Hillesden Securities

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: Hillesden Securities

Nah mate you're missing my point, they'll be saying to the judge "I couldn't pay cos I aint got no money"...... Forget the s.78 breaches, that's when we come running to you. Only a small (less than 10%) of debtors on here are homeowners...

Might not an indebted tenant who stops paying risk a Shylock Order?

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Hillesden Securities

Might not an indebted tenant who stops paying risk a Shylock Order?

a what?

[garlok]

Re: Hillesden Securities

Ah but according to Portia, ( and the court) Shylock may take his pound of flesh,

"but not one drop of Christian blood may you spill"


regards
Garlok

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: Hillesden Securities

a what?

A Shylock Order, which may be used to compel the debtor to surrender one of his/her kidneys.

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: Hillesden Securities

Ah but according to Portia, ( and the court) Shylock may take his pound of flesh,

"but not one drop of Christian blood may you spill"

Easily solved - just suck it up and pump it back in.

[garlok]

Re: Hillesden Securities

Still spilled then mate.

regards
Garlok

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: Hillesden Securities

Still spilled then mate.

OK - then just order the debtor to surrender the kidney, leaving the spilling of blood to the debtor himself.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Hillesden Securities

A Shylock Order, which may be used to compel the debtor to surrender one of his/her kidneys.

Extreme. But I bet a few dca's wouldn't refuse!!

[Paul.]

Re: Hillesden Securities

These clowns are the latest in a long line of DCA chasing a debt where the OC cannot provide a Copy of the contract for a loan they claim I took out in 2006.

I basically told them the account is unenforceable and strangely they've come back with McGuffick v RBS on enforceability. Stating that 'bringing proceedings is not enforcement and it follows that demanding payment prior to commencement of proceedings cannot therefore be considered enforcement'.

Apart from telling them just to 'feck off' is there a pithy rebuttal to this statement?

Another point,

In McGuffick Flaux J said that the steps within 87(1) could amount to enforcement.

Secondly, Chambers QC said in Harrison that the default notice was a pre condition of enforcement.

So demanding full payment when the full balance is not yet due could be construed as enforcement,

[frisp]

Re: Hillesden Securities

Welcome frisp, have you got round to looking at the Template letters yet?


Final Response - Unenforceability (No CCA Received)

I'll have a look tks

[frisp]

Re: Hillesden Securities

youre welcome mate

One thing that i think we are really going to need to dispell the myth on, is this notion that non compliance with s78 gives you the right to stop paying, it does not and will lead you into court very quickly

so often i hear people say to me, well they didnt send the the CCA so i stopped paying, McGuffick addressed this very clearly.

People need more, than just that, they need something like Keith Harrison, the Unfairness side of things, Harrasment etc, or a dispute like this one where the goods were defective

they need something of substance to stop paying really as the courts are trying their best to find against debtors where ever they can.

I really think we need to make sure people are educated on this point

In this case as with a couple of others that occasionally creep out of the wood work. I stopped paying in 2006 when they (LLoyds) admitted they could not find the loan documents. At that time, stop paying was the advice I was given OTR.

I agree with Paul that had the same thing happened a couple of years ago I'd have arranged an initial and nominal payment until they proved they had the right to the debt.

I would then, as I have in a number of cases, entered into an arrangement to pay what I can afford. This has been a very successful method of dealing with my debts.

Apart from a very early CCJ which I shouldn't have but SPECTRUM screwed that up. I've received only one claim form in the last 5 years and a very clever Legal brain managed to see them off in short order.

As it is, this and 3 others that keep cropping up with different DCAs will be statute barred next year.

Thanks all for your sound and often humorous advice