Display results as :

Rechercher Advanced Search

Latest topics
» Barclaycard
by Jinxer Yesterday at 11:38 pm

by Jinxer Yesterday at 11:12 pm

» Lowell Court Claim & Mediation
by petesomething Yesterday at 9:57 pm

» Barcelona Attack ??
by Awoken2 Yesterday at 8:26 pm

» Robinson Way
by curvy63 Yesterday at 8:18 pm

» Unlawful / Unjust Enrichment
by Society of the Spectacle Yesterday at 7:58 pm

» 3 Letters Posted - Credit Agreement
by daveiron Yesterday at 6:14 pm

by iamani Yesterday at 3:48 pm

» Deed of Assignment Vs Notice of Assignment
by Tiggy Yesterday at 1:05 pm

» SATIRE--Man Sends Audition Tape To Globalists To Be Crisis Actor in Next False Flag
by handle Yesterday at 11:32 am

» Copyright declaration & notice
by joedalton Yesterday at 9:54 am

» Nottingham Meeting for Free Thinkers 19 August 2017
by Boudica Yesterday at 9:44 am

» Moorcroft chasing 1200
by LionsShare Yesterday at 8:47 am

» What If We Merge Human and Machine
by daveiron Yesterday at 7:56 am

» Processed meats or cigarettes – which gives you cancer more quickly?
by Waffle Yesterday at 7:32 am

» 'Help needed' standardised questionnaire
by 1saberwow Yesterday at 7:29 am

» Removing splinters with bicarbonate of soda
by Lopsum Yesterday at 6:29 am

» Good afternoon
by joedalton Thu Aug 17, 2017 10:05 pm

» The 12 biggest SCIENCE LIES you’ve been told by corporations, government and the corrupt media
by epsom Thu Aug 17, 2017 7:47 pm

» The 3 Letters
by petesomething Thu Aug 17, 2017 6:04 pm

» University fees a Ponzi scheme
by ceylon Thu Aug 17, 2017 4:23 pm

» Urgent one!!! Debt Managers.
by Stevro Thu Aug 17, 2017 3:49 pm

» Is this evidence of liability?
by Stevro Thu Aug 17, 2017 2:46 pm

» I need your help
by curvy63 Thu Aug 17, 2017 2:29 pm

» ccscollect
by iamani Thu Aug 17, 2017 1:06 pm

» Liability order council tax
by sirus0 Thu Aug 17, 2017 12:43 pm

» Principles of Private Law - Australia
by actinglikeabanker Thu Aug 17, 2017 12:30 pm

» Court Claim Forms
by Tiggy Thu Aug 17, 2017 11:45 am

» Communication after Estoppel
by Stevro Thu Aug 17, 2017 9:37 am

» Anyone won in court using the 3 letters as a defence?
by Stevro Thu Aug 17, 2017 6:20 am

» Are they gearing up to go to war?
by Jinxer Wed Aug 16, 2017 10:59 pm

by Waffle Wed Aug 16, 2017 9:19 pm

» Reality chat with peter howard and company
by Lopsum Wed Aug 16, 2017 8:04 pm

» The Ledger Bait, Dead Men Have No Rights
by Society of the Spectacle Wed Aug 16, 2017 7:27 pm

» CC debt already got CCJ.. 3 letter process?
by Tiggy Wed Aug 16, 2017 6:21 pm

by ceylon Wed Aug 16, 2017 5:32 pm

» old get out of debt site
by daveiron Wed Aug 16, 2017 5:09 pm

Possible improvement to the estopple letter.

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Possible improvement to the estopple letter.

Post by Ausk on Thu Aug 10, 2017 2:28 am

Perhaps the following could included into the Estopple letter as it have more 'go away' power.

"You have been given a reasoanble opportunity to prove liability exists but you have failed to do so. Continued contact in relation to this matter may not only constitute harassment but may also constitute fraud which is a crime. Fraud vitiates all contracts and there is no statute of limitation on fraud."

Continued attempts to defraud me may result in legal action being taken against you."

Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 75
Join date : 2017-06-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Possible improvement to the estopple letter.

Post by actinglikeabanker on Thu Aug 10, 2017 5:34 am

Hey Ausk,

Which Estopple are you referring to, the one titled "bankestopple"?.

As far as I am aware you can add whatever is legally accurate in the estopple, if I were to add something like you have put, I would consider citing the relevant laws for harassment/fraud, it is possibly not worth including the statute of limitations for fraud or an accusation "Continued attempts to defraud....." as it is just a waste of paper and doesn't really prove anything. A court would be the judge on any limitations or attempts to defraud.

With the first line "You have been given a reasonable opportunity to prove liability exists but you have failed to do so." if I were to add it, I may consider stating the exact number of days (should be 60 days presuming the ten day letter process was used) as it is an ambiguous statement/allegation and, without a specific legal definition, legislation, guideline or rules etc of "reasonable opportunity" then it could mean anything, they and a court may see "reasonable opportunity" as anytime from default to statute barred clock. I may also consider turning the sentence around slightly so that it is you, who is the one who has been reasonable by providing them 60 days to demonstrate liability, again this is just so it is a factual statement (you don't need a legal definition, legislation etc to tell a court how valuable your own time is) being made and not a claim or accusation etc.
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 336
Join date : 2017-05-10

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum