Unenforceability & Template Letters III

never-in-doubt

Sunnylooloo wrote: »

Niddy having a manic day and leaving at 2 - will post on monday with figures (just didn't want you think I didn't appreciate your help/advice)

Have a great Friday

LL

Hiya

Okies no problems, speak next week - i'm off Monday but will be online most the night so try come online in the evening if you can so we can catch up and sort any queries that may be outstanding....

Thanks - have a good weekend

libbyjade

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Heyup dude - hows the head? Did you win last night? Enjoy your two other women (doner and stella)?? :rotfl:

Head's clearing thanks, but not for long!:beer:
Only practice last night mate, season doesn't start till next month. Still kicked @ss tho!! :rotfl: Yeah, my other 2 favourite women were out. I had to go behind stella's back though cos she won't come to my local, had to take Foster's out instead. Not as pretty, but she does the job in the end :rotfl:

never-in-doubt wrote: »

The debts on both cases were enforceable, the lenders actually won mate by using the above terms to win. Basically the judge does not know CCA and he (like the lenders) rely on info being told to them, by their legal team.

So in essence those two judgements changed history cos before them, the lender had to remove the default and they had to provide the original agreement iyswim?

So they did win, but they were both isolated cases and do not set presedence like people seem to assume..... basically the judge in both cases spoke about the verdict before the actual hearing and it was common knowledge that they both wimped out as they did not understand the intricacies of the CCA/CNCD......

Bottom line, the lender can report to the CRA's (default etc) and they can hassle you for repayment (not in harassming manner) and they can also send a recon at s.78 point of contact BUT (this is the crux of it) if they want to go to court then they must have the original agreement signed by you both!

Ah, I see... If I'd have read the full thing I'd have known that.
So if there was an appeal, would it be from the claimants given they lost? and basically they would want the decision overturned and to revert back to the way things were? Sorry if I sound blonde! (And sorry for offending any inteligent blonde's out there :rotfl:)

*Postie's been!! text sent mate :j

Fitzer2000

"Intelligent blonde's"....I don't understand

libbyjade

Fitzer2000 wrote: »

"Intelligent blonde's"....I don't understand

Yeah, you know the one's.... erm, actually I don't. :beer:
*crawls back into the bunker

never-in-doubt

libbyjade wrote: »

Ah, I see... If I'd have read the full thing I'd have known that.
So if there was an appeal, would it be from the claimants given they lost? and basically they would want the decision overturned and to revert back to the way things were? Sorry if I sound blonde! (And sorry for offending any inteligent blonde's out there :rotfl:)

*Postie's been!! text sent mate :j

No mate that's not how it works, it would then set presendence for future claims..... it usually works from the date of judgement so if the two did appeal and both won, then the judgement would be that - so therefore the rules would change from then and everyone that had an enforceable agreement in the past, could send off for CCA again and utilise the new presedent.

make sense?

What's funny, most people hate getting their post (from this thread) but somehow I bet you loved what I sent you - i.e. happy to see postie hehe

libbyjade

never-in-doubt wrote: »

No mate that's not how it works, it would then set presendence for future claims..... it usually works from the date of judgement so if the two did appeal and both won, then the judgement would be that - so therefore the rules would change from then and everyone that had an enforceable agreement in the past, could send off for CCA again and utilise the new presedent.

make sense?

Sort of, I think I maybe getting it slightly confused with employment law tribunals and appeals. It does mirror what you stated in your Q&A, ultimatley I've nothing to worry about if an appeal is lodged, which is the main thing for me.

never-in-doubt wrote: »

What's funny, most people hate getting their post (from this thread) but somehow I bet you loved what I sent you - i.e. happy to see postie hehe

Surprisingly, I'm gonna be one happy / chilled out LJ watchin the footy later without a care in the world for a DCA - matey :beer:

jen_br

As a natural blonde id just to say some of us are smart!

libbyjade

jen_br wrote: »

As a natural blonde id just to say some of us are smart!

I know Jen, it's that Fitzer's fault, he made me say it... :D

jen_br

libbyjade wrote: »

I know Jen, it's that Fitzer's fault, he made me say it... :D

forgiven

Fitzer2000

Hi Sadg, Thanks for posting these letters. Reading between the lines they appear to be pleading with you to give them something, anything to settle! Idiots. I'm sure NID will point you in the right direction.