Has my bank stiffed me?

Extant

never-in-doubt wrote: »

What! Go find them yourself.... i've told you the law, like it or lump it. Citing it matters not a jot, i've quoted it!

You really should know better and certainly know collection and assignment processes.....

Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit.

You've not cited or quote anything. So far, all I have asked for is for you to reference the laws - i.e. name them.

You've been unable to do so. You are now proceeding to the ad hominem with "you should know better" because you are unable to comply with the request.

never-in-doubt

BarclaysManager wrote: »

Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit.

You've not cited or quote anything. So far, all I have asked for is for you to reference the laws - i.e. name them.

You've been unable to do so. You are now proceeding to the ad hominem with "you should know better" because you are unable to comply with the request.

Burdon of Proof is totally irrelevent here. What are you on? (speaking latin doesn;t impress me!)

I am telling you that in a court of law if the debt has not been properly and duly assigned with the debtor notified, specifically by letter, the debt will become discharged. Like it or lump it, that is what happens!

(for clarity: Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit = the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges

Brian1966

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Burdon of Proof is totally irrelevent here. What are you on? (speaking latin doesn;t impress me!)

I am telling you that in a court of law if the debt has not been properly and duly assigned with the debtor notified, specifically by letter, the debt will become discharged. Like it or lump it, that is what happens!

(for clarity: Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit = the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges

Surely the law of property 1925 would apply here in particular section 196 (4) which basically means that proof would be needed that a notice HAD been received

never-in-doubt

Brian1966 wrote: »

Surely the law of property 1925 would apply here in particular section 196 (4) which basically means that proof would be needed that a notice HAD been received

Exactly - pointless arguing mate he won't accept the fact that he knows nothing about consumer related debt. His username says it all.

I think he forgets he's arguing with a poster that spends in excess of 12 hours a day reading and learning about these and advising people accordingly, oh not forgetting all the defaults i've had removed for people on this very forum (more often than not because of flaws in the way a default was issued or assigned!).....

But of course, I know nothing about the laws :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Brian1966

You still owe me £4000 but as I'm such a nice guy I will on this occasion ALLOW you to pay Citi-group as per your monthly statements :T

never-in-doubt

Brian1966 wrote: »

You still owe me £4000 but as I'm such a nice guy I will on this occasion ALLOW you to pay Citi-group as per your monthly statements :T

Why thank you kind man :beer: :beer: :beer: