Petition - Strengthen law in consumer's favour

Equaliser123

Rico6.9 wrote: »

Pro bono legal team in place to lodge an appeal to the UK Supreme Court. We're currently jumping through all the legal aid hoops.

Prospects of success and setting a precedent are significant.

Being threatened with credit annihilation unless money that isn't legally owed is paid. Pretty much a ransom.

Getting new credit with a default is pretty much impossible. Most folk need credit to buy a home.

The law is too slow but justice is still a possibility (unless the banks control the UK Supreme Court too)

The race is on to try and encourage the government to strengthen the law now rather than wait for the Supreme Court to force them into it.

Why wait for the wind to change? The time is now.

It's not waiting for the "wind to change". I don't agree with your claim.

I'm glad your legal team is pro bono. I'm not sure I could justify paying for their 'advice'.

I hope they have told you about the costs risk if (when) you lose.

Freddie_Snowbits

Mind me to vote in the upcoming referenda to keep the current system of first past the post. It is definitive and decisive, and stops one thought fools from holding the rest of us to ransom.

As for legal aid, I hope my tax is not wasted on your horse.

Edit, I see your massive pertition has managed 12 signatories this very day.

Here is one of my own petitions as well

http://www.gopetition.com/petition/44387.html

Rico6.9 wrote: »

Pro bono legal team in place to lodge an appeal to the UK Supreme Court. We're currently jumping through all the legal aid hoops.

Prospects of success and setting a precedent are significant.

Being threatened with credit annihilation unless money that isn't legally owed is paid. Pretty much a ransom.

Getting new credit with a default is pretty much impossible. Most folk need credit to buy a home.

The law is too slow but justice is still a possibility (unless the banks control the UK Supreme Court too)

The race is on to try and encourage the government to strengthen the law now rather than wait for the Supreme Court to force them into it.

Why wait for the wind to change? The time is now.

gordikin

Rico6.9 wrote: »

Pro bono legal team in place to lodge an appeal to the UK Supreme Court. We're currently jumping through all the legal aid hoops.

Prospects of success and setting a precedent are significant.

Being threatened with credit annihilation unless money that isn't legally owed is paid. Pretty much a ransom.

Getting new credit with a default is pretty much impossible. Most folk need credit to buy a home.

The law is too slow but justice is still a possibility (unless the banks control the UK Supreme Court too)

The race is on to try and encourage the government to strengthen the law now rather than wait for the Supreme Court to force them into it.

Why wait for the wind to change? The time is now.

Legal Aid hoops!...give me your address and I'll personally deliver and insert them! A total waste of public money. Were you born Juan Kerr or did you assume the name?

Optimist

I have signed your petition in spite of the emotive language. I have sympathy with Mr Durkin and indeed anybody else who thinks returning the goods means a linked credit agreement is also cancelled automatically. The proper thing to do it would seem from this judgement, is to continue to pay the credit agreement and sue the retailer and or finance company to compensate for the loss of future payments. You really have to love judges.

If nothing else a Supreme Court decision will clarify Section 75.

Freddie_Snowbits

gordikin wrote: »

Legal Aid hoops!...give me your address and I'll personally deliver and insert them! A total waste of public money. Were you born [STRIKE]Juan Kerr [/STRIKE]or did you assume the name?

Gordi, mind your tongue, you will get pip squeaked!

Freddie_Snowbits

Optimist wrote: »

The proper thing to do it would seem from this judgement, is to continue to pay the credit agreement and sue the retailer and or finance company to compensate for the loss of future payments. You really have to love judges.

If nothing else a Supreme Court decision will clarify Section 75.

Unfortunatley Mr Dirkun failed to make a payment on the agreement and hid his head in the oil well instead.

Now Mr Derkon wants recompense for not buying a house when they were cheap and wants you to pay for it.

PS, please sign my petition about the Dog and Duck
http://www.gopetition.com/petition/44387.html

Optimist

Freddie_Snowbits wrote: »

Unfortunatley Mr Dirkun failed to make a payment on the agreement and hid his head in the oil well instead.

Now Mr Derkon wants recompense for not buying a house when they were cheap and wants you to pay for it.

PS, please sign my petition about the Dog and Duck
http://www.gopetition.com/petition/44387.html

I have no view on the compensation.

If you bought a pint on tick at the Dog and Duck and returned it because they said it was bitter and it was actually lager would you consider that you still needed to pay for it ?

Sorry I cant sign your petition I have already signed the one in favour of closing the Dog and Duck on the grounds that it attracts rowdies.....:D

gordikin

Optimist wrote: »

I have no view on the compensation.

If you bought a pint on tick at the Dog and Duck and returned it because they said it was bitter and it was actually lager would you consider that you still needed to pay for it ?

Sorry I cant sign your petition I have already signed the one in favour of closing the Dog and Duck on the grounds that it attracts rowdies.....:D

Rowdies are fun....bet you make a half last all night!

The Freddie will get you!

Freddie_Snowbits

Optimist wrote: »

lager :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

The Dog and Duck does not sell Lager

gordikin

Freddie_Snowbits wrote: »

The Dog and Duck does not sell Lager

Of course they don't...and Brenda the barmaid is really a girl...well she is now!