Settled.... O2 have set the dogs on me... Shock!!!

[bluebottle]

Re: O2 have set the dogs on me... Shock!!!

Thanks.

I accept that it's probably incompetence. However he has sent a legal document which is factually incorrect. I believe that he has attempted to mislead a member of the public, and therefore has brought the bar council into disrepute.

Was any of what was contained within the document used in any court proceedings? If so, that needs to be brought to the attention of the court as well as the BSB.

[bigbigproblems]

Re: O2 have set the dogs on me... Shock!!!

Was any of what was contained within the document used in any court proceedings? If so, that needs to be brought to the attention of the court as well as the BSB.

At the moment it has just been sent to me recorded delivery... It's the first I have heard from them! (pdf copy on first page).

However I can only assume that it's their defence which is to be presented. I will know when I get a letter from the court. So I can raise it infront of the court.

There are other LIES. I've spoken to my bank - they do not release details to third parties about me or my account without a court order. However Gareth claims the banks have told them nothing funny has happened with my accounts (funny again as I don't think 02 have even got my bank details).

They are not playing this one straight - they seem to be making stuff up to fill out their defence.

[Guest]

Re: O2 have set the dogs on me... Shock!!!

I know what you are saying - however we all know that Gareth Shires is trying to imply there is a law that means that they must record defaults. There is not. He has written a letter full of legal mumbo jumbo to try and scare me off. I don't think it's acceptable to falsely represent the law to do that.

There is no legal obligation to record defaults with CRA's. The only law applies if the defaults are wrong, as in my case. His assertion that there is a law is a misrepresentation.

Its a moot point really, recording no data would be an inaccurate record of the debtors history, I doubt very much that the SRA would sanction such a minimal linguistic over-site.

I would worry more about showing some losses, as the defense statement also mentions.

[bigbigproblems]

Re: O2 have set the dogs on me... Shock!!!

Its a moot point really, recording no data would be an inaccurate record of the debtors history, I doubt very much that the SRA would sanction such a minimal linguistic over-site.

I would worry more about showing some losses, as the defense statement also mentions.

Maybe not - but reporting it will leave a mark on this barrister incase he does it again. And I can prove he has lied throughout that letter. They might be more interested in someone making up lots of stuff.

Parking Eye - did not prove loss. Durkin did not prove loss. I can show that my credit file was damaged. I can show I was refused credit. I can't really prove any more loss than that.

[Guest]

Re: O2 have set the dogs on me... Shock!!!

Maybe not - but reporting it will leave a mark on this barrister incase he does it again. And I can prove he has lied throughout that letter. They might be more interested in someone making up lots of stuff.

Parking Eye - did not prove loss. Durkin did not prove loss. I can show that my credit file was damaged. I can show I was refused credit. I can't really prove any more loss than that.

Proving that you were refused credit may be enough, providing that the incorrect default was the cause.

[bigbigproblems]

Re: O2 have set the dogs on me... Shock!!!

Proving that you were refused credit may be enough.

Easy - refused with defaults. Now have the credit. Only variable thats changed is the defaults have gone.

I'm still not happy with a barrister writing a letter full of lies and mistruths.

[bluebottle]

Re: O2 have set the dogs on me... Shock!!!

One way of putting the bank and Gareth on the spot is to challenge them to provide a sworn affidavit each. Banks tend to get nervous when asked for statements which requires them to be truthful. You might find Gareth will do an impersonation of a bull elephant in full bellow. If he refuses, this can be a sign that you've hit a raw nerve.

[Guest]

Re: O2 have set the dogs on me... Shock!!!

One way of putting the bank and Gareth on the spot is to challenge them to provide a sworn affidavit each. Banks tend to get nervous when asked for statements which requires them to be truthful. You might find Gareth will do an impersonation of a bull elephant in full bellow. If he refuses, this can be a sign that you've hit a raw nerve.

Alternatively there is trial by combat, or the ducking stool.

[bigbigproblems]

Re: O2 have set the dogs on me... Shock!!!

One way of putting the bank and Gareth on the spot is to challenge them to provide a sworn affidavit each. Banks tend to get nervous when asked for statements which requires them to be truthful. You might find Gareth will do an impersonation of a bull elephant in full bellow. If he refuses, this can be a sign that you've hit a raw nerve.

I can ask for this. But I am guessing they will just refuse. Also it's not a bank! It's a phone company.

[bluebottle]

Re: O2 have set the dogs on me... Shock!!!

I can ask for this. But I am guessing they will just refuse. Also it's not a bank! It's a phone company.

In my experience, large companies will huff and puff about affidavits, but when put in a position to swear one, they are not so keen. Refusal would, to me, tend to indicate what they had said before was not 100% truthful. Any reasonable person or allegedly-reputable organisation being truthful will have no problem with swearing an affidavit.

[bluebottle]

Re: O2 have set the dogs on me... Shock!!!

Alternatively there is trial by combat, or the ducking stool.

Do you think the ducking stool would be a quicker way of sorting out the OP's case, Andy?

[bigbigproblems]

Re: O2 have set the dogs on me... Shock!!!

Alternatively there is trial by combat, or the ducking stool.

I'd be so much more comfortable with trial by combat! Much more up my street haha.

[Rico]

Re: O2 have set the dogs on me... Shock!!!

"HFC did not contest the award of £8,000 for damage to credit if breach of duty were established.
However, the Supreme Court rejects Mr Durkin’s attempt to restore the sheriff’s award of damages for
the extra interest he paid and for the loss of the capital gain on the Spanish property. Appeals like the
present may only be made on matters of law, meaning the Supreme Court cannot go behind the First
Division’s findings of fact on these alleged heads of loss"

This was the specific damages that were rejected because the Supreme Court refused to reverse, or even comment on, the Edinburgh judges lawlessness. Itself a matter of law!

[Rico]

Re: O2 have set the dogs on me... Shock!!!

There is no way that any court will issue a damage award simply because there is an incorrectly paced default marker

Replace "incorrectly placed" with "unlawfully placed" (My case and the OPs). The Supreme Court has just done exactly that!

Rico.

[Rico]

Re: O2 have set the dogs on me... Shock!!!

trial by combat!

Aye. Sadly it seems that this'll be what it comes down to in the long run, unless the monarchy intervenes pronto.

Someone will take offence and take out a banker. They'll then retaliate with mercenaries. Out come the vigilantes. Welcome to the UK of hell!

Some bloody snowball!