Donate SIGN UP

Surely You'd Just Pay It Then Argue Later.......

Avatar Image
ToraToraTora | 09:08 Wed 15th Feb 2023 | News
20 Answers
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-63766824
...incredible that it got to this stage.
Gravatar

Answers

1 to 20 of 20rss feed

Avatar Image
The problem here is simple human nature. People's perception of truth and fair play will always eclipse simple logic. That means the lady's belief in the rightness and honesty of her cause prevented her from taking the more practical, and less expensive route of paying, which in her view was wrong, and fighting retrospectively. As the issue progresses, the...
10:19 Wed 15th Feb 2023
She insists that she did pay it
The original amount disputed is not trivial so I am surprised that the payment was not made with a cheque or bank transfer, thus providing proof of payment.
"she claimed she had already paid an initial sum to the property factor, Hacking and Paterson, and the £230 balance had nothing to do with her."
So she disputed and didnt pay the £230.

Surely her solicitors should of advised her not to let it esculate
She paid £1800 and disputed that she owed them £230 "Despite the ruling, she continues to insist she had paid the original debt." She should have conceded defeat and paid up after the first court hearing.
Question Author
"She insists that she did pay it " - well clearly not all they thought she owed, just pay it then sue them back if there really is something there to sue back for, better than losing everything by shoving head in the sand.
Question Author
barry: "She should have conceded defeat and paid up after the first court hearing" - no she did not have to concede defeat, pay up "without prejudice" then argue the case and seek to retrieve the money later. I've done it before with parking fines for example.
The problem here is simple human nature.

People's perception of truth and fair play will always eclipse simple logic.

That means the lady's belief in the rightness and honesty of her cause prevented her from taking the more practical, and less expensive route of paying, which in her view was wrong, and fighting retrospectively.

As the issue progresses, the sense of 'rightness' increases, in proportion to the rising costs, and heels are ever more firmly dug in.

And that's how the final situation occurs - a continuing belief in being 'right', and a heavy price paid for it.
//Surely her solicitors should of advised her not to let it esculate//

Haha, just the opposite those parasites would advise.
I wander if she paid her legal bills. If I was her solicitor I'd want payment upfront
"Despite the ruling, she continues to insist she had paid the original debt."

as soon as you hear "no you havent" - it is time to pay.

I had a small claim ( which I won) against someone who averred 1) she had paid. 2) she didnt have the debt to start with. 3) it was in the cupboard in the bedroom

Judge spent 45 min ( 15min on each) 'sorting' it out. £600. She was the one who went bankrupt in the sum of £19 000. Not all me
Question Author
PP gawd PP said something sensible! I need a lie down!
-- answer removed --
er thanks
PP, everything we talk about you’ve done it or know someone involved. That’s an amazing life you’ve lived.
A little bit of envy creeping in there
Like PP, I've used the "without prejudice" phrase when making a payment, then successfully got it back via a claim. It's a much safer route to take against the rogues and bullies.

I sometimes think "no win no fee" should be compulsory for lawyers and solicitors, that would stop them milking the innocent.
Peter's lived a full life- law school, medical student, Maff student. Knows his history and Latin. It'd be good to meet up with him one evening for a few pints and stories
Don’t forget the archeology and various other things. He even sat on the jury at Myra Hindley’s trial before he was old enough. Fascinating. ;o)
///1) she had paid. 2) she didnt have the debt to start with. 3) it was in the cupboard in the bedroom ///

that sounds like the lawyer's child - "In the first place, there is no window; in the second place, it isn't broken; in the third place, I didn't do it; in the fourth place, it was an accident."

1 to 20 of 20rss feed

Do you know the answer?

Surely You'd Just Pay It Then Argue Later.......

Answer Question >>