Am I missing something ?

Please someone tell me if I am missing something.

The entire criminal justice system is based upon the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise
'beyond reasonable doubt' .Many times we have seen people acquitted due to lack of evidence, this means
the prosecution had insufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of innocence.

The civil justice system operates solely upon contract law ,although the burden of proof drops to the
'balance of probability' ,it is still very much based upon presumption. The burden of proof still lies with
the claimant.
The whole issue revolves around the terms of the contract or agreement, nothing more.
Someone posted today that they lost in court when the judge asked " Do you dispute having an account
and defaulting on it ?" Clearly the judge was making a presumption ,which I guess went unrebutted and
therefor stood.

Petesomething used the argument successfully in court that the terms stated that if he would no longer
be able to pay there would no longer be a debt ( or some such argument) he won because in the absence
of the original agreement or a copy thereof they were unable to rebut his presumption and therefor it stood.

It is a universal maxim of law ,that an unrebutted presumption stands.
That is also why when I get my monthly begging letter from PRA ,I always rebut their presumption that
I owe them a debt and do not leave it unrebutted.

Now if I am missing something obvious please let me know.

makes sense to me DI. I always put in when paying utilities that if there is a lack of documentation to back up what they state then it must stand as truth.

Thats it mate, if you make the presumption ,they must rebut with evidence.

daveiron wrote:Thats it mate, if you make the presumption ,they must rebut with evidence.

Makes sense to me otherwise it’s just their word against yours which, as we know, would never stand in court.

LionsShare wrote:makes sense to me DI. I always put in when paying utilities that if there is a lack of documentation to back up what they  state then it must stand as truth.

Makes sense too LS (your approach)

This is my case and comment you're talking about. You have plenty of advice on here that is purported to work, but if a judge asks you if you got 'credit', had an account, made payments, stopped making payments etc etc, you can either lie or tell the truth. I was not prepared to lie.

I've commented on my personal experience as I believe many people of here should know what happens in real life.

This sounds very vague... Petesomething used the argument successfully in court that the terms stated that if he would no longer
be able to pay there would no longer be a debt ( or some such argument.

On the other hand, my case is more detailed.

As I said, the amount of people on here and throughout the UK who now live in homes they got for free speak volumes. That amount is zero.

An error in your T&Cs or improper process may win your case but failure to produce an original agreement won't in my experience last month in a UK court.

Have a go arguing securitisation in court and let me know how you get on. Securitisation is well-known and is not illegal. If someone buys your contract and payments from it, this is simply (but possibly immorally) managed by the bank.

This forum argues that we created the contract and therefore own it. I have begged for proof of this but it has never been forthcoming. The reason is that it isn't true. We create an IOU. A promissory note. We do not create credit or money.

A judge will look at your account balance/payments and make a decision based on that. If you want to rebut that, YOU WILL NEED TO LIE IN COURT.

The 3 letters do work, and I'm £50k ahead out of £56k after almost three years, so all good. But they work because there are easier targets to go after i.e. those who admit their debt.

It was unfairly argued that I didn't argue my case properly as I tried to submit evidence on the day which wasn't accepted, hence negating my points on the 3 letters. This is a twisting of the facts, as I did submit a defence initially, just had refined it. My defence based on years of research was still heard.

In summary, the judge said - you got credit, you paid for a while, then stopped paying owing £5k. You need to pay.

I'l await comments but would appreciate ones from all those living mortgage-free due their success as the banks failed to produce their original contracts in court.

What you created was a negotiable instrument,the clue is in the name . Did you ask for the note or a copy,
did you ask who is the holder in due course. or why they are unable to produce it ?
Did you ask if HSBC hold full rights and title to the note ?
No one is telling you to lie in court .
Instead the judge has made a decision despite there being no agreement or T&C's produced.
Petesomething's thread is still here if you care to look for it.

Why are you bringing mortgages into this.It has become clear from the tone of your posts since
the hearing that you are still bitter and looking to proportion blame elsewhere. If as you say you have done
years of research ,why did you even need help here ? The letters still work but no one has ever said
they work 100% of the time.

daveiron wrote: It has become clear from the tone of your posts since
the hearing that you are still bitter and looking to proportion blame elsewhere. If as you say you have done
years of research ,why did you even need help here ? The letters still work but no one has ever said
they work 100% of the time.

Stevro I totally agreed with DI. And it’s nothing personal Stevro, but surely you must see that’s how you’re coming across to at least two well experienced moderators...

daveiron wrote:If as you say you have done
years of research ,why did you even need help here ?

And you're questioning my tone?

I 'need help' since you ask as I'm chasing facts. The word facts being key here. You say the letters don't work all the time. Sounds like you should be the ones looking for help otherwise they would work 100% of the time. We're all here with the same goal but it appears you guys can't take any criticism. The only threads I get an instant and detailed response to are the critical ones.

Apologies that I'd like answers that can be used in court, I already know what a high opinion you have of the three letters. That can't be used in court.

I'll have to defer to your superior knowledge. You've made that abundantly clear. You say the inability to produce an original contract will most of the time win your case, so everyone's mostly safe here. I was just one of the unfortunate ones who asked to see the original contract and was told by a judge it was not required. I thought pointing it out to warn others and possibly help might be a good idea but it was shot down with claims of incorrect procedure and most recently that I'm a troll or a bank spy.

My name is Steven Workman. I'm a creative director and can be found on LinkedIn. I'm a contributor and supporter of Positive Money. But I guess that could all be fabricated?

I'll now keep my comments to supportive just in case I get ban. Happy?

Respectfully, your post demonstrates that you do not understand the purpose of the 3 letter system because if you read them, you would. They do work for their intended purpose which for the Debt Purchaser (DP) to:-

1. Give up
2. Sell on because they know they have no legal basis to their claim (and you repeat the process with the next DP)
3. (Very rare) Engage a solicitor on their behalf although a solicitor is in effect another (debt collection) agent.

Again, read the letters to digest their intended purpose. ..

They are not meant as court papers but they evidence that you have made every effort to remediate and (at least) 3 times.

In the rare case of 3. above, you move on from the 3 letters IF a solicitor explicitly sends you a 'Letter Before Action' (LBA) which forms part of 'Phase 2' (if, say, you refer to the 3 letter system as 'Phase 1') as part of the PRACTICE DIRECTION – PRE-ACTION CONDUCT AND PROTOCOLS (see link below).

They cannot escape the PRACTICE DIRECTION – PRE-ACTION CONDUCT AND PROTOCOLS and part of this process will enable you to (in response to the LBA) request evidence that any alleged debt exists i.e. exactly as is the case in the 3 letters process, only now in a formal capacity, as you are now dealing with a solicitor and within the scope of the PRACTICE DIRECTION – PRE-ACTION CONDUCT AND PROTOCOLS.

Then most DPs give up because they know: -

1) They do NOT have the evidence
2) You (as the person who is being claimed against) can demand the courts 'STAY' until the claimant produces evidence.

Then in all likelihood they'll 'go away...

I hope you're at last clear on where the '3 letter process' sits in all this and the specific intention in relation to the letters which always work in that relation. But the processes (Phase 1 and 2) MUST be followed 'religiously'.

PRACTICE DIRECTION – PRE-ACTION CONDUCT AND PROTOCOLS:

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/pd_pre-action_conduct

Thanks for the info.

No problem.

After disgussing this with A.N.Other this conclusion has been formulated, its all an opinion. Nothing is to be taken as advice for this.

at the point 'did you have use of the funds/credit?'

The possible best defence in any court situation  -  if you can't answer their question with facts that reflect well on you, then answer with a question. Ideally go through an entire hearing without answering a single question...

The question could be answered with this: "Your honour, do you address that question to the Principal of the account in the matter before the court, or to the Agent...?"

...and the judge will never say you are the Principal, and the Agent is not personally liable for the debts of the account. It is the Principal/ALLCAPS that had use of the credit  -  the Agent does only administrate the usage thereof...

If judge says you are the Agent, then simply ask for the correct paperwork to offset the charge against the ALLCAPS account, because that's all the Agent is expected to do. Is an Agent for TESCO expected to pay TESCO's bills out of his own pocket? No. Why not? He's just the Agent...