Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Speaking of the reformatory boys, here they are with all of their supporters, some of whom traveled with them from miles away, all carefully crammed together and photographed to look like there were more than about 80 .. rather like Farages last rally with even fewer people crammed around what looked like an ice cream van or mobile tea bar ... Although a number in the crowd apparently thought they were at a vintage car rally as they appeared to be chanting 'crank-her'. A vintage Bentley must be out of view.   Is this all there is? Its less than the Tory candidate. - shut up and smile while they get a camera angle that looks better
    • in order for us to help you we require the following information:- Which Court have you received the claim from ? Canterbury If possible please scan redact and upload a full page copy of page 1 of the claim form. ( Name of the Claimant ? Moneybarn No 1   How many defendant's  joint or self ? One Date of issue – top right hand corner of the claim form – this in order to establish the time line you need to adhere to. 29/05/24 Acknowledged by 14/06/24  Defence by 29/06/24  Particulars of Claim PARTICULARS OF CLAIM   1.  By a Conditional Sale Agreement in writing made on 25th August 2022. Between the Claimant and Defendant, the Claimant let to the Defendant on Conditional Sale. A Ford Ranger 3.2 TDCi (200 P S) 4x4 Wildtrack  Double Cab Pickup 3200cc (Sep.2015) Registration No, ******* Chassis number ***************** (“The Vehicle”).  A copy of the agreement is attached   2.  The price of the goods was £15,995.00.  The Initial Rental was £8500.00.  The total charge for credit was £3575.;17 And the balance of £11,070.17 was payable by 59 equal consecutive monthly instalments of £187 63. payable on the 25th of each month.   3.  The following were expressed conditions of the set agreement,   Clause 8: Our Right to End this Agreement  8.1   Subject to sending you the notice as required by law, any of the following events will entitle us to end this Agreement: 8.1.2  You fail to pay the advance payment (if any) or any of the payments as specified on the front page of this agreement or any other sum payable under this Agreement. 8.1.3 If any of the information you have given us before entering into this Agreement or during the term of this Agreement was false 8.1.4 We consider, acting reasonably, that the goods may be in jeopardy or that our rights in the goods may otherwise be prejudiced. 8.1.5 If you die 8.1.6 If a bankruptcy petition is presented against you; if you petition for your own bankruptcy, or make a live arrangement with your creditors or call a meeting of them. 8. 1.7 If in Scotland, you become insolvent or sequestration or a receiver, judicial factor or trustee to be appointed over any of your estate, or effects or suffer an arrestment, charge attachment or other diligence to be issued or levied on any of your estate or effects or suffer any exercise, or threatened exercise of landlords hype hypothec 8.1.8 If you are a partnership, you are dissolved 8.1.9 If the goods are destroyed, lost, stolen and/or treated by the insurer as a total loss in response to an insurance claim. 8.1.10 If we reasonably believe any payment made to us in respect of this Agreement is a proceed of crime. 8.1.11 If steps are taken by us to terminate any other agreement which you have entered into with us.   Clause 9.  Effect of Us Terminating Agreement   9.1 If this Agreement terminates under clause 8 the following will apply 9.1.1 Subject to the rights given to you by law, you will no longer be entitled to possession of the goods and must return them to us to an address as we may reasonably specify, (removing or commencing the removal of any cherished plates) together with a V5 registration certificate, both sets of keys and a service record book. If you are unable or unwilling to return the goods to us then we shall collect the goods and we'll charge you in accordance with clause 10.3 9.1.2 We will be entitled to immediate payment from you for all payments and all other sums do under this agreement at the date of termination 9.1.3 We will sell the goods or public sale at the earliest opportunity once the goods are in a reasonable condition which includes a return of the items listed in clause 7.1.4 9.1.4 We will be entitled to immediate payment from you of the rest of the Total Amount Payable under this agreement less: ( a) A rebate for early settlement ias required by law which will be calculated and notified to you at the time of payment (b) The proceeds of sale of the goods (if any) after deduction of all costs associated with finding you and/or the goods, recovery, refurbishment and repair. Insurance, storage, sale, agents fees, cherished plate removal, replacement keys, costs associated with obtaining service history for the goods and in relation to obtaining a duplicate V5 registration certificate   4, The following are particulars required by Civil Procedure Rules. Rule 7.9 as set out in 7.1 and 7.2 of the associated Practice Direction entitled Hire Purchase Claims:-   a)     The agreement is dated 25 August 2022. And is between Moneybarn No1 Limited  and xxxxxxxxx under agreement number 756050. b)    The claimant was one of the original parties to the agreement. c)    The agreement is regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. d)    The goods claimed Ford Ranger 3.2 TDCi ( 200 PS) 4x4 Wildtrack Double Cab Pickup 3200 cc (Sep2015} Registration No ^^^^^^^ Chassis number ***************** e)     Thw total price of the goods £19570 f)     The paid up sum £1206 5 g)    The unpaid balance of the total price £7505 (to include charges) h)    A default notice was sent to the defendant on 20th February 2024 by Firrst class post i)      The date when the right to demand delivery of the goods accrued 14 March 2024 j)      The amount if any claimed as an alternative to delivery of the goods 7505 22 include charges ]= 5.  A the date of service of the notice the instalments were £562.89 in arrears. 6. By reason of the Termination of the Agreement by the notice, defendant became liable to pay the sum of £7502 7. The date of maturity the agreement is 24th August 2027. 8. Further or  alternative by reasons of  the Defendant breaches of the agreement by failing to pay the said instalments, the Defendant evinced an intention no longer to be bound by the Agreement and repudiated it by the said Notice the claimant accepted that repudiation 9. By reason of such repudiation the claimant has suffered loss and damage.   Total amount payable £19570 Less sum paid or in arrears by the date of repudiation £12064 97 Balance £7505 (to include charges.) ( The claimant will give credit if necessary for the value of the vehicle if recovered.)  The claimant therefore claims 1.    An order for delivery up of the vehicle 2.    The MoneyClaim to be adjourned generally with liberty to restore,  Upon restoration of the MoneyClaim following return or loss of the vehicle. the Claimant will ensure the pre action protocol for debt claims is followed. 3.    Pursuant to s 90 (1)  of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. An order that the Claimant and/or its agents may enter any premises in which the vehicle is situated in order to recover the vehicle should it not be returned by the Defendant 4.    further or alternatively damages 5.    costs.   Statement of truth The Claimant believes that the facts stated in these Particulars of Claim are true. The Claimant understands that the proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes or causes to be made a false statement in the document for verified by statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth. I am duly Authorised by the Claimant to sign these Particulars of Claim signed Dated 17th of April 2024   What is the total value of the claim? 7502   Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? No   Never heard of this   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? n/a Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? No   When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? After  Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? In a garage  Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes  Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. Original Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? n/a   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? They said sent but nor received   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? None seen   Why did you cease payments? Still Paying,   What was the date of your last payment? Yesterday  31st May 2024   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? Yes on 12 Feb 2024   What you need to do now.   Can't scan, will do via another means as you cant have jpg
    • Now that is an interesting article which adds afew perspective that I hadn't thought significant - but on reflection of the perspectives offered ... Now Starmer is no Blair, however 'blairite he may be perceived, but the Tories aren't tories and aren't even remotely liberal   The fast 'unannounced and unexpected election call from sunack may well be explained by the opinion linked that he hoped reform would be unprepared and effectively call a chunk of Farages largely empty bluster - making him look even more of a prat, leave scope for attacks on shabby reform candidates and mimimise core vote losses to reform - while throwing the 'middle ground' (relative) tories TO THE DOGS - and with the added bonus of likely pacifying his missu' desire to jogg off to sunny cal tout suite somewhat   thumb in the air - I expect about 140ish tory seats, but can hope for under a hundred Reform - got to admit the outside possibility of 1, maybe 2 seats with about 8% of the vote - but unlikely. I think projections of over 10% of the vote for reform is nudged and paid for speculation - but possible with the expected massive drives from Russian, Chinese and far right social media bot and troll prods targeting the gullible.
    • Commentary June 2024 WWW.ELECTORALCALCULUS.CO.UK Interesting article about just how bad it could be for the Tories.  Also Tories could be hoping on Reform not having candidates in many seats, as they were not ready.  
    • Even a Piers Morgan is an improvement and a gutless Farage Piers Morgan calls for second Brexit referendum WWW.THELONDONECONOMIC.COM Piers Morgan and Nigel Farage have faced off over Brexit and a second referendum in a heated reunion on BBC Question Time.   “Why don’t we have another referendum about Brexit?” he questioned. “I seem to remember when 2016 came around we were told there was going to be control of our borders and it was going to be economically beneficial to this country. And eight years later we have lost complete control of our borders… and economically it seems to have been a wilful act of self-harm.”   ... Piers missed off : after all somebody said a 48/52 decision would be "unfinished business" by a long way - was that person just bul lying (again)  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

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

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

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

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

       

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

Vampyra -v- Various DCA's


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6176 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi, Richard

 

One quote from yourself, probably more than any other, continues to stick in my mind:

 

Richard Spud - 27th April 2007, 22:59 "I must admit that I am not known for my brevity".

 

I would wholeheartedly agree with your statement, in so far as (on this forum at least) you are more likely to be known for your enlightening, informative and empowering comments.

 

Regardless of your original research requirements (with which I whole-heartedly agree), I am of the belief that such opinions are offered with the genuine (and growing) motive of redressing the huge imbalance between the principles and subtleties of English Law (as it pertains to consumer legislation) and the very consumer who is allegedly so well protected. For many such people, the law is an impenetrable and unattainable ideal.

 

Any positive action which redresses this legal, financial, social, immoral and amoral gulf is fine by me.

 

Todge.

"Weasel (n): any person or group that operates in that vast grey area between good ethical behaviour and the sort of activities that might send you to jail".

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 393
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Behind you all the way Richard, we will never quit;)

 

Can't wait for the next installment:p

LTSB court date 25/7/07

17/7/07 I WON I WON I WON!!!!:p :grin:

HSBC court date 11/9/07 (stayed)

CapOne lba 7/1/08-15/3/08 WON.

Citicards lba 14/1/08

 

Read Read and Read Some:razz: More

 

If I've been helpful in anyway please tip my scales:rolleyes:

 

Please note that this advice is given informally, without liability and without prejudice. Seek the advice of an insured qualified professional if you have any doubts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am no longer welcome on CAG

i will be off site for the next month or so. if you have any problems, feel free to report the post so a moderator can help you.

 

I am not a qualified or practicing lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am no longer welcome on CAG

i will be off site for the next month or so. if you have any problems, feel free to report the post so a moderator can help you.

 

I am not a qualified or practicing lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not profess to have sufficient knowledge of the various laws to determine exactly how these assignments happen. However, I will remain of the opinion that the industry is being a little careful with the full story.

 

The general consenus, indeed agreed by Richard (to which I also agree) is that to comply with S189 of the consumer credit act the rights & duties cannot be separated.

 

creditor” means the person providing credit under a consumer credit agreement or the person to whom his rights and duties under the agreement have passed by assignment or operation of law, and in relation to a prospective consumer credit agreement, includes the prospective creditor;

 

Being as many believe the rights & duties have been separated solely by assignment under S136 of LoP, instead of arguing “duties” cannot be separated is it not easier to say that there is no longer a creditor by virtue of S189 CCA? If the industry wants to collect money on behalf of an apparent non-existant creditor, is it not about time they clearly explain why they believe there is a creditor under S189 CCA, after all that is the very legislation they are attempting to collect under by virtue of a consumer credit agreement?

 

Welcome Tbern.

 

aktiv,

 

in the infamous Wilson car case Lord Nicholls said concerning the precluding of the court from enforcing a credit agreement

 

30. These restrictions on enforcement of a regulated agreement cannot be side-stepped by recourse to a pledge or other form of security furnished in support of the debtor's obligations under the agreement. The security is not enforceable to a greater extent than the loan: section 113. Where an application for an enforcement order is dismissed, except on technical grounds only, or the court makes a declaration under section 142 that the agreement is not enforceable, any security provided in relation to a regulated agreement 'shall be treated as never having effect': section 106(a). Property lodged with the creditor by way of security has to be returned by him 'forthwith'.

Whilst I appreciate he is specifically refering to the car, I think the sentiment could be carried over to all aspect of the Consumer Credit Act. It is the CONSUMER credit act not the Creditor consumer act!

 

Regards

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oops, I think I have finally understood how they have arrived at creditor not changing.

creditor” means

 

A) the person providing credit under a consumer credit agreement

or

B) the person to whom his rights and duties under the agreement have passed by assignment or operation of law,

 

As "duties" not assigned then (B) does not apply so (A) must.

 

I was going to use assignment of rights and delegation of duties in the example letter but I was expecting some-one to say they have not both been assigned (see next paragraph as to why), so instead I thought it easier to use trust basis.

 

Confession time, I have read everything else in great detail but as S189 is only short I was memorising the key words and forgetting "providing credit" so I kept getting confused.

 

Better remember to read properly in future. Thanks for your patience everyone.

 

It looks so simple now, cannot believe how I missed it.

 

ps. The way I was memorising it meant I was seeing a bigger LoP v CCA debate than everyone else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am no longer welcome on CAG

i will be off site for the next month or so. if you have any problems, feel free to report the post so a moderator can help you.

 

I am not a qualified or practicing lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

#32 (permalink) Belaflat vbmenu_register("postmenu_784503", true);

Basic Account Customer

 

Join Date: Mar 2007

Posts: 71

reputation_pos.gif

 

 

icon1.gif Re: 1st Credit / Lloyds TSB & the solicitors

I have just been perusing some old paperwork and came across some for a LTSB loan from 2001. Bearing in mind your predicament and the willingness of DCA's to go for a charging order effectively making the debt secured, these snippets in the terms and conditions made me think hard about its legality.

 

In the default section were conditions which effectively stated that if I became insolvent and declared bankrupt, have a CCj etc, the full amount will become payable.

Like to see what any Insolvency Practitioner would make of that.

 

Reading further, I came across these other conditions and I quote them as written.

 

"This agreement will not be secured or treated as secured by any mortgage, charge or other security which may have been, or may in the future be, given by you to secure any sums due from you to us"

Then further,

 

"We may assign or transfer all or any of our rights or our rights and obligations under this agreement, but we may only assign or transfer all or any of our obligations under this agreement either with your agreement or where the assignment or transfer does not affect the nature of your rights under this agreement"

 

If I had been in your situation with the charging order and I had those terms and conditions to hand, I would be seriously arguing that I didnt agree to the assigning of the debt to another party and clearly since the other party is now effectively trying to secure my indebtedness, it is a clear breach of the terms and conditions of the agreement.

 

Since this is a quote from a LTSB agreement, I cannot imagine yours being too different. Not that I would ever admit to having a copy of the agreement in your situation but if you do happen to chance across the terms and conditions and you have something similar.......its a possibility.

 

Anyone out there with an astute legal mind who may be able to give a yay or nay to this possibly being used as a defence?

 

is this relevant?

LTSB court date 25/7/07

17/7/07 I WON I WON I WON!!!!:p :grin:

HSBC court date 11/9/07 (stayed)

CapOne lba 7/1/08-15/3/08 WON.

Citicards lba 14/1/08

 

Read Read and Read Some:razz: More

 

If I've been helpful in anyway please tip my scales:rolleyes:

 

Please note that this advice is given informally, without liability and without prejudice. Seek the advice of an insured qualified professional if you have any doubts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am no longer welcome on CAG

  • Haha 1

i will be off site for the next month or so. if you have any problems, feel free to report the post so a moderator can help you.

 

I am not a qualified or practicing lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your response tomterm8, your legal eye brings out the points that us mere mortals do not pick up on Ta:)

LTSB court date 25/7/07

17/7/07 I WON I WON I WON!!!!:p :grin:

HSBC court date 11/9/07 (stayed)

CapOne lba 7/1/08-15/3/08 WON.

Citicards lba 14/1/08

 

Read Read and Read Some:razz: More

 

If I've been helpful in anyway please tip my scales:rolleyes:

 

Please note that this advice is given informally, without liability and without prejudice. Seek the advice of an insured qualified professional if you have any doubts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I have worked out why they are ignoring CCA 74, but more worryingly what they may be up to with all these court cases.

 

All the agreements are invalid one way or another so using CCA 74 is a non-starter for them. As the CCA 74 will not help their cause they need to take it out of the picture as much as possible, ie enforce a contract under normal contract law

 

Obviously they have a dilemma of how can they take a 2nd bite of the cherry when there is a conflict bypassing the very law the agreement was made under. They need a case to prove that 2nd bite of the cherry is possible so that they can start with the rest.

 

At a guess the court cases (claimants or defendants) are at the moment not about winning they are more a gathering of evidence. The transcripts of those cases (and I have not seen any) may well show that they are getting judges to unwittingly discredit CCA 74 applying to the “contracts” and at a later date they can then use those transcripts to weight their case for normal contract law to apply.

 

Richard I have nothing to do with the industry. I often use Cabot only because they produce the most "conflicting" letters, I am not their "customer". For the other, confusing long story but I got there in the end.

Link to post
Share on other sites

aktiv,

 

as Wilson went all the way to the House or Lords, I do not believe they can not have a second bite of the cherry.

 

If these companies wish to move away from the CCA, that is surely all the more reason for us to retain our position with the CCA!

 

Time for another read of Wilson I think.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are many people who can write much better letters than me, so it certainly needs improving especially to make it read that not acknowledging debt. I am submitting this as a general concept. The idea is to appear confused why DCA writing, give OC benefit of the doubt that they may not realise the DCA’s actions are by default reflecting on their image too, questions show there is legal knowledge so will not be pushed around, questions and later paragraph make it clear what type of answers want, DOA cannot include commercially sensitive information so kindly telling them exactly which parts to omit to avoid confusion, cover Data Protection & CCA, lack of the CCA and the knock on effect to the other answers may well encourage (hopefully) them to pressurise DCA into closing the case.

 

Me, being cruel would be tempted to ask the same questions of OC & AC, and then if they do not match instigate a dispute between the 2 of them while the limitations clock is ticking away!

 

 

I am writing to you about the above assignment/agreement/contract you appear to have entered into with XXXXX.

 

At the present time I am unwilling to enter into any further correspondence with anyone other than yourselves as I am receiving little clarification from XXXX.

 

You will no doubt appreciate that suddenly receiving demands for money from a company totally unknown to myself raises concerns over their entitlement. Furthermore before taking legal advice I must establish exactly what has happened to justify whether XXXXX are indeed the only party I am able to deal with. In order for the dispute to be sorted in an amicable and transparent way will you please forward me answers to each of the following:

 

  • Who is the creditor/owner for the purpose of S189 of CCA 74?
  • Who is responsible for responding to a CCA request under S77-79?
  • Was the sale of this account/debt made by Equitable or Absolute assignment?
  • What evidence of my permission has been given to XXXX in order to allow them to process data?
  • Where have I agreed to allow you to assign the debt/account?
  • I am not party to a novated agreement therefore who is responsible for the duties under CCA 1974 and who should be performing those duties?
  • Who holds the rights under CCA 1974 and who should be exercising those rights?
  • Why have I not received a fully executed CCA?

Obviously I am aware that there is a possibility that you no longer have any involvement in the above debt/account. As a result I have phrased the questions in a way that only simple answers are required rather than expansive explanations.

 

Finally as my legal advisor may have other questions, will you please forward me a copy of the above assignment/agreement/contract, less details of the consideration paid/payable and other accounts/debts.

 

Thank you for your time.

 

Hello Everyone,

 

Well I havent been here for a while but lo and behold it would appear we are no further forward to having a draft letter to address the question?

 

Tomterm for me had something that could have easily been expanded on to see it fit for purpose. Activ took it a stage further, but since then all we have is debate, debate and yet more debate!!

 

We seem to be getting bogged down in legalise yet again, and if I'm reading this string correctly there also seems to be arguments from both sides of the camp (why so?) - If this is the case, one side with a vested interest, may be attempting to put the kibosh on yet another one of these damned nuisance letters.

 

Those in their ivory towers dont want this kind of thing - Power to the People, and Consumer Rights - We dont want any of this old nonsense, do we Nigel.

 

Lets have a bit of a giggle with the low life, put young Pilkington-Smyth from the legal office in to scramble their brains a bit. God they didn't even go to public school, the bloody cheek of the people!!

 

As an aside methinks that Richard, ID'd as a rotter, scalliwag, siding with the great unwashed maybe being targeted with arguement and counter arguement. - If this is so again for what purpose?

 

If we carry on like this we'll need a chamber full of barristers to get anything to draft stage - No wonder it takes so long to get anything done in this damn country.

 

PLEASE: - Lets stay positive and just get a letter that asks enough questions, without admitting liability. We can't get everything right, what we want to do is provoke a reaction and to secure more time. - This reaction should be enough to pen, DOE V2.

 

Hitback...

Dont' stand for it - Hit Back!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hitback, your comment "We can't get everything right, what we want to do is provoke a reaction and to secure more time. - This reaction should be enough to pen, DOE V2."

If we don't get everything right, are we not then making ourselves vulnerable to attack from the self same people you are lampooning?

Perhaps you could start a thread vis-a-vis a dca letter and see how it progresses, and we can cross reference with this thread of debate and enlightenment, which is slowly unravelling.

Then we can all gain and carry out our own objectives:)

LTSB court date 25/7/07

17/7/07 I WON I WON I WON!!!!:p :grin:

HSBC court date 11/9/07 (stayed)

CapOne lba 7/1/08-15/3/08 WON.

Citicards lba 14/1/08

 

Read Read and Read Some:razz: More

 

If I've been helpful in anyway please tip my scales:rolleyes:

 

Please note that this advice is given informally, without liability and without prejudice. Seek the advice of an insured qualified professional if you have any doubts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hitback, your comment "We can't get everything right, what we want to do is provoke a reaction and to secure more time. - This reaction should be enough to pen, DOE V2."

If we don't get everything right, are we not then making ourselves vulnerable to attack from the self same people you are lampooning?

Perhaps you could start a thread vis-a-vis a dca letter and see how it progresses, and we can cross reference with this thread of debate and enlightenment, which is slowly unravelling.

Then we can all gain and carry out our own objectives:)

 

Remus being vunerable to whatever extent is something we all have to live with, all I was trying to say was, if we continually cross-examine what is being said, the best solicitors in HM's fair land could still find fault.

 

This forum surely is about like-minded people who want to help each other. If we keep going like this on a single string, I will be looking in on this at Christmas and we wont be any further forward.

 

Yes I was trying to add a little humour to the proceedings but at the same time attempting to spur people on; although it would seem without much success.

 

This string is going nowhere fast and there are people out there who need help, while we debate zzzzzzzz....

 

I take your point about a seperate string, however I believe it would probably become stuck in the doldrums as this one so obviously is. Unless I find a few more mavericks prepared at least to fire an initial volley broadside, who are then prepared to defend with a counter strategy, I dont think I'll bother.

Dont' stand for it - Hit Back!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Hitback.

 

Your comments are noted although I am not quite sure what you mean by stating: “… methinks that Richard, ID'd as a rotter, scalliwag, siding with the great unwashed …”.

 

I apologise if I have misunderstood the objectives and aims of this thread in producing a letter.

 

To save any further delay, I graciously withdraw from the debate which, I recall, I intimated in a previous post in response to your interjection.

 

Richard Spud.

 

Hi Richard nothing underhand meant. I admire your input and obvious handle on the letter of the law, and yes my understanding of this string is that it was started to write a basic but legitimate letter.

 

Outside this I assumed rightly or wrongly that your education may be more public than state and some might not understand you trying to help.

 

However I think that there are some who would prefer not to see letter(s) happen and you as the obvious shining star in this particular forum could be being bogged down with argument, when I thought what was going to happen was that others would collectively agree a Dear Sir/Madam - Yours etc and you might say this will suffice!

 

For Christs sake everyone, even when times are bad - let's not lose our sense of bloody humour!!!

Dont' stand for it - Hit Back!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...