I may have won

[Johnboy007]

Re: I may have won

Well according to some Youtube videos I've seen.
There have been cases where a judge has ruled in favour of the debtor, and made the EA pay fees/compensation.
After all, the law supposed to be equal :tinysmile_twink_t2:.
If EAs can charge for a letter, then it must also apply to letters, sent to them by us poor sods.

[FlamingParrot]

Re: I may have won

I was thinking more of DCAs rather than EAs and those charges *certain sites* say you should apply such as for using your copyrighted name, etc. :noidea:

[wales01man]

Re: I may have won

I think all of us on here especially those who have their CCJ claims thrown out for lack of any proof of claim would love to get a large payout from these DCAs and the Solicitors that they use,
We can only hope

[Amethyst]

Re: I may have won

That's just me Boss lady.
I do things like this, cos it gets right up their noses.
I keep pestering them for my payment or ask why they haven't replied to this letter, or that email.
Good fun.......

maybe, but not a grand idea when your facing a CCJ and subsequent consequences. Reasonable wasted costs yes, reasonable costs yes, but not random invoices. GOODF works on the premise of annoying hell out of the DCA's that they'll ditch the debt elsewhere rather than get into arguments about it much like the stop paying UE method and just hope you get past 6 years....., sometimes they burger off but usually come back. We don't tend to see people until they have the court claim through the door so it's usually a case of damage limitation and switching to the correct legal arguments and trying to ensure the best outcome for the defendant, whatever that may be in their own circumstances.

Any way that's me, we don't have the full background on the case or know the OP's circs.

Do you own your own home ? Yes
Do you need to avoid a CCJ ? Yes

from other thread:
Partly both I have no the alleged application form is it self a document in its own right as it is marked 1 of 2 and the back 2 of 2 the other is init self its own document, 1 of 7 which contains the information name address and terms and conditions interest rate but no signatures or the date when the agreement started
none of it conforms to the consumer credit act 1974 section 78,79 or 61 and section of 127 sub section 3. Which still applies as it is a pre 2006 agreement?
The application form with the signatures does not hold all the T&Cs so it is an offer to treat ect. I will post the Two document later. But they clearly don’t match the relied on the application form and never sent agreement out for signing at a later date

We know its a MBNA credit card claim for approx £4k, they have not sent the assignment, and have sent the usual MBNA cca third of a page signature bit and reverse with terms 1-7 on and none of the additional terms that make up the agreement. Sounds like they have also sent a recon of that page for legibility but not the full terms of the agreement. The defence was originally due around 22nd December and we don't know what was entered. The court has ordered the 'certified assignment' and a 'certified copy of the agreement' - we haven't seen the order. The claimants have offered to discontinue with no costs by way of a consent order (which we haven't seen). So the position is good at the moment and a negotiation for reasonable wasted costs may still result in withdrawal. Continuing through court may get the case struck out on s.78(6) or won on the s.61 argument (although signing doesn't appear to have been denied in the defence) and then costs may be awarded to the defendant, but it won't be £4k of invoices for using your copyright and £150 for a letter.

Bit concious that arguing against the method might push someone into taking it into the court to prove a point and I really don;t want to do that so until there is more information my ''advice'' would be to have a negotiate of reasonable wasted costs and get the consent order cracked.

[Amethyst]

Re: I may have won

What's an EA ?

[Johnboy007]

Re: I may have won

maybe, but not a grand idea when your facing a CCJ and subsequent consequences. Reasonable wasted costs yes, reasonable costs yes, but not random invoices. GOODF works on the premise of annoying hell out of the DCA's that they'll ditch the debt elsewhere rather than get into arguments about it much like the stop paying UE method and just hope you get past 6 years....., sometimes they burger off but usually come back. We don't tend to see people until they have the court claim through the door so it's usually a case of damage limitation and switching to the correct legal arguments and trying to ensure the best outcome for the defendant, whatever that may be in their own circumstances.

Any way that's me, we don't have the full background on the case or know the OP's circs.

Do you own your own home ? Yes
Do you need to avoid a CCJ ? Yes

from other thread:
Partly both I have no the alleged application form is it self a document in its own right as it is marked 1 of 2 and the back 2 of 2 the other is init self its own document, 1 of 7 which contains the information name address and terms and conditions interest rate but no signatures or the date when the agreement started
none of it conforms to the consumer credit act 1974 section 78,79 or 61 and section of 127 sub section 3. Which still applies as it is a pre 2006 agreement?
The application form with the signatures does not hold all the T&Cs so it is an offer to treat ect. I will post the Two document later. But they clearly don’t match the relied on the application form and never sent agreement out for signing at a later date

We know its a MBNA credit card claim for approx £4k, they have not sent the assignment, and have sent the usual MBNA cca third of a page signature bit and reverse with terms 1-7 on and none of the additional terms that make up the agreement. Sounds like they have also sent a recon of that page for legibility but not the full terms of the agreement. The defence was originally due around 22nd December and we don't know what was entered. The court has ordered the 'certified assignment' and a 'certified copy of the agreement' - we haven't seen the order. The claimants have offered to discontinue with no costs by way of a consent order (which we haven't seen). So the position is good at the moment and a negotiation for reasonable wasted costs may still result in withdrawal. Continuing through court may get the case struck out on s.78(6) or won on the s.61 argument (although signing doesn't appear to have been denied in the defence) and then costs may be awarded to the defendant, but it won't be £4k of invoices for using your copyright and £150 for a letter.

Bit concious that arguing against the method might push someone into taking it into the court to prove a point and I really don;t want to do that so until there is more information my ''advice'' would be to have a negotiate of reasonable wasted costs and get the consent order cracked.

Boss lady,
When you're on your own and have to rely on the internet for assistance.
Then I submit, that you will have no idea if the thing you're doing is a good idea
Not till I came on LB, did I have the fortune of being put in my place, so to speak.
An EA is an Enforcement Agent, a bailiff, a -bag, a teeving git.........