Delfi101 et al vs Weightmans/Phoenix /HFC - ***WON***

[Delfi101]

With the help of our own PT and a barrister that he capably briefed we have just handed the above their arses on a plate.

 

Firstly, the Circuit Judge ruled that the statements that they had provided demonstrably had a different interest rate to those in the alleged T&C's and that demonstrated that the T&C's were not related to the 'agreement' Game over.

 

He also ruled that the DN they claimed to have provided me with made no sense and was probably never sent (as I had claimed).

 

He also ruled that their various submissions were untrustworthy and shoddily put together.

 

Leave to appeal: denied.

 

Substantial costs were awarded against them.

 

It has taken the best part of 3 years to get to this stage and was for a substantial alleged debt (fast track sum).

 

Thanks again Paul - that was quite a result.

 

D

[dx100uk]

p'haps it might be worthy to put a link to the thread in question too.

 

that will help others & me esp with HFC!!

 

dx

[humbleman]

Delfi

 

WOW what a game

 

you should know just how very pleased I am with this result.

 

I am so so pleased for you.

[Delfi101]

You know what this is like mate and I've got everything crossed for you.

 

I actually thought of you when we won and I hope this goes some way to giving you some confidence back.

[humbleman]

was their line of lies along the same as in my case, haven't got the assignment and lets call it equitable.....

[Delfi101]

Actually no - with regard to the NoA to Phoenix it was vaguely referred to in a WS by a witness that didn't turn up (sound familiar). It was apparently 'on their computer'.

 

What a load of BS!

 

I denied having received it (well, I hadn't!) and the judge ultimately sided with my view and was as close as he could be to saying that the other side had lied without actually saying it.

 

It's worth noting that the judge trusted my word principally because of my record keeping and responses to other letters that they had sent (submitted as part of the trial bundle). The clear evidence was that I wasn't ignoring what they were sending at all and, 'on the balance of probablities', that they were full of sh1t.

[humbleman]

Actually no - with regard to the NoA to Phoenix it was vaguely referred to in a WS by a witness that didn't turn up (sound familiar). It was apparently 'on their computer'.

 

 

ditto

[supasnooper]

Congratulations and well done.

[patrickq1]

well done lets hope HB you feel a moment of satisfaction and take heart that you can go at your case with more energy than before ,you could do with the summary and witness statement from delfi101 ,that is if its allowed ,would show the judge just where she put her gob and size tens in it was the wrong attitude perhaps she might even lick your ass lol

well done delf

[Delfi101]

I am more than happy to help HB (and others) in whatever manner I can.

 

The caveat is that no case will ever be the same as any other and formulaic defences etc are being wised up to by our opponents.

 

We need to react and get sharper and smarter.

[cab1ne]

"well done delfi":D:D:D

 

i am nearly upto 4 years, court action and sol's have just been mentioned for the first time. could you drop a link in for your main thread please. i am a good reader and the simularities sound pretty close.

 

cab

[Delfi101]

Unfortunately I haven't documented this fight as well as I might have due to other major battles with Sharklays and their minions.

 

If you do a forum search for my nickname you'll find a minimal amount about this - the reason is simple - I've had to keep quiet because of the arguments that were put forward and having it professionally handled. We all know that our 'friends' read these forums.

 

There is a lot of stuff about my fights with Optima & 1st Credit etc though.

 

If anyone has any specific questions then I'll happily answer them here.

 

This is a victory for ALL of us. Enjoy folks!

 

D

[cab1ne]

thanks delfi.

 

any idea what track £18,000 would be and what the costs could be awarded if i win (or when)LOL:p

 

cab

[justify]

Unfortunately I haven't documented this fight as well as I might have due to other major battles with Sharklays and their minions.

 

If you do a forum search for my nickname you'll find a minimal amount about this - the reason is simple - I've had to keep quiet because of the arguments that were put forward and having it professionally handled. We all know that our 'friends' read these forums.

 

There is a lot of stuff about my fights with Optima & 1st Credit etc though.

 

If anyone has any specific questions then I'll happily answer them here.

 

This is a victory for ALL of us. Enjoy folks!

 

D

 

Fantastic news Delphi! Well done to you and more power to HBs elbow!

 

J :lol:8)

[humbleman]

thanks delfi.

 

any idea what track £18,000 would be and what the costs could be awarded if i win (or when)LOL:p

 

cab

 

similar to mine and was multi

[humbleman]

 

Firstly, the Circuit Judge ruled that the statements that they had provided demonstrably had a different interest rate to those in the alleged T&C's and that demonstrated that the T&C's were not related to the 'agreement' Game over.

 

In which case my appeal should take no more than 10 minutes.

 

The APR quoted in the welcome letter is different to the t&c's, secondly the minimum monthly payment as stated in the mailer is 2% and that is what's in the monthly statements as opposed to 3% in the t&c's they came up with.

[pt2537]

Well, it was a good result, however, it reinforced my main points that you need to ensure your defence is properly put together,

 

These "embarrassed defences " are no longer going to hold water, they need to have more weight.

 

The defence we put forward was extremely detailed and argued t he key strengths of the case, that being that the rate of interest was incorrect, and that such a defect was a fatal breach of 61(1)(A)

 

we pleaded that the rate being 1.5% out lead to fatal non-enforceable,

 

so its not just a case of saying the prescribed terms arent there, if they are, the court is likely to find they are there, however, if they are incorrect, cos the statement shows a different rate, then as a matter of fact the judge has to find this is the case.

 

Im sure Delfi will set out more of the arguments used to help others, but i can say that the judge found in our favour on every point we put forward, and he clearly had the moral arguments in his head, he referred to moral points a few times. This judge was a senior circuit judge who gave judgment for us in the same court room that Rankine lost his case,

 

now what does that tell you?

 

So it shows you can win if you do it right

[pt2537]

In which case my appeal should take no more than 10 minutes.

 

The APR quoted in the welcome letter is different to the t&c's, secondly the minimum monthly payment as stated in the mailer is 2% and that is what's in the monthly statements as opposed to 3% in the t&c's they came up with.

lets clarify something

 

The breach here was as follows

 

the rate on the agreement at the date of signing was, say 5%

 

the rate on the fist statement some 20 days after signing the agreement had the rate of 7% and an APR some 1.5% higher

 

that is why the judge found for us

[Delfi101]

Well, it was a good result, however, it reinforced my main points that you need to ensure your defence is properly put together,

 

These "embarrassed defences " are no longer going to hold water, they need to have more weight.

 

 

now what does that tell you?

 

So it shows you can win if you do it right

 

Can I just echo this - the formulaic approach to embarrassed defences is no longer (was it ever?) a valid approach. This has become an area that judges know about and your arguments need to be a bit better constructed than that folks.

 

In this case the numbers didn't add up and, regardless of any moral argument, there was only one logical conclusion.

 

PT is right though - the judge referred to the unenforcibile 'debt' as a 'windfall' for me. To his credit he relied on the usual HoL rulings in this respect and didn't really linger on the point.

 

Anybody that's been in this position, over such a period of time, will know that even a result like this doesn't pay for the sustained grief that these parasites and their 'friends' apply.

 

D

[sequenci]

Brilliant result, congrats to all involved

[cashins]

It's worth noting that the judge trusted my word principally because of my record keeping and responses to other letters that they had sent (submitted as part of the trial bundle). The clear evidence was that I wasn't ignoring what they were sending at all and, 'on the balance of probablities', that they were full of sh1t.

 

Excellent result, I'm still laughing at the comment in red!!!

 

David

[Delfi101]

Excellent result, I'm still laughing at the comment in red!!!

 

David

 

Oh I promise that their brief was struggling in under an hour.

 

She invented all kinds of excuses for her clients which the 'man at the front' just saw through. He was 'on the case' from the first few seconds - what we had was something that they didn't - provable evidence in a logical legal framework. That's what won the day.

 

To her credit she had a job to do and tried her best and I certainly bear her no ill will (leading question attempts when I was on the stand or not). Now Penix will pay her fees - so she doesn't lose really.

 

At one point she had to invent an argument 'on the fly' and had to ask for time (whilst all watched) to formulate a very weak approach. It was a most unconvincing performance and she was offered indirect sympathy by both the judge and my 'brief' for the poor state of the case that she was presenting.

 

Hopefully this will go some way to deterring legals like this from taking on cases as poor as this.

 

PT calls this 'deep pocket litigation'. That's about as succinct as it gets - it's nasty and cynical BUT if you're sure of the facts and you feel that you stand a chance of winning then you have to make basic choices.

 

It's all about risk management & escalation and, if you're considering this, you have to assess what happens if you lose.

 

Up until this afternoon I was thinking about how I might deal with a Charging Order on my home via an appeal. That may have been a consequence.

Edited January 25, 2010 by Delfi101

[mooiismum]

Congratulations and well Done Delfi

 

MM

[pt2537]

Pickthall v Hill Dickinson Llp & Anor [2009] EWCA Civ 543 (11 June 2009)

 

this is a case our counsel refered to yesterday

 

may be useful to assist others

[pt2537]

Oh I promise that their brief was struggling in under an hour.

 

an hour?

 

Thats being generous,

 

the fact that simon only called you to confirm your name and that it was your witness statement spoke volumes imho, there was nothing more to say,

 

I say she was in trouble within 5 mins of opening, remember the judge directed her to make her case clearer because her opening statement was not satisfactory for the judge, that showed she didnt have much of an argument to put forward