Loancheck/Watsons Solicitors

oscar52

OMG - Give it a rest Simon! You're like a bloody stalker!

simon_the_poet wrote: »

.
and of course they dont tell you about all the many losses.

You obviously know about all of them, why not tell us?

pt2537

simon_the_poet wrote: »

Yes you have a problem with selective memory don't you Paul.
Take the Slater vs egg case mentioned earlier.
This was lost because the claimament changed her story was it?

as I remember it the basis of you argument consisted on the idea that , because the creditor user the words, "applied limit" instead of "credit limit" the agreement was unenforceable.
The court of course threw the ridiculous argument out.
Many lost a lot of money over this.
There is a thread still in existence on here i think, the main huge thread was on CAG of course but you deleted it when you fled from there, don't like to evidence of your mistakes do you Paul?

The argument was not ridiculous, far from it, just because you disagreed, what am i supposed to do? say to a client well some bloke on a forum thinks were wrong therefore get lost? seriously.

The point is that the barrister who took the case did so on No win no fee!! he worked for a week on prepartion for the case and did not get paid!! there has to be a winner and loser in litigation. in R v R there was a winner and loser, in Caparo v Dickman there was a winner n loser, infact in every case theres winners n losers

You keep banging on about these huge losses we keep sustaining yet put nothing on the table to back it up. The fact is simple that there are no huge losses otherwise you would have evidence.

Also the circumstances surrounding my leaving CAG are publicised on another forum where i posted the email exchange between me and Marc Gander for those to make their conclusions for themselves. The word "fled" doesnt fit that issue

simon_the_poet

pt2537 wrote: »

The argument was not ridiculous, far from it, just because you disagreed, what am i supposed to do? say to a client well some bloke on a forum thinks were wrong therefore get lost? seriously.

Perhaps you should have, the judge certainly appeared to, I seem to remember his exact words were that such an argument was "beyond reason"

https://www.eversheds.com/uk/home/articles/index1.page?ArticleID=templatedataEvershedsarticlesdataenFinancial_institutionsAnother_sensible_decision_on_another_credit_card_challenge

simon_the_poet

oscar52 wrote: »

OMG - Give it a rest Simon! You're like a bloody stalker!





You obviously know about all of them, why not tell us?

Happy to only responding

simon_the_poet

Hi Paul

Just looking through the impressive list you supplied, were any of these reported, do you have case ref.

Would make things a lot easier.

jon1965

Simon you really are getting boring. You bang on and on and on about the wrongs of the way Watsons act yet you can not provide evidence. You talk about people who come to forums because they are in the mindset of not wanting to pay their bills. In my experience people come to forums to find help when they are being bullied and harassed, however whatever the reason people come to forums there is still a legal duty on the banks and other financial companies to act within the law and comply with legislation. If they don't they can not expect the law to help them ruin peoples lives.

As for the email exchange between Marc Gander and PT , is that still live somewhere , I would like to read it. I doubt very much that PT could have removed all the threads, it is usually the thought police over at Cag who remove the threads from people they do not like yet leaving inaccurate comments from their buddies .

pt2537

simon_the_poet wrote: »

Hi Paul

Just looking through the impressive list you supplied, were any of these reported, do you have case ref.

Would make things a lot easier.

Well according to you, we dont win that many anyway,

They were all cases which were in the courts in the UK, i only have claim numbers, but im more interested in the huge losses we keep having as none of my colleagues can seem to find such cases, perhaps you can assist us?

simon_the_poet

pt2537 wrote: »

Well according to you, we dont win that many anyway,

They were all cases which were in the courts in the UK, i only have claim numbers, but im more interested in the huge losses we keep having as none of my colleagues can seem to find such cases, perhaps you can assist us?

Well I suppose it is up to people to judge, based on track record, and your remarks, obviously you can make a list look like anything you want, I am not privy to your cases.

I would say though that you printing a list on here carries no more weight than me or anyone else not being able to produce an alternative list, and proves nothing either way.

jon1965

simon_the_poet wrote: »

Well I suppose it is up to people to judge, based on track record, and your remarks, obviously you can make a list look like anything you want, I am not privy to your cases.

I would say though that you printing a list on here carries no more weight than me or anyone else not being able to produce an alternative list, and proves nothing either way.

Simon, is that an admission that you can not back up any of your allegations against Watsons or PT?

simon_the_poet

jon1965 wrote: »

Simon, is that an admission that you can not back up any of your allegations against Watsons or PT?

What allegations are those, i am just repeating what is elsewhere on here, or the judgment of the SRA.

I have seen nothing to convince me otherwise
If there was any dispute about what people have written you would have thought that they would have arisen earlier..

Simon