Ken100464 UE Diary

[ken100464]

Re: Ken100464 UE Diary

Not at all. It's all thanks to DJ Henrietta Manners who made the ruling despite her obvious prejudice against dirty debt dodgers. She rocks

Ok her too but mostly thanks to some brave lady who stood up to them.

Out of interest as I just read the ruling. Do you know if it was the OC or the DCA. ie was it assigned or just on behalf as both seem to appear in the ruling.

Ours is an absolute assignment.

[PlanB]

Re: Ken100464 UE Diary

Ok her too but mostly thanks to some brave lady who stood up to them.

Out of interest as I just read the ruling. Do you know if it was the OC or the DCA. ie was it assigned or just on behalf as both seem to appear in the ruling.

Ours is an absolute assignment.

I wasn't brave at all. I was hiding behind Paul in the courtroom

Yes I did spend 1.5 hours on the witness stand but I was doing that for Team Niddy and 2.5 million M&S customers, as well as for all of the old storecard accounts owned by Santander (another 2 million apparently)

The Claimant was Santander the creditor who foolishly bought G.E. Money in 2009 The DCA was Lewis Debt Recovery who sent one letter and then their in-house litigators Howard Cohen issued proceedings before I could open my laptop and respond. Now that Santander knows the legal situation I would expect them to sell off thousands of their delinquent accounts to an unsuspecting debt purchaser. Ditto M & S

[ken100464]

Re: Ken100464 UE Diary

The Claimant was Santander the creditor who foolishly bought G.E. Money in 2009

Cant have been the best decision Ana Botty Bank made.

Glad to know its all the same opposition. Hopefully they will have learnt and decide to play nice

[SaltnVinegar]

Re: Ken100464 UE Diary

The Claimant was Santander the creditor who foolishly bought G.E. Money in 2009 The DCA was Lewis Debt Recovery who sent one letter and then their in-house litigators Howard Cohen issued proceedings before I could open my laptop and respond.

Yes a shameful haste which I believe was purposeful as they knew they were on shaky ground.

My other half was also subject to incredibly hasty court proceedings with exactly this card but unfortunately before your judgement so is now stuck with a CCJ.

If we had known then what we know now.........

What a shame that it backfired on them though

[ken100464]

Re: Ken100464 UE Diary

Yes a shameful haste which I believe was purposeful as they knew they were on shaky ground.

My other half was also subject to incredibly hasty court proceedings with exactly this card but unfortunately before your judgement so is now stuck with a CCJ.

If we had known then what we know now.........

What a shame that it backfired on them though

I know the answer on this is nothing can be done because the CCJ replaces the CCA.

But I find it interesting that if you were a terrorist or an asylum seeker or other such like person and evidence came to light after the event that the court case was seriously flawed then people would jump up and down and call it a miscarriage of justice. The judgement would be set aside and in some instances win damages.

Now say in S & V's case its been proved these cards are duff and this cannot be rectified. Surely this then becomes unsafe and all these CCJ's should be set aside. Obviously a difference between civil and crimminal law.

But even so the law makes itself out to be an ass if it doesnt rectify something that it now knows to be wrong. Eg no new modifying agreement.

Would it be feasable or even possible for someone to actually take a lender to court for obtaining a CCJ in the past on something that now has proved to be duff?

But of course I am thinking this is the finance industry and they certainly wouldnt want Joe Public to have a level playing field. And the establishment wouldnt want to upset their paymasters.

Be interesting to hear other peoples views on this?

[SXGuy]

Re: Ken100464 UE Diary

From what i understand (and others may correct me) you can appeal a CCJ based on new evidence, but it can be tricky.

Plus dont forget that the ruling on store cards turned credit cards was not a high court ruling, therefore i think, any judge can change their view on things at any time.

So to fight the CCJ on those grounds would mean you would need a judge who wasnt willing to re-interperate another judges findings.

May be way off, so dont hold me to it, just my view.

[ken100464]

Re: Ken100464 UE Diary

I suppose in reality you have answered the question for me.

Joe Publics inertia and the fact judges dont like to admit one of their own has cocked up.

And by this I mean with storecards we have one ruling in favour which is good to go when you are being frog marched into court on one of these cards. Its a good starting defence.

But to go to court as the claimant that a judge fecked up in allowing a judgement debt on one of these cards probably admitted at the time is a different proposition all together.

And if you did by chance win then it means more and more judges who allowed this would have fecked up. And that wouldnt do.

[greymatter]

Re: Ken100464 UE Diary

Known better as the 'Judges Lottery'

[ken100464]

Re: Ken100464 UE Diary

Yeah thats the conclusion you come too.

But its funny how on one side they speak case law left right and centre but then when its shows them up to be human they cant just be human and accept they have made a mistake.

I am sure even if you have been dragged to court and everything that has done to you that if a mistake had been made as say in storecards that the protection of the CCJ was removed from the debt then most people would be satisfied.

The level playing field is restored back to where it was before the mistake occurred.

Take a Debenhams card. GE Money was spanked years ago for what they were up to. Mayhew v Santander just agreed with some of why they they were spanked in the first place.

So people who havnt been dragged to court now have a defence but people who were unaware they had an unenforceable debt now have one thats become protected by the judge being party to the debt collectors charms (That took some writing )

But hey ho the establishment is right and we are wrong.

[ken100464]

Re: Ken100464 UE Diary

Type of account (credit card/loan) Egg
Credit Card
Date commenced (ideally before Apr 2007)
2001 however there was an account number change Apr 2007. OH cant remember anything about this. SAR has shown nothing up but also didnt reveal any CCA's
Approx balance
£2300

Date last paid (approximate date you last made a FULL payment)
2009

Are you on arrangement or not paying
Arrangement £20 pcm

Status (default/in arrears/up-to-date)
Default 2009
Account owner (who is writing to you, a DCA or the lender)
APEX

19/11/2012 14 days up after initial CCA letter. No CCA. 2nd Letter now sent. Cheque cashed tho

[ken100464]

Re: Ken100464 UE Diary

• Type of account (credit card/loan)GE Money/Santander
  Credit Card but could have once been a storecard There are two account numbers for this account. Seemed to change 2003/2004
  
• Date commenced (ideally before Apr 2007)
  2002 we think
  
• Approx balance
  £700
• Date last paid (approximate date you last made a FULL payment)
• Spring 2009

• Are you on arrangement or not paying
• Arrangement £10
  
  
• Status (default/in arrears/up-to-date)
• Hmmmmmmm red 6's all the way. However we know OC defaulted us in Spring 2009. ICO has this one
• Default spring 2009 after ICO them.
  
  
• Account owner (who is writing to you, a DCA or the lender)
• CL Finance

CCa emailed to Niddy

19/11/2012. 14 days up after first CCA letter. No CCA yet. Cheque cashed . 2nd CCA letter sent

[ken100464]

Re: Ken100464 UE Diary

Type of account (credit card/loan) MoreBankersNeedArresting ( Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo )
Credit card
Date commenced (ideally before Apr 2007)
2002 we think
Approx balance
£2200
Date last paid (approximate date you last made a FULL payment)
2008
Are you on arrangement or not paying
Arrangement CCJ at £22 pcm
Status (default/in arrears/up-to-date)
Default 2009 CCJ and CO 2009
Account owner (who is writing to you, a DCA or the lender)
Owner MFS who we write to Optima Legal

Strange. After last months 20% off if you pay up now this month we get 25% off if you pay up now.
No other contact just this

[Deepie]

Re: Ken100464 UE Diary

19/11/2012 14 days up after initial CCA letter. No CCA. 2nd Letter now sent. Cheque cashed tho

19/11/2012. 14 days up after first CCA letter. No CCA yet. Cheque cashed . 2nd CCA letter sent

I would have waited ............don't chase them

[ken100464]

Re: Ken100464 UE Diary

I2D

Thanks. There is method to the madness.

Although the first letter says what may or may not happen I wish for a clear what has happened to both DCA's.

I have been in regular contact with both over last few months. I dont want them to think this is just another mither. I want them to be clear that I consider these accounts are disputed.

The first letter quite rightly says what will be the consequences of non compliance after a request is made.

The second however is clear that the account is disputed. And this is what I want on file.

For me in my real day job we always look for the wriggle room. In both these on the first letter I can see wriggle room to our disadvantage. For one stamp the wriggle room is removed. Thus our interests are better served.

[ken100464]

Re: Ken100464 UE Diary

Type of account (credit card/loan) Egg
Credit Card
Date commenced (ideally before Apr 2007)
2001 however there was an account number change Apr 2007. OH cant remember anything about this. SAR has shown nothing up but also didnt reveal any CCA's
Approx balance
£2300

Date last paid (approximate date you last made a FULL payment)
2009

Are you on arrangement or not paying
Arrangement £20 pcm

Status (default/in arrears/up-to-date)
Default 2009
Account owner (who is writing to you, a DCA or the lender)
APEX

Letter from Apex. They are in receipt of our CCA request (1st and second letters sent to get account in dispute)

Egg are not responding to their requests for CCA but they will continue to try.

In the meantime they invite us to carry on paying.

Nice of them.