NRAM Oridinary Cause - NRAM loan - In the face of a S78 Dispute.

[Guest GLW]

Thanks for clarifying SFU... Time may be one of my most useful tools.

 

The only thing that can possibly ever have existed IS the 2005 agreement - As I say; a completely different animal.

 

I can guarantee that I neither saw, signed nor agreed to ANYTHING on the particular date they claim in August 2011! Absolutely guarantee it!

 

- Whilst one would not normally be able to prove a negative, on this occasion I think I can! Curiously enough, on that very day I was in hospital being resuscitated!!!At roughly 10:40am that morning I collapsed with a very serious stress-induced Asthma attack - Ambulance, blue lights, intensive care the LOT!!!

 

If it hadn't been for the fact my 14-year old daughter wasn't-yet back at school, and was in the house I'd be dead! She phoned the ambulance; and at one point while waiting thought I was actually dead as I was passed-out cold, going blue and not breathing... Poor kid still has nightmares about it!

 

- It was the most terrifying experience of my life!

 

And what's more - NRAM - they Bl@@dy-well know all about this as they have - and acknowledge they have - a copy of my discharge letter and follow-up correspondence advising them of the incident and its causes! :mad2::mad2: - i.e. their actions being contributory!!!

- So how could I possibly be signing agreements that day?

 

2005 - It's a different time, different amount, different act was in force... The amounts don't make sense in terms of what they're claiming... This is one of the glaring things about it. Who drew up the initial writ? The office Cat?

 

If they fall back on that... well, this is one of the reasons why I keep looping back to the action being vexatious and possibly even unlawful... Again - From the section within OFT guidance that defines unfair or improper business practices....

 

"ignoring and/or disregarding claims that debts have been settled or are disputed and continuing to make demands for payment without providing clear justification and/or evidence as to why the claims are not valid"

The agreement has been questioned - NO answer has been forthcoming.

 

The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 render non-compliance with the above actually unlawful - unless I am missing something? It's not simply a case of them failing to comply with an S78 request - fact is they point-blank refuse to engage with legitimate complaints and enquiries...

 

If an impasse has been reached then that is entirely of NRAM's creation; clearly they are attempting to abdicate their lawful obligations. As far as I can see, that makes what they're doing an abuse of process - i.e. trying to use the court to circumvent the law. Material to this is the fact that if NRAM were to gain a judgement in their favour by circumventing the law, then that would 'steal' a commercial advantage over competitors who work within it....

 

Yes; I've read the Harrison case....

 

Cumulatively and damningly is what I find to be the way that MBNA and the Defendant went about recovering their debt. I am satisfied that the Claimant's description of the way that he was hounded by his creditors is essentially correct not least in the use of "non-traceable" telephone calls. It seems to me that such conduct has no proper function in the recovery of consumer debt. Whatever the strength of the suggestion that the courts should only be a last resort, I can see no legitimate comparison between a series of measured warnings which, after full opportunity for response, lead to legal proceedings and what took place. Even more is the situation to be deprecated when it was only well into this action that the Defendant was able to comply with section 78 and thus able to pursue a claim. An inability to comply with section 78 can be no excuse for conduct of which it must be supposed the sole purpose must have been to make the Claimant's life so difficult that he would come to heel. I cannot think that in a society that is otherwise so sensitive of a consumer's position this is conduct that should countenanced.

 

- Mr Harrison cited, I believe, some 18 telephone calls in 12 months.... Made his life hell.... The judge in that case has effectively said that conduct of this nature should not be permitted or tolerated.

 

- These B******S, between them nearly killed me! - With NRAM right at the front of the parade!

 

NRAM - Refusing to address legitimate complaints, refusing to supply reasonably requested information, railroading a vulnerable debtor into court without proper cause or information in defiance of OFT gudelines... Even in the face of knowledge they have to the effect they have already contributed to a near-fatality???

 

"conduct of which it must be supposed the sole purpose must have been to make life so difficult that would come to heel."?

 

I certainly think so... I think I can demonstrate that. And that this badly-framed action is from the outset designed, not for any legitimate purpose, but to apply further pressure on me.

 

- I cannot see that a Scottish Court can dismiss any of that as irrelevant or ignore it in terms of the necessity for action.

 

A vexatious action is such regardless of its merits otherwise... And the fact that NRAM may have acted unlawfully in raising this action, could have easily avoided it, and have done all this in the face of information that suggests they could be putting a life at risk...

 

These are certainly matters I feel the need to raise...

[PRBrown]

Hi GLW.

Have you made any progress in this matter or lodged your Notice of Intention to Defend?

Why not do that

- even a blanket "Everything is denied"

then ask for the case to be sisted while you try to get more information

- even if you need to pay for a solicitor to do it for you.

 

 

Unless it is objected to

- unlikely unless they are sure they have a strong case

- the Sist will give you a bit of time to put your thoughts in order

and to hunt for any paperwork that will help.

 

 

It's hard,

but try not to let it get you down.

 

 

I received my initial writ last year,

and we still haven't got past the adjustments period yet.

 

 

As they say,

the wheels of justice move slowly so take advantage and give yourself the time you need.

Don't be railroaded into a timeframe that disadvantages you.

 

I'm certain that in most of these cases people either ignore the paperwork so the pursuers win by default,

or they just admit the debt and let "justice" take it's course.

 

 

The ones that are defended strongly rarely reach a conclusion in court.

 

 

From what you've said,

you seem to have merit to your defence.

 

 

I'd hate to think they'd got to you and you've given up. Keep us up-to-date.

[Guest GLW]

The NID will go in on the last day it's due, as will the defences which I will need to start laying out as of now. -

 

Difficult though this is I have no intention of capitulating.

[seriously fed up]

that is good news. If we can help with working on your detailed defences, dont be slow to ask.

[Guest GLW]

I shall - thanks. I know what I want to say.

 

It's just how to structure and phrase it. and how much to launch as a first salvo.

 

I've reason to believe they're monitoring.

 

 

When I filed the NID (today) the lady in the Sheriff Clerk's office questioned the date on the form '07.

 

 

Apparently they ("the other firm" she said) had been on the 'phone asking if anything had been filed - saying the notice period was expired.

 

 

In the words of Rab C Nesbit -

'Aye right! I should coco!'

- I didn't write up the form 07! and they know the dates that are on it!

 

- Essentially, whether I owe them the money or not, I'm calling 'foul' on this one.

 

 

And, for the benefit of the drones from the solicitors who are monitoring this - yes dearies.

 

 

.. As far as I can make out CPUTR applies to Solicitors too!

- So, a wee complaint to the law society is on the cards!!!

 

OFT complaint went in Monday, copied to Richard Banks by Special Delivery, 'twas on his desk Tuesday... So far no response from these vicious bullies...

Edited August 10, 2012 by GLW

[seriously fed up]

I sense they might have made a "material misjudgement" in taking you on.

Go get 'em

[Guest GLW]

Well... It doesn't do to get too cocky!

 

However - I may have had a nervous breakdown, and I may find it difficult to get through the day thanks to the physical impairment my stress-related condition imposed. But I have not been robbed of either my intelligence or education... Or for that matter, my professional skills.

 

There is no shadow of a doubt in my mind that NRAM have actively sought to exploit my illness and consequent vulnerability... And I do not suppose for a moment I am the first 'vulnerable debtor' that have exploited this way!

 

As much as the courts are not there to be moral arbiters, nor are they there to be utilised to circumvent the law! Or for any other 'improper use'.

 

As I've said before; what strikes me is the sheer dishonesty of - not just NRAM - but at least two of the three other 'outfits' I've been dealing with... It certainly appears, from what I've read here, and heard from other sources, that consumer protection legislation is being routinely ignored and abused; and that bullying of consumers is commonplace...

 

The lack of 'real world' support for consumers who don't happen to be wealthy is horrific... CAB have been Pythonesque in their lack of practical use.

 

"Legal aid" solicitors, even where available, by many accounts are worse than useless. Clearly driven by aan agenda of 'ticking boxes' in order to justify a fee that is not dependent on performance. I have now read frequent accounts of the consumer knowing more than the solicitor who was supposed to be acting for them!!! And they seem to only really 'properly defend' the very obvious cases...

 

Issuing writs on a "speculative" basis - using the courts as "tools of terror"; these are exactly the things that OFT guidelines, the CPUTR and indeed the EU directive that CUPTR enacts are supposed to protect us from!

 

It seems to me that we in Scotland are particularly vulnerable due to the apparent lack of pre-action conditions... So - one way or another yes; as much as I must work to resolve my own issues the matter cannot and will not end there... Having lost my job and lost my career I now have time on my hands.

 

And shall be lobbying for change!

[gemspan]

Hi GLW, I've just spent time reading through your thread.

 

 

Can you tell me when you last made a payment to this account please?

I have a feeling that they are using the date of August 2011 because they know that the 2005 Agreement is statute barred..

.ie out of time to start court action for collection of the debt.

 

 

If you haven't paid anything to the debt in the past 5 years then the debt becomes unenforceable and doesnt exist! Written off with no record at all.

 

They are using the refund of PPI to try and say that the agreement was reconstituted at that point in time.

 

 

What I wonder is,

if they don't have the agreement how did they know how much PPI you were due back?

What did you do to reclaim your PPI?

 

If this debt hasn't been paid in 5 years you can ask to have the action struck out...

.because it is statute barred.

[Guest GLW]

Thanks Gemspan... No; it's not statute barred.

 

Within the household my O/H was the one who took care of the joint account and paid the bills-

 

NRAM have been taking payment via Direct Debit - My O/H at first knew I had been looking for a loan, things were fairly buoyant at the time financially - so they didn't challenge the money coming out initially.

 

Over the course of several months the source of the D/D became obfuscated... Over the course of years it became 'Normalised' in our minds... It ran literally for YEARS! And in fact another side to this is that if NRAM can't supply the information I need, they will owe me around £15K (+ interest)...

 

It wasn't 'till a year-past in March that I sat down and started to try and sort out the mess my finances had got into (masssive drop in income over the previous year due to certain events). And in fact in the early stages of this process of trying to discover the source of the loan I gave them the benefit of the doubt and continued to make reduced payments.

 

It wasn't 'till I think September '11 reduced payments were halted - BECAUSE by this time NRAM were trying to refund me my August payment, in an apparent reaction to my questioning whether the loan was received at all. The paperwork I have from them suggests the account balance was set at zero.

 

As the letter offering the refund of my previous letter was rather cryptic (it was more or less just a form for my bank details so they could pay the money back with no real explanation of what was going on) I asked for clarification. That was in September last I think...

 

In early October they responded by sending me an exactly similar form... I asked for clarification again, and suddenly - without any explanation they ramped the account back up from zero to the £XX,XXX they are demanding now...

 

That prompted my formal S78 request - several informal requests having been made before that, all having been ignored...

 

Yes; PPI was 'reclaimed' - Well, in fact it was voluntarily refunded very quickly and without question!! In fact in the letter offering the refund they attribute several 'demands' to me that I never made... I was VERY unwell at the time and needed the money...

 

What I didn't fully realise at the time (being unwell) was that they were using the PPI acceptance form to try and dismiss various formal complaints I had made about them back in the June of 2011!!!

 

So yes - they have used the refund of PPI duplicitously - They've used it I think as an excuse to 'stonewall' me and justify disregarding all complaints. - and as far as I can see that in itself is a breach of CPUTR....

 

Unfortunately for them my challenge to the validity of the basis of their claim (i.e did I EVER get the loan in the first place) post-dates the acceptance of the PPI refund.

 

TO be honest, one of the thing that irritates me about all this is, if they'd simply demonstrated I owed the money they would have got the same (token) payments as other creditors. My health would have started to improve by now, and I'd be back on my way to gaining an income that lets me address my debts properly...

 

One of the things I'm NOT trying to do is evade paying back what is owed...

 

But it strikes me there is (as is the case in so many contexts these days) a culture of management-by-rote at NRAM - Box ticking, where people's performance is measured by meaningless statistics. And that is why, rather than deal with matters properly and respond properly, they rely so heavily on 'standard' letters just populated with data.

 

Likewise - if they're used to abusing the court system - i.e. sending out initial writs in the knowledge that a high proportion of people will be intimidated into 'folding' on the site of one - that's far easier than actually having to do what the law says they ought to and deal properly with complaints and queries.

 

And this is where I come back to the point that - whether I owe them the money or not - this IS an abuse of process!!!

[gemspan]

Do you have any bank statements dating back to that time or could you order up statements back to that time to see if the money was deposited?

 

 

This will probably be needed as part of your court defence.

 

 

If you can prove you never received the money and you have a letter advising you that they cancelled the agreement at your request then they are goosed.

 

 

How much did they refund you in PPI?

If its proven that you didn't get the money

then they will expect that back

but you can make a claim for damages against them for harrassment etc.,

 

 

if they have been taking money from you falsely.

What a mess!

 

 

I think I would get in touch with your bank and explain the situation to them and try to get a duplicate statement..

.hopefully they will still hold them on record.

Good luck.

[Guest GLW]

I believe, as SFU pointed out, the onus is upon them to prove I did get the money. And it always has been...

 

This isn't entirely about me any more - If I owe money then I will do what I can to pay it back - I won't be bullied any more, and it may well be that the situation is ultimately impossible... But I will do what I can.

 

 

There is now really a broader principal at stake. Both NRAM and the Scottish Solicitors they use have adopted a cavalier attitude to the law; it's obviously something that's worked for them in the past...

 

Clearly, they must have bullied others into submission. Clearly they must be used to abusing the courts, abusing the law in this way...

 

Well, in my case them and their kind - these bullies - have already caused me to loose everything... And this rat, having been cornered, is about to fight back...

 

It has ALWAYS been my position that I am open to a progressive dialogue with NRAM - They point blank refuse to engage with that. And, if they had simply supplied the necessary information, I would (and still will) commence the same 'token payment' regime as I have adopted with my other creditors...

 

But clearly, that's not good enough for these rogues - and in my opinion they have sought to take advantage of my illness, railroad me into court in the hope that my vulnerability will cause me to 'fold', and hope to obtain the proverbial 'blood out of a stone'...

 

I plainly haven't got the money! Thanks to the pressure these people have already put me under I have lost my health, my job and a professional career - and my household is now entirely dependent on a partner who earns barely-above minimum wage through a part-time job....

 

Now; in these circumstances, I see no reason to do the bullies' job for them. Yes; I probably could produce "a" bank statement with no loan coming into it - but would it be the right one? If the money was paid over at all I don't even know WHEN exactly it was supposed to be paid over...

 

I simply don't have the information from NRAM to trace the payment. That is rather my point... Going back to "the" bank rather assumes I know which bank and which account to look into.

 

Morally, practically, in terms of time and resources... It is not MY job to prove THEIR claims!

 

Even as I write today - with the CEO of NRAM having had my complaints and concerns DEFINITELY laid before him some several days ago; I do NOT have either a copy of the agreement or the information necessary to trace the payment. The court action remains live - and that court action remains vexatious...

 

1) The validity of their claims has been lawfully challenged.

2) Their communication has been at best incoherent - I say willfully obstructive.

3) Instead of acting as the law demands, they have sought to use the 'blunt instrument' of the court to circumvent both regulation and the law...

 

Now; here's the thing Gemspan; no-one has to prove their innocence.

 

You're suggesting I need to prove I DIDN'T get the money - On that basis what would there be to stop some [problem] artist issuing random invoices followed up by court actions in the hope that a proportion would 'fold' rather than face the trauma of a court room???

 

My point is NRAM have railroaded me into court WITHOUT first justifying their claim... Which the law requires them to do and which I have asked them to do... Even if the required proof of claim lands on my doorstep tomorrow; this action REMAINS an abuse of process - i.e. a use of the court to circumvent the law-

 

As I have said. as much as this sort of thing is unfair on consumers, it is also unfair on those lenders who do carefully discharge their duties under the law. - Companies like NRAM who abuse the court system literally 'steal' a commercial advantage over those acting legally....

According to CPUTR 2008:

 

“professional diligence” means the standard of special skill and care which a trader may

reasonably be expected to exercise towards consumers which is commensurate with either—

(a) honest market practice in the trader’s field of activity, or

(b) the general principle of good faith in the trader’s field of activity; “

 

“ 3.—(1) Unfair commercial practices are prohibited.

(2) Paragraphs (3) and (4) set out the circumstances when a commercial practice is unfair.

 

(3) A commercial practice is unfair if—

(a) it contravenes the requirements of professional diligence; and

(b) it materially distorts or is likely to materially distort the economic behaviour of the

average consumer with regard to the product.

 

(4) A commercial practice is unfair if—

(a) it is a misleading action under the provisions of regulation 5;

(b) it is a misleading omission under the provisions of regulation 6;

© it is aggressive under the provisions of regulation 7; or

(d) it is listed in Schedule 1.“

AND

 

6.—(1) A commercial practice is a misleading omission if, in its factual context, taking account of the matters in paragraph (2)—

(a) the commercial practice omits material information,

(b) the commercial practice hides material information,

© the commercial practice provides material information in a manner which is unclear,

unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely, or

(d) the commercial practice fails to identify its commercial intent, unless this is already

apparent from the context, and as a result it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.

AND

 

7.—(1) A commercial practice is aggressive if, in its factual context, taking account of all of its

features and circumstances—

(a) it significantly impairs or is likely significantly to impair the average consumer’s freedom

of choice or conduct in relation to the product concerned through the use of harassment,

coercion or undue influence; and

(b) it thereby causes or is likely to cause him to take a transactional decision he would not

have taken otherwise.

 

(2) In determining whether a commercial practice uses harassment, coercion or undue influence

account shall be taken of—

(a) its timing, location, nature or persistence;

(b) the use of threatening or abusive language or behaviour;

© the exploitation by the trader of any specific misfortune or circumstance of such gravity as to impair the consumer’s judgment, of which the trader is aware, to influence the

consumer’s decision with regard to the product;

(d) any onerous or disproportionate non-contractual barrier imposed by the trader where a

consumer wishes to exercise rights under the contract, including rights to terminate a

contract or to switch to another product or another trader; and

(e) any threat to take any action which cannot legally be taken.

(3) In this regulation—

(a) “coercion” includes the use of physical force; and

(b) “undue influence” means exploiting a position of power in relation to the consumer so as

to apply pressure, even without using or threatening to use physical force, in a way which

significantly limits the consumer’s ability to make an informed decision.

To reinforce the point OFT Guidelines state...

 

Lenders are required (among other things) to:

• establish and implement clear, appropriate and effective policies and procedures for identifying and dealing with particularly vulnerable debtors.

Section 3 of the OFT guidance considers unfair and improper business practice...

 

3.3b. leaving out or presenting information in such a way that it creates, or has the potential to create, a false or misleading impression, or exploits a debtor's lack of knowledge.

AND

 

3.7 e. When seeking to recover a debt, failing to take appropriate steps with a view to ensuring that available data/information to inform the pursuit and recovery of a debt is accurate and adequate, such that the debtor and the (amount of the) debt can be correctly identified from that data/information.

3.7 o. ignoring and/or disregarding claims that debts have been settled or are disputed and continuing to make demands for payment without providing clear justification and/or evidence as to why the claims are not valid

 

i) They are alleging I entered into an agreement on a particular date in August 2011 - I didn't; that was the day I almost died. - Unless they had a representative stalking the hospital pretending to be a Nurse and thrust this thing under my hand with the pretence that it was some sort of consent to treatment form!!

 

ii) They are alleging a sum of money was advanced to me on that same date - First I've heard of it! And what's more, the sum of money they are finally claiming is different to what they say was advanced in August '11.

 

iii) They're making reference to the agreement relative to events in 2011 having been signed in 2005...

 

If anyone can explain how that last circumstance can possibly make any sense I'd be very grateful - How can I possibly enter into an agreement in 2011 on the basis of paperwork signed in 2005???

 

Even if they were to argue the 2005 agreement was somehow varied, surely formal paperwork in the form of a fresh contract would be necessary acknowledging exactly that - with all the terms and conditions properly set out , acknowledging the previous agreement etc...

 

- No such thing exists!!

 

In terms of regulation 6 of CPUTR I draw attention to NRAM's repeated and flagrant failure to provide necessary information, their ‘stonewall’ tactics and determination to use the blunt instrument of court action (abuse of process) to intimidate me into acting as I might not otherwise.

 

Additionally, I cite the confusing and incoherent array of statements issued by NRAM, some making claims they refuse to substantiate, others suggesting all liabilities were discharged - in respect of 6 © above. I question, in terms of professional diligence, the competence of these various conflicting and confusing statements.

 

There is also the matter of a lack of timeous response to a perfectly legitimate request under the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 for a copy of the alleged agreement they now seek to rely on – a request which, as I write, has still not been met! Similarly the lack of response (i.e. information) to various other legitimate queries raised with NRAM.

 

As I have explained, I believe the action raised by NRAM to be both vexatious and an abuse of process. Clearly - referring to regulation 7 -the intimidatory tactic of court action is one likely to impair my conduct in relation to the ‘product’ concerned. And is obviously designed to make me make a transactional decision I would not otherwise. – Specifically to capitulate to demands for payment which NRAM point-blank refuse to substantiate .

 

Clearly – whether NRAM’s claims for monies ultimately have any merit or not – their refusal to act within the law give serious cause for concern- And in that sense the question of whether I owe them anything or not is almost irrelevant...

 

Anecdotal evidence from here and from other places suggests to me that 'speculative' writs are a blunt instrument often used by rogue lenders and Solicitors here in Scotland. The lack of any pre-action conditions being a facilitator to that...

 

So, in that respect, this isn't just about me... And it's certainly not simply a case of whether I owe NRAM money or not - When they issued that initial writ they crossed a line.

Edited August 12, 2012 by GLW

[Guest GLW]

Folks, - Just to allow me to confirm I've found and will be referencing the right thing...

 

Relevant Consumer Credit Act in 2011 was???

 

- And in 2005???

[PRBrown]

You can't prosecute under the CPUTR so it is of no direct use to your defence. Neither is the OFT Guidelines because they are...erm....guidelines. They might be used to show a blatant disregard of consumer protection laws, but the unfairness of it all can't be used to protect you. You need to defend the case in LAW first, then you might get a chance show just how bad they have been and perhaps trading standards or the OFT will take up the case for you and prosecute them for their bad behaviour.

 

That's what I said earlier about keeping a focus on what's important. We know they've treated you badly, we know they've run roughshod over legislation and guidelines designed to protect the consumer, but that will not be your saviour in court. Stop talking about how badly you've been treated, and start thinking about your defence. You're running off on tangents and getting upset about things that are not important at this time. STOP. You might be able to use all this stuff to bolster your defence and show the judge just how badly they have acted and what misery they've put you through once you've won the legal case, but if you don't have a legal defence you will lose. The CPUTR is NOT your defence.

 

In amongst all this "noise" you seem to have a very good defence in the making and probably very good prospects. The fact that they haven't complied with your S78 request is a total defence (that they could possibly easily remedy...in theory). Other things like statements not matching, letters saying there is no debt then suddenly there is, their reliance on 6 year old agreement to provide funds - these are all things that are relevant and it's getting all that clear and absolute that counts.

 

While the judge may sympathise with your feelings, unless you have a defence you will lose and all the gnashing of teeth and "abuse of process", quoting of CPUTR, all the talk of vexatious action is nonsense. Sorry to be blunt, but you need to put your feelings aside and focus on what matters to the LEGAL side of your case first. Everything else is secondary.

 

Cases are won on technicalities of law and you must be in absolute control of your legal defence if you're going to defend yourself. I'll say it again LEGAL LEGAL LEGAL LEGAL LEGAL and in tiny writing "feelings". It looks to me like your getting your knickers in a twist and so busy running around saying "it's all so unfair, it's an abuse of process, the courts are colluding, the sky is falling in" that you're not getting down to the nitty-gritty of what is going to save you, and humiliate them, in court.

 

This is what it's about - they say you owe them money, you say they don't. Can they prove you owe them money? Can you cast enough doubt on their claim? Can you show non-compliance with the consumer credit act - s78, not properly executed, is there an agreement at all? Can you show money was never paid to you? Can you prove that they can't lend you money based on a 6-year old application? Can you show all liabilities were discharged at some point. These are the type of things you must concentrate on. Everything else you mention that is not specifically related to this is probably a waste of your breath.

 

I feel like a broken record, but it seems to me you're more focussed on the emotional aspect and haven't put a strong enough defence together yet. You need to get that straight in your head and gather what evidence you can in the short time you have available to do this e.g. apply for bank statements from all banks you dealt with at the relevant time (there can't be THAT many). You're wasting your precious time reading and then quoting legislation to us that can do nothing to protect you, and you're prattling on about how unfair it all is rather than spending the time concentrating on what is going to save you in court first.

 

I'm not unsympathetic to your plight...I know how hard it is....but I just see you getting all worked up about things that are fundamentally irrelevant. I don't care if they shouldn't be in court at all and didn't follow "nicely nicely" procedures. I couldn't care less that the Scottish Court System is being abused, colluding with, or being used as a blunt instrument, because you know what? THEY'VE TAKEN YOU TO COURT, and you'd better get your defence in place. You can care and get all emotive about it once you've won the legal part of your argument, but until you do that, put it aside.

 

I appreciate I won't win any friends by saying what I have, but you need to win this and you probably can win it from the relevant stuff you have mentioned. Just get on with what's important.

[Guest GLW]

P.R... You are appreciative of the fact that both NRAM staff and those of their Scottish Solicitors - Aberdein Considine - in all probability read these forums??? Actually, I'm quite certain that they do! There is much in terms of "noise" that I'd make on this open, public platform which I'll not have the opportunity to put to a court...

 

And as much as my own plight is troubling and foremost in my mind; I see broader principals at stake here.

 

For instance - It strikes me that it would be most convenient for rogue lenders if they could simply 'railroad' people into court in much the same way as local councils can in respect of council tax... None of this 'messy' compliance with the CCA or troublesome OFT guidelines or even having to give people proper answers to reasonable questions... And how massively 'inconvenient' if it attention is drawn to CPUTR is something other than the mere 'rubber stamping' of an EU directive...

 

As for my own case; it would be incorrect to assume that I'd view an open forum as the place to lay quite everything bare. For the benefit of NRAM staff and those of Aberdein Considine who might be reading, you can wait for the defences to be properly lodged to find out what surprises await...

 

P.R., with all due respect, there is absolutely nowhere here that I have claimed any intent to "prosecute" NRAM under the CPUTR... I am perfectly aware that is not within my wont. Nor have I suggested at any point collusion with or within the courts...

 

I have simply pointed out; based on what I've read here and in other place, that the courts here in Scotland seem to be being routinely abused... A broad issue

 

'Devil's Advocate' is a role I am appreciative of... Belittlement, not.

 

What I have said I have done is collate all the documentation I have in chronological order, link it to a chronological account of events, cross-referenced that to OFT Guidelines and the CPUTR, and lodged a formal complaint with the OFT about a breach of statute law - NOT merely a complaint that NRAM haven't followed guidelines (although it is also that) - but that they have breached statute law...

 

Now; if the OFT are not in effect the relevant 'Policing Authority' please enlighten me as to who is. And if the Policing Authority fail to act that, becomes a wider Political issue... Which I WILL pursue!

 

I believe however it is quite clear from my previous posts that I do not in any way expect to rely on that 'prosecution', (should it occur) as a defence; and also that I am fully aware this is a separate issue. So where you get the idea that I hope to "prosecute" NRAM under the CPUTR is really not at all clear to me and certainly erroneous.

You say:

 

Cases are won on technicalities of law and you must be in absolute control of your legal defence if you're going to defend yourself.

 

You also note:

 

Other things like statements not matching, letters saying there is no debt then suddenly there is, their reliance on 6 year old agreement to provide funds - these are all things that are relevant and it's getting all that clear and absolute that counts.

 

Here's a technicality of law for you then.

 

The OFT guidelines (and yes; they are just that) provide a definition of what they, as the regulatory authority, view as unfair business practice. The CPUTR is a piece of statute law which outlaws unfair business practices... NRAM are legally bound to act within the law.

 

- If you have thoughts on why this is not so; I'd be pleased to learn your perspective.

 

I shall be answering their averments one-by-one.

 

They claim I entered into a "Consumer Credit Agreement" on a particular date - I didn't; I simply didn't - and the initial writ is actually the first I've heard of any alleged interaction with NRAM on that date! Furthermore I can prove I was otherwise occupied dodging the grim reaper on that date. - And a Consumer Credit Agreement - which is what they claim was established at that point - is a very specific thing is it not? Governed by whatever laws are in effect when it is entered into?

 

They claim, on that same date, I was advanced a sum of money and that repayment terms were established - The sum they say was 'advanced' is actually at odds with what they are suing for (there being no clarification in this respect). And as for the repayment schedule that they allude to; this is news to me! and what is ABSOLUTELY certain is that I received NO money from them on that date!!!

 

Bizarrely, they claim "the agreement" in respect of the above was signed some six years earlier - when the relevant law was different... And it seems to be a matter of remarkable foresight that I would arrange to borrow money six years in the future...

As I say, a Consumer Credit Agreement is a very specific thing is it not?

 

You're right of course that the failure to date to supply a copy of the agreement is a defence under the CCA. - And yes; it is one that is easily remedied; assuming they have a copy of "the agreement"...

 

The first question there is though what agreement?

 

- A document I know cannot possibly exist detailing the concordance they claim I reached with them, presumably on a Hospital bed? Or some other document signed at a different time under a different law relating to a different sum of money to be paid back over a different period of time?

 

Is this competent?

 

Although adjustments are allowed; is it not incumbent on a Pursuer to be largely accurate in their initial averments? i.e. - Surely they can't just write down any old bunkum?

 

In fact - the document they may be (I think -I don't know) referring to relates to other matters which are in lawful dispute... And this is where in my opinion CPUTR comes into play...

 

Have a think about WHY the failure on the part of the Pursuer to supply a copy of the agreement is a defence under the CCA. - The document is required for informational purposes; and as I read it that much has been established in recent cases...

 

The chain of events, which is laid bare by examining the chronology of events - the 'audit trail' (for want of a bit of expression) - Well... what do we have? Roughly...

 

My initial recollections were that the loan had indeed not been taken out and the agreement cancelled - but I gave them the benefit of the doubt and paid over, in good faith, the reduced payment...

 

When I discovered letters I had written to them back in '05, which seemed to confirm what I thought, I sent them copies, raised my doubts; and asked them to volunteer a copy of the agreement and information that would allow me to trace receipt of the loan... I got no cogent response!

 

Their response was cryptic - A confusing 'statement' showing the account in credit followed by an notification suggesting they wanted to refund my last payment... and that the balance was zero...

 

I asked for clarity... A month later I got another, exactly similar cryptic refund letter...

I ask for clarity AGAIN - this time they ramp the account back up again without any explanation....

 

- At that point (October past) I put in a formal request for the agreement under the CCA... Which they ignore... Their next move is to railroad me into court...

 

I'm sitting here today, with the signed special-delivery confirmation of the facts of this matter having reached the Chief Executive Officer of NRAM in writing - And I STILL, today, I don't have a copy of the alleged agreement... Or even the common courtesy of an acknowledgement of my letter.

 

Now; here's the thing - I can only assume this "wall of silence" on the part of NRAM is deliberate; especially as it seems to exist right at the very TOP of the organisarion. Flagrant in fact.

 

I have been trying to get information from NRAM that I legitimately need and am entitled to... Not only under the CCA but the CPUTR too... Currently, from where I sit, they are in breach of both those statutes...

 

Now; I opened this post by mentioning how convenient for rogue lenders it would be if they could simply 'railroad' people into court in much the same way as local councils can in respect of council tax... And it strikes me that is exactly what NRAM are doing here...

 

Bear in mind they are seeking far more than to simply establish whether the money is owed or not. They want interest upon interest for a term that is not yet complete... They want priority over other creditors who have behaved thus far legitimately...

 

The law actually says that they must NOT communicate in a way that obfuscates the issues... Bear in mind they aver to a 'necessity of action'... Necessity? Really?

 

I say they are deliberately using the court to circumvent to provisions of statute law. I say that is an improper use of the court - and thus an abuse of process.

 

You say.

 

...and "abuse of process", quoting of CPUTR, all the talk of vexatious action is nonsense.

 

Well; I've explained why I think it ISN'T nonsense - perhaps you would be good enough to give a cogent explanation as to why you think it is?

[PRBrown]

Well, it certainly got a reaction, but I'm glad to say that it's a reaction that I'm pleased to see. My worry - for you - was that you were over-concerned about things that won't help you in your court case. I'm glad I was wrong and your reply seems like you've got it in hand and are making a distinction between them.

P.R... You are appreciative of the fact that both NRAM staff and those of their Scottish Solicitors - Aberdein Considine - in all probability read these forums??? Actually, I'm quite certain that they do! There is much in terms of "noise" that I'd make on this open, public platform which I'll not have the opportunity to put to a court...

They may well be, and if they are they're either in possession of facts that you're not aware of or else they are worrying about what the heck they've done to unleash your fury. I'd love to be a fly on the wall.

 

And as much as my own plight is troubling and foremost in my mind; I see broader principals at stake here.

 

For instance - It strikes me that it would be most convenient for rogue lenders if they could simply 'railroad' people into court in much the same way as local councils can in respect of council tax... None of this 'messy' compliance with the CCA or troublesome OFT guidelines or even having to give people proper answers to reasonable questions... And how massively 'inconvenient' if it attention is drawn to CPUTR is something other than the mere 'rubber stamping' of an EU directive...

You're completely correct, but my mind is that while these are important issues that may need to be addressed, they are not a legal defence and that makes them largely irrelevant at this point.

 

I have simply pointed out; based on what I've read here and in other place, that the courts here in Scotland seem to be being routinely abused... A broad issue

That may very well be the case when it comes to debtors. Defending an action is expensive (unaffordable to the average person) when you need professional help, and being is debt is still embarrassing to a lot of people. In the past people often didn't defend and lost by default. Sites like this give you the tools to fight back and make it an almost equal fight if you're determined enough, able to assimilate facts and can articulate these on paper and in speaking.

 

I called a number of solicitors and one of them told me that ordinary actions can cost in the region of £20,000 to defend and you'll never get that back even if you win. Companies with deep pockets know it's an uneven fight where the average person can't get the funds for a professional defence when the person knows they won't get all that money back. That automatically discourages anyone from defending, and as that solicitor said, unless you're very rich or very poor, justice isn't always being served.

 

But, and it's an important but, so what? Change the broad issue later, defend yourself now because it's your defence that matters at this time. You're not going to change the law, prompt an OFT investigation, or get Trading Standards to prosecute them on the basis of a single complaint. It will be your complaint added to many others that will prompt action, and that action is unlikely to start before your court case and certainly won't finish before your case ends, so what's the point in bothering about it just now. The imminent court case is what counts at the moment.

 

Here's a technicality of law for you then.

The OFT guidelines (and yes; they are just that) provide a definition of what they, as the regulatory authority, view as unfair business practice. The CPUTR is a piece of statute law which outlaws unfair business practices... NRAM are legally bound to act within the law.

- If you have thoughts on why this is not so; I'd be pleased to learn your perspective.

I'm really not out to argue with you. I'm on your side. Although I'm new to being pursued, I've been involved in a few legal wranglings over time. What I've been frustrated with in some of the things I've seen is when there's been a lack of focus. Rather than concentrate on the things that are going to help people win, they take a sort of moral stance (it isn't fair!) and a blanket approach covering everything whether strictly relevant or not. The result is a mish-mash defence that fails to focus in on what counts and comes over as a disorganized mess where the hope seems to be that if they throw enough mud some of it will stick or else it becomes so obscure that no-one can reach a judgement. In court, the sheriff is smarter than that and has little time for random ramblings. I've seem the symptoms, and I was worrying you might be headed down that route. I'm delighted that you aren't.

 

As for my perspective, I'll say this. Yes the CPUTR is statute, and yes NRAM should adhere to, but it's statute that you cannot prosecute under and as such it's not immediately relevant to your circumstances. You can, and obviously are, going to report to the relevant authorities, and may even be able to stir-up some publicity that embarrasses the OFT into quick action, but it isn't going to make a jot of difference to your defence and I was worried that you were spending time on stuff that can't help you win in court right now.

 

I shall be answering their averments one-by-one.

They claim I entered into a "Consumer Credit Agreement" on a particular date - I didn't; I simply didn't - and the initial writ is actually the first I've heard of any alleged interaction with NRAM on that date! Furthermore I can prove I was otherwise occupied dodging the grim reaper on that date. - And a Consumer Credit Agreement - which is what they claim was established at that point - is a very specific thing is it not? Governed by whatever laws are in effect when it is entered into?

 

They claim, on that same date, I was advanced a sum of money and that repayment terms were established - The sum they say was 'advanced' is actually at odds with what they are suing for (there being no clarification in this respect). And as for the repayment schedule that they allude to; this is news to me! and what is ABSOLUTELY certain is that I received NO money from them on that date!!!

Bizarrely, they claim "the agreement" in respect of the above was signed some six years earlier - when the relevant law was different... And it seems to be a matter of remarkable foresight that I would arrange to borrow money six years in the future...

 

Maybe you are remarkably prescient.

 

As I say, a Consumer Credit Agreement is a very specific thing is it not?

Yes, governed by all sorts of rules and regulations.

 

You're right of course that the failure to date to supply a copy of the agreement is a defence under the CCA. - And yes; it is one that is easily remedied; assuming they have a copy of "the agreement"...

Easily remedied is easy to say, sometimes not so eay to do. You'll need to see what they come up with.

 

The first question there is though what agreement?

Yes. There's probably/maybe/possibly an agreement for something floating around, but is it relevant?

 

- A document I know cannot possibly exist detailing the concordance they claim I reached with them, presumably on a Hospital bed? Or some other document signed at a different time under a different law relating to a different sum of money to be paid back over a different period of time?

 

Is this competent?

Competent? Maybe not, failing so, irrelevant. You've got lots of good stuff there and you rightly question whether there's even an agreement at all, never mind a properly executed on, and THEN you have a whole pile of other questions. Put precisely, I can see them having a problem dealing with this.

 

Remember what I said at the start, the solicitors will have started action on the instruction of their client. They probably won't have any paperwork in their possession at this time. It won't be until you lodge your NID then lodge your defence that they will start to gather their evidence. That's when they'll know what their situation is.

 

Although adjustments are allowed; is it not incumbent on a Pursuer to be largely accurate in their initial averments? i.e. - Surely they can't just write down any old bunkum?

They are supposed to be accurate, but that's what your "Answers to Condescendence" and "Pleas in Law" will be about in your initial defence. You can tear them to bit here if you want, or introduce the dressing down at some other period.

 

The writ I received said something along the lines of "he owes us money we lent him, we want it back". It was no more complicated than that. No avertments as to the existence of an agreement, no account number, no mention of regulated agreements, no mention of dispute, no mention of years of legal correspondence. Oh, they did mention they had statements!

 

How far they get on a poor condescendence it up to you and is anyone's guess. My own pursuers rubbish condescendence is why many months later we're still not past the adjustments stage but it didn't stop the case being rubber-stamped for progress and I can never forget that they would have won by default if I hadn't defended.

 

Have a think about WHY the failure on the part of the Pursuer to supply a copy of the agreement is a defence under the CCA. - The document is required for informational purposes; and as I read it that much has been established in recent cases...

You might be mixing up the failure to comply with s78 for "information purposes" with the "proof of purpose" which they will need to provide if they want to win.

 

The solicitors in Scotland are clear on a couple of things from what I can gather.

 

1. A application form is not an agreement

2. The original must be produced in court

 

These requirements would likely be over-ridden or brushed aside in England where a "True Copy" of an agreement now seems to be sufficient to prove a properly executed agreement. It can't happen so easily in Scotland I think. There seems to be subtleties and twists in Scottish law regarding the formation of contracts (even if regulated by CCA 1974) that are in the defendants favour in case like yours and mine.

 

I say they are deliberately using the court to circumvent to provisions of statute law. I say that is an improper use of the court - and thus an abuse of process.

 

You say.

 

Well; I've explained why I think it ISN'T nonsense - perhaps you would be good enough to give a cogent explanation as to why you think it is?

It may very well be an abuse of process (I've never said it wasn't - I said it was a nonsense to your current situation i.e. defending the action first) but is that your defence? You may be able to prove it is, but only because you're able to defend on all the relevant points. That only comes when you take apart every bit of their prosecution regarding the competency of their initial writ, its relevancy, the agreement (if any), its execution, whether monies changed hands, whether they can rely upon a 6-year old agreement to provide funds, and whether any of it is enforceable. Remember, they need to prove their case. You need to be focussed on what they will need to do to prove their case as that will provide clues on where your defence needs to be strongest.

 

IF you don't defend competently, you lose, and if you lose they can't have abused the court. You can argue subtleties of this, but it's a fact of life. It may be unfair, it may be immoral, but what are you trying to do at this particular moment - defend yourself against the claim, or lay down a moral structure that must be adhered to in situations that follow you i.e. after you've won or lost? If it was me, I know I'd be putting aside everything else in an effort to defend myself and leave the other stuff till later.

 

That's why I was thinking you needed to focus on what's important to your defence because it's from that that everything else can flow...their abuse of process, their abuse of CPUTR and consumer protection legislation, and their dreadful behaviour toward you for additional sympathy from the Sheriff and hopefully a dressing down for them....but you need to win the defence first and that's the warning I was trying to give. I'm delighted to know you're focussed and in control of what you are doing.

[Guest GLW]

Broadly - And this is not just the bones of my defence but actually what happened.....

 

NRAM have raised action citing specific events at a certain time... August 2011 to be precise.

 

I know absolutely nothing of any interaction taking place between me and NRAM on that date last August... I was, as I say, elsewhere; so my memories of the day are clear and, by dint of it being an 'ill-wind', properly evidenced.

 

I certainly didn't get any money 'advanced' to me last year... If I did to what account where? I didn't have any terms intimated to me then, didn't sign anything that day (other than maybe a medical consent form)....

 

Actually - the first I've heard about all this stuff allegedly going on last August was in the initial writ!!!

 

~That covers two of the three paragraphs in their averments over the "Consumer Credit Agreement" or as they put it: ("the Agreement") - That, to me reads as a them specifying what events and concordance should be clearly and specifically evidenced by "the Agreement" (the paperwork) they refer to... N'est-ce pas?

 

However, they then refer to an agreement possibly one signed back in 2005. They don't mention it, but that was for a Different time, different amount etc... And essentially there is no possibility that it can signify I agreed to anything in 2011.

 

THAT agreement - which they clearly aver to as being "The agreement" as far as I can see simply CANNOT be the same thing as they refer to in the first two paragraphs. - Not sure what the correct legal jargon for "the Pursuer is talking complete and utter ballokes" is?

 

Isti loquuntur completum et internecionem testiculos???

 

And - In fact, in any case, the 2005 agreement ( a different thing to that which they refer) has been lawfully queried...

 

You might be mixing up the failure to comply with s78 for "information purposes" with the "proof of purpose" which they will need to provide if they want to win.

 

Not at this stage no... The dispute surrounding the 2005 agreement - which is not in any case consistent with their claims in respect of 'what, when and who' - is about a failure to provide information as the law requires... Repayment was halted on the basis of non-response to the request under the CCA. But also on the basis that their responses had been all of cryptic, contradictory, confusing and obfucatious; willfully so, I contend. - And unlawfully so.

 

As much as the CCA entitles me to a copy for legitimate informational purposes, I contend that, also for legitimate informational purposes, the CPUTR, in concert with OFT guidelines, places an onus upon NRAM to communicate clearly and unambiguously with me...

 

Instead I have a chain of correspondence from them which is, quite frankly no more than 'stonewalling'... Of some twenty letters from them, only three are anything other than templates populated with data. Even in response (for instance) to my querying if the money had been paid out to me; all I got back was a form showing the balance set to zero and asking for my bank detail to refund my last payment - I queried THAT and got exactly the same thing back again...

 

Now; my argument here is that is not only incompetent but (under CPUTR) unfair (see OFT gudelines for the definition) and therefore unlawful. Clearly, the information requested is necessary to enable me to reach a transactional decision - in much the same was as the CCA provides for - Bear in mind here P.R. it is and has always been my clearly stated position that I am willing to enter into a progressive dialogue with NRAM...

 

In short - what I am saying here is that NRAM have willfully sought to circumvent the law that entitles me to information about the account...

 

Stepping aside from my own case here and onto more general ground for a moment; CPUTR is designed (as far as I can see) to outlaw the 'grey print on grey paper' mentality... The nature of NRAM's responses suggests to me a culture where operators are working to rote and driven by statistics... i.e. a customer query comes in and the individual concerned is under pressure to 'get rid' of it as quickly as possible and enable the 'ticking of a box' to say a response was sent... This would explain the nature of the 'papertrail' I have...

 

Clearly, consumers becoming aware of their rights and having platforms from which to glean and exchange information has made the departments that deal with such queries much busier and costlier for big firms like NRAM to deal with... As I've said; how much more convenient if they could 'railroad' people - frequently unjustly - in the same way that local councils can...

 

Back to my own case... They then aver to a default by Defender...

 

Well firstly, and I understand this is fairly common, there WAS no "Default Notice" served. And even if one had been served - As I sit here today I have NO EVIDENCE of the existence of any agreement.

 

In the absence of any evidence of an agreement, and in the face of a lawful dispute - NRAM having offered no proof (or even evidence) of claim; and given the obfucatious nature of communications from NRAM they acted unfairly (OFT Guidelines again) and therefore unlawfully in maintaining demands for payment...

 

This leads me on to the Demand for payment and necessity of action...

 

They did indeed send me a formal demand letter as they claim at the end of May. That was clearly answered and duly ignored; Likewise a letter from Aberdein Considine in June... In early July I wrote to NRAM advising them that intended to complain to the OFT about their conduct... They responded with a writ!

 

Tough guys huh?

 

- My response here then is basically that their demand for payment was disputed as they had provided no evidence of claim. They were given every opportunity to respond to this dispute and simply did not do so. This failure placed them in breach of OFT guideline in which respect my intent to report them to that body was advised. That breach also renders their actions unlawful under CPUTR.

 

I have repeatedly made it clear that I am open to a progressive dialogue with NRAM. And the law demands that they respond appropriately which they have not done. Therefore the necessity of action is denied as clearly it could have been avoided had they acted within the law. Further, I contend that the Pursuers are willfully seeking to evade their legal obligations and circumvent the provisions of statute law (CPUTR). This is therefore an attempt to utilise the court for an improper purpose - an abuse of process...

[Guest GLW]

I am in the process of writing up my initial defences - answers sto condicendence - in respect of an initial writ. The NID having been duly lodged I would be grateful for any help with the formatting of this...

 

After scratching around and reading much of - http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/library/rules/ordinarycause/index.asp

 

I understand that I need to...

 

1) Copy the heading giving the location of the court from the initial writ. Instead of the word initial writ, write the word "defence". Then copy the names and addresses of the parties exactly as they appear.

 

2) Set up a heading "Answers to Condescendence"

 

3) Following the numbering in the writ, write my answers to the articles of condescendence, in numbered paragraphs.

 

4) Set up a heading "Pleas in Law". Put in there what legal remedy I want the court to make, eg, to dismiss their action etc...

 

5) I believe this all need to be written in the third person? - i.e. "the Defender", the Pursuer etc....

 

If anyone would like to correct or expand on what I have here I'd be most grateful... tips on language etc..

 

There are FOUR condecendence averred to by the Persuer

 

1) Jurisdiction

 

2) Consumer Credit Agreement

 

3) Default by Defender

 

4) Demand for Payment, necessity of action.

 

- In several cases my responses will be more complex than the averments they make. For the purposes of readability my instinct is to break these into paragraphs... Two questions arise here...

 

i) DO I go for clarity here? Or as impenetrable as it might makes things, do I launch int a twenty-zilion word paragraph???

 

ii) Numbering.... The averments are headed (for instance...)

 

2. consumer Credit Agreement

 

2.1 blah blah blah blah,,,

 

2.2 blah blah blah blah,,,

 

2.3 blah blah blah blah,,,

 

etc....

 

IS it acceptable for me to respond...

 

2. Denied

 

2.1.1 It explained that subsequentis loquitur excrementum

 

2.1.3 Attention is drawn to et iustus vado in generationes et et in loquentes excrementum

 

2.1.2 It is explained that tunc ultra addere excrementum ad porcus struem excrementum sunt iam locutus sum

 

2.2.1 Attention is drawn to testes addere onus quod olim iam profluat stercus

 

2.2.2 The Defender contends that et nunc illos loqui urina ire cum magna steming struem excrementum

 

Etc, etc, etc...

 

Anyone have any thoughts??? Preferably in English... Ego vere non cognos**** latinam; Iustus sum faking it!!

Edited August 18, 2012 by GLW

[dx100uk]

keep to one thread

 

dx

[Guest GLW]

keep to one thread

 

dx

 

How rude and unhelpful. Please is a customary courtesy; even if it does happen to be your ball.

 

Besides which my point was a generic one - only tenuously connected to my original thread - and intended to evoke a general response that might assist others faced with the same challenge - i.e. formatting a defence in similar circumstances. - My post actually had little to do with the specifics of my case.

[dx100uk]

it was a request from another siteteam member

to which i reponded and somewhat agree,

 

no harm done.

 

other will soon find relevent threads by our search.

 

dx

 

 

dx

[Guest GLW]

Can you delete my account please; I can't seem to find that function int he user control panel

[IdaInFife]

Hi GLW

 

I requested for your threads to be merged as SFU and the others would get a notification of your recent post where as they would have no idea of your new thread and therefore may take a few days for a response.

[PRBrown]

Can you delete my account please; I can't seem to find that function int he user control panel

Oh, for goodness sake. The people are here to try to help, but if you take that attitude with them you'll get nowhere. If you think they've been harsh just wait until the period of adjustments or until you get into court if the pursuers are in any way competent (not likely, but possible). Swallow your pride, take a deep breath, and decide whether you want some help or not.

 

No-one can give you complete answers without seeing the wording of their condescendence. They also can't make up the words on your pleas-in-law because only you have the necessary details. There's a lot happened from what you've said before, now you need to get it straight and onto paper in a way that makes sense, can be understood, and has the law behind it.

 

The reply have a particular format. I've put together a sort-of layout but it needs polished and the words must be your own. It should also be double-spaced.

 

Your answers to their condescendence depend on exactly what they say. You either deny, agree, or explain.

 

Approx layout.

 

SHERIFFDOM OF...

 

COURT REF. NO:-

 

DEFENCES

 

in causa

 

NBAM

ADDRESS

 

Pursuers

 

 

Against

 

ME

ADDRESS

 

 

Defender

 

 

ANSWERS TO CONDESCENDENCE

 

1. The averments relating to the Defender and jurisdiction are admitted. Quoad ultra not known and not admitted. (i.e. I don't know anything else and I'm not admitting to it)

 

2. It is explained that

 

a. The Pursuers have not provided any documentation to substantiate their claim as craved.

b. The pursuers are idiots who haven't got a clue

 

The Pursuer’s averments are denied except insofar as coinciding herewith.

 

3. Denied. It is explained blah blah

 

4. Dened, agreed, or it is explained that

 

5. Denied that the Defender has delayed or refused to make payment. The defender did this...The Pursuers averments are denied except insofar as coinciding herewith

 

 

PLEAS-IN-LAW FOR THE DEFENDERS

 

1. e.g. The Pursuers, having failed to aver that the agreement exists and is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974, are in breach of The Act of Sederunt (Amendment of the Act of Sederunt (Sheriff Court Rules) (Miscellaneous Amendments) 2009) 2009. Accordingly, the action is incompetent, failing which irrelevant, and the Defender craves that this action should be dismissed.

 

2. Pursuers averments are irrelevant et separatim lacking in specification, the action should be dismissed

 

3. The Pursuers, having failed to comply with the terms of s.60(1), s.61(1) and s.78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 etc etc. Accordingly the action should be dismissed.

 

4. The Defender......reason....should be assoilzied from the conclusion of the writ and declared entitled in expenses.

 

5. The Defender....reason....decree should not be granted as craved.

 

6. Anything else

 

 

in respect whereof

 

 

Signed:

 

 

Date:

 

 

Your Name

Your Address

 

 

Defender

 

 

The other thing to watch with your Pleas is that you don't provide them with ammunition. You're defending against their condescendence as that is their "case". Your pleas are the legal reasons why they can't win their case. Don't bring in things that are irrelevant unless they will really help you.

 

Remember, it's a "period of adjustments" so don't give away everything now, you just need to provide some reason why they can't win based on their current condescendence, not every reason under the sun that you can think of. The sheriff does not see what is said during this process. There is no "instant decision".

 

You pleas are also asking for something to happen or for the sheriff to do something e.g. the case to be dismissed, expenses provided, for the claim to be asoilized, or whatever. Don't get the reason for your pleas and answers to condescendence mixed up.

Edited August 21, 2012 by PRBrown