week include:

 

• review opposition's skeleton argument
  
• finalise my skeleton argument and despatch
  
• compose questions to ask opposition
  
• finalise my costs
  

Any help or suggestions on tactics welcome.

[emandcole]

Just some thoughts for you to take or leave as you wish.

 

 

• At the inception of the agreement it was the claimant and not the defendant who proposed that this potential agreement was to be regulated and bound by the terms found within the CCA 1974. As such you expect the claimant to be bound by those terms fully and not seek to backtrack on that as they were incapable of following requirements within concerning the correct procedure to follow if they sought to terminate the contract using section 87.
  
• If the claimant had at any point stated that the agreement was to be regulated by the CCA 1974 'but we reserve the right to ignore various parts of this act if it suits us' then perhaps they can argue they had a right to bypass default and termination regulation but I suspect they didn't include any such term?! As such, if they had intended to bypass any part of the CCA 1974 they should have made this clear to you before the agreement was entered into and you would have had the choice of questionning such dubious practices and declined to enter into the agreement with them. They can't have it both ways, either it is regulated as they proposed or it isn't. To suddenly argue they can effectively remove your rights 'as it's unfair to them to lose out financially' is a nonsense, they should have got their documents in order and the fact they didn't caused prejudice to you first, not to them.
  
• Make sure you insist that prejudice was caused by their failure to abide by regulation. They may try to suggest there was no loss to you 'as you wouldn't have paid the default amount anyway, regardless of time allowed'. Rebut that completely, ensure that you politely insist that the time you were given was not enough and had you been given the time parliament decreed was necessary you would have been able to provide remedy and prevent the loss of the contract and the resultant litigation.
  
• You are 'allowed' to miss a payment, this is what the default system is for so don't allow them to suggest that it was your non payment that resulted in all of this and that it is your fault. The default system is a safety net, a buffer between the trigger response of the creditor thinking you have repudiated the agreement with non payment when actually all that may have happened is that the payment was late for any number of perfectly simple reasons.
  
• There is a penalty for you if you miss a payment, typically you will have been charged a sum of money that is often disproportionate to any real loss your missed payment may have caused the creditor and secondly the creditor will report your conduct to third party credit agencies where it will sit for 6 years. As such that is your punishment for missing a payment and that is more than enough for what might have been a simple oversight. Don't let them suggest you suffered no prejudice on this angle either.
  
• Don't allow them to ask the court if they can 'go and get another default notice'. The fact you're in court is complete confirmation that the contract has ended, they cannot mess you about with 'is it or isn't it' terminated confusion. The creditor quite clearly considers the contract to have been terminated as they advised you of that, then used debt collection agencies to threaten you before actually issuing court papers and then allowing you to submit a defence and actually turn up in the court before a judge to argue the matter to conclusion. If the judge even considers allowing them to get another default notive ask them how they are going to do that when there is no live contract for them to default and if they argue it wasn't terminated 'so they can produce another default notice' ask them why you are therefore in court right now defending their claim for the full balance when all you're contractually obliged to pay them is the monthly amount. This alone is enough to show they have repudiated the agreement, you can't just take people to court on a live agreement...they cannot have it both ways!
  

All the very best with this, don't let them undermine your rights and make sure your preperation is perfect. Most often people know their stuff but when they are questionned they go blank and can't reference the information they've brought with them as they get a bit flustered - just make sure you have a great reference system so that you don't need to rely as much on memory

[gh2008]

My advice would be to review the thread thoroughly and make sure you actually understand the arguments both for and against you.

 

I think I have said this before with one of your previous cases - Remember your big advantage should be that you know your own case better than anyone else in there - use that to your advantage.

 

There are a few recent cases that are being thrown around and quoted - if any of these are sprung on you on the day ask for time to consider them and if necessary ask for an adjournment for you to fully consider them - it is unfair against you as a LiP to do this, but it is a tactic often used and we all know how an 'out of context quote' can seem to mean one thing when in context it means something else entirely - think of all the Carey, Rankine & McGuffick quotes that were being used last year ....

 

Best of luck PH

 

If it doesn't go your way, ask for the Judgement to be explained VERY CLEARLY and ask for permission to appeal.

 

IF they use Brandon against you ask and the DJ looks to be taking it you could go for an adjournment pending the Brandon appeal

[Pumpkinhead]

Thanks gh and emandcole. I've spent all day today reviewing the thread, making notes and researching various bits and pieces which has all helped to improve my perspective, consider their arguments and my answers etc. I shall be doing the same all this week up until the big day arrives.

[Undercover-Elsa]

Best of luck Pumpkinhead xxxx