SUmmons for Attendance of Debtor

snooper

Hi All

Could someone tell me what to expect - I have got a summons to attendance of debtor on a debt I freely acknowledge as is owing (just cant afford at moment to pay).

WHat's the format of this proceeding? It says 10.30 but would I be right in saying this could happen at any point that day I just need to be there by 10.30?

It's district court for c€10K - is it advisable to bring a solicitor - even though I am not arguing the case per se and can't really afford on (getting me further in debt)

Very nervous about it....

Our man in Havana

Go back and read the summons properly for a start. Complete the attached forms and return them a week before the court date.

On the day of the court the civil stuff will be up first so 10.30 is accurate for a start. When your name is called, acknowledge the court and move forward to where you can be heard by the judge. The solicitor for the other side may or may not want to question you as to the contents of the information supplied on the statement of means forms. The solicitor will ask the judge to make an order for x € to be paid each week/month. You will be asked if you can afford it and the judge will then make a decision on what you can afford to pay if anything.

If you fail to attend they will make an order for some mad amount of money in your absence.

snooper

thanks Haddockman

so there is no being sworn in and "giving evidence" type thing per se? Sorry never been in a court for any reason before, thank god....

SHould I get a solicitor?

Our man in Havana

If the solicitor or judge wants to question you as to your responses on the forms, you will be sworn in as a witness to give evidence.

Getting a solicitor is a personal choice, i.e. it is up to you. Most people don't bother or simply don't turn up.

Jo King

I would be very careful here. If it is in the District Court and is a summons for a liquidated sum, costs will go up if the forms are completed. If the forms are not completed e judgement will be entered in the office.
Given that the sum is c10k I suspect that this might be a summons for an instalment order, where judgement was already obtained in the Circuit Court. In that case an affidavit of means has to be supplied and the debtor will be questioned by the judge regarding the ability to pay instalments.

Our man in Havana

Why do they not call it an installment order summons?

snooper

Thanks guys it is a "Summons for Attendance of Debtor"

Mentions that if you don't turn up an installment order may be made in your absence etc....

Our man in Havana

That's the one. You better get filling in those forms.

Best of luck with it.

fmcdaid

Im in college studing law and I just covering N.F.O.A.P.A 1997 and under section 11 which is entitled 'Demand for payment of Dedt' and I was just wondering can this be applied to the banks demanding money of people and 'threating' them with legal action and throwing them out of their house....ect...

this is the a copy of the act:

11.—(1) A person who makes any demand for payment of a debt shall be guilty of an offence if—
(a) the demands by reason of their frequency are calculated to subject the debtor or a member of the family of the debtor to alarm, distress or humiliation, or
(b) the person falsely represents that criminal proceedings lie for non-payment of the debt, or
(c) the person falsely represents that he or she is authorised in some official capacity to enforce payment, or
(d) the person utters a document falsely represented to have an official character.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,500.
12.—(1) A person shall be guilty of an offence if, knowing that the other does not consent to what is being done, he or she intentionally or recklessly administers to or causes to be taken by another a substance which he or she knows to be capable of interfering substantially with the other's bodily functions.
(2) For the purpose of this section a substance capable of inducing unconsciousness or sleep is capable of interfering substantially with bodily functions.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—
(a) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both, or
(b) on conviction on indictment to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to both.


so what does anyone think...can the banks actually do this to them??

Regards,
F

krd

fmcdaid wrote: »

Im in college studing law and I just covering N.F.O.A.P.A 1997 and under section 11 which is entitled 'Demand for payment of Dedt' and I was just wondering can this be applied to the banks demanding money of people and 'threating' them with legal action and throwing them out of their house....ect...

this is the a copy of the act:

11.—(1) A person who makes any demand for payment of a debt shall be guilty of an offence if—
(a) the demands by reason of their frequency are calculated to subject the debtor or a member of the family of the debtor to alarm, distress or humiliation, or
(b) the person falsely represents that criminal proceedings lie for non-payment of the debt, or
(c) the person falsely represents that he or she is authorised in some official capacity to enforce payment, or
(d) the person utters a document falsely represented to have an official character.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,500.
12.—(1) A person shall be guilty of an offence if, knowing that the other does not consent to what is being done, he or she intentionally or recklessly administers to or causes to be taken by another a substance which he or she knows to be capable of interfering substantially with the other's bodily functions.
(2) For the purpose of this section a substance capable of inducing unconsciousness or sleep is capable of interfering substantially with bodily functions.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—
(a) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both, or
(b) on conviction on indictment to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to both.


so what does anyone think...can the banks actually do this to them??

Regards,
F

The bank can get a court order to repossess a house where the mortgage is delinquent.

section 11 would appear to cover money lenders. And unsecured loan is an unsecured loan. If you can't or don't pay it back you're simply denied credit in the future.

Tom Young

The NFOAPA Act 1997 is a Criminal Justice piece of legislation. The general gist of this thread is Civil Law. Eventually it will become clear that a Civil Law demand is not the same or comparable to the meaning and intention of the NFOAPA 1997. That really deals with:

(a) the demands by reason of their frequency are calculated to subject the debtor or a member of the family of the debtor to alarm, distress or humiliation, or

(b) the person falsely represents that criminal proceedings lie for non-payment of the debt, or

(c) the person falsely represents that he or she is authorised in some official capacity to enforce payment, or

(d) the person utters a document falsely represented to have an official character.

The demand in the context of Civil law is acceptable as a proof that the Judgment creditor is due [and demands in acceptable manner] payment of a debt which stands due and owing by the judgment debtor to the Judgment creditor.

Ab roller plus

Getting back to the civil issue of debt collection...Can a a UK firm pursue recovery of an Irish debt in the UK court?

In my case a UK fitness group which has a number of gyms in ireland (with links to California ) have instructed UK solicitors to pursue membership fees due to the Irish gym. The amount due in €100 according to a demand letter from the Gym but the UK solicitor is now seeking £225 plus costs and will proceed in the UK county Coury if payment is not made in 8 days.

Can they institute the proceedings in the UK?

As far as I was aware a contractual debt should be pursued where the contract was entered into or where the debtor resides?

I know you can enforce a debt on EU wide basis.

Can someone point me to the correct legislation/EU directive on this? Jurisdiction and enforcement of court orders act or something?

Tom Young

Most of your queries turn on what your contract said ...

Regulation 805/2004 creates a European enforcement order for uncontested claims. Thanks to the introduction of minimum standards, the instrument allows the free movement of judgments, out-of-court settlements or authentic instruments concerning uncontested claims in all the Member States. It is no longer necessary to use an intermediate procedure in the Member State of enforcement prior to recognition and enforcement.

Enforcement
The law of the Member State of enforcement governs enforcement procedures. The creditor must supply the authorities responsible for enforcement in the enforcing Member State with:
a copy of the judgment;
a copy of the European enforcement order certificate;
where necessary, a transcription of the European enforcement order certificate or a translation thereof into the official language of the Member State of enforcement or into another language accepted by the Member State of enforcement.

No security, bond or deposit can be required of creditors on the ground either that they are foreign nationals or are not domiciled or resident in the Member State of enforcement.

The competent court in the enforcing Member State may, subject to certain conditions, refuse to enforce a judgment if it is irreconcilable with an earlier judgment given in any Member State or in a third country. In certain cases, it can also stay or limit enforcement.

Directive/Regulation
Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims [see amending acts].

Ab roller plus

Back to the contract so!

That for the info.

I'll have a look at the contract.

I think I'll send 100 euro to gym and they cam swing for the other made up figures!

krd

Ab roller plus wrote: »

In my case a UK fitness group which has a number of gyms in ireland (with links to California ) have instructed UK solicitors to pursue membership fees due to the Irish gym. The amount due in €100 according to a demand letter from the Gym but the UK solicitor is now seeking £225 plus costs and will proceed in the UK county Coury if payment is not made in 8 days.

Their claim is completely bogus. And they're not going to pursue you.

A company I worked for, would deliberately not cancel the billing on cancelled accounts. They'd use the bogus billing to claim a loss for tax purposes.

Did you know gyms make most of their money from the 75% of members who never turn up.

Anyway. A sleazy PaddyWhack Irish business I've worked for would continue to bill - or direct debt cancelled accounts long after the customers had cancelled. Unpaid "debts" would be used against tax - and people who would have realised their bank accounts were being leached would call up and get the run around they'd never cancelled their accounts in the first place. And even if there'd been a "mistake" they'd be fought tooth and nail before they'd get their money back - most instances they would not get their money back. They'd get stonewalled until they'd give up.

Welcome to Ireland. This is the way we do "business" here. You can't prove nothin' .

Ab roller plus

Interesting claims your making which I've no doubt are true in some instances.

I cancelled my direct debit and I only had two months left on the contract.

I mainly curious about the fact that they issued proceeding inNottingham.

How is this allowed? Through contract or eu legislation?

If it comes about through contract I would question the fairness of the term?

Jo King

Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 22 December 2000.
You should be sued where you are domiciled i.e. in Ireland. You probably got a standard form notice from the English solicitors.

Tom Young

Jo King wrote: »

Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 22 December 2000.
You should be sued where you are domiciled i.e. in Ireland. You probably got a standard form notice from the English solicitors.

This is true but the EEO can also work in conjunction with this depending on assignment of debt and indeed contract terms. (I don't disagree)