Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • that was a good saving on an £8k debt dx
    • Find out how the UK general elections works, how to register to vote, and what to do on voting day.View the full article
    • "We suffer more in imagination than in reality" - really pleased this all happened. Settled by TO, full amount save as to costs and without interest claimed. I consider this a success but feel free to move this thread to wherever it's appropriate. I say it's a success because when I started this journey I was in a position of looking to pay interest on all these accounts, allowing them to default stopped that and so even though I am paying the full amount, it is without a doubt reduced from my position 3 years ago and I feel knowing this outcome was possible, happy to gotten this far, defended myself in person and left with a loan with terms I could only dream of, written into law as interest free! I will make better decisions in the future on other accounts, knowing key stages of this whole process. We had the opportunity to speak in court, Judge (feels like just before a ruling) was clear in such that he 'had all the relevant paperwork to make a judgement'. He wasn't pleased I hadn't settled before Court.. but then stated due to WS and verbal arguments on why I haven't settled, from my WS conclusion as follows: "11. The Defendant was not given ample evidence to prove the debt and therefore was not required to enter settlement negotiations. Should the debt be proved in the future, the Defendant is willing to enter such negotiations with the Claimant. "  He offered to stand down the case to give us chance to settle and that that was for my benefit specifically - their Sols didn't want to, he asked me whether I wanted to proceed to judgement or be given the opportunity to settle. Naturally, I snapped his hand off and we entered negotiations (took about 45 minutes). He added I should get legal advice for matters such as these. They were unwilling to agree to a TO unless it was full amount claimed, plus costs, plus interest. Which I rejected as I felt that was unfair in light of the circumstances and the judges comments, I then countered with full amount minus all costs and interest over 84 months. They accepted that. I believe the Judge wouldn't have been happy if they didn't accept a payment plan for the full amount, at this late stage. The judge was very impressed by my articulate defence and WS (Thanks CAG!) he respected that I was wiling to engage with the process but commented only I  can know whether this debt is mine, but stated that Civil cases were based on balance of probabilities, not without shadow of a doubt, and all he needs to determine is whether the account existed. Verbal arguments aside; he has enough evidence in paperwork for that. He clarified that a copy of a DN and NOA is sufficient proof based on balance of probabilities that they were served. I still disagree, but hey, I'm just me.. It's definitely not strict proof as basically I have to prove the negative (I didn't receive them/they were not served), which is impossible. Overall, a great result I think! BT  
    • Seeking further advice now. The 33 days in which the defendant has to submit a defence expires at 16:00 tomorrow. The defendant has submitted an acknowledgement of service but looking to get the claim awarded by default in failure to submit the defence. This is MoneyClaim Online and can see an option to request a default judgement but believe that is for failure to acknowledge the claim within 14 days??  So being MoneyClaim Online, how do I request the claim be awarded in my favour?
    • Have to agree with the above Health and safety legislation is specific in that the service provider in so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees and those not in the employ of the business. You claim is like saying you slipped in the swimming pool area while taking a dip. As rightly stated by by the leisure centre, a sports hall has dedicated equipment and you yourself personally have a legal obligation in mitigating danger or injury to yourself by taking account of your immediate surroundings. Where your claim will fail is if it is reasonable and proportionate to impose liability of the Leisure Centre? The answer has to be no.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Cap1 & CCA return


tamadus
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4972 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

HI L

 

I don't know the history behind the doc posted so please forgive me if i am going over old ground

 

I presume this was in reply to a 78 request.

Did they send the associated doc ie the cancelation terms if not they are in default.

I cannot see the creditors signature also nessessary if they are going to enforce.

 

 

Regards

 

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 17.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

un1boy,

 

Have a look at this from the FOS site FAQs - complaints about bank charges

 

complaints about bank charges

 

closing accounts

 

what if my bank account gets closed following my complaint about bank charges?

Like any business, banks and building societies are free to decide who they want as their customers – just as consumers are free to decide who they want to bank with. We recognise that the relationship between a bank or building society and a customer can sometimes break down for a number of reasons - and the closure of a customer account might sometimes be inevitable, where the proper procedure has been followed (including giving the customer time to make alternative banking arrangements).

However, we expect customers to be treated fairly by their bank or building society – and consumers should not be penalised for exercising their right to complain. We can – and do - investigate complaints from consumers that their bank accounts have been unfairly closed, for example, in retaliation for complaining about bank charges.

Some recent adjudications from the ombudsman service [PDF versions of adjudication A and adjudication B open in new window] set out some of the typical issues we take into account in this sort of case.

As we are a private dispute-resolution service – and respect the privacy of people whose complaints we handle – we have anonymised the names of those involved in those cases.

 

 

Tide

 

Thanks Tide, but I didn't complain at all - in fact, my balance never even went below £100 with them....I only applied for a second curret account for my direct debits to go out of.

 

No one is interested, the Banking Code Standards Board said I should be entitled to compo for them breacing the code and that they don't enforce it - apparently the FOS do and apparently, the FOS don't get involved......the usual.....

 

I am writing to their CEO to advise him of the fraud then gonna put a claim in the courts, or the police, haven't decided yet! :)

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

HI L

 

I don't know the history behind the doc posted so please forgive me if i am going over old ground

 

I presume this was in reply to a 78 request.

Did they send the associated doc ie the cancelation terms if not they are in default.

I cannot see the creditors signature also nessessary if they are going to enforce.

 

 

Regards

 

Peter

 

Peter, are stamps and "automated" signatures allowed, or do they have to be original and signed in pen by the creditor?

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

un1boy,

 

Looks like something is going on behind the scenes like notes to your computer log or internal memos.

 

If you made a SAR, how thorough was it?

 

Tide

 

I know, weird isn't it?

 

Not done a sar yet, but will do!!

 

Even my branch manager doesn't understand what's gone on!!

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

See the SAR on my thread, and make sure you get everything. Also, Photoman has another version.

 

Nice one mate - I'll PM you later if that's ok? :)

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have followed this thread for quite some time, and as others have observed, whilst you remember reading something, it becomes extremely difficult to find it amongst nearly 6000 posts.

 

So that said, could anyone tell me why the CCP are obliged to stop charging interest etc?

Please note: I give advice, in good faith, based on my reading and experience. Please satisfy yourself, that any advice given is accurate in content before acting upon it.

A to Z index

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/site-questions-suggestions/53182-cant-find-what-youre.html

 

...........................................................................

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have followed this thread for quite some time, and as others have observed, whilst you remember reading something, it becomes extremely difficult to find it amongst nearly 6000 posts.

 

So that said, could anyone tell me why the CCP are obliged to stop charging interest etc?

 

The CCA (Sections 77/78 ) states that if they default on providing the required agreement documents, then they are not entitled to enforce the agreement. As one of the terms of the agreement is interest, it follws that they are not entitled to enforce the right to apply interest, therefore they must stop.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The CCA (Sections 77/78) states that if they default on providing the required agreement documents, then they are not entitled to enforce the agreement. As one of the terms of the agreement is interest, it follws that they are not entitled to enforce the right to apply interest, therefore they must stop.

 

Thanks, I knew I must have read it somewhere.:rolleyes:

Please note: I give advice, in good faith, based on my reading and experience. Please satisfy yourself, that any advice given is accurate in content before acting upon it.

A to Z index

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/site-questions-suggestions/53182-cant-find-what-youre.html

 

...........................................................................

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Term and thanks Peter.

 

I'll progress the application / agreement issue with gusto.

 

The agreement was sent to me under s78 and they didn't comply with other requirements under that part.

 

Their signature is, I think, within the stamp though it's very difficult to see.

 

Regards

 

Lantana

Link to post
Share on other sites

Halifax (HBOS) Bank Error - Posts account details of 75,000 customers by mistake to an unsuspecting customer / Personal_Finance / Strategic News

 

Jan 29, 2007 - 06:31 PM

By: Shahla_Walayat

 

Halifax (HBOS) Bank Error - Posts account details of 75,000 customers by mistake to an unsuspecting customer :: The Market Oracle :: Financial Markets Forecasting & Analysis Free Website

:cool: sunbathing in juan les pins de temps en temps

Link to post
Share on other sites

Halifax (HBOS) Bank Error - Posts account details of 75,000 customers by mistake to an unsuspecting customer / Personal_Finance / Strategic News

 

Jan 29, 2007 - 06:31 PM

By: Shahla_Walayat

 

Halifax (HBOS) Bank Error - Posts account details of 75,000 customers by mistake to an unsuspecting customer :: The Market Oracle :: Financial Markets Forecasting & Analysis Free Website

 

Loved it, hello!!! must be something to do with the lack of manual intervention lol how stupid are they:oops: :p

If any of my posts are helpful, please feel free to click my scales. All information is given as my opinion only, based on my own personal experiences. I have no legal training, but have educated myself in aspects of consumer legislation. My motto "NEVER GIVE IN, NEVER SURRENDER", THERE IS A WAR ON YOU KNOW

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just had a quick look will go into a little more detail later.First observation is that this is not an agreement and what gives it away is" I apply for a mint card to be issued to me...... with the emphsis on the word apply.Also there is no cancellation box.Example you would have to write to mint to cancel they then send you a form to sign and all this is going to be done in 7 days as the Act says.Unfair term there.

 

Hi

 

Although this is an application form, IMO it is also a document containing all prescribed terms and statutory notices and is signed by the customer so it comes within the 'unless.....' part of s127(3) and is therefore most probably enforceable.

 

It also has the cancellation statement advising that details about how to cancel will be sent later. Provided the 2nd copy agreement that would have contained this info was sent within the prescribed time then it seems to pass the test (unfortunately!:-()

 

Regards, Pam

VITAL - IF YOU HAVE AN ISSUE ABOUT THE INCREASED BAILIFFS' POWERS TO BREAK INTO YOUR HOME AND USE FORCE IN ORDER TO GET YOUR GOODS THEN JOIN THE PETITION HERE:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o....l#post53879 9

 

Anyone seeing this who wants to help by copying it to their signature please do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

HI L

 

I don't know the history behind the doc posted so please forgive me if i am going over old ground

 

I presume this was in reply to a 78 request.

Did they send the associated doc ie the cancelation terms if not they are in default.

I cannot see the creditors signature also nessessary if they are going to enforce.

 

 

Regards

 

Peter

 

Hi

 

The cancellation notice and information on how to cancel are normally contained within the 2nd copy of the agreement that is sent within 7 days of signing (or in the case of a credit card, either before, or with, the card) as per the notices and copies regs.

 

This document is not referred to in the agreement as it is a copy of the agreement but with cancellation info added and so does not come within the 'any other document' part of a s77/78 request.

 

Also the creditor's stamp on this copy appears to contain what is probably a printed signature.

 

Regards, Pam

VITAL - IF YOU HAVE AN ISSUE ABOUT THE INCREASED BAILIFFS' POWERS TO BREAK INTO YOUR HOME AND USE FORCE IN ORDER TO GET YOUR GOODS THEN JOIN THE PETITION HERE:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o....l#post53879 9

 

Anyone seeing this who wants to help by copying it to their signature please do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would appreciate if someone can clarify for sure

 

If a trader (finance co.) hires to a Ltd. Co. under a Hire Agreement regulated by CCA 1974, accorded the same protection as a individual.

 

When i was looking for this clarification couple of months back I am sure I came across a site which stated that if the hire agreement is titled HIRE AGREEMENT REGULATED BY CCA 1974, then it is covered under the act provided it is under 25k and over 3months. I just can't seem to find this reference again.

 

All the references I have come across, does exclude Ltd. Co's.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK this is TOTALLY off topic (but I can get away with it lol ) and purely hypothetical of course :rolleyes:

 

The scenario is:

 

A solicitor files a defence on behalf of his clients and signs it for them.

 

The crux of the defence is that the UTCC and UCT do not apply as the charge does not indemnify any third party.

 

As part of their court bundle they intend to produce a witness statement showing it is an indemnity charge, I also have at least 2 letters clearly stating its an indemnity charge and indemnifies them against any loss to a third party.

 

Nowwwwww if they go to court using the indemnity to justify the charge then in theory the defence (which states it isnt an indemnity) is clearly out of order.

 

In my mind I think it shows the defence statement to be contempt of court, which of course carries a prison sentence.

 

The ultimate result in this scenario could be the defending solicitor serving time (which could of course get him barred from practice) and the defence being struck out of court.

 

Anybody got any other thoughts?

Alliance & leicester:Settled 8/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/alliance-leicester-successes/19700-tamadus-l.html?highlight=tamadus

Capital One:Settled 22/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/capital-one/16644-tamadus-capital-one.html?highlight=tamadus

MBNA 2 accounts:Settled 22/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions-successes/13831-tamadus-mbna-i.html?highlight=tamadus

Smile:Settled 15/11/06

Egg Card:S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 2/10/06

GE Money:S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent3/8/06 LBA sent 26/9/06

Abbey:ERC prelim sent 14/9/06. LBA sent 2/10/06. Now it's getting interesting so keep watching

Barclaycard:In criminal default watch this space

Lloyds TSB:In criminal default watch this space

 

If my comments have been useful please click the scales and let me know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok just as a quick update.

 

I have received letters from a DCA acting for Barclaycard, which among other things have threatened to send a collector to my home :) which should be interesting as I already know he wont like what he hears.

 

In addition LTSB have failed again to respond to my letters and I have had nothing from them since late february.

 

I have therefore decided to move both of these forward in time. I was planning to get my case against Abbey resolved first to ease the pressure a little, but neither of these are moving anywhere at the moment. Looks like poor little Tam is going to be busy again lol.

 

MCOL have been filled in and just need the POC typing out now. IN addition to reclaiming any and all charges (plus reserving the right to claim charges beyond 6 years when data is available) I intend to push the no agreement side of things plus the sec 85.

 

Now one of 2 things can happen here. Thye will give in to the inevitable or they can try arguing it in court. If they go for the latter then we should have a definitive result very soon.

 

Comments as usual are appreciated.

Alliance & leicester:Settled 8/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/alliance-leicester-successes/19700-tamadus-l.html?highlight=tamadus

Capital One:Settled 22/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/capital-one/16644-tamadus-capital-one.html?highlight=tamadus

MBNA 2 accounts:Settled 22/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions-successes/13831-tamadus-mbna-i.html?highlight=tamadus

Smile:Settled 15/11/06

Egg Card:S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 2/10/06

GE Money:S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent3/8/06 LBA sent 26/9/06

Abbey:ERC prelim sent 14/9/06. LBA sent 2/10/06. Now it's getting interesting so keep watching

Barclaycard:In criminal default watch this space

Lloyds TSB:In criminal default watch this space

 

If my comments have been useful please click the scales and let me know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I have a query....

 

I received my agreement from MINT following a CCA request. The agreement seemed pretty good, apart from the fact that they'd not obviously signed it. It is stamped, but if the stamp also includes their signature, it's not very clear. Anyway, I figured this ws no big deal.

 

So I wrote to MINT, explained my dire financial circumstances (with copy of benefits statement) and made a token offer to be reviewed when I returned to work. Their response was to request a full statement of income and expenditure, assets and liabilities etc., but they also muttered about 'further action'.

 

So I got thinking about 'further action' and looked again at my agreement. According to my agreement it's between 'us' and Lantana. 'us' isn't defined on the agreement, though the card issuer is defined as 'MINT, PO Box blah...' I've written to the OFT to see if MINT has a credit licence.

 

Now I know that MINT is a businress name of Royal Bank of Scotland (that's what their website says), but surely the agreement should say so (e.g. Royal Bank of Scotland t/as MINT). What I'm saying is, presumably MINT cannot take me to court because MINT is not a legal entity, only a registerd business name. And Royal Bank of Scotland can't have me either because the agreement doesn't say it's with them! In effect, I think the agreement may be unenforceable.

 

I'd be interested in my fellow CAGer's thoughts on this.

 

Regards

 

Lantana

 

Information Commissioners - Data Protection Register - Entry Details

 

WHAT year was the account opened ?

:cool: sunbathing in juan les pins de temps en temps

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I have received letters from a DCA acting for Barclaycard, which among other things have threatened to send a collector to my home :) which should be interesting as I already know he wont like what he hears.

 

 

Hi tam

 

Is it Lowell by any chance? If so, they only employ phantom collectors to do their home visits - several people on Lowell's 'hit list' (myself included) have waited in for the promised collector but he hasn't materialised!

 

Phantom? materialised? Groan!!!:rolleyes::grin:

 

Regards, Pam

VITAL - IF YOU HAVE AN ISSUE ABOUT THE INCREASED BAILIFFS' POWERS TO BREAK INTO YOUR HOME AND USE FORCE IN ORDER TO GET YOUR GOODS THEN JOIN THE PETITION HERE:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o....l#post53879 9

 

Anyone seeing this who wants to help by copying it to their signature please do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tam,

 

You should check the small print. In mine, they stated that they could visit providing there was two weeks notice. That was back in 1991.

 

They visited anyway without notice and I have them under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 - a Right to Privacy.

 

You need to explore their rights to receive, store or process your information under the DPA 1998.

 

Tide

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK this is TOTALLY off topic (but I can get away with it lol ) and purely hypothetical of course :rolleyes:

 

The scenario is:

 

A solicitor files a defence on behalf of his clients and signs it for them.

 

The crux of the defence is that the UTCC and UCT do not apply as the charge does not indemnify any third party.

 

As part of their court bundle they intend to produce a witness statement showing it is an indemnity charge, I also have at least 2 letters clearly stating its an indemnity charge and indemnifies them against any loss to a third party.

 

Nowwwwww if they go to court using the indemnity to justify the charge then in theory the defence (which states it isnt an indemnity) is clearly out of order.

 

In my mind I think it shows the defence statement to be contempt of court, which of course carries a prison sentence.

 

The ultimate result in this scenario could be the defending solicitor serving time (which could of course get him barred from practice) and the defence being struck out of court.

 

Anybody got any other thoughts?

 

 

They may have dropped a clanger it would seem the defence is incorrect and could be seen has contempt if it's backed up with a statement of truth. Even if it's not seen as contempt the judge will start doubting their case .

 

Paul

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

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4972 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...