AAD site??

[Gilly71]

Well
I decided to come back in the hope that things had changed.

It seems that if anything things have become worse. Others have come out and stated what the problem is - for the avoidance of doubt that is Roger. Roger is a bully who seems totally ignorant of his own shortcomings and lack of basic knowledge. To support his ideas he quotes a man who looks after IT. Would you ask the Doctors receptionist to do your heart surgery.

Anyone, and I mean anyone, with a different view is shouted down, even Lolagirl with a snide comment about a few years ago.

Yes common law evolves and the interpretation of statute can change but the basics remain the same.

I would agree with Dottir when they say Roger does not speak for the forum, where is Niddy?

No one has to be bullied by Roger , my recommendation for what it’s worth is get rid of Roger, bring in new mods, stop this endless promotion of taking legal advice when it may not be needed and as Nightwatch says, is often not affordable.

Here endeth the lesson.

[Roger]

Another lesson in personal Spam and bickering

Well
I decided to come back in the hope that things had changed.

It seems that if anything things have become worse. Others have come out and stated what the problem is - for the avoidance of doubt that is Roger. Roger is a bully who seems totally ignorant of his own shortcomings and lack of basic knowledge. To support his ideas he quotes a man who looks after IT. Would you ask the Doctors receptionist to do your heart surgery.

Anyone, and I mean anyone, with a different view is shouted down, even Lolagirl with a snide comment about a few years ago.

Yes common law evolves and the interpretation of statute can change but the basics remain the same.

I would agree with Dottir when they say Roger does not speak for the forum, where is Niddy?

No one has to be bullied by Roger , my recommendation for what it’s worth is get rid of Roger, bring in new mods, stop this endless promotion of taking legal advice when it may not be needed and as Nightwatch says, is often not affordable.

Here endeth the lesson.

Gerry Jemitus


Legal Disclaimer
I am a Litigation Executive at Joanna Connolly Solicitors a firm which specialises in consumer credit. Any posts I make on the AAD Consumer Forum are for information and discussion purposes only and shouldn't be seen as legal advice. Any advice I provide on the forum is without liability. If you are unsure please seek formal legal guidance or contact your local citizens advice bureau at https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk

If you need to contact me you can send me a message by clicking my username or by emailing me at gerry@joannaconnollysolicitors.co.uk or by telephoning 0330 053 9340. If you spot an abusive or libellous post then please report it by Clicking Here.

[MisterK]

Gilly71

I personally would like to start a thread for members to share their experiences on the specific topic of debts becoming statute barred. The personal experience of those of us fortunate enough to have arrived at that point would not only be encouraging for those who are still on the journey - but also for those who would like to know how best to handle any aftermath associated with any continuing communication from DCA's etc.

Such a thread would hopefully not involve a lot of rather predictable and simplistic bellowing. Just personal discussion, not lectures.

But I am not going to start any thread knowing that a lot of threads at the current time are being met with lengthy and often off-topic cut and pasting accompanied by aggressive shouting. So I suppose I'll be keeping my own experience to myself and will be unable to learn from the experience of others.

However it's good to cast light on the problem, thank you Gilly71. Where there's light there's hope etc.

[Roger]

Gilly71

I personally would like to start a thread for members to share their experiences on the specific topic of debts becoming statute barred. The personal experience of those of us fortunate enough to have arrived at that point would not only be encouraging for those who are still on the journey - but also for those who would like to know how best to handle any aftermath associated with any continuing communication from DCA's etc.

Such a thread would hopefully not involve a lot of rather predictable and simplistic bellowing. Just personal discussion, not lectures.

But I am not going to start any thread knowing that a lot of threads at the current time are being met with lengthy and often off-topic cut and pasting accompanied by aggressive shouting. So I suppose I'll be keeping my own experience to myself and will be unable to learn from the experience of others.

However it's good to cast light on the problem, thank you Gilly71. Where there's light there's hope etc.

Sadly the important matter is SILENCE really.
Once upon a time in Scotland the 5 year time applied BUT CASE Law changed this. We don't know do we what is currently passing through the Courts that might or might not challenge assumptions.
Why SILENCE because without this you may or may not be open to challenges that the Debt was acknowledged.
Its why I cautioned about raising even genuine complaints.
Also the use of AI and profiling with DCA's the evidence is very clear isn't it.

The lessons that AAD taught me
SILENCE
SIT ON YOUR HANDS
GOOD DIARY and ask for legal advice when and if the threat of legal action rears its HEAD

BE very pessimistic about your calculation of the Statute Barred Date.
DCA's troll the various sites never mind just AAD Meaning that open discussion actually could come back in court of evidence of acknowledgement of DEBT
Frustrating isn't it!

[MisterK]

Sadly that's exactly what I expected.

[Roger]

Sadly that's exactly what I expected.

It is very frustrating but doesn't Statute Bar mean not acknowledging a debt for a period of at least six years in England

Statute Bar in England doesn't mean that the Debt ceases to exist however.

If it can be proven through social media, complaints and or otherwise that there had been tacit acknowledgement before the becoming Statute Barred then the clock could be restarted from scratch. Thats a huge risk if debts are being openly discussed isn't it?

Look in the last few days we have the Police knocking on peoples doors and even making arrests because of comments made on social media!
Must be obvious that there is equally a real risk of being sued for advice on social media!

As For Freedom of Speech: Parliament Members have the right to express their views freely within the House without fear of legal consequences. This protection extends to statements made during debates, discussions, and other parliamentary proceedings.

But outside of Parliament does Freedom Of Speech exist?

[MisterK]

What on earth has all that got to do with it. I don't remember asking for your advice.

Let's just look at one issue here.

The frequent use of capital letters in the middle of a sentence implies that the contributor is shouting. Often people quite rightly see that as bullying. What I would be looking for if I were to start a thread on this subject is individual experiences from other members rather than what looks rather like a tirade from someone who appears to be aggressively laying down the law and discouraging quiet and considered contributions from others.

If I want to read an instruction manual for a chainsaw I will go to B&Q - not to AAD.

So no, I will not be starting this or any other thread for it to be taken over by this kind of ranting.

[Roger]

Look I sympathise actually I understand but please read again Gerry Jemitus Blog July 2024

First without name shaming Gerry has been described here ".. To support his ideas he quotes a man who looks after IT .." at the very least apology's would be appropriate!


For years AAD and other sites advised sending that S77-79 request plus a £1 and until this was fulfilled this was UE

Now look at what Gerry says about barristers arguing about compliant S77-79 documents

".. We have had a number of cases where claimants have employed high level barristers to argue that they do not need to provide complaint s 77-79 documentation on a closed account. We have successfully defended these on each occasion, but there is no decided case law on this so each case will be determined by a DJ based on the missions put forward. .."

Perhaps @Niddy is more up to date than we are!

Gerry didn't have to submit this Blog but this should be caution because Case Law can't be ignored.
Well if S.77-79 request plus £1 has to be argued in Court what must this mean with respect to other matters say Statute Barred.

At the least we should be grateful to Gerry because he didn't have to provide that Blog with current insights did he?
If you wish to ignore so be it! That is your choice.

[Dottir]

I agree with everything Mister K says

Without getting into a long debate I am truly confused.

Roger can you help us all by providing the case law about limitations in Scotland changing? I am sure it would be useful to some people and lets not be precious about our knowledge.

Next I am truly confused, you used to say put everything in a diary and that it didn't matter if debt purchasers read it. Now you are saying it does matter and if you acknowledge a debt on a forum then this could cause problem. Your recent posts seem to contradict many of your previous statements.

As for Gerry- on the JCS website it says he is a litigation executive but also says says that he does all their IT. Now the term Litigation Executive is fairly meaningless, it is not a protected job title such as solicitor or barrister

Gerard has years of experience in technology, primarily computing and telecoms, in a range of roles including technical, marketing and consulting. He has worked for a number of American based computer companies and been involved with many of the largest blue-chip companies in the UK. Gerry joined the team in 2015, as a Litigation Executive and also assumes responsibility for ensuring we make best use of the available technology and systems. When not working, Gerry loves driving fast cars and flying light aircraft – although he hasn’t done the latter for quite some time.

Finally freedom of speech and expression- in my opinion and quite rightly this is a qualified freedom. You can not go around inciting hatred for a particular group of people , you should be prosecuted. In my opinion it is only nutters like Elon Musk and other far right loons who seem to think it is acceptable but that is politics and not debt.


Every debt is different, everyone is at a different point in their journey and statements of SILENCE are abrupt and not always correct.

[Gerry Jemitus]

I am not sure what Dottir's qualifications are, but I have been working closely with Joanna for last 15 years, the last 9 of which have been at JCS Law Ltd. The background on the website is just that - background, i.e. what I did before working with Joanna. Joanna has trained me, just as she trained Colin. I deal with all new enquiries, which means I have been involved in just about every case we have handled. This is the way we have always operated, with Joanna as Solicitor Advocate managing the cases. Joanna is the expert in consumer credit - she is the one that happily takes on Gough Square barristers and beats them. In my previous positions, I was providing hardware and software systems and solutions for banks and financial institutions, which has given me a great deal of insight as to how these companies work.

[DeaconsRevenge]

Roger,

It is interesting that you raise the issue of AI. Every one of your posts seem to come across like some standardised AI script about diary entries and how tactics and procedures have changed. Get with the plot - We are not discussing the finer details and tactics in this particular thread, we are talking about the very existence of AAD. One of the things that we are very short of is a pool of experienced mentors who can talk about the finer details of the process (in the right place). I had initially thought that you might qualify as one of the few, but it is increasingly striking that you cannot seem to get beyond first base without waging war with anyone who communicates with you. Why does this site exist? surely it is to provide support to those with debt issues; often people who have previously been misinformed (as I was) or have a minimal level of knowledge of the subject. If you cannot bring yourself to have a civil and welcoming exchange with those people, then I really don't think that you make any positive contribution to this site. Gilly71 has hit the nail on the head, you are simply a bully, here for your own glory. You are not wanted here. We need to be forging a new future for the site, not wasting out time engaging with idiots like you.

[MisterK]

Roger.

This is the second sentence in your post earlier today at 15:21....

First without name shaming Gerry has been described here ".. To support his ideas he quotes a man who looks after IT .." at the very least apology's would be appropriate!

Could you explain what exactly this means. Perhaps it would be helpful if you explained who should be apologising to who and about what exactly.

No lengthy quotes are necessary, just a brief explanation as to what this sentence actually means.

Thank you.

[Roger]

Dottir and @DeaconsRevenge

AAD well is being bombed by scammers.
AAD never did exist solely to avoid legal action in many Cases settlements were the priority. It assisted Debtors at their lowest.
The Diary has a proven track record since no to debts are the same!
Divide and Conquer.

AI uses Cases to determine probabilities and hence aids to decision in now every field of Science
AI is certainly used to profile Joe Public and off course DCA's in attempting to maximise profit the tranche of debts they have purchased.
Military use of drones for instance and AI is built into RamJet technology.
AI is used for marketing purposes especially reach and frequency.
DCA's use AI to target and profile their Debt portfolios

AAD Diary really helps to take control of Debts irrespective of whether UE or otherwise and again the Diaries reveal this.

Gerry's warning!

".. I appreciate that the objective of most people on AAD is to avoid legal action, which is entirely understandable, but some of the posts referred to go back many years and so may not be as relevant today. .."

"..

• What is a Legal Executive?
  
  
  A Legal Executive, formally known as a Chartered Legal Executive, is a type of qualified Lawyer who has trained and specialised in one specific area of law such as litigation or conveyancing. Despite the difference in their qualifications, the role of a Legal Executive is like that of a Solicitor, with fee earning duties including providing legal advice to clients, preparing documents, and attending court.
  
  Where a Legal Executive receives training in their one chosen area of legal practice, Solicitors must cover several practice areas before they can qualify. You can find out more about the difference between the Solicitor and Legal Executive qualification in our article on How to Become a Solicitor.

.."
Gerry Jemitus


Legal Disclaimer
I am a Litigation Executive at Joanna Connolly Solicitors a firm which specialises in consumer credit. Any posts I make on the AAD Consumer Forum are for information and discussion purposes only and shouldn't be seen as legal advice. Any advice I provide on the forum is without liability. If you are unsure please seek formal legal guidance or contact your local citizens advice bureau at https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk

If you need to contact me you can send me a message by clicking my username or by emailing me at gerry@joannaconnollysolicitors.co.uk or by telephoning 0330 053 9340. If you spot an abusive or libellous post then please report it by Clicking Here.

You can go and find out yourself about the Sheriff's Case In Scotland
Guess what its in the Diaries!
https://all-about-debt.co.uk/forum/d...40#post1544940

Dottir Yawn!
When does the Statute Bar start from?

The AAD Diaries and Comments made by others have prevented litigation thats a fact as well providing a framework for seeking advice if required.
Comments are clearly not the opinion of the diariest are they? Someone elses opinion.
I was advised send S.77-79 plus £1 and proof of postage and then SILENCE because of the protection under CCA74

But Gerry's blog is full of sensibly and current knowledge of what is happening as at and up to July 2024.
He has the current experience!
End of discussion!

That S77-79 plus £1 is being questioned in Cases really is a matter of significance. However they may well be other aspects such as Assignment or irregularities etc. Old hands with AAD were well aware of these other aspects.

Which brings around to the question of AAD what it is and how it can help. Well that depends upon what the other sites offer doesn't it?
Also what the Debt's issues are!

What is clear is the ball game is changing tactically and with any business change becomes an issue.
Will Debts become a major issue or Not?

My advice remains a good AAD Diary
As for Statute Barred Silence and sit on hands. Avoid correspondence. I always refused email and SMS said only by snail mail. Thats very good advice. Especially after the Friday IT crash!!!

Yawn and when the music stops try and find a seat!
I am sure that an apology to Gerry would be acceptable!

[Roger]

Roger.

This is the second sentence in your post earlier today at 15:21....

First without name shaming Gerry has been described here ".. To support his ideas he quotes a man who looks after IT .." at the very least apology's would be appropriate!

Could you explain what exactly this means. Perhaps it would be helpful if you explained who should be apologising to who and about what exactly.

No lengthy quotes are necessary, just a brief explanation as to what this sentence actually means.

Thank you.

A Legal Executive is a Legal Executive
He may well be in to IT but the very derisory and frankly awful remark have come from Two contributors

https://all-about-debt.co.uk/forum/d...83#post1550983

[Dottir]

A Legal Executive is a Legal Executive
He may well be in to IT but the very derisory and frankly awful remark have come from Two contributors

https://all-about-debt.co.uk/forum/d...83#post1550983

Lets get something clear

Yes he is a litigation executive and not a legal executive, they are not the same thing- these are not awful remarks they factual remarks. Litigation executives do not actually require qualifications in law. If a litigation executive gives me bad advice I have no comeback, rather the same as a McKenzie Friend

I asked you what the case law was that changed the Prescription and Limitations act in Scotland. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1973/52 I did not ask anything about when the cause of action accrued but why- as you suggest, the law changed from the 5 years set down. Your response had nothing to do with that act but about jurisdiction and governing law. You also failed to provide the evidence or even a substantive argument. As it turns out, if the law covering the contract is English law and the contract was covered by the Rome Convention, English law trumps but it all depends on the wording of the agreement.
https://www.lawscot.org.uk/members/j...-and-time-bar/


As for the rest of your arguments I really do not see any point in repeating the answers that are already on the forum.

I do not apologise for pointing out a truth.

[MisterK]

Roger.

Of course, a legal executive is a legal executive - in much the same that breakfast is breakfast I suppose.

But I didn't actually ask what a legal executive was.

If I wanted to know more about what a legal executive was (or a litigation executive even) then I am quite capable of googling it myself. As is everyone else.

I asked what the second sentence meant and it seems from what you say that it's something to do with two other members apparently making derisory and awful remarks about someone.

I don't particularly want to learn any more about remarks that two other members may have made and especially details such as when, why and in whose opinion the remarks were supposed to be very derisory and frankly awful. But what actually is the point of telling me this and how does it relate to any of the posts that I have made on this thread?

I am confused.

I am even more confused by your first sentence in the 14:21 post: Look I sympathise actually I understand but please read again Gerry Jemitus Blog July 2024

What exactly are you sympathising about and what am I supposed to read again. (No please please don't copy and paste whatever it is)

What is this mess? There is no way that I'd want to start a thread about the statute bar, or anything else, if this is what happens to it.