DCA solicitors threatening 'charging order' !!

Jayen4

al69 wrote: »

Have you asked them for proof of the debt ? I mean surely they should have a signed bit of paper showing you actually owe the money ?

Oh I have indeed !! The last time I was in court against this Marlin lot,I asked them to provide an original contract between myself/my legal person and them.....I also asked the 'judge' to make them do so.... Would either of them address the request ?? Oh Nooooo !! Just started on about it being 'assigned' instead ! What does that tell you ??
As you're probably aware,just about everything in courts is to do with 'contracts',when you dig deep enough. They won't and can't produce,for the simple reason that there is NO contract between me and them.....That's why they won't go there....it would blow them out of the water !


You can beat the system sometimes but im not sure you can come out of the system unless you are some sort of ex NSA employee.

I don't know yet,just have to see how far out of the 'system' I can get,eh ??
Oh and good on your friend !!

fwor

Jayen4 wrote: »

Do you see ??

Unfortunately if I strip out all of the conspiracy theory stuff, all I see is that you are heading for a very unpleasant old age.

You may hate "the system" and be able to do the equivalent of living in a hole in the ground now, but there will come a time when you are not physically able to - and then it won't be fun...

Jayen4

dresdendave wrote: »

Step 1: A bank lends you the money to buy a house.

Step 2: You repay them the agreed amount every month.

Step 3: They repossess the house.


Disgusting behaviour by the nasty bank, or did you consider step 2 to be optional?

No Dave,I do NOT consider step 2 to be optional !!
The very first move by the bank,when I told them that I was having difficulty (SP?),was to start re=possession proceedings !! The would not negotiate or talk to me AT ALL !! AND....when it went to the very first court hearing,I put in front of the so called 'judge' a 'Statutory Declaration' demanding that the bank/mortgage company provide the original contract/motgage document and ALL the book keeping records relating to this mortgage.
You know what the 'judge' said/did ?? '' I'm not entering THAT into the record !'' (with face like thunder...so I know that I hit a nerve!). Despite being pressed,he STILL refused to enter that document onto the record AND would give no reason or explanation whatsoever for his behaviour !!
What makes it worse,is the fact that every single 'judge' after that (for 3 years) stood behind his behaviour ! Does that show you how corrupt they are ??
If they had/have the PROOF to back up their action,then SHOW IT !! They never have !
I have not finished with them yet tho'....I guarantee that !! :mad:

JuicyJesus

Isn't requesting the original contract utterly pointless at that point? The time to request such a thing, if it even mattered, was well before it got into court. What were you hoping to achieve? It sounds to me like a typical stalling tactic used when someone who is well and truly f**ked for whatever reason has no valid defences left, and the judge most likely saw it that way too.

Also, "statutory declarations" of the nature specified are terrifyingly close to some of the things the aforementioned freemen on the land like to come up with, which may further explain the judge's dim view of it and refusal to accept it.

Also also, mortgage lenders do not go straight for repossession. Repossession is an expensive and drawn out process for them, fraught with issues, that banks would much rather avoid if possible, especially since it tends to end with them having less money than they lent out originally. Repossession is usually a last resort, taken when the bank come to the conclusion that no level of discussion or counselling will get payments restarted. So I don't particularly believe your story I'm afraid.

Jayen4

fwor wrote: »

Unfortunately if I strip out all of the conspiracy theory stuff, all I see is that you are heading for a very unpleasant old age.

You may hate "the system" and be able to do the equivalent of living in a hole in the ground now, but there will come a time when you are not physically able to - and then it won't be fun...

:rotfl::rotfl: ..... Nothing 'conspiracy' about it ! It's right there in front of you (probably on your 42'' plasma/lcd ),but you still don't think that it'll happen to you do you ?? If you're VERY,VERY lucky,it just might not.....but I won't be laying any bets on it !!

As for 'it won't be fun'.....It hasn't been 'FUN' since 2008/9 !! I would rather die than let them beat me !! That's FACT !!

Jayen4

JuicyJesus wrote: »

Isn't requesting the original contract utterly pointless at that point? The time to request such a thing, if it even mattered, was well before it got into court. What were you hoping to achieve? It sounds to me like a typical stalling tactic used when someone who is well and truly f**ked for whatever reason has no valid defences left, and the judge most likely saw it that way too.

Also, "statutory declarations" of the nature specified are terrifyingly close to some of the things the aforementioned freemen on the land like to come up with, which may further explain the judge's dim view of it and refusal to accept it.

Also also, mortgage lenders do not go straight for repossession. Repossession is an expensive and drawn out process for them, fraught with issues, that banks would much rather avoid if possible, especially since it tends to end with them having less money than they lent out originally. Repossession is usually a last resort, taken when the bank come to the conclusion that no level of discussion or counselling will get payments restarted. So I don't particularly believe your story I'm afraid.

For your information 'Stat Decs' are a legal document that the courts are supposed to act upon !! Nothing whatever to do with 'Freemen' ! You obviously missed my point.
So,you don't believe me,eh ?? You want to come and look at all the paperwork ?? Do you ?? You clearly have never had any dealings with the bank behind this charade !! I was there remember (for 3 bloody years) !!
The REAL criminals are the ones running the courts !! Jesus !!....You people need to wake up !

fwor

Jayen4 wrote: »

If you're VERY,VERY lucky,it just might not.....but I won't be laying any bets on it !!

I don't need to be very, very lucky. I haven't taken out any loans that I can't pay back.

But... it seems you have.

antrobus

Jayen4 wrote: »

.....when it went to the very first court hearing,I put in front of the so called 'judge' a 'Statutory Declaration' demanding that the bank/mortgage company provide the original contract/motgage document and ALL the book keeping records relating to this mortgage....

I'm confused:).

A 'Statutory Declaration' is a written statement of facts which you declare to be true, that's normally signed in the presence of a lawyer, and made under oath. (So you can be done for perjury if it's not true.)

A demand that somebody else provide some facts isn't a statutory declaration, it's just a request.

need_this_2

OMG you have the attitude of my ex OP, hence the reason for the word ex, he was someone who couldn't take responsibility for anything as well, you owe it so pay it and grow up slightly....sorry I meant a lot,

You will end up lonely you can't take yourself out of the system completely unless you intend to live in a tent in the middle of a forest but then you couldn't rant on here of how unfair debt collectors are.

Jayen4

antrobus wrote: »

I'm confused:).

A 'Statutory Declaration' is a written statement of facts which you declare to be true, that's normally signed in the presence of a lawyer, and made under oath. (So you can be done for perjury if it's not true.)

A demand that somebody else provide some facts isn't a statutory declaration, it's just a request.

Well,you're sort of half right......but to paraphrase,you can indeed demand to 'see what the other side has',in this case,to see any contracts,book keeping etc etc.
This Stat Dec was indeed looked over by a well respected solicitor and signed /stamped by him/his firm. So it was fully legal and did carry legal force.....hence my assertion that the judiciary/courts have been acting in an utterly wrongful manner !