Stubie

Of course you are 100% right in what you say. I've struggled over the last few months with the 'morality' of what I am doing, even though I don't feel I have much choice. I have found the posts on the forum by yourself, Basa, CMK and others to be exactly what I needed. They have given me hope.

The trouble with people like Braindeadave posting negative comments (although I accept he has the right to do so), is that it throws that doubt people have back to the surface - then you get a letter from a CCC, which is littered with lies and the combination, for me, leaves me riled and pi**ed off.

If Braindeadave wants to have his say then why doesn't he start his own thread?

Come on guys,

we are all entitled to our opinion. The beauty of freedom is the freedom to disagree, or to be allowed an opinion at all.

This is getting personal and has no place on the forum

S

braindeadave:

Brooooooooooce:

Ey up Braindead!

Haven't you anything better to do? Doesn't the bank you work for have rules about using the internet or are you sat sipping cocktails on your yacht? Do one!

Would that be better for you if i did work for a bank, or was a cocktail sipping millionaire? Would it make you feel better? Would justification be easier for you?

In fact i don't work for a bank. I'm just a concerned member of the public who, unlike yourself, has spent their life living within their means, no matter how painful it's been at times. I'm concerned becuase i see Barry here not only trying to get out of his debt, but also trying to remove the default notices on his credit file, by means of the law. The law is meant to serve us all, and i think it's unfair to people like myself if he were to wriggle out of his debt without any punishment (lowered credit rating) at all. That's why i'm here.

As for 'doing one', do you have a template letter for that?

No one is trying to get out of any debt here. I have probably paid back considerably more than I received. My only concern is to what degree the (almost) extortionate interest levied has contributed to the outstanding balance.

Lovely to hear from you again Brainless!

I couldn't care less where you work - though I now imagine from your post that you are more likely to be employed in the Public sector, less stress and all that. Bet you've never had to use your credit card to pay your employees wages. Not all debt is built up because people don't live within their means. Sometimes (and probably more often than not) people are using debt as a means to survive, to pay wages to others, to pay for plastic surgery for a disabled child, to feed and cloth their children.

Is that you are simply jealous of people like Basa and others who have found a legal route to avoiding the pain that you say you have suffered?

I was beginning to think that your were your persona but then you hit the nail on the head;

'The law is meant to serve us all'

How true. How very very true. Apart from in the world you live in, the only people who should bear the conseqeunce of braking not the actual LAW but your moral unwritten law, is the deal old consumer - Basa and me. The only people to have actually broken the LAW are your friends and bed fellows the Banks and credit card companies! What a joke - punish those that have done no wrong and reward those that have. I must have got you all wrong - you're not a *anker you're an MP!!!

Do one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Go on Basa stick it to the bar stewards!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Brooooooooooce:

Ey up Braindead!

Haven't you anything better to do? Doesn't the bank you work for have rules about using the internet or are you sat sipping cocktails on your yacht? Do one!

Would that be better for you if i did work for a bank, or was a cocktail sipping millionaire? Would it make you feel better? Would justification be easier for you?

In fact i don't work for a bank. I'm just a concerned member of the public who, unlike yourself, has spent their life living within their means, no matter how painful it's been at times. I'm concerned becuase i see Barry here not only trying to get out of his debt, but also trying to remove the default notices on his credit file, by means of the law. The law is meant to serve us all, and i think it's unfair to people like myself if he were to wriggle out of his debt without any punishment (lowered credit rating) at all. That's why i'm here.

As for 'doing one', do you have a template letter for that?

Hi Basa,

Another thought.

Prepare, but do not send, yet, a letter to the court requesting an adjournment to resubmit your case.

If the test cases go against the creditor then you would need to submit arguements based on the test cases.

They will do the same if the test cases go in favour of the creditor, for sure.

Have this ready to go then keep you ear to the ground on the test cases. Huckster is well informed, perhaps he would do the same. Don't wait for the re-scheduled hearing as you could miss the boat.

Regards

S

basa48:

Adjourned !!!

Manchester area seems to be a hot bed of adjourned cases, lots of detail on CAG about them. I can't see what they will reveal that is of merit in your case but hey ho!

basa48: for 14 days until the results of the test cases is revealed.

The judge was VERY hard on the defendants solicitor asking why they delayed acknowledging and what their case for the defence would be. The defence was going to be McGuffick!! and some Barclays case allowing set off. It was obvious the judge didn't think they had a leg to stand on and was only waiting on the test cases to see if there was going to be a quantum shift to allow any bits of paper with a signature to be enforceable.

Who represented them, can you remember?

McGuffick is of little value to them for the reasons I've already mentioned. Did the Rankine case come up?

Barclays set off - any reference? what do the propose to set off, and against what? If the agreement is ruled unenforcible (which seems likely) there is nothing to set off against.

When did the Barclays citation get brought up, they can't just toss thing into the ring and hope, where is the principle of fair defence.

basa48: He also said they would lose by arguing we had been paying for years and thus implicitly accepting some agreement to terms.

There is a fairly pursuasive arguement that to trade in the manner they have is illegal (loan sharking). We won't go there, tho!

Good result M8, I think they will fold, personally.

Worth thinking about, theysought leave to defend the whole case as issued. If the defence is ruled vexation then will that carry your whole case? it should!!

If the defendant has no defence then the action is passed, in its entirety. To fold would just mean paying you the money, this would be a better result for them.

I ramble, well done so far, all the best

S

huckster:

Basa

Well done. So far so good.

So the judge had already decided to adjourn beforehand!!. Have they had instructions to stall such cases until the test cases have been heard?

Well he didn't say so but I presume all cases like this will be stalled until the test case are adjudged. I was a bit miffed I confess. the judge didn't allow me to speak else I would have explained that no court on earth could find what they have produced to be enforceable.

huckster:When your case is resumed, will it be the same judge? Did the judge give the impression that they had a thorough understanding of the issues?

I got the impression it would be the same judge. He did say he didn't want to make a decision until he knew the outcome of the test cases. He did very much seem to have a very thorough understanding.

huckster:I can see this being continued into the new year, as it will take some time for the test case information, if there is anything definitive, to be released. Back in 14 days for another adjournment or do they advise you by phone/letter?

They will have to advise us by letter. He seemed sure the cases would be adjudged by then and the ones he was talking about he thought were in Manchester??

huckster:Perhaps the creditors will just cave in and decide not to bother if the test cases do not assist them. I doubt they would want to go back to court, from what you have said about the judges demeanor towards them.

I had quite expected them to cave today, but they seemed quite intent on pursuing these arguments of McGuffick and Barclays set-off.

There is no way I can see that an agreement that doesn't comply with 61(1)(a) (i.e. the prescribed terms in one document) can be made to be enforceable by way of these test cases. The only way would be to retrospectively repeal 127(3) and that would be going against an Act of Parliament endorsed by the House of Lords.

There are many grey areas that need clarification but 61 / 127 I believe cannot be interfered with.

Basa

Well done. So far so good.

So the judge had already decided to adjourn beforehand!!. Have they had instructions to stall such cases until the test cases have been heard?

When your case is resumed, will it be the same judge? Did the judge give the impression that they had a thorough understanding of the issues?

I can see this being continued into the new year, as it will take some time for the test case information, if there is anything definative, to be released. Back in 14 days for another adjournment or do they advise you by phone/letter?

Perhaps the creditors will just cave in and decide not to bother if the test cases do not assist them. I doubt they would want to go back to court, from what you have said about the judges demeanor towards them.

Huckster

Adjourned !!!

for 14 days until the results of the test cases is revealed.

The judge was VERY hard on the defendants solicitor asking why they delayed acknowledging and what their case for the defence would be. The defence was going to be McGuffick!! and some Barclays case allowing set off. It was obvious the judge didn't think they had a leg to stand on and was only waiting on the test cases to see if there was going to be a quantum shift to allow any bits of paper with a signature to be enforceable.

He also said they would lose by arguing we had been paying for years and thus implicitly accepting some agreement to terms.

Cheers again.

I have tried to take on board your comments and have drafted a closing submission.

Now lets see how it goes !

Try not to wing it, this is a critical part of proceedings. Basically, your opportunity to re-inforce any arguements or markers you raised during pleading. Its important not to miss anything at this stage.

The witness statements are fairly straight forward.

I doubt the witness will be there in person, but cannot be certain on this, clearly.

The case law is the usual, in recent times. Basically, the only successes the banks have ever had.

The claimant can cite mailers and catalogues all they want, the law requires an agreement, and the agreement be compliant.

The Rankine case is complex but central to it is a litany of technical errors which the judge considered trivial, the attitude of the Rankines themselves - it is clear that the judge took an instant dislike to them, personally - and dubious witness statements. Also the Rankines sought an s142 declaration, only the creditor can seek this so they failed, oh, and inaccurate legal references (thy would probably have got away with this if they had approached the court with a more appropriate attitude).

The one thing that the courts cannot do is find in defiance of statute (athought they sometines try). s127(3) is very clear in its wording and its meaning. It is impossible to interpret in any other way than the way Bennion intended.

S

braindeadave:

I don't follow your logic here. You are in permanent default until you pay the debt. That is the definition of the word default: "to fail to pay a debt or other financial obligation". Payment over installments is only for YOUR convienience. It could be argued that the system should work in a way that the creditor should place a default on your credit file as soon as you apply for a loan (or whatever), even if you are paying it back on a monthly basis, and then remove the default once the loan is paid.

Honestly though, i can't understand why people are helping you with this. You want to get out of paying the debt, and you also want to get out of the consequnces of not paying the debt i.e knackered credit rating. Though i'm sure sure why you're bothering with the latter, i mean, after this, you'd have to be pretty stupid to apply for credit again wouldn't you?

You probably wouldn't, the logic is well lost on you. I have to say your moniker certainly echoes your IQ, but I assume that is what you intended.

You do realise that default by definition means in breach of an agreement. If that agreement includes to make regular payments in arrears then that is what is agreed, there can be no default unless an agreed payment is missed. Also, apart from loans, credit agreements are by their nature sporadic. There may be times where the balance is zero or do you expect debtors to pay up front and draw down monies later.

I'm afraid I am wasting time writing this.

I do not want to get out of paying my debt. But you have to ask how did that debt arise. I am sure I have more than paid back what was borrowed but at interest of over 30% it seems that minimum payments will never clear the debt. Basically the bank is now sitting back, collecting the monthly interest without offering one penny to me to spend. Great move in a recession where the banks are being told to advance money for people to spend.

I would like you to explain why lenders are applying interest at 20-30% when the bank rate is 0.5%.

All the money I am saving by not paying inflated interest to the banks is flowing into the economy.

My credit rating would be knackered anyway with or without defaults, as with the interest I am paying it is obvious to any potential lender that I am overburdened.

People help here because they are decent, hardworking and honest. They are fed up with being overburdened by greedy *ankers. (* insert your preferred letter!).

Ey up Braindead!

Haven't you anything better to do? Doesn't the bank you work for have rules about using the internet or are you sat sipping cocktails on your yacht? Do one!