Just been to court/CL finance**WON IN COURT**

[Tau]

:eek:

[PriorityOne]

Well done Bluetack !!! Fantastic !!

[elizabeth1]

Hi bluetack,

 

 

Congratulations!!! Well Done!!!

 

 

I'm not actually surprised that you had more knowledge than those solicitors. Bet they thought it was going to be a walk in the park.

 

 

Best wishes, Jeff.

 

 

WELL DONE - BRILLIANT NEWS!!! NICE TO SEE YOU WON!!

 

Jeff, this is the big mistake these companies are making in their thinking we don't know anything!!

 

Time these comapnies woke up and realsied that Consumers have rights too - gone are the days where we let them take us for a ride

[joneshousehold]

Excellent news. Well done Bluetack.

You did some good work putting the case together and you deserve all the recognition for that work.

It's good news for all those pursuing the CCA route.

[diskmandave]

Hear hear! I think it stinks that TWO solicitors attended to fight a case that was listed for a 10 minute hearing.....

[diskmandave]

Finally! Marked as WON!

[NitrousOxide]

Hear hear! I think it stinks that TWO solicitors attended to fight a case that was listed for a 10 minute hearing.....

And then lost :

Absolutely well done, and well done Rory as well. The advice on this thread will be invaluable to others and will be an inspiration.

[gizmo111]

oh and I also took along a copy of my last statement which I had doctored to read that CL Finance's solicitor (two of them turned up to fight the case) actually owned the debt they were chasing me for!!! The judge agreed that this proved statements alone were not proof of debt.

 

When you say you doctored the statements - what exactly do you mean?

[diskmandave]

I wondered that as well! Surely... U didn't present falsified documents??!

 

Or did U mean doc's that they had been less than truthful with...?

 

Regards, Dave.

[NitrousOxide]

Hi,

I'm pretty sure she means they were doctored by the solicitors.

[minky93]

Congratlations! bluetack...... Well Done!........ and a round of applause for rory!....what a star you are always willing to help others..

 

minky xxx

[gizmo111]

Hi,

I'm pretty sure she means they were doctored by the solicitors.

 

No she clearly states this which I had doctored to read that CL Finance's solicitor

[NitrousOxide]

Hi,

Or it could be if she forgot a comma:

oh and I also took along a copy of my last statement which I had, doctored to read that CL Finance's solicitor (two of them turned up to fight the case) actually owned the debt they were chasing me for!!! The judge agreed that this proved statements alone were not proof of debt.

I'm just hoping really that's what she means, would be bad otherwise.

I'm reading the whole paragraph to read that she had a statement in her posession that was doctored by the solicitor to read that they owned it.

Judge has then looked and took the opinion that CL and sols cannot both own it.

I may be gravely wrong, oooer!!

[dannyboy660]

No she clearly states this which I had doctored to read that CL Finance's solicitor

 

YIKES............ :!:

 

Surely not. I think (hope) there may be a misunderstanding here........

[dannyboy660]

Having thought about it, ... the production of statements in court does not necessarily prove the existence, ownership, or liability of a debt, (anyone can print statements of sorts), then it's unlikely to sway a judges decision if you just happen to write on certain statements that XXX company claim ownership from XX date,... because they are.

 

I would imagine it only becomes a problem if documents are produced with the specific intention of misleading the court to your advantage. If this was the case, surely two Solicitors would have picked it up????

 

I'm just theorising, thinking out loud.......

 

No. I'm sure it's OK. 8-)

[Seahorse]

I've no doubt your thread will be a tremendous inspiration to loads of folks who were dreading being taken to court.

 

Now EVERYONE knows the application as an agreement arguement has been totally blown out of the water.

 

Well Done for having the courage of your convictions.

 

To all the MIB who I know trawl these posts.... TAKE NOTE.

[so*fed*up]

Wooooo!!! Fantastic news - well done on getting this fab result

[lemma1968]

I am soooooo happy for you. Great result.

[vinegarvera]

Wooow Great news, just read this post start to finish and it has put the biggest smile on my face!!!!!

( It has not been there in a while!!)

 

Rory you are also my hero!!

 

Well done all concerned!

[jet_black]

Well done you!, I have also just read the entire thread, I'm having trouble with CL Finance too, this has spurred me on to give em hell

[Jeff2000]

When you say you doctored the statements - what exactly do you mean?

 

 

I've PM'd bluetack, with a view to receiving more info on this matter!

 

 

Jeff.

[Belaflat]

oh and I also took along a copy of my last statement which I had doctored to read that CL Finance's solicitor (two of them turned up to fight the case) actually owned the debt they were chasing me for!!! The judge agreed that this proved statements alone were not proof of debt.

 

I read that as the Judge having been shown how easy it is to alter a statement, realised that such statements cannot be relied upon as proof of a debt.

[Diddy]

I read that as the Judge having been shown how easily it is to alter a statement, realised that such statements cannot be relied upon as proof of a debt.

Beat me to that lol. I think he altered the docs and pointed this out to the judge - to show that these statements prove NOTHING. Perhaps op will see and explain lol.

[NitrousOxide]

Hi,

It would be good if her defence was posted along with the relevent parts of the acts she relied on.

[bluetack]

Wow, do I feel famous!

Wasn't expecting this kind of response from everyone and its great, but I think I need to clear a few things up.

First of all, there was a lot of money involved here, over £9,000.

The solicitors were given big case reference books to try and find the points I had raised (I think there were about 11) but the judge was reading them out so quickly they hardly had chance to turn the pages! (they did look silly)

Then one of them said about the statements being proof of the debt.

It was at this point that I gave the judge the statement saying the solicitor actually owned this debt. I admitted then that I had altered the statement myself to prove that anyone with a computer is capable of falsifying documents that are not signed.

No one mentioned anything about this being unlawful, but I knew the statement thing would be raised and thats why I did it.

Remember, two years of the statements were missing. Their argument was that the account was dormant therefore no need for statements, the judge's reply was statements have to be supplied at least every twelve months (one of my defence points).

This was the main structure of my defence:

Non compliance CCA 1974 s127(3)

60(1)(a) 60(1)(b) 60(1)©

61(1)(a) 61(1)(b) 61(1)©

78(1)(a) 78(1)(b) 78(1)© 78(4)(a)

79(1)

 

CCA 2006 not retrospective - Default under regulated agreements/ 11 (a)(b)©

 

House of Lords ruling: WILSON and others v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

 

I do hope this info will help anyone else in a similar position.

I will post the court docs/strike out when they arrive.

(not sure if I should show you doctored statement, could lock me up if spies watching...........)

Also, I asked for costs and was awarded £50 even though I hadn't gone prepared with anything written down!