Being sued for "loan" which was a gift of £25000 (Scot's Law).

roonaldo

somethingcorporate wrote: »

The value changes nothing really.

Yes it does, its just not realistic you've given someone £25k.

somethingcorporate

Anything aside from your opinion to back that up?

Plenty of people given gifts larger than £2.5k. Lots of examples on these boards of parents wanting to off-loan cash to kids of this magnitude of money (£10k+). Just because the values are different won't change the base assumptions.

IIRC under English law the assumption (without evidence to the contrary) is that this would be a social arrangement (a gift) and not a loan to be repaid - a court would have to take this assumption, regardless of the value. It's been a few years since I studied this though so it may be wrong.

ViolaLass

roonaldo wrote: »

Yes it does, its just not realistic you've given someone £25k.

That's a ridiculous sweeping statement.

somethingcorporate

ViolaLass wrote: »

That's a ridiculous sweeping statement.

I've been given gifts of that magnitude before when my parents have inherited, I completely agree it is sweeping and most likely completely wrong.

Leo2020

As others have said just cause it's £25k doesn't mean it's not a gift. £25k might be a lot to you (and me) but we don't how much the ex earned/had inherited. The ex could have been a billionaire for all we know.

It does seem odd that it is deemed a loan but I'm not an expert in this. Just because it's seems odd doesn't it mean it's not true. However, if it was a loan this implies that your girlfriend agreed to pay it back and presumably by a certain date. If the ex doesn't have proof of an agreed timescale for payments for the loan then surely that backs up it's not a loan?

Buzby

I can agree Scots Law will correctly imply the money transfer is a loan unless stated otherwise. I am also aware of the Spanish requirement to declare payments in excess of €10,000 for the (possible) collection of tax - what is not stated is why Scots Law is being invoked. Being 'British' is an irrelevance for matters concerning Law, Education and Health. Was the donor Scottish, and regularly domiciled there?

If so, and an action for recovery or repayment is being pursued, then the court will have to decide the probability of any argument that it was a gift, rather than a loan. The purpose to which it was put, and any counter argument that the pursuit was only countenanced following the ending of a romantic involvement are especially relevant.

Both are disadvantaged insofar nobody has anything in writing as to he purpose, but the lender MS be required to disclose and prove where the funds originated from as money laundering remains a major issue. That said, if the recipient has no assets, the advisability of a pursuit is rarely recommended if there is no real prospect of recovery. If the issue is really one of vengeance, then it s an expensive way to achieve it.

[Deleted User]

Sparx wrote: »

Is it not innocent until proven guilty?

Not in a Civil Case.

poppasmurf_bewdley

Who is Scot, and what is his law?

Is he any relation to Parkison or Sod?

Scot's law, Parkinson's law, Sod's law.

iolanthe07

Couldn't you come to some sort of mutually acceptable arrangement to pay some, at least, of it back? Otherwise, before you know it, lawyers' fees will soon rack up to more than £25K.

spacey2012

Ask for a copy of:
The Initial Loan agreement:
The Lenders licence number under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to allow them to make repayable loan arrangements.

On production of these, tell them you will take them more seriously.