- Joined
- Jan 30, 2016
- Messages
- 197
- Likes received
- 129
- Thanks received
- 50
I don't think our positions are mutually exclusive. Both can be correct.I disagree. Whilst I cannot say what any given judge is likely to do - a judgement will be made on fact, not process. The question will be "Does the defendant owe this money" the answer is either Yes, or No. What has happened before the fact has no bearing on the answer to that question.
The claimant will be put to strict proof to provide the court with evidence that I owe them the money. If they are able to do that, then fair game and we're all stuffed - but ultimately, it will be their job to try and do that - that will give you the answer to the above.
This will be their case - they can do the work. I still see no benefit of engaging at all with them.
I never suggested that disputing the demands would, in itself, determine the outcome of a court claim. Ultimately, as you say, the judge will decide the matter based on the evidence and whether the claimant can establish that the debt is owed.
My point was simply that, if the matter does end up in court, having a documented history of disputing the debt, requesting evidence of liability and making reasonable attempts to resolve the matter puts you in a stronger procedural position than having ignored everything.
I'm not saying it will win the case for you, just that the way both sides have handled things along the way can and does still matter in these situations.
Last edited:
21:09