Arrows/? Ordinary Cause - old MBNA card DEbt ***GRANTED DECREE OF ABSOLVITOR***

[pancake roll]

Hi, Stressball,

 

I been what you have been through 7 years ago.

Sorry i was not here to help you when you started your thread,

i been away living abroad for the past three years and i only just come back.

 

i acted for myself for 4 different claims against me in my local court (scotland) from my creditors (all credit cards).

All these claims did not have paper work available .

 

My first case was with MBNA, who did not go all the way to the proof hearing,

but offer to withdraw if i pay £1.00 and case was finished.

 

The other 3 creditors withdraw their case when they were presented with I.A.

Your solicitors should know that if they dont have the right documents , they cant go any further.

There is a thread by idainfife on 2nd october 2009 :

 

Credit agreements in Scotland from 1st Decemeber 2009

Scottish court change ‘threatens recovery’

- 02/10/2009

 

Creditors and debt buyers will be unable to recover debts through the Scottish courts unless they have copies of regulated agreements, under new rules.

 

Experts are calling on those who use the Scottish courts to send representation to the Sheriff Court Rules Council, which initiated the change to the court rules. The change is due to be implemented on 1 December. From then, court actions regulated by the

consumer credit

Act 1974 will require a copy of the regulated agreement which will have to be attached to the writ or summons.

 

The council’s secretariat has told solicitors that individual sheriffs will take their own view as to what constitutes a copy and they may require a photocopy of the agreement rather than a ‘reconstituted copy’. Stephan Cowan, managing partner of Yuill & Kyle Solicitors, said this is surprising as creditors are usually required to provide ‘true copies’. "A true copy does not mean an exact copy and there is case law to support this," he said.

 

The impact on lenders and debt purchasers could be significant as many financial institutions are only able to provide a ‘reconstituted copy’ – repopulating a

template

from computer records. They are bound to litigate in the debtor’s domicile and so would not be able to recover those debts.

 

The stance also differs from that taken by the Office of Fair Trading, which states that creditors must provide ‘true copies’ under sections 77 and 78 of the Consumer Credit Act and accepts reconstituted copies as valid.

 

The Rules Council is meeting on 6 November and has said it is willing to receive representations from creditors and industry groups concerned about the change. It can be contacted at

[email protected] k

(0131 221 6766) or by letter at: The Secretary, Sheriff Court Rules Council, Hayweight House, 23 Lauriston Street, Edinburgh EH3 9DQ.

 

There is also an article written by YUILL & KYLE (BANKS SOLICITORS) that i have pasted for your to read:

Scottish court change threatens recovery'

 

At the beginning of this week we highlighted important court changes in the pipeline. Following on from this, please see the below Credit Today article for Stephen Cowan´s views on the implications these changes will have.

 

Scottish court change ´threatens recovery´

 

Creditors and debt buyers will be unable to recover debts through the Scottish courts unless they have copies of regulated agreements, under new rules.

 

Experts are calling on those who use the Scottish courts to send representation to the Sheriff Court Rules Council, which initiated the change to the court rules. The change is due to be implemented on 1 December. From then, court actions regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 will require a copy of the regulated agreement which will have to be attached to the writ or summons.

 

The council´s secretariat has told solicitors that individual sheriffs will take their own view as to what constitutes a copy and they may require a photocopy of the agreement rather than a ´reconstituted copy´. Stephen Cowan, managing partner of Yuill + Kyle Solicitors, said this is surprising as creditors are usually required to provide ´true copies´. "A true copy does not mean an exact copy and there is case law to support this," he said.

 

The impact on lenders and debt purchasers could be significant as many financial institutions are only able to provide a ´reconstituted copy´ - repopulating a template from computer records. They are bound to litigate in the debtor´s domicile and so would not be able to recover those debts.

 

The stance also differs from that taken by the Office of Fair Trading, which states that creditors must provide ´true copies´ under sections 77 and 78 of the Consumer Credit Act and accepts reconstituted copies as valid.

 

The Rules Council is meeting on 6 November and has said it is willing to receive representations from creditors and industry groups concerned about the change. It can be contacted at

[email protected]

(0131 221 6766) or by letter at: The Secretary, Sheriff Court Rules Council, Hayweight House, 23 Lauriston Street, Edinburgh EH3 9DQ.

 

Best regards,

 

Stephen Cowan

Managing Partner

Yuill + Kyle

Debt recovery + Credit control Lawyers, Scotland

[email protected]

 

W:

http://www.debtscotland.com/

T: 0141 331 2332

Debt Recovery Ignited!

 

 

Stressballs, if you need more help you email me.

 

 

 

 

[StressBall]

cheers Pancake - hey! it's your day today!

 

This is really interesting info

- if I'm reading it correctly,

a creditor cannot raise an action,

such as an ordinary cause,

WITHOUT attaching either a true copy of the original CCA,

or a properly formatted reconstituted agreement, to the writ.

 

 

In neither of these Ordinary Cause writs has the solicitor, acting for the creditor, done so.

 

 

In fact, my first one was sent the CCA letter in September 2014

and they've still not responded to that,

but are still intent on getting a default by decree by steamrolling this thru the court.

 

Does ANYBODY have any information on this change to the court rules from 2009??

Should the pursuer have attached a copy of the agreement with the writ??

[citizenB]

 

The stance also differs from that taken by the Office of Fair Trading, which

states that creditors must provide ‘true copies’ under sections 77 and 78 of the

Consumer Credit Act and accepts reconstituted copies as valid.

 

Well as the OFT has not been around since April of 2014 when the Financial Conduct Authority took over, I fail to see why they are referencing them and shows just how out of date they are !

 

It is my understanding that any reconstituted copy (prior to 2007) must be a true reflection of the original - so unless they do have an original then they cannot possibly say if it is or not.

[StressBall]

citizen, to be fair, that was an old article.

 

 

My question was, that if this was the case, and is still the case,

then surely a pursuer should NOT be raising an action,

such as an ordinary cause, without having a copy of the agreement,

in some way, shape or form, in their possession?

 

 

And if it is meant to be attached to the writ

- never mind supplied under statutory obligation,

by means of a CCA request, in writing,

and this has not been the case, then surely the case fails at the first hurdle?

 

My lenders were sent CCA requests in 2009/2010 and all failed to comply then

- can't see that they've rectified the situation 4-5 years down the line,

especially now the debts have been sold on!

[pancake roll]

Hi stressball,

I have paste below from the Scottish legistation wesite ( www. legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2009/294/made )regarding new rules for regulated agreement.

 

 

Scottish Statutory Instruments

2009 No. 294

 

Sheriff Court

Act of Sederunt (Sheriff Court Rules) (Miscellaneous Amendments) 2009

 

Made

18th August 2009

 

Coming into force in accordance with paragraph 1(1) and (2)

 

The Lords of Council and Session, under and by virtue of the powers conferred by section 32 of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971(1) and of all other powers enabling them in that behalf, having approved draft rules submitted to them by the Sheriff Court Rules Council in accordance with section 34 of the said Act of 1971, do hereby enact and declare:

 

 

Citation, commencement and interpretation

 

1.—(1) This Act of Sederunt may be cited as the Act of Sederunt (Sheriff Court Rules) (Miscellaneous Amendments) 2009 and, subject to subparagraph (2), comes into force on 1st October 2009.

(2) Paragraphs 2 to 7 come into force on 1st December 2009.

(3) This Act of Sederunt is to be inserted in the Books of Sederunt.

(4) In this Act of Sederunt—

“the 1988 Rules” means the Act of Sederunt (Proceedings in the Sheriff Court under the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987) 1988(2);

“the Ordinary Cause Rules” means the Ordinary Cause Rules in Schedule 1 to the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1907(3);

“the Summary Application Rules” means the Act of Sederunt (Summary Applications, Statutory Applications and Appeals etc. Rules) 1999(4);

“the Summary Cause Rules” means the Summary Cause Rules in Schedule 1 to the Act of Sederunt (Summary Cause Rules) 2002(5); and

“the Small Claim Rules” means the Small Claim Rules in Schedule 1 to the Act of Sederunt (Small Claim Rules) 2002(6).

Time to pay directions and time orders

 

2.—(1) The Ordinary Cause Rules are amended in accordance with the following subparagraphs.

(2) After rule 3.2 (actions relating to heritable property) insert—

“Actions relating to regulated agreements

 

3.2A. In an action which relates to a regulated agreement within the meaning given by section 189(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974(7)—

(a)the initial writ shall include an averment that such an agreement exists and details of that agreement; and

(b)a copy of the regulated agreement shall be attached to the initial writ.”.

(3) In rule 7.3 (applications for time to pay directions or time orders in undefended causes)—

(a)after paragraph (2) insert—

“(2A) As soon as possible after the application of the defender is lodged, the sheriff clerk shall send a copy of it to the pursuer by first class ordinary post.”; and

(b)for paragraph (4) substitute—

“(4) Where the pursuer objects to the application of the defender made in accordance with paragraph (2) he shall on the same date—

(a)complete and lodge with the sheriff clerk Form O3A;

(b)minute for decree in accordance with rule 7.2; and

©send a copy of Form O3A to the defender.

(4A) The sheriff clerk shall then fix a hearing on the application of the defender and intimate the hearing to the pursuer and the defender.

(4B) The hearing must be fixed for a date within 28 days of the date on which the Form O3A and the minute for decree are lodged.”.

(4) In the Schedule, for Form O3 (form of citation where application for time to pay direction and time order may be made) substitute the forms set out in Schedule 1 to this Act of Sederunt.

3.—(1) The Summary Application Rules are amended in accordance with the following subparagraphs.

(2) In rule 2.4 (the initial writ)(8), after paragraph (4) insert—

“(4A) In an action which relates to a regulated agreement within the meaning given by section 189(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974—

(a)the initial writ shall include an averment that such an agreement exists and details of the agreement; and

(b)a copy of the regulated agreement shall be lodged with the initial writ.”.

(3) In rule 2.22 (applications for time to pay directions or time orders)—

(a)in paragraph (2)(b) for “seven” substitute “14”;

(b)for paragraph (3) substitute—

“(3) On lodging an application under paragraph (2)(b), the defender shall send a copy of it to the pursuer by first class ordinary post.

(4) Where the pursuer objects to the application of the defender lodged under paragraph (2)(b) he shall—

(a)complete and lodge with the sheriff clerk Form 5A prior to the date fixed for the hearing of the summary application; and

(b)send a copy of that form to the defender.

(5) The sheriff clerk shall then fix a hearing in relation to the application under paragraph (2)(b) and intimate the hearing to the pursuer and the defender.

(6) The sheriff may determine an application under paragraph (2)© without the defender having to appear.”.

(4) In Form 4 in the Schedule (form of warrant of citation etc.), in paragraph (b), for “seven” substitute “fourteen”.

(5) For Form 5 in the Schedule (form of notice etc.), substitute the forms set out in Schedule 2 to this Act of Sederunt.

4.—(1) The Summary Cause Rules are amended in accordance with the following subparagraphs.

(2) After rule 4.2 (statement of claim) insert—

“Actions relating to regulated agreements

 

4.2A. In an action which relates to a regulated agreement within the meaning given by section 189(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974—

(a)the statement of claim shall include an averment that such an agreement exists and details of the agreement; and

(b)a copy of the regulated agreement shall be attached to the summons.”.

(3) In rule 7.2 (application for time to pay direction or time order)—

(a)after paragraph (1) insert—

“(1A) The sheriff clerk must on receipt forthwith intimate to the pursuer a copy of any response lodged under paragraph (1).”;

(b)in paragraph (2), for “two days” substitute “9 days”; and

©for paragraph (4) substitute—

“(4) If the pursuer wishes to oppose the application for a time to pay direction or time order made in accordance with paragraph (1)(a) he must before the time the sheriff clerk’s office closes for business on the day occurring 9 days before the calling date—

(a)lodge a minute in Form 19; and

(b)send a copy of that minute to the defender.”.

(4) For Form 1a (summons) in Appendix 1 substitute the form set out in Schedule 3 to this Act of Sederunt.

(5) For Form 19 (form of minute) in Appendix 1 substitute the form set out in Schedule 4 to this Act of Sederunt.

5.—(1) The Small Claim Rules are amended in accordance with the following subparagraphs.

(2) After rule 4.2 (statement of claim) insert—

“Actions relating to regulated agreements

 

4.2A. In an action which relates to a regulated agreement within the meaning given by section 189(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974—

(a)the statement of claim shall include an averment that such an agreement exists and details of the agreement; and

(b)a copy of the regulated agreement shall be attached to the summons.”.

(3) In rule 8.2 (application for time to pay direction or time order)—

(a)after paragraph (1) insert—

“(1A) The sheriff clerk must on receipt forthwith intimate to the pursuer a copy of any response lodged under paragraph (1).”;

(b)in paragraph (2) for “two days” substitute “9 days”; and

©for paragraph (4) substitute—

“(4) If the pursuer wishes to oppose the application for a time to pay direction or time order made in accordance with paragraph (1)(a) he must before the time the sheriff clerk’s office closes for business on the day occurring 9 days before the hearing date—

(a)lodge a minute in Form 13; and

(b)send a copy of that minute to the defender.”.

(4) For Form 1a in Appendix 1 (summons) substitute the form set out in Schedule 5 to this Act of Sederunt.

(5) For Form 13 in Appendix 1 (form of minute) substitute the form set out in Schedule 6 to this Act of Sederunt.

6. But the Ordinary Cause Rules, Summary Application Rules, Summary Cause Rules and Small Claim Rules as they applied immediately before 1st December 2009 continue to have effect for the purpose of any application for a time to pay direction or a time order made in connection with an initial writ or summons, as the case may be, lodged before that date.

Return, calling and hearing dates

 

7.—(1) In rule 4.5(7) of the Summary Cause Rules (period of notice), for “seven days” substitute “14 days”.

(2) In rule 9.1(3) of the Small Claim Rules (the hearing), for “seven days” substitute “14 days”.

(3) But rule 4.5(7) of the Summary Cause Rules and rule 9.1(3) of the Small Claim Rules as they applied immediately before 1st December 2009 continue to have effect for the purpose of any summons lodged before that date.

 

 

pancake.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[StressBall]

cheers pancake...

 

 

now, here's a thing - can anybody pitch in their tuppence worth here please:

 

In 2009, the Scottish Court Rules were amended, such, that an action related to a regulated agreement, with respect to the Consumer Credit Act 1974, had to:

(a) the initial writ shall include an averment that such an agreement exists and details of that agreement; and

(b) a copy of the regulated agreement shall be attached to the initial writ

 

Neither this writ, nor the previous one I am currently defending, had such a copy.

The previous one did, at least, CLAIM to have an agreement, but this current one does not.

 

This suggests to me that both writs were not served correctly?

 

However, what makes this current writ worse, is that it summarises that it has been served with:

form 03 (application for time to pay direction) AND

form 07 (notification of intention to defend)

 

FORM 07 WAS NOT INCLUDED - I THINK, INTENTIONALLY, TO CONFUSE A LAY PERSON.

 

Surely this definitely makes this writ incorrectly served...?

[pancake roll]

You must bring to the attention to the judge(sheriff) that you want the hearing dismissed because they have not complied with the rules.

 

 

You must quote the rules to the judge,

 

 

with me i printed the rules out and showed it to the judge and the solicitors.

 

 

Becuase you are Litigants in person ,

the judge is not going to tell you the rules,

you have to know them before going to court.

 

 

I was lucky,

i had a very good sheriff that was very understanding, gave me time to put my case across.

 

 

I also claimed against a person who owed me money £3000.00 and £2500.00 and i manage to win in the end with extra expenses.

I had to fight with a solicitors, his client end up paying him fees more than i was claiming.

It was quite hard and i did struggle at times,

i think becuase i was a women acting for myself ,

the other side thinks that i will break down and give up.(very long story).

So now i had a little taste of been a Pursuers and a Defender.

 

 

I'ts harder to be a Pursuers because the onus is on you to prove that the other side is guilty .

If your other side denies that they owes you money ,

having their solicitors throwing everything at you.

You have to read and get to know the rules and have evidence ready to prove the factual matter.

 

 

I had to do a lot of reading.

The judge that was sitting at my local court is now retired,

there is a new one sitting which i have not come across yet.

 

 

I am still in dispute with a bank who i have a secure loan with

and now they have decided not to deal with me anymore,

they have passed the matter to their scottish solicitors to hound me.

[StressBall]

thanks pancake. And yes, I would bring this to the attention of the judge - it will go in my initial defences that I lodge at court. I have to submit notice of attention to defend first, then submit defences.

 

Good luck with what you still have to deal with...x

[pancake roll]

sorry,. Posted the wrong one

 

by the way, i had PANCAKES with hot apples and ice cream tonight with my daughter and grandson .HAPPY PANCAKE DAY.

Edited February 17, 2015 by pancake roll
POSTED THE WRONG ONE

[sgianthebard]

ACT OF SEDERUNT (SUMMARY CAUSE RULES) 2002 NO. 132 CHAPTER 3

 

 

RELIEF FROM FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH RULES 3.1

 

 

Dispensing power of sheriff Be aware:

Dispensing power of sheriff 3.1. (1)

 

 

The sheriff may relieve any party from the consequences of any failure to comply with the provisions of these Rules

which is shown to be due to mistake, oversight or other excusable cause, on such conditions as he thinks fit.

 

 

(2) Where the sheriff relieves a party from the consequences of the failure to comply with a provision in these Rules under paragraph (1),

he may make such order as he thinks fit to enable the action to proceed as if the failure to comply with the provision had not occurred.

[sgianthebard]

What this means is that

if the Sheriff decides to,

he can ignore any failure to comply with the rules,

and allow the action to proceed as if the failure to follow the rule never happened.

[StressBall]

ta for that... think it MAY be stricter for Ordinary cause rules (haven't checked - just assuming, from what everyone has told me)

 

well, well - there's justice for you!

 

 

I think, in this instance, when their whole case rests on the existence of this credit card agreement, and that they are, essentially, bluffing as to whether they have this, he Sheriff may well take a different view.

 

(crosses fingers)...

[pancake roll]

Below useful information to have and to read.

You can quote any rules to the Sheriff

but as Sgianthebard mentioned the Sheriff has the power to override the rules,

but the sheriff also have to quote that rules as well to override it.

 

 

As I said before I have been in the foot of a Pursuer in two claims with Solicitors acting for the Defender .

The other side solicitors was throwing all the rules in the books and past court cases (authoritries ) ,

the sheriff in both of my cases override the rules and let me carry on with my claim.

 

 

It was only a small claims hearing.

Let’s hope you have an understanding Sheriff that sitting at your court.

 

 

Did you manage to get legal aid?

Have you got a solicitor?.

 

Dismissal of actions due to delay

14. After rule 15.6 of the Ordinary Cause Rules (motions to sist)(20) insert—

“Dismissal of action due to delay

 

15.7.—(1)Any party to an action may, while that action is depending before the court, apply by written motion for the court to dismiss the action due to inordinate and inexcusable delay by another party or another party’s agent in progressing the action, resulting in unfairness.

 

(2)A motion under paragraph (1) shall—

(a)include a statement of the grounds on which it is proposed that the motion should be allowed or as the case may be; and

(b)be lodged in accordance with rule 15.1.

 

(3)A notice of opposition to the motion in FormG9 shall include a statement of the grounds of opposition to the motion.

 

(4)In determining an application made under this rule, the court may dismiss the action if it appears to the court that—

(a)there has been an inordinate and inexcusable delay on the part of any party or any party’s agent in progressing the action; and

(b)such delay results in unfairness specific to the factual circumstances, including the procedural circumstances, of that action.

 

(5)In determining whether or not to dismiss an action under paragraph(4), the court shall take account of the procedural consequences, both for the parties and for the work of the court, of allowing the action to proceed.”.

 

15. After Chapter 22 of the Summary Cause Rules (decree by default) insert—

“CHAPTER 22ADISMISSAL OF ACTION DUE TO DELAY

Dismissal of action due to delay

 

22A.1.—(1)Any party to an action may, while that action is depending before the court, apply by written incidental application to the court to dismiss the action due to inordinate and inexcusable delay by another party or another party’s agent in progressing the action, resulting in unfairness.

 

(2)An application under paragraph(1) shall include a statement of the grounds on which it is proposed that the application should be allowed or as the case may be.

 

(3)In determining an application made under this rule, the court may dismiss the action if it appears to the court that—

(a)there has been an inordinate and inexcusable delay on the part of any party or any party’s agent in progressing the action; and

(b)such delay results in unfairness specific to the factual circumstances, including the procedural circumstances, of that action.

 

(4)In determining whether or not to dismiss an action under paragraph(3), the court shall take account of the procedural consequences, both for the parties and for the work of the court, of allowing the action to proceed.

 

(5)Rule9.1 shall, with the necessary modifications, apply to an application under paragraph(1).”.

[sgianthebard]

Yeh, I looked at the action to dismiss based on delay. Don't think that one is gonna fly tbh...

 

My own case goes before the Sheriff for the third time this Friday. I have in my hands a credit card agreement sent to me as evidence to be used against me. But it is not signed by anyone. "My Lord, I didn't agree to this. Where have I signed to say I agree to this?"

 

ta for that... think it MAY be stricter for Ordinary cause rules...

 

As far as I'm aware the procedures in an Ordinary Cause and a Summary Cause are identical. A Summary Cause is filed when the amount claimed for is above the maximum allowed in an Ordinary Cause.

[pancake roll]

Small claims is a court procedure that is designed to deal with simple civil cases where the claim is worth £3,000 or less.

 

Summary cause procedure deals with claims over £3,000 and up to £5,000.

It can also be used for cases that are too complicated for small claims but not complicated enough for ordinary cause procedure.

If your landlord is taking you to court to try and evict you, they must use the summary cause procedure.

 

Ordinary cause action is a court procedure that deals with claims worth more than £5,000 or civil cases in the sheriff court that involve complicated law.

So, if a case is too complicated for small claims and summary cause, it'll be dealt with under ordinary cause.

For example, divorce is dealt with under ordinary cause procedure.

The Ordinary Cause Rules set out the whole procedure.

 

 

If a case is too complicated for the sheriff court, or if a claim for a lot of money is involved, it'll go to the Court of Session.

 

 

However, this isn't likely to happen if your case is about housing law.

Edited February 18, 2015 by pancake roll
wrong setting

[StressBall]

cheers guys

- I think the Sheriff tends to look more favourably upon a party litigant, allowing for some leeway in the law.

 

The Sheriff, in the first case, has already agreed that the pursuers should not have been coming to court

without having the correct documents in their possession.

 

I'm certain this is also the case for the second, most recent, case

- hence why neither of them have served the writ correctly.

 

However, that is not what will be forming my defence, but it will now form part of it.

 

My defence is based on the fact that neither of these pursuers actually have a properly formatted credit card agreement.

[pancake roll]

The Solicitors knows right from the begining that they have to show some sort of proof of the debt .

To them , they are getting paid to scare you off,

 

so at the early stage of the action they are testing you as a party litigant whether you can spot what they are doing

and also see if you contest the action to the Sheriff at the first calling hearing.

 

I went through all that at the first calling ,

i contested the claim because of no credit agreement or any documents to support the debt.

 

Because the oher side had solicitors ,

the sheriff had to set a proof hearing for all parties to give the evidence.

 

when the proof hearing is set, (normally in two months time),

both sides have give PRODUCTION/DOCUMENTS before the hearing.

 

With me, they all withdrew before the hearing because they did not have the documents.

 

Just to let everybody know

 

i took out these credit card around 1995

i was only paying the min. amount,

 

over the 14 years i must have paid thousands and thousands to them.

 

2009 I went into debt and could not afford the payment anymore,

 

i did have payment plan with all of them.

 

After one year they decide to sell the debt on.

 

When i found out, i stop all payment to all of them.

[dx100uk]

great help PK.

 

 

dx

[StressBall]

Pancake, that's exactly what they are doing, and I'm not buying it.

 

My court was closed one Friday/Monday

- and the Monday was the deadline for submitting defences.

 

I confirmed, on the Tuesday, with the court, that my defences would be classed as submitted on time, and the Clerk said NO PROBLEM!

 

Then the pursuers solicitors entered a motion to have the action dropped and to move for decree by default.

 

SO I then had to submit an objection to the motion!

 

They, just want it steam rollered thru - but it ain't gonna happen!

 

Thanks for all your help and advice so far...!

[pancake roll]

Gladly to help.

 

I wish I was here to help you earlier.

 

I can only tell you what I experience in court myself.

 

At the moment I am dealing with a much more complicated issue with my business secure loans and overdraft.

It’s at the early stage of the threats by the bank solicitors.

I can’t say too much at the moment, because they might be reading my thread.

I will reveal my experience with this one later on.

 

The bank solicitors are in Glasgow. I will need to find an appointed Lay Representative to help me.

I have already spoken to someone regarding this.

 

Repossession law in Scotland is quite a lot to read and complex, so I will be struggling with this.

I have done a lot of reading of pass court cases, so I can get the feel what might be the outcome to my case.

And also to understand some of the technical terminology and procedural requirements.

 

You can get all this from BAILII database website for the Scottish Court Decisions.

This has taken over my life for the past 8 years with the bank

 

It’s on my mind day and night. I can’t sleep so that is why I do a lot of reading at night.

I feel like a matured students studying Scottish law.

It’s harder to remember at my age (59), so a lot of information that I come across is store in files and on my computer.

[StressBall]

well, good luck with everything - I've come to loathe banks for the way they treat people and their money - especially since this recent HSBC nonsense.

 

Do keep in touch - will be good to know how you are getting on!

[pancake roll]

Thanks Stressball .

 

This is what you want to hear from the Sheriff ‘’I shall therefore grant decree of absolvitor’’

 

If the sheriff grants 'decree of absolvitor' it means that they've decided that the defender has won the case.

 

It means that it's the end of the matter and the pursuer can't raise another action about the same thing.

[StressBall]

brilliant. thanks...x

[StressBall]

HI GUYS AND GALS...

 

Y+K have come back with a copy of a 'signed agreement' and a copy of the terms and conditions..

. I don't think it holds any water,

 

but I REALLY need some help in having someone scrutinise this for me and giving me some feedback... PLEASE??

 

Problem is, I'm somewhat reluctant, at this delicate stage, to post this on an open thread,

in case Y+K are reading these posts, which I'm sure they will do.

 

Advice please?

 

Is it possible to create a closed thread?

 

Or may I PM this to any highly recommended/experienced members who can check this out for me?

 

Please advise ASAP - as always, your advice is most gratefully received.

[caro]

If you have a closed thread then you limit the amount of help you get and the idea is to share each others advice and experience, and we don't advise help by PM either.

 

 

Just take out any identifiers and post up what you have.