They only sent one out when they put in a repo claim. We never got one during the year. Does it make a difference?

Anyone any idea how these people in Swift are fairing with all the banking crisis going on? - With all these people trying to prove their agreements unenforceable and late payments etc they must be getting a bit of a hole in their pockets as a result. How many customers have they? they are nothing like GE are they so as a smaller firm they must be suffering? Anyone know? Be nice to see them go bust Tom

Well you could put it like that although it's significance was discussed, but felt unworthy of further discussion. Claimants explanation of "This is a professional person (can't remeber the full wording) but with all the bells being a solicitor qualified at xxx? entrusted with xxx who has written under oath in his witness statement brings, couldn't possibly in all probabilities have commited fraud...yeah right...Against a LIP? balance of probability went professionals way. I was more angry at the fact my witness statement was not read and I told the judge that, that in my opinion was the injustice and then to have costs piled on me when the only reason I took them to strike out was because they hadn't answered 11 letters in 6 months and preferred to take me to court for repo. It ain't over till the ft lady sings my friends, I haven't finished with them yet.

Triton are an RBS company, it's all in-house, wont matter who you pay because Triton are listed in Companies House as a dormant company, they have no staff, no costs, no nothing and RBS pay everything for Triton - they are listed Dormant because effectively they do not 'trade' and require no accounts to be filed - crazy, but I took this up with Companies House and apparently it's kosha.

In response to their Stat Demand I wrote disputing this debt and their agreement and I've just received a letter from Capquest saying they have put my account 'on hold' while they investigate - nothing about stopping or withdrawing the SD. 18days is up 2nd Sep which is Tuesday. Any ideas if this 'on hold letter' suffices sufficiently enough to stop this? I phoned on Friday but only got the letter late p.m. and just got through to collections department in Scotland ' we are in another country' the girl told me - Scotland ?! - okay traditionalists, but come on ! even the Indians in the bank call centres try to make it sound like they are in Great Britain LOL ) - who had , would you believe, no access to the admin side where these SD eminate from in Fleet. Instinct tells me I should get set aside in asap for Tuesday, or should I phone them again to clarify on Monday? Isn't it a pity I just can't trust these people like one should be able to do? Any thoughts? Tom Just as an aside, Something tells me if capquest are using this Stat demand and sending them out like confetti, the OFT ought to be advised - whilst this is a legitimate legal tool, unless they have absolute right ( and having no agreement is not absolute) to issue these is a complete abuse of process.

"As the draftsman of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 I would like to thank Dr Richard Lawson for his interesting and well-argued article (30 August 2003) on Wilson v First County Trust Ltd [2003] UKHL 40, [2003] 4 All ER 97. Dr Lawson may be interested to know that I included the provision in question (section 127(3)) entirely on my own initiative. It seemed right to me that if the creditor company couldn’t be bothered to ensure that all the prescribed particulars were accurately included in the credit agreement it deserved to find it unenforceable, and that the court should not have power to relieve it from this penalty. Nobody queried this, and it went through Parliament without debate. I’m glad the House of Lords has now vindicated my reasoning and confirmed that nobody’s human rights were infringed. 167 Justice of the Peace (2003) 773. quote from Sir Francis Bennion - he drafted the Act! Wilson vs Hurstanger Ltd COA June 2007 Quote: Lord Justice Tuckey: 11.33. In my judgment the objective of Schedule 6 is to ensure that, as an inflexible condition of enforceability, certain basic minimum terms are included which the parties (with the benefit of legal advice if necessary) and/or the court can identify within the four corners of the agreement. Those minimum provisions combined with the requirement under section 61 that all the terms should be in a single document, and backed up by the provisions of section 127 (3), ensure that these core terms are expressly set out in the agreement itself: they cannot be orally agreed; they cannot be found in another document; they cannot be implied; and above all they cannot be in the slightest mis-stated. As a matter of policy, the lender is denied any room for manoeuvre in respect of them. On the other hand, they are basic provisions, and the only question for the court is whether they are, on a true construction, included in the agreement. The message to be gleaned from sections 65, 106, 113 and 127 of the Consumer Credit Act is that where a court dismisses an application for an enforcement order under section 65 the lender is intended by Parliament to be left without recourse against the borrower in respect of the loan. That being the consequence intended by Parliament, the lender cannot assert at common law that the borrower has been unjustly enriched. There is one which mentions the 'gift' you're right, but I can't lay my hands on it just now.

When I brought this up in court the barrister for the claimant said I was suggesting a solicitor, with all the finery that provides in honesty and respectibility, was committing a fraud - Judge immediately though I was fantasizing and didn't wish to discuss that further. - explanations as to why I didn't receive the email transpired to be and found by the barrister conveniently finding it in the half an hour he had to read my skeleton arguement before the hearing, a letter missing from my email address on that email of theirs which I hadn't noticed. He pointed this out to the judge which appeared a reasonable explanation and that was it. I explained the significance of trying to include the email as evidnece at this stage, but I was then in the realms of accusing a solicitor of fraud which didn't wash. The fact I never received it didn't rate highly enough to continue discussing in the short time available. I explained the normal format as we have discussed here but because the judge was in a hurry said i don't want to go wasting time discussing the merits of an email - move on - Argument dead in the water. It was not a good day in court either. Another story, but suffice to say as a Litigant in person and a Judge who didn't even read my Skeleton arguement as time didn't allow as he was running late and had a 'pressing appointment' ( he said so!),around lunchtime too - what chance did I have? - I even had costs awarded against me and I feel the justice system let me down badly. I felt the wrongdoer and believe me that couldn't be farther than the truth - I am no fool, knew exactly what I was doing, had sufficient evidence to win, but had the wrong judge on the day - it's not over as the case has been moved on to a circuit Judge in higher court, so the hearing was used as directions too - but I lost the strike out which I was aiming for, for all the wrong reasons with a judge who didn't understand the CCA on a cca issue. So, thanks for your help with this email part. It gave me the information to actually tell the court which is the important thing...we now move to the next stage. Cheers Tom.

Youre talking about a finance company in-house solicitors - give us a break

Thanks, I've got all the evidence I need, we'll see what the Judge has to say tomorrow in Coventry Court! Tom

Thanks Bob ( love the name! ) I received a piece of paper which alleged to be a 'copy' of an email they sent as part of their claim against me and they are taking this into court as part of their evidence. I don't believe they ever sent this because I never received it by email and it changes the dynamics of their case if it were true. I just think someone has botched up creating this (allegedly) trying to pass it off as a genuine email to cover their butts - I just needed to prove that by tapping into the wizzardry of this site and getting someone to say it's not possible to send an email from a system then print it off and send that as a paper copy without all the audit trails showing. I made a copy myself by creating one in Word just to show how easy it was to replicate it. But my question is a bit like using a parking ticket as an example - , you can't get one out of the machine without it saying the date and the time and where you purchased it. If I asked you if I could get a parking ticket out of a machine after putting my money in without it printing all that data on you lot would be scratching your heads because we all know it's barely possible short of a miracle. I want to know is that the same with emails that's all. Tom

We'll find out soon enough and I'll let you know what they say

Which would mean the email is not there anymore to be ' re printed' out ( as in ' the 'copy' they included in the witness statement?) This was allegedly sent March 08 so it is possible it might have been cleaned up and removed perhaps?

Thanks for your help PGH 7447 - a few crossed wires me thinks, but I think I have enough to go on now - my lack of IT exposure shows.. thanks anyway. Tom

Thank you.

They were given it to respond to something else so they would have had it thanks.