Too Good to be True?

pt2537

geoffky wrote: »

Is the ambulance chaser still around?

Ambulance chaser? care to clarify who your referring to?

pt2537

sc0use24 wrote: »

sue me ill post lies about you! (you are a great solicitor!!!) you can have half of all i own hahaha

yeah, well done, very impressive, apt username though only a scouse would think of that to say,

bravo

pt2537

pauletruth wrote: »

earlier you claimed to have no connection with the solicitors, Now you threatening to sue if you or your colleague gwyn are slandered.

You lied when you claimed not to be connected with this firm.

i draw your attention to the terms and conditions of this web site. by failing to disclose your connection with the law firm you have breached them.
if your dishonest in this matter what does this say about your other conduct.

well done getting over 10 k in costs for something that the kind folks on here could have helped the defendant for free.

oh and while im on the subject, i am only aware of THREE rulings in the past year declaring a credit agreement unenforceable because of a breach of s61 Consumer Credit Act

HFO v Wegmuller
Santander v Mayhew

Nationwide v Jerome

The first two were represented by my firm, the third was represented by another firm. Now if you think that this could have been done on here, can you point me to judgments where these declarations have been handed down

because Lexis, Lawtel, Westlaw, Courtserve all seem to say there arent

but id be interested for you to post the judgments


oh and this quote is from the first para of Kotecha in the Leicester County Court

This case is one of an increasing number of rather unsatisfactory cases where opportunistic defendants who are in debt, whether or not they are able to pay those debts, seek to avoid paying those debts by raising a number of very technical points under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, hoping to trip up their creditors and thereby avoiding the enforcement of the debt

malkyh

pt2537 wrote: »

Ambulance chaser? care to clarify who your referring to?

Bet you have a nice posh car.

bigadaj

pt2537 wrote: »

yeah, well done, very impressive, apt username though only a scouse would think of that to say,

bravo

The consensus of opinion isn't looking good for you, though is it?

iolanthe07

really? maybe your right.
are to clarify who your referring to?

I seriously doubt whether this guy is a solicitor. A solicitor would be educated enough to know the difference between "your" and "you're".

antrobus

iolanthe07 wrote: »

really? maybe your right.
are to clarify who your referring to?

I seriously doubt whether this guy is a solicitor. A solicitor would be educated enough to know the difference between "your" and "you're".

You could be right. It appears that there are only four people 'on the team'. By a process of elimination I'd conclude that pt2537 is none other than Paul Tilley, and he is not a solicitor. He's a legal executive.

http://www.watsonssolicitors.co.uk/aboutus.html

SnowTiger

antrobus wrote: »

You could be right. It appears that there are only four people 'on the team'. By a process of elimination I'd conclude that pt2537 is none other than Paul Tilley, and he is not a solicitor. He's a legal executive.

http://www.watsonssolicitors.co.uk/aboutus.html

The flashy office block pictured on their website looks impressive.

However, the "View Larger Map" link under the map takes you here: https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=ll30+2py&hl=en&sll=52.8382,-2.327815&sspn=10.853098,19.753418&hnear=Llandudno+LL30+2PY,+United+Kingdom&t=m&z=14&iwloc=A.

Click on "Street view." Nice looking area. :rotfl: