Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi BankFodder   Many thanks for your assistance in this matter.   I have decided to commence County Court action against DPD/Parcel2go regarding the lost parcel.   I would just like you to clarify whether which company you recommend me to commence legal proceedings against:   Parcel2go. My contract was made via this company.   Or DPD - This company undertook the contract and are the ones who lost the parcel.   I look forward to hearing from you soon.   Kind Regards Humza
    • I lost my job this jan because work decided not to extend my probabation, so i've been out of work since then. During this time I have made 3 payments of £270 from my own savings and now I am really struggling.   I rang motonova last month before COVID19 started and explained I lost my job and wanted a reduction in the payment but they asked me what my out goings were and told me 'it looks you can make this months payment so we can't do anything etc'   Since COVID19 has started motonova now have this form available to ask for reduction of payments - see https://customer.motonovofinance.com/file/cms/raw/888dda418afb548c00a1afc1cde50704.pdf   Given my weak financial situation can anyone help me with what I put down for these sections of the form so my request to lower or freeze payments stands a good chance of being accepted   1. Is your situation realated to the Coronavirus outbreak? Yes   2. Do you consider yourself to be in a high risk group, if so why?Do you explicitly consent to us recording this information in your account notes? I am no longer employed and have no income coming in. Work have made cuts due to Corona and no longer employed by them I am sorry I wont be able to make payments of £270   3. How much can you pay? I can pay £25 a month   4. What are you proposing, and what help would you like from us? I've lost my job and have no income. I've had to self isolate under the goverment guidelines with my family because my daughter had a cough at school. I've been applying for numerous jobs and have no luck and the COVID19 situation in the country has made the whole situation even worse for me. I request given the financial difficulty I am in that  you please accept my offer   What do you think of my reasons and how can you add or improve them? I really stressed out because my next payment is coming up in 3 weeks and I'm down to my last £400 of my savings and I've no idea how long it will take me to find a job  
    • Hi All   As im new to this site and here for as much advise as possible to help me and a few fellow work colleges regarding a situation with our employer given the current circumstances with the COVID-19 (coronavirus).   Basically since i started working for said company i have never been given my contract or employer handbook to view as when i need to, its always stored inside our boss's office and past staff have been refused to view it when they have wanted to, what i want to know is, is it a legal requirement for a employer to give there employees a copy of there contract/ handbook or is there a clause that can allow him not to?   Also i have currently been in self isolation due to cornavirus and have spoken to our company via email with no reply from them but have heard from colleagues that the work has slowed down, and in the recent email i have sent i spoke about potentially being put on 'furlough pay' if work stops completely. Can he refuse to put certain staff on it and still keep the business open even though there is no work? As well as not providing sufficient hygiene sources given the current climate, would that put him in breach of contract (if could view mine to start off with) ?   At the minute we are stuck in limbo given we are still off in self isolation for another week and he doesn't really care about his staff, what would be the best course to take regarding the matters above??   HELP!    
    • I have been trying to get onto the MCOL site for several days now, it keeps saying that the password is wrong and i haven't been able to get to talk to someone on the phone, i have prepared a defense and its ready to email, just realised today is day 33.   Here it is for your considderation, thank you.   The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim vague and are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 1.Paragraph 1 is noted; I have in the past had financial dealings with MBNA. I am unaware of the alleged agreement the Claimant refers to having failed to adequately particularise its claim and have therefore sought clarity from the Claimant by way of a Section 78 request and a CPR 31.14 request.   2. Paragraph 2 is denied. I am unaware of any service of a Default Notice (s) pursuant to section 87 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 by the original creditor MBNA. I have sought verification from the claimant regarding this matter and they have been unable to comply.   3. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of breach requested by CPR 31. 14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence any cause of action and service of a Default Notice or termination notice; and (c) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;   4. After receiving this claim I requested by way of a CPR 31.14 request and a section 78 request, copies of any documents referred to within the Claimants' particulars to establish what the claim is for. To date they have failed to comply to my CPR 31.14 request and my section 78 request and remain in default with regards to this request.   5. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.   6. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974.   7. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief. I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.
  • Our picks

Peterbard

Full and Final - Without Prejudice(?)

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2479 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Personally I cannot see any advantage, unless you are considering challenging the existence of the agreement and the debt. But it is an interesting question and I would like to hear other views.

 

I am sure that the creditors acceptance would be so headed however.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well yes making an F&F would acknowledge owing the debt in full or part, so if there is any chance of court or current case, then you should mark 'without prejudice'.

 

An F&F offer is usually where you owe a debt, but your financial position is such, that any reveal of your I&E would tell a creditor that they would be better of accepting any money they are offered. If you have any assets and/or are currently working, then creditors may not be willing to accept, unless it was for a reasonable percentage of the debt owed.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So in the case of say a statute bar, would the without prejudice offer serve to reset the clock ?

 

In other words does" without prejudice" refer to the "offer" in which case presumably it would reset it because the correspondence it self would be an acknowledgement, or does it refer to the letter itself in which case it wouldn't.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

any F&F acks the debt. even if paid eventually or not.

 

is this not solely that the contents of the letter 'itself' cannot be used in court.

 

however in my eyes

the more important aspect is the impact this has on the debtors future

the credit file MUST be marked as settled [NOT PS ]

and ALL negative data removed.

 

else you might as well burn the money for all the good it will do.

 

dx


please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, the whole DCA industry would collapse overnight.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So in the case of say a statute bar, would the without prejudice offer serve to reset the clock ?

 

...

 

this HL case, bradford & bingley v rashid 06, provides an interesting discussion and authority of some of the issues. don't know if there is any subsequent authority?

Edited by Ford

IMO

:-):rant:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes also Muller vs Lindsay and Mortimer[1996]

 

It seems that the "without prejudice " only includes subjects under current or imminent dispute , or those in process of an action. Usually these are negotiations of a settlement.

 

The restriction is limited to these maters only, so if for instance a F and F is accepted, and the creditor then chooses to ignore it once the contract is made, the debtor can use the without prejudice correspondence to support the contract, because the dispute would involve the agreement as the subject matter, and the without prejudice negotiations would be just supporting evidence.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"It was unclear as to whether the courts would permit evidence of without prejudice exchanges to be relied on where there is a dispute as to the

proper interpretation of the settlement agreement. The decision of the Supreme Court in Oceanbulk Shipping & Trading SA -v- TMT Asia Limited

and 3 others [2010] UKSC 44 has now confirmed that without prejudice evidence will be admissible in such circumstances"

 

Re: above


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to Ford for the case. This is from analysis of that case.

 

16. The solution which I would therefore favour, and which I think is in accordance with principle, is that the without prejudice rule, so far as it is based upon general public policy and not upon some agreement of the parties, does not apply at all to the use of a statement as an acknowledgement for the purposes of section 29(5). That, I would infer, is what everyone thought in Spencer v Hemmerde [1922] 2 AC 507. It is in accordance with principle because the main purpose of the rule is to prevent the use of anything said in negotiations as evidence of anything expressly or impliedly admitted: that certain things happened, that the party concerned thought he had a weak case and so forth. But when a statement is used as an acknowledgement for the purposes of section 29(5), it is not being used as evidence of anything. The statement is not evidence of an acknowledgement. It is the acknowledgement. It may, if admissible for that purpose, also be evidence of an indebtedness when it comes to deciding this question at the trial, but for the purposes of section 29(5) it is not being used as such. All that an acknowledgement does under section 29(5) is to allow the creditor to proceed with his case. It lifts the procedural bar on bringing the action. Questions of evidence to prove the debt will arise later.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it is an interesting case, that deserves to be read in full, and 'cherry picked' :) depends on the individual circumstances. it seems that if the WP comms are genuine (ie not just an attempt to run time down) then contents may not be admissible re acknowledgement?

also, '..It is of course open to the parties to agree that whatever they say in negotiations will not be capable of being used even as an acknowledgement for the purposes of section 29(5), but in such a case the creditor will be alerted to the fact that the debtor intends to rely upon the statute. ..'

Edited by Ford

IMO

:-):rant:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what is being said (massive generalization~)

 

Is that the information contained with the statute barred document does not acknowledge the debt under the definition of the SOL, however the letter itself would.

 

In other words the WP applies to the information not to the existence of an acknowledgment.

 

Not that the letter may not meet the requirements of acknowledging the debt under other criteria of course.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so, the crux is, in general, if definitely barred don't communicate, apart from perhaps the stat bar letter?

if using WP comms to try and stretch out time re bar, then beware as those contents might be admissible as an acknowledgement? unless otherwise noted?

and, if bar is not in issue, then WP comms stand as they are. ie not admissible save as to costs?

Edited by Ford

IMO

:-):rant:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
so, the thrust is, if definitely barred don't communicate, apart from perhaps the stat bar letter?

if using WP comms to try and stretch out time, then beware as those might be admissible as an acknolwedgement?

and, if bar is not in issue, then WP comms stand as they are. ie not admissible save as to costs?

 

Yes basically do not rely on without prejudice when it comes to the SOL acknowledgment notwithstanding that there may be other measures you can include within your correspondence to protect you, dependent on circumstances.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi

 

just a quickie - if considering putting forward a full and final offer to a creditor (of course once you have concluded all your research and undertaken all process) should you head the offer 'without prejudice' if there is a court case outstanding for the debt?

 

 

would putting forward the offer of F&F mean that you accept liability for the debt?

 

 

Thanks

NEVER USE WITHOUT PREJUDICE WHEN DEALING WITH DEBT MATTERS, you may need the letter in court yourself, and be precluded from using it.


Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NEVER USE WITHOUT PREJUDICE WHEN DEALING WITH DEBT MATTERS, you may need the letter in court yourself, and be precluded from using it.

 

It is not as simple as that Brigadier, it depends on which particular debt matter you are pursuing. it may be that you do not want the substance of you negotiations to be used in proceedings.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is very simple to use this phrase if you are inexperienced in such matters does and I have many ye ears of experience of it causing extreme problems when litigation has been started.


Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is very simple to use this phrase if you are inexperienced in such matters does and I have many ye ears of experience of it causing extreme problems when litigation has been started.

 

Really, perhaps you could elaborate and give us a few illustrations.

 

Because in my experience it is never wise to give such blanket advice when referring to a vast variety of unknown scenarios.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The greatest number of difficulties occur with F&F offers which are declined and later are the subject of litigation and the debtor wishes to show the court that they have attempted to reach a resolution.


Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but that is n/a re a defence. goes to costs, if applicable, re unreasonableness. at which stage WP comms can be considered anyway?

Edited by Ford

IMO

:-):rant:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really?


Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes :)

it's no defence to say i made an offer but they didn't accept it! except re any costs

depends on individual circumstances re whether to use WP

Edited by Ford

IMO

:-):rant:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes really.

In my first post I said that, I could see no advantage in marking an offer Without prejudice in these circumstances, but that is a long way from saying that you should never use the term in debt negotiation.

 

In MY experience without prejudice negotiation is a very valuable tool, particularly when securities or other issues are involved. Also if you read the earlier posts you will ser that when a contract is formed using a WP statement, the rule is extinguished and the evidence admissible.

 

Like I said it is not that simple.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi

 

just a quickie - if considering putting forward a full and final offer to a creditor (of course once you have concluded all your research and undertaken all process) should you head the offer 'without prejudice' if there is a court case outstanding for the debt?

 

 

would putting forward the offer of F&F mean that you accept liability for the debt?

 

 

 

Thanks

 

Is your question in connection to your thread here Lindy ? :-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?385251-Lloyds-Taking-Me-To-Court-With-A-Recon-Agreement

 

Regards

 

Andy


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marking an offer "without prejudice" has limited legal significance. Genuine attempts to settle a dispute are covered by "without prejudice" privilege whether or not that is marked on the letter. This is set out clearly in the case Rush & Tompkins v Greater London Council [1988] UKHL 7:

 

"the application of the [WP] rule is not dependent upon the use of the phrase 'without prejudice' and if it is clear from the surrounding circumstances that the parties were seeking to compromise the action, evidence of the content of those negotiations will, as a general rule, not be admissible at the trial and cannot be used to establish an admission or partial admission."

 

The point of marking the letter WP is to avoid any doubt. WP privilege means you cannot show the letter to the court during the main proceedings. However WP letters can be shown to the court when it decides who should pay legal costs, which is important on fast track and multi track.

 

If you want to make a settlement offer but also want to say something else, it is best to write two letters. One WP letter and one open letter.

 

Making a F+F offer is not an admission of liability. Make the offer, with a very brief explanation why this is a good offer and the Claimant's case is rubbish, and mark the letter WP.


PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Making a F+F offer is not an admission of liability. Make the offer, with a very brief explanation why this is a good offer and the Claimant's case is rubbish, and mark the letter WP.

 

Depends upon the contents of the letter and which parts of it are to be considered as without prejudice, as for the letter being an acknowledgment of the debt in terms of the SOL , the case law is clear that the "without prejudice" notice will not effect this, one way or the other.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...