LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL! Disarming by humour... You know what, when you are not insulting, you do have a dry sense of humour that can be appreciated. I understand that you have a security problem, just don't let it bite any more innocents otherwise you might end up in the list mentioned in the Dangerous Dogs Act. That is my feeble attempt at humour so if it didn't make you smile, I apologise. Ok, I am outa here. Good luck to the OP.

Do you mean the 1968 one... in the HoL...? I have attached what I think you are after. Branwhite v Worcester Works Finance Ltd - 1968.pdf

Nope, I just didn't want to get into a discussion with you about posts and who is right and wrong because I do believe that you coming on the way you did was not conducive to listening, but let's move on from that. What I requested from you in the spirit of co-operation and understanding was to find out why you thought I was a DCA. Not make a judgement call on the posts. Would that be possible? Edit: Thank you for referring it to management but as there are no defined escalation processes or even ways of, for use of a better word, appeal a decision of management for example, I believe it is a futile exercise as this is a limited company with no outside recourse. If you feel the need to go to management as your internal process dictates so, please do but I am not expecting anything from this "escalation".

Fair do but so did the others which I won't repeat here as people can dig them out for themselves. The point is that does not make me a DCA employee or a Creditor seeking to misinform people. That is what really got me...

Motives are judged by actions... and all I can say is that I didn't mislead anyone and I would like you state an occasion when I did. People come on here all the time pretending to be something they are not, not only in profession but also in personality as well, etc. How do you know I didn't keep my dress? Apart from this thread where it descended into a farce, where else did I present my comments in barbed wire. I believe your first post in this thread, was not one of a calming influence but was derogatory. If I called you a xenophobic homophobic certain 20th Century German party sympathiser, you wouldn't feel aggrieved? Because that is the level of insult you were throwing at when you were posting. Blow things up... I don't think we are reading from the same book. It escalated, I flagged it to site attention, you and the site mod came on and instead of calming it down, you both carried it on. Overly sensitive, please see the point I made above. Please don't start drawing theories with which you have no basis because otherwise we are ending up back to the name calling without facts again. I think the point is that there are lots of people on CAG who are not trolls. Having a particular personality trait does not make one a troll. Some people come here to make friends, others come here to impart advice, I am in the latter category. Thank you... I won't comment on your other statements as I think we have mediated our way through it but just to state for the record, I don't understand where you guys got the point that I said you were here because of your pride? I said that your pride and the alter egos you have built up won't let you take a step back, hence go from the breach so to speak.

You may ask and I will answer, it is only fair... I hope it is reciprocated. Reading a post does not convey a real impression of the person until you interact with them. Also, as this forum uses alter-egos, how does one determine who is who. Especially as a guest as the options are limited to see a person's history, quite rightly too. No one can go through 3000 threads and to imply so is ridiculous. One can only give a situation in a question and see the response to it to see if it is, for use of a better word, re-assuring. Has the cross-examination finished? Now my turn, why did you think I was a DCA? Because of this initial post or because my answers to questions, whether procedural or legal were wrong?

I would suggest reading my post again for the reply to the first part of your post... until you realise I didn't say you were here out of pride. You are again implying that I have not been a loyal member of cag without defining how loyalty is measured, and my presence has not been valuable to others. I love the insinuations... I will borrow DB's favourite word here, it is disingenuous. Wondering, how does one become a loyal member, give up your first born, donate cash or maybe, just maybe give impartial advice and guidance on the issues encountered and offer assistance, in and out of the forum. I won't be partaking in any discussion about right and wrong in regards to the posts with you unfortunately as I believe your impartiality has been compromised. There isn't a point when the mod for the forum actually implies misconduct and breach of duty which I vehemently deny.

Let's clear the air before someone gets offended again and I don't want VJ and DB to leave this forum. They do a good service here, it would be a waste to see them go on account of some people who don't understand the concept of privacy and slander. I don't want them to leave on my account! This has escalated far enough as it is so there is no need for collateral damage and people to make a point. Anyway, I feel like I am making a statement to the news here... and I am doing it for the purposes of everyone who I have helped as I don't want them to think that I misled them with something when it wasn't true and with all due respect to CAG, that is a serious accusation to someone in my position and could land me in trouble. That would be a big breach of ethics and my fiduciary duty. I have known people go to Court on account of less to retrieve their reputation as their careers depended on it. Something which some people can't appreciate. To alleviate any doubt, I am self employed. I am not PA unfortunately. I am not in the employment of DCAs. My specialisation is Contract, Commercial and Finance. So in essence, all you guys who called me a troll or viper are wrong and now, I believe an apology is in order! I wasn't pushing for one before but I guess you guys do owe me one. BRW, feel free to start but excuse me if I won't hold my breath. Also, how can you understand someone's mood from their writing, especially, if you don't know this person to know what their normal writing style is. Again conjecture on your part. Also, your pleading for hard working caggers strikes me as the same pleading used in politics, namely, "we have to do this for the children, think of the children". It hits an emotional nerve and people feel bad when they want to think contrary to you. Anyway, you are entitled to your opinion, you stick to it. Initial post was to find out about this forum and to see how helpful and legally minded people were. To also suss out if there is any one here who could compromise me. I thought, nice forum, might be good if I joined it. I have a lot to lose by posting here which I will explain below. Also BRW, how by posting a reply to someone's thread be postulated as taking the mickey. Actually, I am sure it makes sense in your head, so I would rather it stayed there so as not to spread your misinformation. As self-employed, I am reliant on instructions which ultimately, because of my speciality might come from an investment bank, a retail bank, a ftse 350 company, etc., via a firm. Main point being, if I am compromised, I lose my instructions, if I lose my instructions, with all due respect, you guys are not going to pay my mortgage. I am here as a "LiP" because if I had to represent myself, I would only be considered a LiP. I might counter arguments and give arguments but that is that is to help the OP think of the defence or claim as the case maybe. DB understands that well and I hope it has helped him. That applies to all legal professionals. People don't understand that the circle I swim in is really small and word gets around. No offence, but CAG is career suicide for anyone in my position. To satisfy my sense of justice, I am posting on CAG. Seeing that I will be leaving after this post, it doesn't matter. So to dispel the conspiracy theorists, I am NOT DCA and never have been, never spread misinformation or even misdirected anyone on a point of law. And peeps, if you are going to quote me, please do it correctly... from post 60: So to add: DNs are effective in making DCAs discontinue and I never said they weren't effective, just that FOR Court, a stronger argument needs to be in place in case it gets there. That is why set off is VERY important as a defence. The reason why DCAs discontinue on the back of a faulty DN is because the arrears are only a couple hundred pounds, whilst the whole debt is several thousands, and when faced with a cag defence with a faulty DN, the couple hundred pounds are not worth recovering so is in fact written off. If a DCA really wanted to be petty, they would go just for the arrears but they are in it for business, not for revenge which is why the discontinuance occurs. The point of litigation is to be prepared... so there is no harm in being prepared! And again, I re-iterate, it's a shame that people don't actually look at the posts and see whether they are wrong or right, they just want to see DCA. Good luck all and for the ones with the tin foil, there's a sale in Asda where you buy one, get one free. And by the way, you didn't out me, I just had enough to see super awesome innocent caggers get caught up in a debacle of your own making BRW, Martin and the "fantastic four"! I didn't post anything wrong in any thread or mislead anyone and I am sure that your super duper troll detectors would have caught it anyway and exterminated it with a laser pulse. LOL. I think there is no way back for you, BRW and Martin or me in this matter. For you guys it is pride and the alter ego you cultivated here that is at stake, whilst for me, it is my professional reputation as you have accused me of serious misconduct. On that basis, as stated, I won't be frequenting this forum and go elsewhere as the last thing I want to do is to harm the service that is provided, despite the vehicle used. So yes PT, you are correct and I look forward to speaking with you in the future. Maybe put up my rates though, I hear you are making a killing! LOL.

So resorting to name calling is allowed if the person doing it feels justified in some sort of way. So if I insulted you just based on this post and made remarks about you avoiding the question, not willing to take a stand on something and just weak willed, it would be ok because it understandable for other people who also read your post and saw you avoiding the question. That was just an example, and was only to prove a point so you get my gist. Take your word for it as I have not had any dealings with you so can't confirm or deny the above but just based on your post, I am not convinced. That is ludicrous, 1.) people post here and help because of altruism on the main (discounting the sofa solicitors and the ones on a vendetta), not because of any type of recompense so it is a bit rich to ask them to also justify themselves, 2.) an allegation based on someone disagreeing with the status quo is akin to a protester in a repressive regime who doesn't go along with the regime and is then imprisoned for holding that thought, 3.) this forum is peer reviewed, therefore people should be able to criticise and put across a point of view as only a small minority are actually qualified to give advice and are indemnified as such, 4.) it is a bit much to try and convince the same people who did not understand the same point in the first place, 5.) the person who posted the information is not taken at face value and their past posts scrutinised before the defamation of character occurs. So essentially, anyone here would be totally excused to start labelling people as debt avoiders, shysters, charlatans, and swindlers. I mean, if you, or I or even some of the site mods or experienced caggers hold that thought about certain OPs and state so, then the OPs must try and convince us that they are not. I don't agree with that at all and the ramifications of that would be insulting to everyone. Sounds like a kangaroo court and seeing that everyone complains of the Court system being an old boy's club, with secret handshakes and nods and winks, why is it then being emulated here but to the worst degree. I am not complaining about the deletion of the posts, I frankly don't care about that. So when confronted with an argument about a point of law, it is ok to respond back with you are a DCA or Creditor or agent provocateur/saboteur because this goes against what we believe. That sounds like religion, not a forum. Also, experienced on a forum, with all due respect does not make you a lawyer, so how can an experienced member who did not even look at the points raised or the cases, or anything like that make a call on someone they don't even know. In addition, my point is well established and I am not re-iterating anything new here, there are other "experienced" caggers on this forum who have the same belief and if that is not enough, case law states so. Just a small adage that I feel compelled to pass on to you as I feel it would stand you in good stead for the future: experience does not make one wise, it is only wisdom when you come out of an experience with something more than you went in, and are able to utilise it. Ummm... no. What they need to consider because as you implied, they are experienced caggers so should know better compared to us newbies. The burden of proof is on them, not me or anyone else here because a positive allegation has to be made, not one based on hearsay, a hunch or just mob mentality. So basically, being here a long time gives them automatic rights to disregard the point of law and post negatives based on their assumptions instead of the history of the person posting it, the arguments that the person made, or even their active participation in CAG. So with experience, one would expect the person slandering to have actually done some research first, compiled some evidence or a portfolio, etc, but that is not what has happened. Also, the "running insult" syndrome as I have now termed it where someone makes a snide comment, and effectively runs by not addressing anything regarding it is not conducive to discussion or debate as you have stated. I personally think the person concerned though experienced on a forum and may be older than most, for which you gave "props" to, has shown all the intellect of an arthropod and vipers eat arthropods. Yes, you have answered my question, and it is a shame that myths propagate here. I just hope that none of the people who really do need help do not get stung with the misinformation being propagated when faced with Counsel with a strong background in Commercial Banking and Finance. And as regards experience, we have all seen that it doesn't count for much here as failing in judgements occur, whether you have 1 post or 10 in the power of 10 posts. Have a good night.

The usual... there will be 3 parts... Defence: Where you will rebut their PoC and state the fact that they don't have the agreement, that they have a defective DN, (and any set off you want to use). Particulars of Claim: You state in detail what is wrong with the DN, you state in detail the fact that they don't have an agreement, (and set off if needs be). Then the statement of truth. There are multiple examples around the forum which I am sure you can use as a template with all the case law in there, etc. You can wait for the other caggers to pipe in as the paranoia is contagious. Ummm... just thinking about the set off, I am still debating whether it is a good idea or not if you could use it considering you are arguing there is no enforceable agreement. I am still in two minds about that, and I am sure others will pipe in with their own opinions. I am indifferent at time of writing but will mention it here so it can be brought up if needs be.

Thanks for the insight... it was like looking in a mirror... lol

LOL! You are not letting it go are you? You are dogged I must admit that... I will let someone else enlighten you in case I am misconstrued in spreading misinformation.

I brought this to your attention and asked you to mass delete posts because it was not serving any purpose, and was distracting as you pointed out. It must be getting late and without taking the post more OT... if everyone was arguing with me in this thread and as you said 99.9% of people are on side, that implies that I am the troll which I find derogatory when all I did was state the obvious about arrears and mentioned some case law, albeit, I could have been more diplomatic??? Me no comprende what happened here at all. I guess by your answer that it is implied that I am a troll and I work for a DCA or Bank and spread misinformation?

NTTF... it is fine, seriously... just file the N244 with the draft order. No need to get into a panic about it now as there is nothing to panic about. It is not proving to be difficult, you are learning and as you learn, you get better, that is standard. Once you get the order signed off, then you file your amended defence. It is just an application.

Ok... there seems to be a witch hunt going on... with all due respect, I don't understand the wild accusations? I guess because someone does not agree with the doctrine of CAG, they must be working for the other side? Right? Not sure how to best answer that question so I leave it for the troll spotters to answer.