Search
 
 

Display results as :
 


Rechercher Advanced Search

Latest topics
» Lowell Court Claim - Former Tesco CC
by waylander62 Today at 10:11 am

» Hit Our Target
by assassin Today at 2:35 am

» Latest from CrimeBodge
by assassin Today at 1:40 am

» Voters registration
by assassin Today at 1:34 am

» Reality chat , every wednesday at 8pm (ish)
by Society of the Spectacle Yesterday at 7:39 pm

» Debt Collectors
by Tvarred Yesterday at 4:08 pm

» NEW MEMBER
by Mrblue Yesterday at 8:37 am

» Greetings community and admin
by Mrblue Yesterday at 8:36 am

» Aquiess rainmaking using Electromagnetic Frequencies
by Sharpysparky Tue Nov 19, 2019 10:08 pm

» Yet Another Great Example How To Pay
by LionsShare Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:24 pm

» Another For Awoken 2
by Awoken2 Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:15 pm

» Prince Andrew, Epstein, Clinton, Savile And McCann: Sonia Poulton | True Crime Podcast 59
by treeze Tue Nov 19, 2019 12:11 pm

» TESCO CREDIT CARD & LOWELLS
by Ithesoul Tue Nov 19, 2019 9:35 am

» sol excalibre with cookiemonster
by Society of the Spectacle Mon Nov 18, 2019 7:07 pm

» Can they take my car?
by allrightsreserved Mon Nov 18, 2019 2:59 pm

» filling in 3 letters help
by daveiron Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:21 pm

» PRA Group
by daveiron Mon Nov 18, 2019 8:19 am

» webster report
by LionsShare Sun Nov 17, 2019 6:31 pm

» Melanie Shaw: Child Rape Whistleblower In Her Own Words
by LionsShare Sun Nov 17, 2019 3:35 pm

» Am I missing something ?
by LionsShare Sun Nov 17, 2019 2:54 pm

» Threat to pay, possible statute barred
by allrightsreserved Sun Nov 17, 2019 12:18 pm

» Cabots -16 weeks?
by angelao1 Sat Nov 16, 2019 7:11 pm

» Trust Law Issue
by toolapcblack Sat Nov 16, 2019 11:43 am

» I dont think PRA like me anymore
by allrightsreserved Sat Nov 16, 2019 10:55 am

» How Do I Reclaim my Strawman?
by Tom Bombadil Fri Nov 15, 2019 9:39 pm

» Do you want to be just left in peace /
by Mrblue Fri Nov 15, 2019 12:19 pm

» Visualizing the November Energy Update Themes (Animation)
by treeze Thu Nov 14, 2019 7:49 pm

» 3 letter process download
by Mrblue Thu Nov 14, 2019 4:22 pm

» Latest Rich Planet vids Richard Hall
by daveiron Thu Nov 14, 2019 12:49 pm

» address
by mongoose Thu Nov 14, 2019 3:59 am

» Water Water Everywhere and Droughts In Summer
by assassin Thu Nov 14, 2019 2:27 am

» Flush out the sodium fluoride
by sirus0 Thu Nov 14, 2019 12:33 am

» NEW MEMBER
by AlkoTea Wed Nov 13, 2019 8:23 pm

» Court date
by Cookiemonster2 Tue Nov 12, 2019 6:23 pm

» Help required with research.
by Stevro Tue Nov 12, 2019 1:30 pm

» judges and original contracts to court
by Stevro Tue Nov 12, 2019 1:42 am

» Defult notice
by Cookiemonster2 Mon Nov 11, 2019 11:16 pm

» Cabot reply after 3 letters
by Mrblue Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:24 pm

» A4V
by LionsShare Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:15 pm

» Utility Template SAR
by LionsShare Mon Nov 11, 2019 9:36 am

» Bank Insurance Claims for debts
by LionsShare Mon Nov 11, 2019 9:19 am

» Strange sky
by flyingfish Mon Nov 11, 2019 9:02 am

» Robinson way sent me the application form I've filled in
by sirus0 Sun Nov 10, 2019 11:23 pm

» My credit card come back alive
by sirus0 Sun Nov 10, 2019 11:07 pm

» Help required with my recent CCJ
by Stevro Sat Nov 09, 2019 4:03 pm

» Do creditors need to produce your original signed agreement?
by Stevro Sat Nov 09, 2019 4:00 pm

» Cabot Financial - My Next Step
by Stevro Sat Nov 09, 2019 3:58 pm

» Hydraponics
by daveiron Sat Nov 09, 2019 11:42 am

» Brexit & Common Law
by flyingfish Sat Nov 09, 2019 10:31 am

» 24 Storey Tower on Fire in Kensington - dies
by Awoken2 Fri Nov 08, 2019 9:06 pm

» lawful rebellion ?
by mitch Fri Nov 08, 2019 6:08 pm

» Better Comprehension
by LionsShare Thu Nov 07, 2019 7:16 pm

» Off-Grid Basics Land and Planning
by Kestrel Thu Nov 07, 2019 6:10 pm

» Power of lemons
by chong Thu Nov 07, 2019 5:35 am

» Renewable Energy is a Scam?
by jrb Wed Nov 06, 2019 10:12 pm

Moon phases


Have I snookered myself?

Go down

Have I snookered myself? Empty Have I snookered myself?

Post by dianne1985 on Thu Oct 10, 2019 9:46 am

I took a case out against a creditor for Irresponsible Lending with the Financial Ombudsman and my complaint was not upheld (which is fine as my overall success has been 90%).

However, a DCA(definitely DCA not purchaser) is chasing for this money threatening CCJ now so I embarked on the 3 letters process. I'm happy to fight this in court but they have responded saying that I am aware of my obligation due to my F.O. case.

They may be right in that sense but they still have to prove due diligence to attempt collection, am I correct? And as usual they've sent two documents but not the documents required in the 3 letters.

If the DCA in this instance returns it to the OC and the OC then instructs a solicitor/court then I have probably got no defence against my liability.

Am I wasting my time or would the OC need to provide the documents asked for to take it to CCJ?

The debt is less than £120 so may not be worth my time and energy in fighting but if it's worth fighting and I still lose I could pay it within it's 30 days so the CCJ isn't a big risk.

Thoughts welcome!

dianne1985
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 31
Join date : 2017-10-02

Back to top Go down

Have I snookered myself? Empty Re: Have I snookered myself?

Post by daveiron on Thu Oct 10, 2019 10:45 am

Hi dianne,

As its only a collector ,remember they may only be paid by results so its in their interests to try everyway
they can to extract money from you which includes the BS threats you are getting now.
What docs have the OC provided ?
Realistically is it going to be worth the OC's while for less than £ 120.00 ? Are they going to pay a solicitor
to attend a court hearing for that. Also its not unknown for them to bring it to court and then fail to turn
up.
Check it out but if I remember correctly if you get a CCJ and pay it off within 3 months it does not show
anyway.
Personally I would be asking for answers to some of the questions in the 3 letters , the ones they strangely
ignore (makes you wonder why).
daveiron
daveiron
Admin
Admin

Posts : 2205
Join date : 2017-01-17

Back to top Go down

Have I snookered myself? Empty Re: Have I snookered myself?

Post by dianne1985 on Thu Oct 10, 2019 11:20 am

Thank you, keep pushing forwards then I guess! I looked into it previously that if you clear a CCJ within 30 days you can ensure it is removed as though it never existed. I have not asked the OC for any documents directly however once these DCA clowns quit I could direct this towards the OC to convince them they may as well write this off instead of wasting their admin time on engaging other DCAs etc.

I do wonder though, if the OC went to court, would my F.O. case be enough proof of liability and an admission of my ownership of this debt in the eyes of a judge?

dianne1985
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 31
Join date : 2017-10-02

Back to top Go down

Have I snookered myself? Empty Re: Have I snookered myself?

Post by daveiron on Thu Oct 10, 2019 11:49 am

Hi dianne,

I would suggest a SAR now to the OC ,always worth seeing what they actually have (or dont have)
Just out of interest is this pre or post 2007 ?

As you have admitted the debt via the FO, you could switch your tactics to the other questions.
One route I would like to try is the Presumption at Law . I started working on this but have stopped
for the time being due to a lack of interest being shown.Take a look ,you never know.
https://goodf.forumotion.com/t3754-help-required-with-research
daveiron
daveiron
Admin
Admin

Posts : 2205
Join date : 2017-01-17

Back to top Go down

Have I snookered myself? Empty Re: Have I snookered myself?

Post by dianne1985 on Thu Oct 10, 2019 12:42 pm

Yes I will carry out the SAR pronto.

I understand the Presumption at Law but unsure how it would assist me? Is it that, if they do not attend court then I win because they cannot rebut my evidence (that is their lack of evidence).

dianne1985
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 31
Join date : 2017-10-02

Back to top Go down

Have I snookered myself? Empty Re: Have I snookered myself?

Post by dianne1985 on Thu Oct 10, 2019 1:05 pm

SAR made. I'd love to see an email being disrespectful about me, game over Twisted Evil

dianne1985
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 31
Join date : 2017-10-02

Back to top Go down

Have I snookered myself? Empty Re: Have I snookered myself?

Post by daveiron on Thu Oct 10, 2019 1:43 pm

A Presumption at Law- If you make a presumption ( show your reasons for that presumption)
it stands at law unless and until it is rebutted by factual evidence.

Example ; Banks do not create money, standard practice to securitise agreements, therefore
as the OC has sold the rights & interests to that agreement how can they claim you owe THEM ?
Were you given full disclosure of these facts ? No.
daveiron
daveiron
Admin
Admin

Posts : 2205
Join date : 2017-01-17

Back to top Go down

Have I snookered myself? Empty Re: Have I snookered myself?

Post by Mrblue on Thu Oct 10, 2019 4:49 pm

@dianne1985 wrote:

However, a DCA(definitely DCA not purchaser) is chasing for this money threatening CCJ

Just to say that they may well ‘threaten’ CCJ action but it’s just a threat given that they are a DCA and not a purchaser according to the rest of your post. A DCA has NO legal standing and they often mince with words to give you an impression to the contrary... Just another pathetic scare tactic.

A purchaser or OC has a chance to challenge you legally, but they would be wasting their time (and they know it...) without the correct legal documentation to evidence their claim (that documentation referred to in the 3 letter system).
Mrblue
Mrblue
Moderator
Moderator

Posts : 698
Join date : 2017-06-11
Location : On the side of justice and beside those in need

Back to top Go down

Have I snookered myself? Empty Re: Have I snookered myself?

Post by assassin on Fri Oct 11, 2019 2:30 am

I understand the Presumption at Law but unsure how it would assist me? Is it that, if they do not attend court then I win because they cannot rebut my evidence (that is their lack of evidence).

Presumptions mean very little due to the maxim of law non assumpsit which means assume nothing and if they are making assumptions it is often classed as hearsay evidence and not admissible as evidence.

Where this falls down is simple, once a judgement is reached it should be based upon evidence called prima facsie evidence which are facts only, but if a precedent is set in one court then lower courts are bound by that precedent, but courts of equal status often ignore this. Basically it means that a court of equal status simply make it up as they go along and generally favour large corporations or the po-lice.
However, if a higher court makes a decision they set a precedent and all lower courts are bound by this precedent and often they ignore them if they are not raised, but if they are raised then this ties their hands and they have to abide by it.

You have to understand the court system and this begins with the lowest, this being the tribunal which has no powers, this is followed by the magistrates court, and then the crown courts, and these are consensual courts and owned by a private company called HMCTS which were based in Leek, Staffordshire, and these are all legal.

Next up is the High Court and this is a real court which is divided into Queens Bench, Chancery, and the Family Division and they are all manned by real judges, everyone has "right of audience" at the High Court, but HMCTS will try to thwart you getting there as they only operate in Lawful and this always trumps legal.
assassin
assassin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 2132
Join date : 2017-01-28
Location : Wherever I Lay My Head

Back to top Go down

Have I snookered myself? Empty Re: Have I snookered myself?

Post by daveiron on Fri Oct 11, 2019 8:33 am

Sorry assassin ,I'm not with you on that one. Non assumpsits is as far as I can see only applies to
Common Law & is only used in the US and then only rarely. I far as I can see it has nothing to do
with Presumptions. Whereas (Stabit praesumptio donec probetur in contrarium ) A presumption will stand good until the contrary is proved. This is a universal Maxim.
(Bouviers 1856 law dictionary.

non-assumpsit
Noun

(plural non assumpsits)

   (law) The general plea or denial in an action of assumpsit.

Origin

Latin, meaning "he did not undertake".

presumption

n. a rule of law which permits a court to assume a fact is true until such time as there is a preponderance (greater weight) of evidence which disproves or outweighs (rebuts) the presumption. Each presumption is based upon a particular set of apparent facts paired with established laws, logic, reasoning or individual rights. A presumption is rebuttable in that it can be refuted by factual evidence. One can present facts to persuade the judge that the presumption is not true. Examples: a child born of a husband and wife living together is presumed to be the natural child of the husband unless there is conclusive proof he is not; a person who has disappeared and not heard from for seven years is presumed to be dead, but the presumption could be rebutted if he/she is found alive; an accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. These are sometimes called rebuttable presumptions to distinguish them from absolute, conclusive or irrebuttable presumptions in which rules of law and logic dictate that there is no possible way the presumption can be disproved. However, if a fact is absolute it is not truly a presumption at all, but a certainty.

As I stated in another thread .The Carey judgement must be founded on a presumption .(I cannot see
how it can be based on anything else. )
daveiron
daveiron
Admin
Admin

Posts : 2205
Join date : 2017-01-17

Back to top Go down

Have I snookered myself? Empty Re: Have I snookered myself?

Post by flyingfish on Fri Oct 11, 2019 12:06 pm

@dianne1985 wrote:Thank you, keep pushing forwards then I guess! I looked into it previously that if you clear a CCJ within 30 days you can ensure it is removed as though it never existed.
That's correct.  However remember that if it went that far then costs would be added, they can only add so much for a Small Claim but it might push it over £200.  Still you're a long way from there.   What I'd suggest is look through the stuff you exchanged with the Ombudsman and just note anything that might be seen as an admission.  Then if it does come to defending in court just make sure you don't contradict anything that you said to the ombudsman.

flyingfish
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 55
Join date : 2017-03-22

Back to top Go down

Have I snookered myself? Empty Re: Have I snookered myself?

Post by assassin on Sat Oct 12, 2019 2:16 am

No problem Dave, and no need to apologise at all.

Common law began in the UK and this is another example where things are slowly being eroded and people accept it without question, and the fact they are readily willing to consent to legal and forget lawful always trumps legal, and that they have right of audience at the High court.

Where did presumption begin? actually it was based upon natural phenomenen such as rain falls from the sky, or if a branch falls from a tree it stops when it hits the ground, are two examples of presumption as they are proven facts and can be accepted as prima facsie evidence. This became manipulated to siuit the prevailing agenda and the common consensus of the times and it is in itself, presumed by common concensus and not prima facsie evidence in its own right and here lies the problem.

In its second phase this translates through the pecking order of the courts, in that a higher court sets a precedent and all lower courts are bound by it, but they generally ignore lawful precedents and claim theirs as legal precedents which are not following the precedents of higher courts and are unlawful in their own right and not binding upon anyone.
assassin
assassin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 2132
Join date : 2017-01-28
Location : Wherever I Lay My Head

Back to top Go down

Have I snookered myself? Empty Re: Have I snookered myself?

Post by LionsShare on Sat Oct 12, 2019 2:36 pm

@assassin wrote:In its second phase this translates through the pecking order of the courts, in that a higher court sets a precedent and all lower courts are bound by it, but they generally ignore lawful precedents and claim theirs as legal precedents which are not following the precedents of higher courts and are unlawful in their own right and not binding upon anyone.  
assassin too right!
LionsShare
LionsShare
Moderator
Moderator

Posts : 975
Join date : 2017-04-26
Location : Literally Where Ever I Am

Back to top Go down

Have I snookered myself? Empty Re: Have I snookered myself?

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Back to top


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