AMEX & AIC & Newman

[Blue Thunder]

Thanks BRW,

appreciate it!

cheers

BT

[Blue Thunder]

well....... I read through that . What was the outcome of the adjournment?? anybody.

Also - this relates to an unenforceable agreement. As mine is an unlawfully terminated agreement - does that therefore apply also?

Section 127 cant apply to an unenforceable agreement - but what about a terminated agreement - lawfully or unlawfully executed???

Thanks

BT

[Bill Shidding]

Hi BT,

 

Can you cast your mind back to when you actually received the TN?.

And, did you do anything differently after receipt of the TN?

Eg, stop paying/cancel dd/or anything?

 

I realise these are strange questions, but please try to remember.

 

Bill

[Blue Thunder]

In their witness statement they refer to the date of termination and have their letter - although never received by me - so I couldnt take any specific action. Within a week of their termination date however the monkeys from AIC were on the case trying to enforce debt collection rights and £1700 had been added just for their costs!

cheers

BT

[Blue Thunder]

bump

[Blue Thunder]

Unbelievably, today the day of reckoning arrived and I was decimated in court.

Appeared as an LIP - on the back of some dubious and contradictory advice by my solicitors and barrister (and owing to cost of course)

 

Judgement awarded to the claimant plus costs, interest, collection charges dating back to the original default date. Total award - over £20 grand!!!!

Hello Bankruptcy!

 

I am in a state of shock and disbelief that the case went against me (and also against everything I was being told, on here, privately on here and from alleged 'paid-for' experts. I just cannot accept at the moment that the ruling was indeed correct in Law and feel as though I have been done up like a kipper! I KNOW I should have performed better (even though the judge praised my handling of the case - hard to swallow in defeat of course). Simply not understanding protocol and the way the law can be used - and misguidedly, putting my blind faith in the fact of 'written law' - I have contrived to grasp defeat from the jaws of victory.

I asked to appeal - the DJ said she would give me 'no leave of appeal, as in her words - the case had no grounds for appeal as the ruling she made was based on sound and proven law - and guess what it was that won it for them - Rankine!!! I still dont get how though - I need closure on this and I need to understand why I lost it and on what grounds. I simply did not understand what the opposition barrister and the DJ were coming up with in their reasoning. Having studied and studied this case for nigh on two years.

 

Basically - their skeleton argument revolved around the fact that the initial Default Notice was valid and that the error was de minimis. Thus they were entitled to bring proceedings.

It didnt take the DJ long to rule against this and stated that the DN WAS defective. She then invited the claimant's barrister to state why they were in fact allowed to bring proceedings against me. The fact that they had subsequently issued a new DN and following my decision NOT to respond to it ( as advised by my barrister I hasten to add - and along with the general advice on here) they had subsequently terminated my agreement (again) which then gave them everything they needed to bring the proceedings against me. Their barrister issued a long diatribe quoting in the main the Rankine ruling - para 16 ( attached here) which with the DJ's agreement gave them the right to basically claim everything in their original particulars of claim. The DJ even said that she could retrospectively issue an amendment to the Particulars of Claim if necessary - but it wasn't required in this case owing to how they had set out their claim particulars.

I strongly refuted this argument, stating that how could they possibly issue a new DN on an already terminated agreement and then terminate again. The DJ's view was that I couldnt have 'my cake and eat it basically' I.e. either the default notice was valid and thus terminated the agreement or it wasnt valid and therefore the agreement was still live.

Contrary to any argument I put forward she still referred to Rankine as the leading light.

 

To be perfectly honest - with the absolute DIRE advice I have recently received from the so-called professionals ( and at no mean cost) I am at my wits end. To have lived and breathed this for over two years trying to get just some form of justice and then to have to walk away with my whole personal and subsequently my professional life in tatters because a major International organisation has been allowed to manipulate the laws, in the face of a catalogue of mistakes - from a dodgy application form being allowed to stand to the reissue of a Default Notice on a terminated account - then my faith in the word of British justice is shot to pieces.

Yes I'm bitter - and maybe tomorrow I will feel less so - but to be perfectly honest ............. I dont think so. The system stinks. I wasnt a Rankine trying to avoid and exploit - I was just a regular guy - who got into a spot of bother (divorce) asked for help and time to pay an undisputed debt - offered monthly payments in line with industry guidelines - was forced to fight for the right having been threatened by no less than three DCA's with bankruptcy, repossession etc etc - and then to have won on the grounds I was defending - only to have it ripped away from me - by (even now) an unbelievable turn of events ............... well I am speechless........ almost!

 

I would welcome the comments of the regular (and new) contributors to this thread over the time - I am looking for that piece of law that clarifies to me perfectly exactly what I have lost to ........... then I can sleep easier ..................... and if it IS out there I will gladly print it frame it and stick it up somewhere the sun doesn’t shine of the so-called professionals whose job it was to protect me from it!

 

Blue.......................really really Blue!

Rankine para 16.pdf

[Monty2007]

Unbelievably, today the day of reckoning arrived and I was decimated in court.

Appeared as an LIP - on the back of some dubious and contradictory advice by my solicitors and barrister (and owing to cost of course)

 

Judgement awarded to the claimant plus costs, interest, collection charges dating back to the original default date. Total award - over £20 grand!!!!

Hello Bankruptcy!

 

I am in a state of shock and disbelief that the case went against me (and also against everything I was being told, on here, privately on here and from alleged 'paid-for' experts. I just cannot accept at the moment that the ruling was indeed correct in Law and feel as though I have been done up like a kipper! I KNOW I should have performed better (even though the judge praised my handling of the case - hard to swallow in defeat of course). Simply not understanding protocol and the way the law can be used - and misguidedly, putting my blind faith in the fact of 'written law' - I have contrived to grasp defeat from the jaws of victory.

I asked to appeal - the DJ said she would give me 'no leave of appeal, as in her words - the case had no grounds for appeal as the ruling she made was based on sound and proven law - and guess what it was that won it for them - Rankine!!! I still dont get how though - I need closure on this and I need to understand why I lost it and on what grounds. I simply did not understand what the opposition barrister and the DJ were coming up with in their reasoning. Having studied and studied this case for nigh on two years.

 

Basically - their skeleton argument revolved around the fact that the initial Default Notice was valid and that the error was de minimis. Thus they were entitled to bring proceedings.

It didnt take the DJ long to rule against this and stated that the DN WAS defective. She then invited the claimant's barrister to state why they were in fact allowed to bring proceedings against me. The fact that they had subsequently issued a new DN and following my decision NOT to respond to it ( as advised by my barrister I hasten to add - and along with the general advice on here) they had subsequently terminated my agreement (again) which then gave them everything they needed to bring the proceedings against me. Their barrister issued a long diatribe quoting in the main the Rankine ruling - para 16 ( attached here) which with the DJ's agreement gave them the right to basically claim everything in their original particulars of claim. The DJ even said that she could retrospectively issue an amendment to the Particulars of Claim if necessary - but it wasn't required in this case owing to how they had set out their claim particulars.

I strongly refuted this argument, stating that how could they possibly issue a new DN on an already terminated agreement and then terminate again. The DJ's view was that I couldnt have 'my cake and eat it basically' I.e. either the default notice was valid and thus terminated the agreement or it wasnt valid and therefore the agreement was still live.

Contrary to any argument I put forward she still referred to Rankine as the leading light.

 

To be perfectly honest - with the absolute DIRE advice I have recently received from the so-called professionals ( and at no mean cost) I am at my wits end. To have lived and breathed this for over two years trying to get just some form of justice and then to have to walk away with my whole personal and subsequently my professional life in tatters because a major International organisation has been allowed to manipulate the laws, in the face of a catalogue of mistakes - from a dodgy application form being allowed to stand to the reissue of a Default Notice on a terminated account - then my faith in the word of British justice is shot to pieces.

Yes I'm bitter - and maybe tomorrow I will feel less so - but to be perfectly honest ............. I dont think so. The system stinks. I wasnt a Rankine trying to avoid and exploit - I was just a regular guy - who got into a spot of bother (divorce) asked for help and time to pay an undisputed debt - offered monthly payments in line with industry guidelines - was forced to fight for the right having been threatened by no less than three DCA's with bankruptcy, repossession etc etc - and then to have won on the grounds I was defending - only to have it ripped away from me - by (even now) an unbelievable turn of events ............... well I am speechless........ almost!

 

I would welcome the comments of the regular (and new) contributors to this thread over the time - I am looking for that piece of law that clarifies to me perfectly exactly what I have lost to ........... then I can sleep easier ..................... and if it IS out there I will gladly print it frame it and stick it up somewhere the sun doesn’t shine of the so-called professionals whose job it was to protect me from it!

 

Blue.......................really really Blue!

 

Dear BT

 

I am really sorry to hear about this. There is not much I can say except that you should consider an appeal, irrespective of what the DJ said. It is another ridiculous use of Rankine. They terminated your account so they cannot issue a second DN, this is an absolute disgrace.

[the_shadow]

Really sorry to hear this Blue Thunder,

 

Again I can only suggest you appeal, Judge Lottery strikes again I feel.

 

The CCA posted at the beginning of this thread has no prescribed terms, there is nothing to say a firm cant terminate an agreement at any point if they so wish, they can do whatever they like... the act just states to obtain the benefits they have to exit PROPERLY.....

 

Again, I can only suggest you leave this for a day or two and come back and have a think and look at what people suggest.

 

Take Care!

 

S.

[brokebutnotbeatn]

I find it hard to beleive you can be provented from appealing. I guess you need to post on the legal forum?

[the_shadow]

I find it hard to beleive you can be provented from appealing. I guess you need to post on the legal forum?

 

You ask the judge after judgment if they will permit an appeal, despite them saying no or yes you can appeal to the next level above, in this case circuit judge? I believe, although I could be mistaken on level.

 

S.

[Blue Thunder]

Thanks for the comments guys - appreciate your thoughts and best wishes.

 

As for the original CCA - they got this past the DJ at the first hearing - even though there were discrepancies between front and back. She ruled that it was enforceable. They had financial related particulars, which contained the prescribed terms, in a fashion, on the back which formed part of the wider terms and conditions - beats me as to how they can get away with it - but that's the establishment I suppose!

 

As for the appeal - I need to read up on how to do this - certainly I can appeal to a circuit judge I believe - but its the grounds I am appealing on that is the crux of the matter.

So many people have said to me they cant reissue a DN after purported termination - but nobody has yet provided the case law, part of the act, or ruling that backs that up - and THAT is why I fell down today!!

So, if anybody out there knows any better - then please shout!!!!

Thanks

BT

[Blue Thunder]

You ask the judge after judgment if they will permit an appeal, despite them saying no or yes you can appeal to the next level above, in this case circuit judge? I believe, although I could be mistaken on level.

 

S.

 

You are quite correct I believe S.

[foolishgirl]

Really sorry to hear your result BT - the Rankines have a lot to answer for!

 

You should appeal but it has to done within 14 days along with an application to appeal (as the DJ refused it) so don't delay, think it's a Form N161.

[steven4064]

Really sorry to here this BT. As the shadow says - DJ lottery. Mull it over for a couple of days an dthen decide what to do. Whatever you decide, CAG is behind you.

[Rhia]

So sorry to read this. The Rankine judgement will be overcome and soon. I have spoken to two barristers who have both said it is a bad judgement and both told me there is a lot of interest in the legal world to take this on - given the right case.

 

The sort of appeal you are looking at is on paper and I would definitely apply.

[Blue Thunder]

Thanks Steven,

i WANT to appeal of course - BUT - I don't have the legal grounds to do it. Yet. As I have said previously - there has been a lot of talk but nothing concrete and the advice I have been given from my solicitor and barrister - quite honestly - stinks! I just dont know where to go with it now. I'm stuck for spare cash - dont qualify for legal aid - so up a gum tree at the minute.

Blue

[Blue Thunder]

So sorry to read this. The Rankine judgement will be overcome and soon. I have spoken to two barristers who have both said it is a bad judgement and both told me there is a lot of interest in the legal world to take this on - given the right case.

 

The sort of appeal you are looking at is on paper and I would definitely apply.

 

Thanks Rhia, if anybody knows of a barrister - willing to have a go - on a conditional Fee Arrangement - then get them to contact me............. please.

[Bill Shidding]

Hi BT,

 

Sorry to hear this too.

 

I'm intrigued by this part of your post #181

 

The fact that they had subsequently issued a new DN and following my decision NOT to respond to it ( as advised by my barrister I hasten to add - and along with the general advice on here) they had subsequently terminated my agreement (again)

 

In what context were you advised to not respond to it?

Were you advised to not respond because;

The agreement is dead anyway so forget it?

There is no need to respond?

Your acceptance is not required?

So on and so forth, or were you advised to ignore it on different grounds?

(I think you know where I'm going with those questions BT.)

 

I expect the "general advice on here" was in relation to other points, and not about responding to the new DN?

 

Bill

Edited August 5, 2009 by Bill Shidding

[elsinore]

Hi BT, rotten result, you have my sympathy.

 

As for the appeal - I need to read up on how to do this - certainly I can appeal to a circuit judge I believe - but its the grounds I am appealing on that is the crux of the matter.

 

This might help you to decide whether you can find grounds for an appeal. It was quoted by Lord Wolff MR in AEI Rediffusion Music Ltd v Phonographic Performance Ltd [1999] 1 WLR 1507 at 1523 :-

“The conventional approach of this Court is conveniently summarised by Stuart-Smith LJ in Roache v News Group [1998] EMLR 161 at p.172 in these terms:

‘Before the Court (of Appeal) can interfere it must be shown that the judge has either erred in principle in his approach, or has left out of account, or taken into account, some feature that he should, or should not, have considered, or that his decision is wholly wrong because the Court is forced to the conclusion that he has not balanced the various factors fairly in the scale’"

Note the use of the word 'or'. You don't have to fulfil all the criteria, just one of them (but all of them would be good!).

Els

[Blue Thunder]

Hi Bill,

 

Yes - the advice was from my barrister (and in my defence) which stated that the agreement was terminated and they could not issue a second DN. So, pretty duff legal advice in the context of things.

 

The general advice is about all things that have been commented on to date on this thread relating to my case.

 

Thanks

Blue.

[pedross]

Bad luck BT - I know how you must feel. I am sure you will get plenty of good advice in the next few days.

 

Pedross

[Blue Thunder]

Hi BT, rotten result, you have my sympathy.

 

 

 

This might help you to decide whether you can find grounds for an appeal. It was quoted by Lord Wolff MR in AEI Rediffusion Music Ltd v Phonographic Performance Ltd [1999] 1 WLR 1507 at 1523 :-

 

“The conventional approach of this Court is conveniently summarised by Stuart-Smith LJ in Roache v News Group [1998] EMLR 161 at p.172 in these terms:

 

‘Before the Court (of Appeal) can interfere it must be shown that the judge has either erred in principle in his approach, or has left out of account, or taken into account, some feature that he should, or should not, have considered, or that his decision is wholly wrong because the Court is forced to the conclusion that he has not balanced the various factors fairly in the scale’"

 

Note the use of the word 'or'. You don't have to fulfil all the criteria, just one of them (but all of them would be good!).

 

Els

 

 

Thanks Els - really appreciate the comments. What I have to do now is establish the legal reasoning behind my argument! Thats where I need the help now I think!

 

Thanks again

Blue.

[Bill Shidding]

Hi Bt,

 

If I'm correct then;

Dodgy DN, followed by termination. They argue that the agreement endured because the DN was flawed.

 

You mention unlawful termination (or repudiation) of agreement?

Judge said..............

[Blue Thunder]

correct Bill. DN was flawed - agreement endured.

 

Unlawful termination/repudiation - judge looked at me blankly and carried on that I couldnt have it both ways!!!!

 

Cheers

Blue

[Alphageek]

Hi BT, sorry to hear this went badly for you.

 

I can only echo what others have said: that you should take a day or two to let the anger subside and then start planning an appeal.

 

This seems bad decision based upon yet another bad decision (Rankine) and the will be grounds for and plenty of help with the appeal.