Amex/Mischcon V Me

[Martel]

Can anyone please clarify for me how a Notice of Cancellation might be legally relevant?

 

thanks!

[pt2537]

No - the issue pt is referring to is that of accusing someone of being something he is not, for which apologies should be made.

 

The debate about issues relevant to the thread - such as the DN - should stay open. They are important issues and need to be looked at and debated properly, in my opinion.

 

If someone disagrees with a post, either on a legal point or in general, then let's discuss it openly!

I would say DB hit the nail on the head

 

Legal arguments and legal opinion differ between opponents

 

so what Rho may take the view as being right does not mean i will agree, it is ultimatley for the Courts to decide who is right and who is wrong.

 

But take the Heath v Southern pacific case, decided by the Court of Appeal,

 

now we could say that the multiple agreement arguement is dead and no longer available.

 

I have a High Court decision passed to me that distinguished Heath and the judge agreed with the Claimants counsel and the bank lost.

 

Now the Banks counsel argued heavy on Heath.

 

Im just trying to say that just because someone has a different view point, lets not label them as a troll and force them off the forum. debate is what is needed

 

I disagree with some views, but no one calls me a troll do they?

[pt2537]

Can anyone please clarify for me how a Notice of Cancellation might be legally relevant?

 

thanks!

if its a credit card then its not relevent in the main unless there were antecedent negotiations on entry into credit

 

See Court of Appeal in Rankine vs. MBNA

[vjohn82]

I would say DB hit the nail on the head

 

Legal arguments and legal opinion differ between opponents

 

so what Rho may take the view as being right does not mean i will agree, it is ultimatley for the Courts to decide who is right and who is wrong.

 

But take the Heath v Southern pacific case, decided by the Court of Appeal,

 

now we could say that the multiple agreement arguement is dead and no longer available.

 

I have a High Court decision passed to me that distinguished Heath and the judge agreed with the Claimants counsel and the bank lost.

 

Now the Banks counsel argued heavy on Heath.

 

Im just trying to say that just because someone has a different view point, lets not label them as a troll and force them off the forum. debate is what is needed

 

I disagree with some views, but no one calls me a troll do they?

 

Troll

[pt2537]

trust you to pop up lmfao:D

[vjohn82]

trust you to pop up lmfao:D

 

I couldn't resist

[Gallahad]

I AM Spartacus

[patrickq1]

it is ultimatley for the Courts

i wish to have a disagreement with what you just wrote pt...

i would say for the judge to decide as you know from a lot of threads the dreaded judges lottery makes for rightfull decisions to become wrongfull decicions

..... i feel like being a troll for the rest of the day he he...

patrickq1 the troll

[patrickq1]

ps....almost forgot i have not looked back on the arguements troll or no troll...but i would trust vj an donki anyday of the week...

patrickq1

we should have a troll thread

[DonkeyB]

No... I'm Spartacus! At least, that's what was on the application form...

[banker_rhymes_with]

I'm not laughing.

 

Neither are decent and very hard working Caggers such as, say, Monty2007.

 

This has absolutely nothing to do with legal debate, and everything to do with conduct, attitude and behaviour across many Threads and Postings.

 

The finger of suspicion pointed at Rhodium78 because of the strange way their Posting style changed from being a damsel in distress, to a snarling and apparently male attack lawyer, i.e. this:

 

My head is spinning.... why is law so difficult to understand... all i want to know is how much to pay back and it seems that I need a solicitor to determine that.

 

Apologies if it looks like I am taking out my frustation on you cerberusalert but I am not, I am actually grateful for the info and for opening my eyes as to the complexity of this issue.

To this:

 

LOL.... I must be one of the trolls as you call it because I don't agree that a DN makes an agreement unenforceable. Better check your facts and law before you argue that because if that was brought up against me, apart from laughing, I would advise the Court that the LiP's mistaken belief that a faulty DN makes the agreement unenforceable has no grounding in law and has already been judged as such in Rankine. Apart from that, s 127 does not apply to DNs.

 

I will troll off now... LOOOL!

And this...

 

Ummm... Monty, your input is duly noted and discarded, especially seeing that your first post in this thread was directed to me. Anyway, I was correcting a point of fact, you seem to want to correct a point of luck. Let's stick to the law and facts as infront of us, not made by me, but made in cases and in the act.

 

A DN is a defence of some sort, but it does not make the agreement unenforceable. It just means only the arrears can be claimed. She is fighting the likes of Mishcon who are not your average DCA solicitor so tactics have to be thought out well. Not saying they are unbeatable, far from that, just saying they do have a good reputation in law circles along the likes of Lovells, and CMS. So if we concentrate on that and be ready to argue accordingly, then it would be good. To get round the fact that arrears may be claimed, how do you do it... you can't unless it is claimed they owe you something. I have posted previously on the defence of set off, have a google. Hopefully in the OPs case, it won't get that far but the tactic is to prepare for everything. Now, enjoy your evening and hope it is not a case of brave online, zero offline.

And this...

 

Well done for winning... 3 cases... wow... I am surprised at the calibre of representation that LiPs face, which seems to be below par but that is to advantage of the LiP. Anyway, I would love to argue law with you, but there isn't a point. I am not getting paid for it and you don't do your research.

I am adamant that it is possible to help people without taking the piddle out of them, or ridiculing the efforts and experiences of others trying to help them. Anyone who does so, only has themselves to blame if they are suspected of having nefarious motives for being on CAG.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[NewToTheFight]

Can this argument be moved elsewhere?

The original poster had a challenge, to the best of my limited knowledge the challenge remains.

Lets leave this thread for him/ her to recieve help on, it is their life these postings are affecting.

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello NTTF!

 

The original poster had a challenge, to the best of my limited knowledge the challenge remains.

 

The OP does indeed, and that's what we have been trying to get back to.

 

The OP does, however, understand I think, and knows many are trying to help them find a way to prepare for the coming battle.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[NewToTheFight]

Wise words BRW

Lets hope that all the people this valuable resource needs are on hand to help those with challenges.

 

Now let me see, what help can I give?

[rhodium78]

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:

 

"A DN is a defence of some sort, but it does not make the agreement unenforceable. It just means only the arrears can be claimed. She is fighting the likes of Mishcon who are not your average DCA solicitor so tactics have to be thought out well. Not saying they are unbeatable, far from that, just saying they do have a good reputation in law circles along the likes of Lovells, and CMS. So if we concentrate on that and be ready to argue accordingly, then it would be good. To get round the fact that arrears may be claimed, how do you do it... you can't unless it is claimed they owe you something. I have posted previously on the defence of set off, have a google."

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.

[MARTIN3030]

"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"

 

Absolute Rubbish-it has nothing whatsoever to do with pride or alter ego.

Neither I nor I am certain BRW are here out of pride.

I only know that as far as alter egos go-you should instead be looking at some of those posts that have been made Saturday which have upset quite a few people who have been longstanding and loyal members-whose presence on the CAG has been invaluable to many.

[rhodium78]

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.

 

I only know that as far as alter egos go-you should instead be looking at some of those posts that have been made Saturday which have upset quite a few people who have been longstanding and loyal members-whose presence on the CAG has been invaluable to many.

 

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.

[MARTIN3030]

Quote;

 

"Initial post was to find out about this forum and to see how helpful and legally minded people were."

 

Can I ask why you could not already have guaged this by the 125 pages (covering more than 3000 threads) thats already here-and thats only going back to July 2009 ?

[banker_rhymes_with]

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.

You really are miles off target. Offensively so. Indeed, deliberately so, I think, if you were being honest.

 

If, as you say, your plan was to throw your colleagues off the scent by firstly wearing a dress, and then switching to a pin-striped suit in the space of just a few Months, then it's failed completely. All it has done is park a big flashing question mark over your CAG ID to draw attention to yourself and, in so doing, it's caused many people here to wonder what your true motives were.

 

If you stopped and considered that, you may see why people here have struggled to understand the often peculiar way you seemed to present your points wrapped up in barbed comments directed at others for your own, apparent, amusement.

 

When the joke back-fired, you went straight off the deep end have been ranting ever since.

 

Plenty of other well qualified people have arrived on CAG and helped, without feeling the need to blow things up like this.

 

I think you are being overly sensitive and, perhaps, almost wanted a good bust up so that you can stomp off into the sunset.

 

You have also failed to appreciate that there are many Trolls on CAG, it's a weakness that is hard to eradicate because of the open nature of CAG.

 

So, had it not occurred to you how your abrasive and strange way of dealing with some people would come across?

 

I do apologise for anything that has upset you, because if you are not a Troll, then that is unfortunate and it was never my intention if so.

 

But, I do not apologise for trying to keep an eye out for Trolls and doing my level best to protect people from the many Trolls who are here, Trolls who often do their level best to destabilise people's morale and ruin their often limited understanding of the very issues that might just give them a fighting chance in Court.

 

I know I have helped many people scrape through and win, but I ask for nothing back, and expect nothing back. My sole aim is to see people stand up and fight back against the odds.

 

I find it really offensive that you suggest I am here for my own pride and alter ego. Really offensive, and you do yourself a major disservice suggesting that. What little respect I had for you went straight out of the window at that point.

 

Most people on CAG cannot afford legal representation, and have no option but to take charge of their limited courage and do what they can against trained Barristers and other Legal personnel.

 

Once a Claim is started against them, they have no choice. They either give in, or they try to find a way to put up a Defence and present that on the day. I'm in the same boat, but have worked hard to put back in to CAG, more than I get out, because of the help it gave me when I also needed it. I still need it, so I'll be around for a while yet.

 

If you cannot see the real issues here, then you are not looking hard enough.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[rhodium78]

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?

[MARTIN3030]

"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."

 

Likewise If you read my earlier posts I did say that I was consulting with other team members on this-which I did do.

 

I refrained from further posts until your last ones here-so its ok for you to be expressing your own opinions on my impartiality even after I passed it for thoughts from other site team people but yet assume I have no right of reply ?

 

I have said my last here too.

 

I have also referred it to management.

[banker_rhymes_with]

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?

 

This little lot didn't come across well:

 

========================

 

#50

 

LOL.... I must be one of the trolls as you call it because I don't agree that a DN makes an agreement unenforceable. Better check your facts and law before you argue that because if that was brought up against me, apart from laughing, I would advise the Court that the LiP's mistaken belief that a faulty DN makes the agreement unenforceable has no grounding in law and has already been judged as such in Rankine. Apart from that, s 127 does not apply to DNs.

 

I will troll off now... LOOOL!

 

========================

 

#54

 

People won in the context of a faulty DN because a.) the opposing counsel with all due respect were incompetent and didn't realise they can get the arrears instead; b.) discontinued because the cost implications of going to court when compared to the judgement is not worth it as they would probably never get any return.

 

Just because I don't agree with something, does it mean I work for a DCA or Bank. So what if I did, does it change the fact that a DN does not make an agreement unenforceable. No it doesn't. I appreciate your fanaticism for everything against banks and DCAs but don't label someone as something without conclusive proof.

 

Ps... if you read Rankine, there was a non-compliant DN in there apart from the de minimis one, you must have missed that and he Judged it as such and also said that it did not give rise to issues of enforceability. I just don't understand why people choose to believe what they want to believe as it suits their circumstances. Anyway, have fun.

 

Last edited by rhodium78; Yesterday at 15:38. Reason: Was a bit harsh so edited...

 

========================

 

#60

 

Ummm... Monty, your input is duly noted and discarded, especially seeing that your first post in this thread was directed to me. Anyway, I was correcting a point of fact, you seem to want to correct a point of luck. Let's stick to the law and facts as infront of us, not made by me, but made in cases and in the act.

 

A DN is a defence of some sort, but it does not make the agreement unenforceable. It just means only the arrears can be claimed. She is fighting the likes of Mishcon who are not your average DCAautolinker.com autolinking image solicitor so tactics have to be thought out well. Not saying they are unbeatable, far from that, just saying they do have a good reputation in law circles along the likes of Lovells, and CMS. So if we concentrate on that and be ready to argue accordingly, then it would be good. To get round the fact that arrears may be claimed, how do you do it... you can't unless it is claimed they owe you something. I have posted previously on the defence of set off, have a google. Hopefully in the OPs case, it won't get that far but the tactic is to prepare for everything. Now, enjoy your evening and hope it is not a case of brave online, zero offline.

 

========================

 

#62

 

Ummm... when a contract is terminated prematurely because of a defective DN, it is not terminate ab initio but de futuro. Remember that and we will be in good stead hence why the arrears can be claimed. Also, charges, whether unlawful or not were deemed to be prima facie permissible in a DN despite the fact that later statute or actions may show it to be invalid.

 

You are forgetting a number of cases since Woodchester 2001 regarding DN, but I understand, selective recall is an advantage.

 

I will outline them here so people know what is happening in the DN arena:

 

Lloydsautolinker.com autolinking image TSB Bank Plc v Davis [2010]

Rankine & anor v American Express Services Europe Ltd & ors [2009]

Rankine v American Express Services Europe Ltd and others [2008]

 

A defence of some sort for not claiming the full balance... but it doesn't help if the arrears are in thousands.

 

Well done for winning... 3 cases... wow... I am surprised at the calibre of representation that LiPs face, which seems to be below par but that is to advantage of the LiP. Anyway, I would love to argue law with you, but there isn't a point. I am not getting paid for it and you don't do your research.

 

========================

 

#65

 

Yawn... the old "you don't agree with me so you must be DCA argument" has surfaced when the argument is lost. Anyway, think what you want, it is no skin off my nose.

 

Good luck to the OP, and consider set off as well if they have charged you for defaulting your account, etc, that should make them jump and doesn't need to be counter-claim, can be put into a defence. But you need to total the charges you incurred and put that in the defence.

 

Edit: cymruambyth... it takes two to tango.

 

========================

 

#72

 

YAWN! Monty... where did my arguments get urinated on? Actually, don't answer that question... I was just being polite... you know, like asking how are you when I am not really interested and to answer your question... as regards my name... because I tried to attract your attention and it worked.... LOL! Now stop trolling and baiting...

 

========================

 

#77

 

I never denied the success... and it is down to a individuals who help each other out. That is admirable, what isn't, is the mob mentality that pervades here with accusations and defamation of character. I understand that people feel "safer" on the internet, it doesn't mean that you can insult someone hiding behind your nick because you wouldn't do so in real life.

 

So without getting dragged in further into this nonsense, I will see if my efforts can be better placed elsewhere.

 

Ps. Yawning because of lack of intellectual stimulation...

 

========================

 

#82

 

And you did that admirably... wow... how you are going to do that...?? I love the accusation of a troll. So my hero, how will you get rid of a troll on this thread! Please tell us... By the way, thanks for telling me your background, I am honoured that you feel the need to qualify yourself to me, I don't feel so obliged as you hide behind the facade of a nick to make yourself feel more grandiose.

 

========================

 

#83

 

I have flagged this thread for site attention as the accusations could be misconstrued as defamation of character so don't hide behind a forum when slinging insults.

 

========================

 

#89

 

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.

 

========================

 

#92

 

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?

 

========================

 

#94

 

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.

 

========================

 

#98

 

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.

 

========================

 

Cheers,

BRW

[rhodium78]

You really are miles off target. Offensively so. Indeed, deliberately so, I think, if you were being honest.

 

If, as you say, your plan was to throw your colleagues off the scent by firstly wearing a dress, and then switching to a pin-striped suit in the space of just a few Months, then it's failed completely. All it has done is park a big flashing question mark over your CAG ID to draw attention to yourself and, in so doing, it's caused many people here to wonder what your true motives were.

 

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?

 

If you stopped and considered that, you may see why people here have struggled to understand the often peculiar way you seemed to present your points wrapped up in barbed comments directed at others for your own, apparent, amusement.

 

When the joke back-fired, you went straight off the deep end have been ranting ever since.

 

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.

 

Plenty of other well qualified people have arrived on CAG and helped, without feeling the need to blow things up like this.

 

I think you are being overly sensitive and, perhaps, almost wanted a good bust up so that you can stomp off into the sunset.

 

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.

 

You have also failed to appreciate that there are many Trolls on CAG, it's a weakness that is hard to eradicate because of the open nature of CAG.

 

So, had it not occurred to you how your abrasive and strange way of dealing with some people would come across?

 

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.

 

I do apologise for anything that has upset you, because if you are not a Troll, then that is unfortunate and it was never my intention if so.

 

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.

[rhodium78]

This little lot didn't come across well:

 

 

 

Cheers,

BRW

 

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...

[rhodium78]

I refrained from further posts until your last ones here-so its ok for you to be expressing your own opinions on my impartiality even after I passed it for thoughts from other site team people but yet assume I have no right of reply ?

 

I have said my last here too.

 

I have also referred it to management.

 

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".

Edited July 4, 2010 by rhodium78