Cap1 debt, many dcas could not find CCa - Dryden Fairfax Claim form - HELP!

[Big Merv]

What makes me absolutely sick is that if you had had a lawyer with you she would not have got away with it.

 

I do not disagree with that at all - I think the other side new it too! The guy was a nice enough chap and outside seemed surprised they got away with it - that was entirely my fault though I simply wasn't good enough. Open goal and I boot it into the stand.I feel like a complete F*** wit.

[Desperate Daniella]

Absolutely. You should be proud of yourself. You have been stitched up.

[MandM]

Thanks MandM. Said I would pay within 14 days. Judge reduced total amount by £300 in PPI payments and then allowed them £106 interest + costs of around £200 including solicitors fees court costs etc.

 

DJ

 

 

So are you OK with this? You have a limited time to 'vary' the order/repayment terms.

 

An appeal is a whole different ball game. Gives them time to line their ducks up so always a risk as you could be exposing yourself to some nasty costs if it goes wrong.

[Desperate Daniella]

I do not disagree with that at all - I think the other side new it too! The guy was a nice enough chap and outside seemed surprised they got away with it - that was entirely my fault though I simply wasn't good enough. Open goal and I boot it into the stand.I feel like a complete F*** wit.

 

Honestly, it is not a question of your not being good enough, and you are not a F***wit. The problem is that you had a judge who said that you were trying to get away with it and she chose to interpret the law wrongly in order to side with the creditor. Some of them do. You are a LiP and therefore she could get away with it.

[Big Merv]

So are you OK with this? You have a limited time to 'vary' the order/repayment terms.

 

An appeal is a whole different ball game. Gives them time to line their ducks up so always a risk as you could be exposing yourself to some nasty costs if it goes wrong.

 

Yeah I realise that MandM.

 

To be honest I could just do with this being done with so that is why I said I would pay it and be done. I will find it somehow

 

This all kicked off in 2007 enough already! (apologies for Americanism)

[MandM]

Yeah I realise that MandM.

 

enough already! (apologies for Americanism)

 

Way to go. You da man! lol

 

Well done for trying, just bad luck on the outcome - at least you gave it a go, so good for you.

 

Mike

[Desperate Daniella]

M&M is right. You could be exposing yourself to costs and if you'd prefer an end to it I can understand that too.

 

I personally think you could win on appeal because I think appeal judges do tend to follow the Act and the Regulations to the letter. She hasn't, she knows that, and she is hoping you won't appeal.

[Desperate Daniella]

Back later.

 

Big, big hug,

 

DDxx

[Big Merv]

Honestly, it is not a question of your not being good enough, and you are not a F***wit. The problem is that you had a judge who said that you were trying to get away with it and she chose to interpret the law wrongly in order to side with the creditor. Some of them do. You are a LiP and therefore she could get away with it.

 

I can't say that she was unpleasant or hostile etc. She wasn't aggressive in her manner towards me she just seem to accept what the oppo said more readily.

 

For example regarding the agreement she asked me what I thought was wrong with it I said can't read it looks questionable in terms of formatting no prescribed terms on it etc Judge was happy that prescribed terms were present because they were in the separate T/Cs etc and could see no reason why that document was not acceptable. Judge said to oppo what you know of this document he simply said my signature is on it. Yes said the judge and you admit in your defence you did sign and enter such an agreement with Cap1.

 

She focused on the CCA to cap1 with the payment issue of £1 - yes a bit messy but I could have just sent them a £1. She never asked about the subsequent CCA requests of the other DCAs because according judge they were acting for Cap1 and therefore did not have to produce CCA or something or other. Why did I need the information? She asked surely I can see activity on the account you had statements and would have known what you were being charged at the time.

 

She was very motivated by this train of thought and was not really interested in the technicalities of the law.

[Big Merv]

Back later.

 

Big, big hug,

 

DDxx

 

Thanks DD. Going to have the afternoon with the kids now to just forget it all as best .

 

I have to weigh up pragmatism against not so much pride but that complete sense of not doing everyone elses efforts justice.

 

DJ

[Desperate Daniella]

I can't say that she was unpleasant or hostile etc. She wasn't aggressive in her manner towards me she just seem to accept what the oppo said more readily.

 

For example regarding the agreement she asked me what I thought was wrong with it I said can't read it looks questionable in terms of formatting no prescribed terms on it etc Judge was happy that prescribed terms were present because they were in the separate T/Cs etc and could see no reason why that document was not acceptable. Judge said to oppo what you know of this document he simply said my signature is on it. Yes said the judge and you admit in your defence you did sign and enter such an agreement with Cap1.

 

She focused on the CCA to cap1 with the payment issue of £1 - yes a bit messy but I could have just sent them a £1. She never asked about the subsequent CCA requests of the other DCAs because according judge they were acting for Cap1 and therefore did not have to produce CCA or something or other. Why did I need the information? She asked surely I can see activity on the account you had statements and would have known what you were being charged at the time.

 

She was very motivated by this train of thought and was not really interested in the technicalities of the law.

 

Well, if judges are not really interested in the technicalities of the law maybe they should not be judges.

[Desperate Daniella]

And don't even think about not doing our efforts justice. Of course you did!

[Big Merv]

And don't even think about not doing our efforts justice. Of course you did!

 

Thanks DD.

 

I just can't get out of the head the thought that unless you can quote the exact section paragraph and number of an act the law does not apply to you.

 

When I said to the judge about the credit agreement needing certain terms and aprs percentages etc credit limit being legible - the oppo intervened here saying they don't have to show credit limits because it is a rolling type agreement not a fixed something or other and that evryones is different based on status, I had clearly been misinformed by whoever I had sort guidance from (judge agreed) - so judge asked where it said this in the act I couldn't produce the exact paragraph page number etc immediately etc so that was that. According to the judge an agreement only needs be legible at the time you sign it - not when it is reproduced (thats what the law states according to the judge).

 

When it came to the DN she again asked for the exact bit in law that covered this. I gave the reference supplied by MandM (I think it was MandM) judge said that it had been noted and I that she would check both. Clearly it seems she didn't. Apparently that letter is more than adequate as a DN and is similar to ones she sees all the time.

 

We are not all equal under the law unfortunately - especially if you can't produce the correct act sentence etc immediately when asked. There is it seems to me no obligation on the adjudicators in these matters to check either. So you don't know it so that law doesn't cover you.

 

DJ

[Desperate Daniella]

I don't like the number of guests we have at the moment.

 

Let's chat later.

 

DDx

[Big Merv]

Thanks DD

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

13 guests is very,very low!!

[Desperate Daniella]

It was 21. Didn't like to think of gloaters!

 

Anyway, going back to what you said, I don't think the judge was fair to you as a Litigant in Person. You are not a trained lawyer, you quoted the right bits of the law, and yet she still sided with the creditor and ignored the statute.

 

Some judges think it is a moral question - you had the money so you have to pay it back, even if the creditor doesn't have a valid agreement or a valid DN. In fact, it is a legal issue and she should have thrown out the claim on the basis of the evidence.

[Big Merv]

Wheres DRS when you need it - perhaps shouldn't mention that either another loss!

[Big Merv]

So does this also mean I have a CCJ against my name now to go on my credit file?

[citizenB]

I cant believe she disregarded the mandatory position of the Default Notice ! Although that alone might not have been sufficient to win the day, her summing up of it was wrong, wrong.

 

 

I am truly sorry to hear that this was not another success story.

 

 

Lowells have been taking a beating with their statutory demands for either not having the correct paperwork before issuing the Stat Demands or their illegibility.. I bet they are making plans to clone this Judge !!

 

 

Was this a small claim against you Merv ?

 

 

If you are going to struggle to pay the Judgment debt in full, you must get an application in to vary into an instalment plan as soon as possible.

 

 

I will bring this to andyorch's attention see if he has any further comments to make.

[Desperate Daniella]

If you pay it within 28 days it should be removed from the Register of Judgments and therefore if it does appear on your credit file they should remove it.

[citizenB]

So does this also mean I have a CCJ against my name now to go on my credit file?

 

 

If you are unable to pay the full judgment debt within 28 days, then yes, a CCJ will be recorded against your name/file. If you pay the amount within the 28 days, then no, you wont.

[citizenB]

snap !!

[Desperate Daniella]

As CitiB says above, it is wrong, wrong, wrong.

 

I am spitting blood on your behalf.

[Big Merv]

Thanks all.

 

I couldn't agree more about it being wrong but hey when is a judge going to say "I got it wrong" or show any humility? I get the impression that next to God they think themselves as being unquestionably right....always.

 

Even if the judge sat down and read through it all tonight and checked the legal bits correctly I am absolutely adamant that the judge would still be totally convinced they were right. But even if by some miracle the judge found humility and admitted they may have not read the statutes correctly nothing can be done now I guess. I could tell the oppo was thinking how the hell did we get away with that?