Cap1 & CCA return

[pt2537]

Having searched Lexis Nexis, Lawtel, Westlaw i am unable to find any case law which supports your view Terrytocs, now unlike you, i am not going to suggest you are wrong or that you are mad. instead i will ask one simple question

 

If you are correct, why is there not one case list on the law reports, there are nothing close to what you suggest?

 

now correct me if i m wrong, but surely someone would have brought this before the courts? surely there will be a judgment?

[diddydicky]

I have no idea who nukem is but it does sound like he has also found the truth.

 

Alternatives are abundant for those who can see the truth that money does not exist.

 

Please keep fighting your corner with the CCA but I don't see many results forthcoming that are helping the masses of people having problems. And of course, the CCA route has been hammered for several years now without any real progress. You are wasting your time and energy. Please show with proof just one 'person' who has managed to get hold of their 'original wet signature agreement'.

 

Conspiracy? Oh thats ok then I must be a nutter. That's a typical comment from someone who is making money from the poor victims of the lenders as they tell them the CCA is your only remedy. It is also a typical comment of someone who is ignorant and too lazy to actually discover the truth for themselves. Please debate with me and put forward your own arguments to counter my points.

 

Your remedy is withn courts of Equity and private processes. If you want to go blindly down the worn out path of CCA then so be it. You will lose amost every time. Then again maybe a Court of Equity is a figment of my conspiracy imagination.

 

For those that are waking up to the fact that there really isn't any money and you've been taken for the ride of your life I suggest you start looking away from the CCA into other avenues that work.

 

You have to discover this for yourself though, if you are happy thinking the CCA is your answer then good luck, if you want to be directed to research information of what I am talking about and discover the real truth then please pm me.

 

There are those who are stuck in their own Conspiracy of believing real money exists. They will find out the truth one day.

 

Namaste

 

it's not so much a case of you being a "nutter", more that you should start a thread to deal with such discussion rather than hijack threads that are trying to give practical help rather than sermons to other caggers who need assistance.

 

the number of posters onto you thread will then reveal the true level of interest in your "theories"

[Terrytocs]

PT,

 

I also find your remarks quite insulting. I have evidenced everything I have said yet you attack me without provocation and without offering to support your argument with any evidence, why? Is it because you know I am right?

 

CCA is not getting the results is it? be honest, tens of thousands of cases now on hold, why? because the banks will not allow the mass results to happen, and you know it. Bank Charges case is a classic example.

 

I pointed out why agreements are flawed and I gave my evidence and you are attacking me now for putting that information forward and you do not even have the curtesy to rebut what I am saying but you are happy to attack me. I suspect that is because you know I am right.

 

The evidence that I am right is overwhelming and for anyone half bothered they will see for themselves.

 

As a solicitor or legal rep pt, is your first duty to the court or to the client? You haven't rebutted or mentioned that comment previously so I take it I was right. The client comes second.

 

I know about the CFA, I have been involved with CCA and that route for 2yrs now and discovered why it doesn't work like we would want it to or even like it is meant to do.

 

You have seen the CCA completely disregarded by the courts, especially in relation to having to produce the original agreement.

 

I am not saying and never did say that you were taking tender directly form 'clients' but there is no doubt that there is financial motivation behind your stance. That motivation to help others I am sure is well intentioned.

 

My argument is not with you, my point is that there is no such thing as a financial agreement as people have been led to believe. The Bank do not have to produce the original agreement because it's a negotiable instrument/promissory note. Why I seriously ask has no soilicitor or Barrister challenged that in Statute?

 

There is also other reasons that this issue has not been raised in the main courts and that is because the banking [problem] is so Big.

 

I urge you sir to check out if real money exists, or, as I profess, do we only have promissory notes. If real money does not exist how can we have lawful contracts? Any lawful contract has to have lawful consideration brought by all parties including the Bank.

 

The Bank as you will see do not add their signature to any financial contract, have you ever wondered why?

 

That makes financial contracts Unilateral and not Bilateral. As you will know, that has severe implications alone as far as contract law is concerned. Why have the solicitors never challenged that aspect of financial contracts? One signature on a contract does not make a contract. There has been no meeting of minds.

 

So we have obvious aspects of contract law not being challenged, why not?

 

I know the answers because I wasn't getting the results from CCA.

 

You must surely know that the signed agreement is a promissory note but you have decided not to comment on that. You have also decided not to comment on the Bills of Exchange Act 1882. And the fact that 'clients' are in fact being 'lent' their own money off the back of their own promissory note. These are the same notes you hear about day in day out on the news when you hear about Banks Monetising their assets.

 

Those assets are our promissory notes that they are using to give Credit back to the 'person' signing the agreement. People are 'borrowing' their own money and then paying it back with interest.

 

Why are solicitors not challenging those aspects? 99% of what I said there can be proven beyond all doubt.

 

 

These are highly important features to any apparant contract. Why are solicitors not challenging them?

 

Now, remedy. As you can see, there is little remedy (imho) using CCA. Where else and how else can contracts be challenged? Is the High Court the only route open to victims of the banks? Please answer that one for the sake of the people on here. Also what about commercial remedy in international Law, what about UNIDROIT Principles of 1994, are solicitors taking that to the court to challenge contracts? I don't see that but I do see people getting great results who are privately addressing these issues in the right environment.

 

I will reitirate, my argument is not with you, you decided to attack my information that was addressing 'Agreements' in connection with financial contracts.

 

My points are very valid.

 

Namaste

[humbleman]

I am having success, it costs me nothing but postage and I have completely rejected the CCA.

 

 

You first signed up some 18 months ago and today is your 1st post.

 

you mention you are having success, can you start your own thread and post details of your success stories so interested caggers can follow.

[diddydicky]

PT,

 

I also find your remarks quite insulting. I have evidenced everything I have said yet you attack me without provocation and without offering to support your argument with any evidence, why? Is it because you know I am right?

 

CCA is not getting the results is it? be honest, tens of thousands of cases now on hold, why? because the banks will not allow the mass results to happen, and you know it. Bank Charges case is a classic example.

 

I pointed out why agreements are flawed and I gave my evidence and you are attacking me now for putting that information forward and you do not even have the curtesy to rebut what I am saying but you are happy to attack me. I suspect that is because you know I am right.

 

The evidence that I am right is overwhelming and for anyone half bothered they will see for themselves.

 

As a solicitor or legal rep pt, is your first duty to the court or to the client? You haven't rebutted or mentioned that comment previously so I take it I was right. The client comes second.

 

I know about the CFA, I have been involved with CCA and that route for 2yrs now and discovered why it doesn't work like we would want it to or even like it is meant to do.

 

You have seen the CCA completely disregarded by the courts, especially in relation to having to produce the original agreement.

 

I am not saying and never did say that you were taking tender directly form 'clients' but there is no doubt that there is financial motivation behind your stance. That motivation to help others I am sure is well intentioned.

 

My argument is not with you, my point is that there is no such thing as a financial agreement as people have been led to believe. The Bank do not have to produce the original agreement because it's a negotiable instrument/promissory note. Why I seriously ask has no soilicitor or Barrister challenged that in Statute?

 

There is also other reasons that this issue has not been raised in the main courts and that is because the banking [problem] is so Big.

 

I urge you sir to check out if real money exists, or, as I profess, do we only have promissory notes. If real money does not exist how can we have lawful contracts? Any lawful contract has to have lawful consideration brought by all parties including the Bank.

 

The Bank as you will see do not add their signature to any financial contract, have you ever wondered why?

 

That makes financial contracts Unilateral and not Bilateral. As you will know, that has severe implications alone as far as contract law is concerned. Why have the solicitors never challenged that aspect of financial contracts? One signature on a contract does not make a contract. There has been no meeting of minds.

 

So we have obvious aspects of contract law not being challenged, why not?

 

I know the answers because I wasn't getting the results from CCA.

 

You must surely know that the signed agreement is a promissory note but you have decided not to comment on that. You have also decided not to comment on the Bills of Exchange Act 1882. And the fact that 'clients' are in fact being 'lent' their own money off the back of their own promissory note. These are the same notes you hear about day in day out on the news when you hear about Banks Monetising their assets.

 

Those assets are our promissory notes that they are using to give Credit back to the 'person' signing the agreement. People are 'borrowing' their own money and then paying it back with interest.

 

Why are solicitors not challenging those aspects? 99% of what I said there can be proven beyond all doubt.

 

 

These are highly important features to any apparant contract. Why are solicitors not challenging them?

 

Now, remedy. As you can see, there is little remedy (imho) using CCA. Where else and how else can contracts be challenged? Is the High Court the only route open to victims of the banks? Please answer that one for the sake of the people on here. Also what about commercial remedy in international Law, what about UNIDROIT Principles of 1994, are solicitors taking that to the court to challenge contracts? I don't see that but I do see people getting great results who are privately addressing these issues in the right environment.

 

I will reitirate, my argument is not with you, you decided to attack my information that was addressing 'Agreements' in connection with financial contracts.

 

My points are very valid.

 

Namaste

 

whether your "points" are valid or not pal- you should follow the site protocol and stop hi jacking other threads to spout your drivvel

 

 

you are, what the americans call " A heater"

 

 

why don' you either start your own thread or withdraw from this one if you have no practical advice to offer

 

failing which i invite the site team to remove your posts to a new thread for you

[Terrytocs]

Thank you humbleman, but as you can see by the response here then people are not willing to hear the truth.

 

I am very happy to provide links to forums and helpful completely free sites that I am involved with that are helping many others in the UK with a different approach.

 

As you point out, I joined 18months ago and researched this site intensley for months on end. I utilised templates, made phone calls, I did everything. My thoughts were to use the CCA and record all my success here. That explain anything for you?

 

Anyway, im not in this for any reward apart from helping others see what could be an additional approach and what harm is there in that? I became very dissappointed with the CCA route and about a year ago I came across the information why it has limited results.

 

You can see this information for yourself and make a decision from there, I only ask people to keep an open mind. There is always CCA to continue with or fall back on.

 

Too many closed minds here to start a thread, I have learn't that in just half a day.

 

Peace to you all

 

Terry

[Terrytocs]

DiddyDicky, I am a peaceful man, you are attacking me for no reason atall. You are rude and offensive. I have not highjacked anyones thread, I am contributing what I find to be valuable and relevant information on financial agreements under the CCA and why they are not 'agreements'.

 

I won't even lower myself to comment on your childish 'drivel' statement.

 

In peace

[diddydicky]

DiddyDicky, I am a peaceful man, you are attacking me for no reason atall. You are rude and offensive. I have not highjacked anyones thread, I am contributing what I find to be valuable and relevant information on financial agreements under the CCA and why they are not 'agreements'.

 

I won't even lower myself to comment on your childish 'drivel' statement.

 

In peace

 

I don't know how old you are tinytots, but i suspect that mine and many other caggers minds have been "opened and closed" on a wide variety of subjects , some of which you have not yourself yet discovered, before you were a twinkle in your fathers eye.

 

the nievety of people like you who think you just invented the wheel is unbeleivable.

 

 

if you start a new thread as suggested then

 

if you get lots of people debating on there with you then you will be spreading your gospel which i presume is your intent.

 

if not - then given that there are thousands of people on these forums you will know that perhaps "your time" has not yet come.

 

you certainly won't win any friends by attacking the motives or ethics of people on this forum who have tirelessly helped very many people on this forum .

 

 

so why don't you show us all that you have the courage of your convictions and start a new thread to debate your philosophy

 

or are you just going to run away with your tail between your legs at the first sign of opposition to your views!!

[Gallahad]

Well put DD:)

[humbleman]

I am very happy to provide links to forums and helpful completely free sites that I am involved with that are helping many others in the UK with a different approach.

 

As you point out, I joined 18months ago and researched this site intensley for months on end. I utilised templates, made phone calls, I did everything. My thoughts were to use the CCA and record all my success here. That explain anything for you?

 

Anyway, im not in this for any reward apart from helping others see what could be an additional approach and what harm is there in that? I became very dissappointed with the CCA route and about a year ago I came across the information why it has limited results.

 

You can see this information for yourself and make a decision from there, I only ask people to keep an open mind. There is always CCA to continue with or fall back on.

 

Too many closed minds here to start a thread, I have learn't that in just half a day.

 

Peace to you all

 

Terry

 

Terry

 

This thread is quite complicated as it is for most of us. That is why I suggest a new thread.

 

You obviously been very busy on the other sites whilst researching using this site, would it not be better if you put a link on that site pointing all the knowledgeable people to CAG.

[diddydicky]

Well put DD:)

 

i'll probably get a B*****ing for it though:D

[pt2537]

i'll probably get a B*****ing for it though:D

not from here you wont,

 

i think you have made a point very clearly.

 

As a matter of fact, the persistent hi jacking of this thread is a breach of the rules of this site, rules which should be read by those who wish to use it.

 

The posts which have caused controversy are off topic and not in the scheme of this thread. Therefore, i would ask Terrytocs to open a new thread on this subject where i will happily post my views and rebut anything that he so wishes

[Gallahad]

Tomorrow radio 4 are doing a program on credit card charges at 8pm

G

[frettful38]

Are tensions high on here because Tony Blair is on trial?

 

Calm down guys:)

[pt2537]

post removed for violation of forum rules

 

repeats of this will result in accounts being placed on moderation

 

Insulting users will not be tolerated.

 

you have been warned

[means2anend]

Thank you humbleman, but as you can see by the response here then people are not willing to hear the truth.

 

I am very happy to provide links to forums and helpful completely free sites that I am involved with that are helping many others in the UK with a different approach.

 

As you point out, I joined 18months ago and researched this site intensley for months on end. I utilised templates, made phone calls, I did everything. My thoughts were to use the CCA and record all my success here. That explain anything for you?

 

Anyway, im not in this for any reward apart from helping others see what could be an additional approach and what harm is there in that? I became very dissappointed with the CCA route and about a year ago I came across the information why it has limited results.

 

You can see this information for yourself and make a decision from there, I only ask people to keep an open mind. There is always CCA to continue with or fall back on.

 

Too many closed minds here to start a thread, I have learn't that in just half a day.

 

Peace to you all

 

Terry

 

 

I have read your input with interest.however this thread is about consumer credit agreements.

 

Therefore keeping it in context:

 

Please demonstrate practically how;

 

1 You would describe your input in terms of PARTICULARS OF CLAIMS

 

AND;

 

2 Whether, as you have stated that you have had many successes, ANY PRECEDENTS to back those successes.

 

I should be most intrigued as to how you would be able to (bearing in mind that particulars of claims ought be brief) be as succinct as possible and yet the Judge be able to understand your STATEMENT of CLAIM

 

Rgds

 

Means2anend

Edited January 29, 2010 by means2anend

[pedross]

Your posts are very interesting Terrytocs. The suggestion that you have your own thread is a good one then people who want to debate can and others who were already following the thread for 800 pages need not.

 

You obviously have considerable knowledge on certain subjects which others may not be aware of. The thing is PT is also knowledgeable and in addition well respected on this forum.

 

The difference is that PT posts about information that we can relate to and backs it up with case law or cases that we can associate with.

 

In contrast, you mention UNIDROIT Principles of 1994, which you suggest we could consider using. My understanding is that this would only apply to contacts which were made in agreement to using these principles.

 

However, the agreements or whatever you may consider them are clearly regulated by the Consumer Credit Act regardless of whom you feel is giving who the credit. The courts can barely grasp these regulations and in the main it is only when the judge ignores them, does not understand them or or uses some other legislation are the cases being lost.

 

To suggest in this thread that other laws or principles are used instead fails to convince me that your argument is plausible. Very interesting, but not plausible. I am sure that you can counter these points and I am looking forward to your view. However, I believe your answer would be far more useful if you could limit the number of words in your contribution and explain exactly what we need to do to cancel the prommisory notes we provided to the creditors, yet still retain the Gold and Silver for which we exchanged the credit they provided to us.

 

Pedross

[diddydicky]

steady on pedross- you'll have a nose bleed!!

[pedross]

steady on pedross- you'll have a nose bleed!!

 

That doesn't rhyme, diddykipling.

[diddydicky]

the statement which Pedross doth plead,

are likely to give him a nose bleed,

talk of unidroit and such matters

will make him as mad as the other hatters

[haggis1984]

the statement which Pedross doth plead,

are likely to give him a nose bleed,

talk of unidroit and such matters

will make him as mad as the other hatters

 

And they say poetry is dead

[diddydicky]

And they say poetry is dead

 

them poets cant not rite like wot i can

[Peterbard]

Hi Paul T

　

Back to business . I understand you have a case coming up next month that will set precedent in the Cardiff mercantile court.

I believe that it involves amongst other things the arguments that the “Applied limit” in egg agreement s is a breach of section 127(3).

As you can imagine this is of interest to a lot of us on here, could you give us some detail of the trial date yet.

 

Will you be acting as defence in this case particularly relevant I think in view of the Manchester case.

What other issues will be brought at this hearing will it form part of the guidelines re enforcement intersection 65-127(3).

This will I think you said be in the Mercantile court so doesn’t this mean that the results will be available also will it be possible to attend the hearing as a spectator.

　

Regards

Peter

[haggis1984]

them poets cant not rite like wot i can

 

:grin: Lol

[lexis200]

firstly I notice you say you are legally qualified. That puts you in a position of self interest so your comments should be viewed with suspicion.

 

So, tell me, why are you not telling people about this vital information that can show them how to get a result without resorting to the CCA? Legal Tender interest for your own pockets maybe? Would certainly appear so.

 

I am quite worried that these results are not prolific on this site but then you know why not already, you are after all legally qualified.

 

You will also be aware I am sure of the tens of thousands of cases that have now been put on hold since Carey v HSBC+Others.

 

Is this getting a lot of your attention and promotion as well? I think not.

 

You see, these cases were all go with greedy solicitors advising their clients just a few months ago.

 

Please, be the educated 'person' you say you are

 

Thank you

 

PT,

 

I also find your remarks quite insulting. I have evidenced everything I have said yet you attack me without provocation and without offering to support your argument with any evidence, why? Is it because you know I am right?

 

 

I am not saying and never did say that you were taking tender directly form 'clients' but there is no doubt that there is financial motivation behind your stance. That motivation to help others I am sure is well intentioned.

 

M

 

T

Too many closed minds here to start a thread, I have learn't that in just half a day.

 

 

No provocation at all there is there?

 

But then I am one of the 'closed minds' so I guess I'm reading something into PT's posts needing to be viewed 'with suspicion' etc etc.

 

btw DD - did you do some writing for Ernie Wise? Your poetry is just as stunning as the plays wot he wrote:D:p