Credit Card Agreement - Request and Dispute

~Brock~

JLHE wrote: »

I didn't post to start a debate Brock - I asked for advice, which is kindly being supplied by some here and it's obvious who they are. The remainder resort to childish insults and 'debate' as you put it. And you do 'debate', but unfortunately lose it completely when never-in-doubt wipes the floor with you. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

My only concern is that some of the advice posted on internet forums is wrong. Period. People often take such advice and then become worse off. Nobody on internet forums is accountable for the advice they give, because nobody regulates them, yet joe public treats everything posted as gospel, even though they have never met the guys posting advice before in their lives. They could all be nutters as far as you know, and that includes me!

If you consider my postings to be unfelpful then I really couldn't care less, because that simply puts you in the rather large category of people who will only listen to what they want to listen to and prefers to throw insults to anyone else who doesn't agree with them.

So I 'lost it completely' did I?....Hmmm......I think that the difference between me and a lot on here is that I dont resort to petty tantrums and name calling when I don't agree with something that someone has said. Couldn't be arsed to reply would have been a slightly more accurate description because I still stand by all the points i have made on this thread.

Good luck with your crusade. Do come back and let us all know how you get on.

~Brock~

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Brock makes a habit of trying to get technical but I suspect he just uses Google a lot and has never been in a situation whereby he has fought and won. Therefore, its a losing battle because i've actually been there, had 31 defaults removed of my own and several for other people.

I guess, as they say, actions speak louder than words. :rotfl:

Lol - that's funny coming from the Goolemeister himself

We should have a beer sometime, you may be surprised where my points come from, and it certainly aint google.

If you bothered to consider it, you may actually realise that I do not openly challenge everything you post - my main issue with with fraudulent claims companies and I think that is the same with you.

You have this habit of launching into anyone who you do not agree with and becoming quite insulting - that is where i switch off to you, because you just make yourself out as an idiot. If you take that as having 'won' an argument then I really don't care, and prefer to let the 3rd party reader to judge for themselves.

never-in-doubt

~Brock~ wrote: »

Lol - that's funny coming from the Goolemeister himself

We should have a beer sometime, you may be surprised where my points come from, and it certainly aint google.

If you bothered to consider it, you may actually realise that I do not openly challenge everything you post - my main issue with with fraudulent claims companies and I think that is the same with you.

You have this habit of launching into anyone who you do not agree with and becoming quite insulting - that is where i switch off to you, because you just make yourself out as an idiot. If you take that as having 'won' an argument then I really don't care, and prefer to let the 3rd party reader to judge for themselves.

Haha - i'm not so much googlemeister but have been there mate, read the books and now resorting to taking on the CRA's direct! I hardly call that googling......

I haven't insulted you! You know on most things we actually kinda agree, i.e. same theory different way of getting it out. But my last post was not intended to be insulting, apologies if it read that way. Like you, I get annoyed when people spout rubbish and do not have a clue - comments such as 'pay what you owe' and to that I always get wound-up cos the person does not owe anything if the lender cannot provide an agreement. Regardless of whether the debt is there but unenforceable, my point would be the same in that you cannot owe someone money without an agreement - which is right to an extent.

To clarify - I am not having a dig - as I said, we actually agree on a lot of things but sometimes its hard to get through to you that I have actually appeared in court and won using the advice I give - the law is clear, I know the law therefore why should people doubt any advice - after all, it is just that - advice.

I also make it clear (see here for proof - #180 ) that stopping payments will have an adverse effect - therefore I usually try and give advice to people that already have a default so they have nothing to lose.....

regards to beer - yea, we'd have a good pish-up and discussion that's for sure.... i'd hate to be sat near us cos the poor !!!!!!s would be bored after 10 mins (or confused) :rotfl::rotfl:

~Brock~

never-in-doubt wrote: »

but sometimes its hard to get through to you that I have actually appeared in court and won using the advice I give

Ditto, which means that if we are disagreeing about each other's advice then it's the courts that are inconsistent

never-in-doubt

~Brock~ wrote: »

Ditto, which means that if we are disagreeing about each other's advice then it's the courts that are inconsistent

You been to court as well then mate?

~Brock~

never-in-doubt wrote: »

You been to court as well then mate?

Amongst a lot of other things

never-in-doubt

~Brock~ wrote: »

Amongst a lot of other things

Hmmm intriguing..... so you went to court regards to unenforceability and won? Did you get the default (if applicable) removed as well?

Now that does put us in the same boat - and as you'll know, judges have a very poor knowledge of this and I bet they cringe each time they see a case, maybe that is why we keep winning cos they have the attitude 'sod the lenders, they could have avoided me all this work' :rotfl::rotfl:

~Brock~

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Hmmm intriguing..... so you went to court regards to unenforceability and won? Did you get the default (if applicable) removed as well?

Now that does put us in the same boat - and as you'll know, judges have a very poor knowledge of this and I bet they cringe each time they see a case, maybe that is why we keep winning cos they have the attitude 'sod the lenders, they could have avoided me all this work' :rotfl::rotfl:

Lol - what makes you think that I am part of the prosecution ?;)

The decision in any case is dependant on the strength of evidence, one way or another. I am regularly amazed by the sheer arrogance/stupidity of some claimants - or more usually those that claim to represent them - who base their arguments more on completely innaccurate interpretations of the Act. Needless to say, they do not win themselves any favour in court.

I have no issue with the general concept of what people are trying to acheive with all this (human nature, albeit rather sad), however the reality is that the opportunties to win hands down are not as common as people are led to believe. That is the area where I feel vunerable people are being misled.

In many cases, lenders dont go to court because the debtor has already given up paying, has no means to pay, and the ooc settlement is the lesser of two evils in terms of cost. It is wrong, however, for such cases to be lauded as successes that everyone else can follow.

I just feel that there is much posted on forums such as this that gives the impression of how easy this process is, when the reality can be very much different. Although I am used to being shot down by people like the OP for speaking out, I am sure you know where I am coming from. Accurante advice is vital.

sparkiedave

Does anyone have any idea to the possibility of success of finding an EGG agreement from 1991, done on line, unenforcable? just thinking of sending off the request for the original agreement

izools

You won't have done an Egg agreement online in 1991. The Internet was still in it's infancy, Egg didn't exist in their current form, and you're about a decade too early for online credit applications...

So no, no chance of finding an agreement that clearly could have never existed in the first place!