Amex/Mischcon V Me

[MARTIN3030]

Vjohn-thanks for your input.

 

I agree that the off topic stuff do not help anyone,and always encourage open and constructive dialogue that serves to further progress.

 

Good modding can be seen from many different angles,and often its impossible to please all.

 

If there is wider evidence of a witch hunt,then this is something that would be viewed as unacceptable,and I invite you to hit the red triangle with that if you have that info.

 

I dont consider a need to back track on anything I have posted,however I am prepared to refer the posts in question to other team members for considerations.

 

In the meantime,I like you hope that the thread will continue in a productive vein.

[vjohn82]

Vjohn-thanks for your input.

 

I agree that the off topic stuff do not help anyone,and always encourage open and constructive dialogue that serves to further progress.

 

Good modding can be seen from many different angles,and often its impossible to please all.

 

If there is wider evidence of a witch hunt,then this is something that would be viewed as unacceptable,and I invite you to hit the red triangle with that if you have that info.

 

I dont consider a need to back track on anything I have posted,however

 

Martin,

 

I cannot for confidentiality reasons disclose how I know that rhodium78 is the "genuine article". The simple fact is that he has been "outed" by 4 particular posters as being a troll simply because of his posts on faulty DN's and not because of any evidence to support the assertion. That alone is enough to remove posts which are off topic.

 

I'll take the risk of being called a troll too then... rhodium78 assertions are correct regarding DN's.

 

Now, what do the posters in this thread think of that? Dare anyone call me a troll too?

[DonkeyB]

I'm trolling off for a few hours. I hope we all see sense and get this sorted, and I'd eventually like to see anything not related to the thread removed.

[Monty2007]

Hi Martel,

 

I am in the same boat as you. well.. guess Amex has transferred all their cases from Brachers to Mishcon coz I got a letter from them too saying a change of solicitor. Amex/Brachers tried to take me on summary judgment but they lost due to invalid DN, no credit agreement (as it was online application in my case). Its been 9 months since I last battle with them in court for summary judgment which I won & suddenly i received the AQ N150. Its a new type of N150 that I have not seen b4 ( i have filled in a few!) am wondering if you could let me know the link to your thread so i can see whether I could get some guidance on filling in the form?

 

Most Amex DN's are defective, usually they are:

 

1. Not allowing sufficient time for remedy of breach

2. Citing the wrong clauses

3. Incorrect wording

4. Incorrect default sum

 

and other reasons............

 

I am sure that most would agree that Martel would be wise to also use the defective DN argument in addition to her other defence with regards to the agreement.

 

Unfortunately it is down to the judge on the day, but I am sure Martel is more than capable of holding her ground and not letting Michcon get away with much...........or anything for that matter.

[vjohn82]

I'm trolling off for a few hours. I hope we all see sense and get this sorted, and I'd eventually like to see anything not related to the thread removed.

 

Me too DB... perhaps our contributions are not worthy enough and that instead the site team would prefer to read unfounded speculation and insults?

 

Oh well... other threads to troll I'm sure.

[MAGDA]

Hi Martel, glad you got the disclosure list off - one less thing to worry about! I'm sure you will get plenty of good advice from the people on here if you need it.

 

best wishes, Magda

[Martel]

Hi Martel, glad you got the disclosure list off - one less thing to worry about! I'm sure you will get plenty of good advice from the people on here if you need it.

 

best wishes, Magda

 

Thanks, Magda. My focus now is on my WS. MXXX

[Docman]

Good idea. Let's get back to the job in hand and stop all this trolling stuff because if rhodium78 is a troll, I'm one too!!

[vjohn82]

Good idea. Let's get back to the job in hand and stop all this trolling stuff because if rhodium78 is a troll, I'm one too!!

 

I dare say the whole HFO Fan Club is in that case.

[Hadituptohere]

The simple fact is that he has been "outed" by 4 particular posters as being a troll

 

Just before any of my threads are removed or im accused of calling anyone anything please look back, I mentioned troll's on the forum...

Nothing more.

 

Hadituptohere

[vjohn82]

I think the mere participation is enough but if you would like to clarify I think that will go some way to pacifying someone who has a great deal to offer CAG.

[Hadituptohere]

Whitout sounding like a baby crying 'I didnt do it', my post mentioned trolls to clarify 'disecting the manchester case' the posters with the latin names.

 

As I said in post 58 'not my words'

 

The only participation was trying to assist Martel with his thread as I have with the majority them.

 

 

Hadituptohere

Edited July 3, 2010 by Hadituptohere
Didnt need my name twice

[vjohn82]

I think that's fair enough. The others I'm afraid were far more "vocal" and obvious in their condemnation and should be apologising.

 

I've helped those concerned on a number of matters from my recollection and I consider it a personal insult for rhodium78 to be maligned in this way.

[Rhia]

VJohn. I really don't think we should hijack Martel's thread any longer but can I politely suggest that if Rhodium (or indeed anyone) who has particular talents/ qualifications etc and wants to help the posters then could they identify themselves to the Site Team?

 

In this way the Site Team can verify their status and confirm they are "good guys" or girls.

 

Both you and DonkeyB want to vouch for them so we know they must be alright.

[Blondie40]

Martel

 

They may have added the bit about s65(1) and s127(1) because if the agreement is not properly executed, and therefore only enforceable on an order of the court, if they have not asked the court to enforce the agreement in the POC, the court may not enforce.

 

Hope that makes sense

 

Martel

 

Just been reading back through your thread and wonder have you been supplied with a copy of the original signed agreement.

 

I requested under s78 a copy of the agreement I had had with Amex Credit Card taken out in mid 90's - all they sent was a copy of an application form headed "SIGNATURE only required. Virtually all you have to do is sign your name"

 

I got this checked out at CAB (person I saw knew what they were talking about) and was told it would not hold up in court as contained none of the prescribed terms. If yours is the same this may be why they have added the bit about s65(1) and s127(1) to their amended POC.

 

The DN I received from Amex also did not give an actual date by which to remedy the breach, but just states "fourteen days from the date of this notice", was sent 2nd class, and arrived ten days after the date on the notice. Giving me four days to remedy the breach, which happened to be Good Friday, Easter Saturday, Sunday and Monday.

 

Over the next two years the account got passed to AIC, Newman, Moorcroft and finally VIL Collections.

 

Since then (over two years ago now) have heard nothing.

 

Only two years to go and it will be statute barred - but expect to hear from someone before then. I'm surprised they have not sold it on yet.

[vjohn82]

VJohn. I really don't think we should hijack Martel's thread any longer but can I politely suggest that if Rhodium (or indeed anyone) who has particular talents/ qualifications etc and wants to help the posters then could they identify themselves to the Site Team?

 

In this way the Site Team can verify their status and confirm they are "good guys" or girls.

 

Both you and DonkeyB want to vouch for them so we know they must be alright.

 

Revealing personal details would go against everything the t's and c's state and, furthermore, I would say dangerous in light of the recent court order which allowed a DCA to access a number of CAG user's information upon request.

 

I would urge everyone to make sure they are as anonymous as possible on this forum to a certain extent. However, the fact that me and DB have vouched for their character considering the lengths we have both gone to in order to clarify this should be more than enough for the posters concerned!

 

This thread can be brought back "on topic" as soon as the mods remove all references to rhodium78 being in any way deceitful.

[pt2537]

well, sorry guys, my supports with Rhodium78, gotta be said.

 

I have had the pleasure of correspondence with this user and i have to say they have always been honest, upfront and most importantly, 110 % accurate in what arguments they have raised.

[Guest Mrs Hobbit]

I have a feeling Mischon and Cabots are monitoring this thread, I have been away for two weeks and my alarm bells are going off.

[Monty2007]

well, sorry guys, my supports with Rhodium78, gotta be said.

 

I have had the pleasure of correspondence with this user and i have to say they have always been honest, upfront and most importantly, 110 % accurate in what arguments they have raised.

 

So should we cease using any argument with relation to DN's that do not conform?

 

That is his position as stated on this thread.

[DonkeyB]

No - the issue pt is referring to is that of accusing someone of being something he is not, for which apologies should be made.

 

The debate about issues relevant to the thread - such as the DN - should stay open. They are important issues and need to be looked at and debated properly, in my opinion.

 

If someone disagrees with a post, either on a legal point or in general, then let's discuss it openly!

[Monty2007]

No - the issue pt is referring to is that of accusing someone of being something he is not, for which apologies should be made.

 

The debate about issues relevant to the thread - such as the DN - should stay open. They are important issues and need to be looked at and debated properly, in my opinion.

 

If someone disagrees with a post, either on a legal point or in general, then let's discuss it openly!

 

I am sure pt can answer for himself, he is very experienced and has vouched for Rhodium.

 

The OP was, and still is, looking for constructive help in relation to a tough case involving Amex and Michcon. The invitation from Martel was not to encourage legal debate. Rhodium's contribution was to essentially suggest giving up on the DN (citing Rankine et al). Nobody has taken up his invitation to a legal debate since most wish to help and encourange Martel not to again open up Rankine.

 

I am not sure if Rhodium has faced Amex in court...................

[Martel]

Thought this might be of tangental interest here - it's on another Claim that was the subject of a failed SJ. Today I rec'd a Notice of Discontinuance from the Claimant's sols.

 

As fate would have it, the Defence hinged on a flawed DN.

 

Their case wasn't helped by the fact they managed to produce THREE sets of T&Cs in court but they were prepared to revert to the old 'reconstituted' argument.

 

Whether the DN issue would have convinced the DJ is another matter but it certainly had the Claimant on the run.

[Hadituptohere]

Great news Martel which case was it? one you have posted on the forum?

 

 

Hadituptohere

[Martel]

Martel

 

Just been reading back through your thread and wonder have you been supplied with a copy of the original signed agreement.

 

I requested under s78 a copy of the agreement I had had with Amex Credit Card taken out in mid 90's - all they sent was a copy of an application form headed "SIGNATURE only required. Virtually all you have to do is sign your name"

 

I got this checked out at CAB (person I saw knew what they were talking about) and was told it would not hold up in court as contained none of the prescribed terms. If yours is the same this may be why they have added the bit about s65(1) and s127(1) to their amended POC.

 

The DN I received from Amex also did not give an actual date by which to remedy the breach, but just states "fourteen days from the date of this notice", was sent 2nd class, and arrived ten days after the date on the notice. Giving me four days to remedy the breach, which happened to be Good Friday, Easter Saturday, Sunday and Monday.

 

Over the next two years the account got passed to AIC, Newman, Moorcroft and finally VIL Collections.

 

Since then (over two years ago now) have heard nothing.

 

Only two years to go and it will be statute barred - but expect to hear from someone before then. I'm surprised they have not sold it on yet.

 

Blondie, thanks for your input and I hope you stay under the Amex radar for the next two years so you don't have to deal with these so called 'people'.

 

Yes, my experience is similar to yours. I love they ask me for permission to alter the POCs so, effectively, it will state 'even if none of the documents we present to the court are valid, will the nice DJ declare the arrangement enforceable'.

 

Good luck and thanks again for your post.

[Hadituptohere]

Sorry Martel seen the other thread.. Congrats for that one

 

Hadituptohere