Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • "We suffer more in imagination than in reality" - really pleased this all happened. Settled by TO, full amount save as to costs and without interest claimed. I consider this a success but feel free to move this thread to wherever it's appropriate. I say it's a success because when I started this journey I was in a position of looking to pay interest on all these accounts, allowing them to default stopped that and so even though I am paying the full amount, it is without a doubt reduced from my position 3 years ago and I feel knowing this outcome was possible, happy to gotten this far, defended myself in person and left with a loan with terms I could only dream of, written into law as interest free! I will make better decisions in the future on other accounts, knowing key stages of this whole process. We had the opportunity to speak in court, Judge (feels like just before a ruling) was clear in such that he 'had all the relevant paperwork to make a judgement'. He wasn't pleased I hadn't settled before Court.. but then stated due to WS and verbal arguments on why I haven't settled, from my WS conclusion as follows: "11. The Defendant was not given ample evidence to prove the debt and therefore was not required to enter settlement negotiations. Should the debt be proved in the future, the Defendant is willing to enter such negotiations with the Claimant. "  He offered to stand down the case to give us chance to settle and that that was for my benefit specifically - their Sols didn't want to, he asked me whether I wanted to proceed to judgement or be given the opportunity to settle. Naturally, I snapped his hand off and we entered negotiations (took about 45 minutes). He added I should get legal advice for matters such as these. They were unwilling to agree to a TO unless it was full amount claimed, plus costs, plus interest. Which I rejected as I felt that was unfair in light of the circumstances and the judges comments, I then countered with full amount minus all costs and interest over 84 months. They accepted that. I believe the Judge wouldn't have been happy if they didn't accept a payment plan for the full amount, at this late stage. The judge was very impressed by my articulate defence and WS (Thanks CAG!) he respected that I was wiling to engage with the process but commented only I  can know whether this debt is mine, but stated that Civil cases were based on balance of probabilities, not without shadow of a doubt, and all he needs to determine is whether the account existed. Verbal arguments aside; he has enough evidence in paperwork for that. He clarified that a copy of a DN and NOA is sufficient proof based on balance of probabilities that they were served. I still disagree, but hey, I'm just me.. It's definitely not strict proof as basically I have to prove the negative (I didn't receive them/they were not served), which is impossible. Overall, a great result I think! BT  
    • Seeking further advice now. The 33 days in which the defendant has to submit a defence expires at 16:00 tomorrow. The defendant has submitted an acknowledgement of service but looking to get the claim awarded by default in failure to submit the defence. This is MoneyClaim Online and can see an option to request a default judgement but believe that is for failure to acknowledge the claim within 14 days??  So being MoneyClaim Online, how do I request the claim be awarded in my favour?
    • Have to agree with the above Health and safety legislation is specific in that the service provider in so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees and those not in the employ of the business. You claim is like saying you slipped in the swimming pool area while taking a dip. As rightly stated by by the leisure centre, a sports hall has dedicated equipment and you yourself personally have a legal obligation in mitigating danger or injury to yourself by taking account of your immediate surroundings. Where your claim will fail is if it is reasonable and proportionate to impose liability of the Leisure Centre? The answer has to be no.
  • 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

SLC Cannot Supply The Original Agreement


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5480 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

"The agreement is then null and void but the outstanding money is due and payable, maybe in one lump as there is no repayment agreement. The lender then takes debtor to court and debtor gets a CCJ."

 

But the judge will of course take into account the debtor's financial situation when awarding a judgement, and after being shown the inept way the creditor has handled the case (ie:unlawfully applying default charges AND attempting to pervert the course of justice (I think) by attempting to enforce them, breaching the Data Protection Act, being in criminal breach (I love that phrase!) of the CCA 1978, Im sure the repayments the debtor would be expected to make would not be unreasonable.

 

It might be better to rely on the CCA 1974 :D

 

Unfortunately the judge would probably still grant the CCJ, albeit with a lot of reservations. If the debtor is lucky the judge may defer judgement to allow the charges dispute to be settled.

Alliance & leicester:Settled 8/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/alliance-leicester-successes/19700-tamadus-l.html?highlight=tamadus

Capital One:Settled 22/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/capital-one/16644-tamadus-capital-one.html?highlight=tamadus

MBNA 2 accounts:Settled 22/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions-successes/13831-tamadus-mbna-i.html?highlight=tamadus

Smile:Settled 15/11/06

Egg Card:S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 2/10/06

GE Money:S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent3/8/06 LBA sent 26/9/06

Abbey:ERC prelim sent 14/9/06. LBA sent 2/10/06. Now it's getting interesting so keep watching

Barclaycard:In criminal default watch this space

Lloyds TSB:In criminal default watch this space

 

If my comments have been useful please click the scales and let me know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Lmao :D

Alliance & leicester:Settled 8/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/alliance-leicester-successes/19700-tamadus-l.html?highlight=tamadus

Capital One:Settled 22/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/capital-one/16644-tamadus-capital-one.html?highlight=tamadus

MBNA 2 accounts:Settled 22/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions-successes/13831-tamadus-mbna-i.html?highlight=tamadus

Smile:Settled 15/11/06

Egg Card:S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 2/10/06

GE Money:S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent3/8/06 LBA sent 26/9/06

Abbey:ERC prelim sent 14/9/06. LBA sent 2/10/06. Now it's getting interesting so keep watching

Barclaycard:In criminal default watch this space

Lloyds TSB:In criminal default watch this space

 

If my comments have been useful please click the scales and let me know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying it will happen this way or at all but it would be imprudent of me to say "yes, go ahead, stop paying and let the lender take you to court, no problem". A CCJ is a possible end result.

Absolutely ,sorry i may have missnderstood.

Still it may have served to clarify matters.

 

Regs Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all - first post on this thread, and all advice gratefully received. I have just received a reply to a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) to my loan company, and they have included a 'copy of the original agreement' in the info provided. Only it isn't. It isn't signed, and it isn't witnessed. Also, this was a joint loan taken out with my partner - but at the time he wasn't living with me & when we took out th loan, he obvilusly put his own address on the agreement. Yet this 'copy' has his addres filled in the same as mine. This copy has obviously only just been filled out & then photocopied & posted. As i say, usigned, unwitnessed & the address details are wrong. What do i do now? They are obvioulsy pulling a fast one by doing this. Help!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all - first post on this thread, and all advice gratefully received. I have just received a reply to a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) to my loan company, and they have included a 'copy of the original agreement' in the info provided. Only it isn't. It isn't signed, and it isn't witnessed. Also, this was a joint loan taken out with my partner - but at the time he wasn't living with me & when we took out th loan, he obvilusly put his own address on the agreement. Yet this 'copy' has his addres filled in the same as mine. This copy has obviously only just been filled out & then photocopied & posted. As i say, usigned, unwitnessed & the address details are wrong. What do i do now? They are obvioulsy pulling a fast one by doing this. Help!

 

 

Oh my goodness will they never learn?

 

I would write to them making a CCA sec.77/78 request and enclosing the fee of £1.00. It appears fairly obvious they do not have the agreement and have hastily put one together for your S.A.R - (Subject Access Request). Although I have no idea why as a lot of companies dont include it with the SAR.

 

By making the CCA request you are placing them under strict time limits, with the possibility of committing an offence as well as going into default.

 

If they send the same piece of paper again then I would challenge them about it in no uncertain terms.

 

it sounds to me like they don't have much hope of getting out of this one :D

 

When they start doing things like this I suspect we have them running around like madmen trying to cover their tracks. :D

Alliance & leicester:Settled 8/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/alliance-leicester-successes/19700-tamadus-l.html?highlight=tamadus

Capital One:Settled 22/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/capital-one/16644-tamadus-capital-one.html?highlight=tamadus

MBNA 2 accounts:Settled 22/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions-successes/13831-tamadus-mbna-i.html?highlight=tamadus

Smile:Settled 15/11/06

Egg Card:S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 2/10/06

GE Money:S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent3/8/06 LBA sent 26/9/06

Abbey:ERC prelim sent 14/9/06. LBA sent 2/10/06. Now it's getting interesting so keep watching

Barclaycard:In criminal default watch this space

Lloyds TSB:In criminal default watch this space

 

If my comments have been useful please click the scales and let me know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone help, very important for my claim which has been adjourned a new hearing date is set for 11 Jan.

 

If a loan has been subjected to a CCJ can the CCA request still be made, if so do time limits still apply for committing offences under the Act.

 

I realise the loan has been made the subject of a court order so payments will have to be met regardless, but will the company have still committed an offence.

 

Thanks Paul.

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply Joncris.

 

No it's not a set-aside i was in court on the 6 November contesting the Limitation Act 1980. The claim is a little more complex though as it surrounds a loan containing an unlawfull element.

 

The bank have not complied with a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) and a CCA Request i made in August.

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they send the same piece of paper again then I would challenge them about it in no uncertain terms

 

Yes,

When you do write back it would be a good idea not to mention the errors in their previous document. Don't want them to be able to simply ammend the information and send you another copy.

 

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Should I use the standard CCA request template from here? I'm presuming that's correct. Also, can they simply write back saying they've already supplied it under the S.A.R - (Subject Access Request)? Or is the CCA a totally sepereate thing that they must comply with nomatter what they may have already supplied? I intend to somply send the CCA request making no mention whatsoever to my SAR.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The SAR is a request under the data protection act 1998 the CCA request is under the 1974 cca,two different requests.

I would use the template supplied here.

 

Regs Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone tell me whether all loans etc are recorded with credit reference agencies. Have got my reports from equifax & experian with no mention of the loan in question. Surely, if the agreement existed it would be recorded? Or is there another CRA I don't know about?

 

Its up to the lender whether or not they register the loan. Many of the banks have not in the past registered loans as they see it as being commercially sensitive. They last thing they want to do is tell the competition how well (or bad) they are doing.

 

Its one of the reason that so many consumers can continue to borrow even though they have problems because lenders don't get a true picture of the debtors existing liabilties (which for some is just as well). This was recently the subject of an enquiry by Parliament after which the banks have agreed to share this info although the may have a problem with DPA at the moment.

 

Also the CRA's are supposed to share debtors info. So what appears on one should appear on another.......but we all know it doesn't

Link to post
Share on other sites

The object of making a sec. 77/78 request is so that we can be sure the agreement is properly executed. Our rights under the CCA are not diminished because action has been taken in some other form such as a CCJ. In fact if a company did apply for a CCJ against me then I would definitely make sure I made a 77/78 request. If they cannot produce it then their case is shot to pieces before it starts.

 

If a CCJ is already in place then that agreement being unenforceable is the start of getting the CCJ overturned. How can they get a CCJ if the agreement is not enforceable ?

 

Applications such as an S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) under any other act do not affect your rights under the CCA.

 

Paul amke the CCA request, the time limits still apply and if they cannot produce the agreement then I would apply for the CCJ to be overturned on the basis the agreement cannot be enforced.

Alliance & leicester:Settled 8/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/alliance-leicester-successes/19700-tamadus-l.html?highlight=tamadus

Capital One:Settled 22/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/capital-one/16644-tamadus-capital-one.html?highlight=tamadus

MBNA 2 accounts:Settled 22/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions-successes/13831-tamadus-mbna-i.html?highlight=tamadus

Smile:Settled 15/11/06

Egg Card:S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 2/10/06

GE Money:S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent3/8/06 LBA sent 26/9/06

Abbey:ERC prelim sent 14/9/06. LBA sent 2/10/06. Now it's getting interesting so keep watching

Barclaycard:In criminal default watch this space

Lloyds TSB:In criminal default watch this space

 

If my comments have been useful please click the scales and let me know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks tamadus.

 

I made the request on the 9th October the bank sent my postal order back with a letter dated 17 October saying they can't locate the document.

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks tamadus.

 

I made the request on the 9th October the bank sent my postal order back with a letter dated 17 October saying they can't locate the document.

 

Woooohooo Paul I'd wait now until the 12 days + 1 month has expired then write to them and explain that as they have admitted they cannot supply the document that the debt is unenforceable and then I would contact the court about getting that CCJ removed. I'd also ask for a refund of money paid on it.

 

Don't expect this to be as easy as writting a couple of letters, they are not going to like it very much, but I see no reason they can collect the payments on a debt without a credit agreement. Do your homework first though so you know exactly what your trying to achieve and how.

  • Haha 1

Alliance & leicester:Settled 8/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/alliance-leicester-successes/19700-tamadus-l.html?highlight=tamadus

Capital One:Settled 22/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/capital-one/16644-tamadus-capital-one.html?highlight=tamadus

MBNA 2 accounts:Settled 22/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions-successes/13831-tamadus-mbna-i.html?highlight=tamadus

Smile:Settled 15/11/06

Egg Card:S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 2/10/06

GE Money:S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent3/8/06 LBA sent 26/9/06

Abbey:ERC prelim sent 14/9/06. LBA sent 2/10/06. Now it's getting interesting so keep watching

Barclaycard:In criminal default watch this space

Lloyds TSB:In criminal default watch this space

 

If my comments have been useful please click the scales and let me know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The object of making a sec. 77/78 request is so that we can be sure the agreement is properly executed. Our rights under the CCA are not diminished because action has been taken in some other form such as a CCJ. In fact if a company did apply for a CCJ against me then I would definitely make sure I made a 77/78 request. If they cannot produce it then their case is shot to pieces before it starts.

 

If a CCJ is already in place then that agreement being unenforceable is the start of getting the CCJ overturned. How can they get a CCJ if the agreement is not enforceable ?

 

Applications such as an S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) under any other act do not affect your rights under the CCA.

 

Paul amke the CCA request, the time limits still apply and if they cannot produce the agreement then I would apply for the CCJ to be overturned on the basis the agreement cannot be enforced.

 

Tam, I think that when a CCJ has been established the debt is established in law, I think Bankfodder made this point earlier in the year. Once legally established it's going to take an awful lot of force to get it overturned.

 

Mike

If I've helped tip my scales

 

Blair Oliver & Scott, £2500 written off December 2006 Default removed January 2007:D

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt/56001-mike220359-blair-oliver-scott.html

 

Monument, didn't sign the agreement

:D

 

Lloyds TSB didn't sign the agreement!

:D

 

Citicards, didn't sign the agreement

:D

 

RBS tut, tut!

:rolleyes:

 

Morgan Stanley, oh dear

:rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your reply again tamadus.

 

I'm extremely busy at the moment putting a case together for my next court hearing, but i've kept an eye on this thread.

 

Barclaycard have also failed the CCA request and i've made them aware of this.

 

It seems there's a conflict of opinions on the CCJ, but i think it's worth chasing up.

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tam, I think that when a CCJ has been established the debt is established in law, I think Bankfodder made this point earlier in the year. Once legally established it's going to take an awful lot of force to get it overturned.

 

Mike

 

I dont doubt it will be a tough task but surely it could be challenged on the basis of new evidence that suggests that no agreement exists ?

Alliance & leicester:Settled 8/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/alliance-leicester-successes/19700-tamadus-l.html?highlight=tamadus

Capital One:Settled 22/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/capital-one/16644-tamadus-capital-one.html?highlight=tamadus

MBNA 2 accounts:Settled 22/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions-successes/13831-tamadus-mbna-i.html?highlight=tamadus

Smile:Settled 15/11/06

Egg Card:S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 2/10/06

GE Money:S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent3/8/06 LBA sent 26/9/06

Abbey:ERC prelim sent 14/9/06. LBA sent 2/10/06. Now it's getting interesting so keep watching

Barclaycard:In criminal default watch this space

Lloyds TSB:In criminal default watch this space

 

If my comments have been useful please click the scales and let me know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont doubt it will be a tough task but surely it could be challenged on the basis of new evidence that suggests that no agreement exists ?

 

Realistically, I think you could only do this if the judgement was entered by default - i.e. no hearing took place. I'd think it'd be much harder to do if the CCJ was entered after attending a hearing, where the opportunity would've been afforded to the creditor to produce the signed agreement as proof of the debt - indeed, the debtor would've had the opportunity to request a copy of the signed agreement as part of their defence.

 

Cheers

 

Michael

Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law.

 

Please see the following copyright statement

Link to post
Share on other sites

admitted, but there is always the possibility the defendant felt pressured and co-erced. It wont be easy by any means but for some reason I think it could be done if somebody is prepared to do their homework and gather everything they need.

 

Most (but not all ) CCJ's are issued without a hearing as the defendant admits liability, so in theory it should be possible to re-open the case and argue the no agreement case. I have no idea how to even start to reopen it but I know a man who does (or should) :D.

 

I'll make some enquiries and report back.

Alliance & leicester:Settled 8/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/alliance-leicester-successes/19700-tamadus-l.html?highlight=tamadus

Capital One:Settled 22/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/capital-one/16644-tamadus-capital-one.html?highlight=tamadus

MBNA 2 accounts:Settled 22/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions-successes/13831-tamadus-mbna-i.html?highlight=tamadus

Smile:Settled 15/11/06

Egg Card:S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 2/10/06

GE Money:S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent3/8/06 LBA sent 26/9/06

Abbey:ERC prelim sent 14/9/06. LBA sent 2/10/06. Now it's getting interesting so keep watching

Barclaycard:In criminal default watch this space

Lloyds TSB:In criminal default watch this space

 

If my comments have been useful please click the scales and let me know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea how to even start to reopen it

 

I think you'd just apply for a set aside and argue why the judgement shouldn't have been brought in the first place.

 

Cheers

 

Michael

Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law.

 

Please see the following copyright statement

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...