Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • So we see the two large and swift Sea level rises  with the earlier one bang on the nose datewise   We see the layout of the world around the straights and Azores circa 10,000 bce   So what else are we looking for   A 'nesos' larger than Libya and Asia   Large fertile plain with a small 'mountain' "Bordering on the sea and extending through the center of the whole island there was a plain, which is said to have been the fairest of all plains and highly fertile; and, moreover, near the plain, over against its center, at a distance of about 50 stades, there stood a mountain that was low on all sides " " all those sweet-scented stuffs which the earth produces now, whether made of roots or herbs or trees, or of liquid gums derived from flowers or fruits. The cultivated fruit [i.e., of the vine] also, and the dry [i.e., corn], which serves us for nutriment, and all the other kinds that we use for our meals--the various species of which are comprehended under the name ‘vegetables’--and all the produce of trees"   Elephants/mammoths - Lots of animals (migration path) " n abundance all the timbers that a forest provides for the labors of carpenters; and of animals it produced a sufficiency, both of tame and wild. Moreover, it contained a very large stock of elephants; for there was an ample food-supply not only for all the other animals which haunt the marshes and lakes and rivers, or the mountains or the plains, but likewise also for this animal, which of its nature is the largest and most voracious. "         Atlas' siblings realm was Facing  Cadiz 'toward' the straights " when he had divided all the island of Atlantis into ten portions, he assigned to the first-born of the eldest sons his mother's dwelling and the allotment surrounding it, which was the largest and best; and him he appointed to be king over the rest, and the others to be rulers, granting to each the rule over many men and a large tract of country. And to all of them he gave names, giving to him that was eldest and king the name after which the whole island was called and the sea spoken of as the Atlantic, because the first king who then reigned had the name of Atlas. And the name of his younger twin-brother, who had for his portion the extremity of the island near the pillars of Herakles up to the part of the country now called Gadeira after the name of that region "     Copper and gold mines the island itself furnished most of the requirements of daily life,--metals, to begin with, both the hard kind and the fusible kind, which are extracted by mining, and also that kind which is now known only by name but was more than a name then, there being mines of it in many places of the island,--I mean orikhalkon (mountain-copper)     autokhthones -       * So its not likely to be a purely coastal area such as the sunken lands off Cadiz are likely to have been   * Its away from the straights past the Gaderius realm   * It has a large plain which seems to be on a migratory path including elephants/mammoths (viable until ... circa 11,000bce)   * It has extensive woods/forests   * It has mines for copper and gold at least          
    • This is a very common situation I'm afraid and the reason why a visit would need to be made (before a payment proposal could be accepted) is outlined under Item 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum supporting the Taking Control of Goods Fees Regulations 2014 which states as follows:     http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/1/pdfs/uksiem_20140001_en.pdf      
    • and what reason should i give for choosing my local county court in question D1?
    • OK - will do - have to go out this morning and will try FCA this afternoon.  Just to clarify -   I will say to FCA - Abbey Life have advised me to refer to them.  I would like assistance on how to find Thermatic Review 16/7. ( I will explain I have asked Abbey what they have input to arrive at their calculations.)   Thank you.
    • I have been trying to find out who owns the Land. Without paying the Fee to the Land registry I can't ascertain but will do if this is essential. This is the free information they have provided. Address: Park and Ride Site Coventry Business Park Canley Road   Tenure: Leasehold   Everything else I can find relates to West Midlands Combined Authority who offer 'Considerate Parking'.      
  • Our picks


Personal Guarantee - Anyone want to challenge my defence :)

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1924 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

Ok this is going to be a long one so bare with me


In 2006 my sole trader business got so big I needed to change to Ltd, I spoke with my bank regarding changing over the account to Ltd which as they said was not a problem and they would handle everything, when we got closer to changing the following happened


Meeting with Bank Manager 2006


Bank manager said I would need to sign a debenture in order to still have the £20K overdraft facility that I had when I was sole trader


Shortly after they said I would also need to sign a guarantee, I didn't question this at first until we met when I enquired to what the guarantee was, the response was


"its just a formality really, its just you guarantee any short comings, although as you have provided a debenture it would never be called upon as the debenture guarantees we get paid first"


We discussed the historical level of the companies assets and both agreed it would never come in to play, however I didn't feel hugely comfortable and said I wasn't really prepared to sign the guarantee, to which their response was, it really is just a formality I can assure you with the level of assets the company has it wouldn't be called on, but the bank insist and to be honest if you don't sign they will remove the overdraft with immediate effect and request payment in full (the account I believe was overdrawn at that time)


I reluctantly signed as I had done a little research and discovered the debenture gave them a floating charge of the companies assets so confirmed what the bank manager had said, and also the company always had around £120K of assets. Also with the threat of immediate removal of the overdraft (which I believe was actually already in place) I really had no choice as the style of the company involved large projects and we could only survive with this short term facility.


Now fast forward to 2011 and the company is in trouble and had to stop trading, the bank was overdrawn by £16K. The IP (who I now know to not trust a word they say) said "Oh no we will realise the assets and negotiate with the bank to pay this off" that said as soon as I sign the company over to the liquidators everything changes.


After arguing over a year with the IP they inform that there was a legislation change in 2008 that meant that any one holding a fixed or floating charge (ie a debenture) comes second to the liquidators expenses, ie we will take all the money and there is nothing for anyone else.


Of course fast forward even more the bank have now demanded I personally repay the £16K


Now I have read a lot on these forums and done a lot of research and really need anyone who fancies playing the part of the claimant (ie the bank) to see if they can legally argue against my case, my case being


Economic Duress - Even though I indicated I didn't want to sign the guarantee the position the company was in meant I had no choice


Misrepresentation - This was going to by an argument however this is where the legal argument gets interesting. It wasn't misrepresented, what the bank told me and the subsequent findings at the time were legally correct, so had the company fell into liquidation in 2007 then at that time the debenture would stand and the bank would have been paid from the assets prior to the liquidators fees, however legislation changed and came into force in 2008 which meant the liquidator would be paid first and the debenture effectively became worthless, in turn this then shifts the element of risk on to me personally and where a contract is signed and then any part of the risk is shifted I understand it becomes unenforceable


The other argument that they could say is I signed a document that clearly states I should seek legal advice (which as with a lot of people i didn't) as


1. Even if a 1000 solicitors told me not to sign, what choice did I have, the bank was holding me and the company to ransom on the threat of closing the overdraft


2. Even if I had seeked legal advice they would have only confirmed the exact legal position at that time in 2006 which is that with a debenture in place the bank was guaranteed to be paid first and their floating charge be the security over the assets and in light of the size of the assets the company held there was very little risk in me signing


In a nut shell the situation would have been, had the company gone into liquidation in 2007 in exactly the same state it was in 2011 then the banks overdraft would have been paid in full, however as legislation changed the element of risk shifted considerably onto me and in turn goes against the terms of the contract as represented by the bank in 2006 and the facts to which I relied upon in entering that contract.


Now I also believe there is an additional argument, that the bank had a duty under good faith to inform me and anyone else for that matter that the liquidation process had shifted and the debenture's they were putting in place no longer held as much guarantee to the bank as their own bank managers were telling people


Oddly even in 2010 in a meeting with a bank manager, the position was reiterated where the bank manager (a new bank manager) said I noticed the debenture this is a "very shrewd move, as not many directors have this in place and this means that the bank is covered and we wouldn't ever come after you" that was his exact words!!


So please come on people, please argue against my case as I feel its quite solid but I need to be tested to see if I am being biased!!

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

As this is a Legal issue, I will move you to that specific forum, you should receive more visitors there :)

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


Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **


Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first


1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy -


2: Take back control of your finances -

Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors?

Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt

Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated -

Please Read





2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS




Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

suggest you get legal advise now;

You may have a case with the bank, but don't hold your breath.

A solicitor may be able to argue your case for you; due diligence etc., however if it goes to court and you lose, a double whammy I think!



I found this, it may help?


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


I thanks for this, I have actually read that from start to finish the section which interested me was


36A.66 Reversal of Leyland Daf ruling by IA86 section 176ZA In March 2004 the House of Lords gave their judgment in the case of Re Leyland Daf Ltd, Buchler v Talbot [2004] UKHL 9;[2004] 2 A.C. 298;[2004] B.C.C 214 (known as the Leyland DAF case). The question raised by the case was whether the liquidation costs and expenses could be paid from the monies realised from the sale of assets secured by the floating charges. The judgment overruled existing case law governing the way in which liquidators dealing with companies whose assets were subject to a floating charge, could attempt to recover the payment of the liquidation expenses and pay the (liquidation) preferential creditors. It was held that the liquidator was not entitled to claim his/her expenses in priority to the rights of the holder of a floating charge, and that it was immaterial whether or not the charge had crystallised before the commencement of the liquidation.

The insertion of section 176ZA into the IA86 by the Companies Act 2006 (CA2006) section 1282, reverses the Leyland Daf ruling with effect from 6 April 2008. This section provides for the expenses of the liquidator to be paid in priority to the claims of the floating charge holder or debenture holder whose claim is secured by the floating charge, to the extent that the assets of the company available to general estate creditors are insufficient to pay those expenses (see also paragraph 36A.67).


At the time further investigation in exactly what a debenture was confirmed what the bank was saying, they have a debenture and so would have full control over the assets, hence why they stated "the guarantee would never be called in" and was more more of a formality


The legal argument here is that I entered into a contract/agreement to sign the guarantee based on this position and the representation from the bank, which was factually correct, however in 2008 the legislation changed which shifted the entire balance of risk from what I knew at the time of making the contract.


So the debate really is, if legislation changes the law, and you signed a contract relying upon representation of the law at that time, does the change in the law and ultimately a shift in risk provide a defense

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's why you need legal advise!

I am sure the Bank will defend and have an opposing view, or at least a view on the justification of there stance/view.

A solicitor could explore your position and see if your defence would hold up, but even if he does think you have a case, it will no doubt have to be tested in court and any outcome would be risky.

I can only think that your defence would be sue the bank for not advising of your changed position when the law changed and they had a duty of care and through due diligence warn you of your risk.

They no doubt would say, you should have looked after your own affairs and been aware of the changed position and risk. If they were charging for the debenture then I believe yes they should of told you, as it has turned out to be worthless; just like a lot things that the Banks sold to us.

So up to you to see how far you want to take it and be prepared to loose.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi raydetinu


I do appreciate what your saying and ultimately I think I will need to go down the solicitor route, I suppose I am just speaking out loud in order to gauge anyones thoughts


You bring up an interesting point which is one I have thought about myself, was it up to me or the bank in order to notice the change in the law.


My feeling (trying not to be biased) is you need to take the average person in the street test, line up 1000 directors who signed a debenture prior to 2008 and would they all know the change in the law had an effect on that debenture. now take the view that a multi-billion international bank who issues these debenture would have been aware of the change in law as it effects them directly regarding their position in debenture security.


Now in normal terms we all receive letters and notices on a regular basis as and when terms or law changes, this is my point, the bank never provided any such information, regardless or what they may have thought or even didn't know what their managers were informing people, I feel they had a duty of good faith to provide details that outline these changes.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what I said you may have a point about due diligence and a duty of care on your bahalf, only a solicitor can advise if this is a valid point to pursue.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you have a case for economic duress. In order to establish economic duress you must establish that the bank's threat was 'illegitimate'. In my mind, the threat to withdraw the overdraft was perfectly legitimate. It was your choice to move from being a sole trader to a limited company, so it was inevitable that the bank would require a personal guarantee. Otherwise anyone could take on debt and simply move the debt into a company to avoid ever paying it back. You can read the legal analysis here http://www.radcliffechambers.com/media/Misc_Articles/Key_Developments_in_Contract_Law_-_Economic_Duress_2013.pdf, page 8 onwards.


It seems to me that your real complaint is against the receivers. What were their costs in the end? If there wasn't 16k in the company then you would have been liable under the guarantee regardless of the floating charge.




Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I take your point, however that kind of got all messy as the guarantee was represented as a "formality" and stated would not be called upon as the Debenture covered the bank, I can understand it if there was no debenture but thats my point, had the company gone in to liquidation in 2007 I wouldn't be having this conversation, the Bank was guaranteed (dependent on realised assets) to be paid, so the representation the bank made was correct and factual, but the law changed which shifts the elements of risk from the basis and representation I was relying upon when I entered the agreeement


Realised assets £40K, Receivers costs (ironically) £40K - Balance £0

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes for over a year, got no where, IP's are a law upon themselves and unregulated, they can do what they like! IN an initial meeting the IP stated very clearly they would realise the assets and negotiate with the bank as they held a mortgage over the assets, I sign the company over to IP, months later asked have you paid the banks overdraft off, reply - "no don't have too, as my charges come first"


And that kind of brings up another argument, the bank didn't attempt to do anything with it's security when they had many options to address it, they just didn't bother.


The really stupid part of all this, I don't have any assets or 2 pennies to rub together! so they can't get blood from a stone anyway!

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...