Question on data rights and loans

[Hiddentruth]

All lawyers out there, can you help?

Where a loan might be wanted to be taken out by one party for their divorce fees and that loan is going to be secured on jointly owned assets can you help explain with respect to the other joint owner or indeed owners of those assets, how their data gets handled in such a scenario?

Can you explain the rights of these other owners to be credit checked within any application, to comment, object or anything else. Or even to know about it?

Normally any loan has a cooling off period. How would that work too in respect of the non applicant but somebody who is affected by it?

It would be good to get some views on this. I know GDPR changes make us all more aware but we had DPA 1998 for a long time...what would be the situation with 1998 as opposed to the 2018 DPA do you think?

All comments would be welcomed...

A decent human being wouldn’t allow this behaviour to go on in the street with strangers but somehow on a court room with professionals it was acceptable.

My point...

Hi getting a bit lost on comments crossing over from people but if I may respond on a couple of interesting ones

@zsazsajuju had said and I quote:

What this thread highlights is the need for proper representation. It sounds as if both of green beret and hidden truth have been litigants in person to save money but have struggled with the process to understand the law and achieved an unsatisfactory result. Litigation is a complex area - you should no more be attempting to conduct it yourself than you would conduct surgery on yourself.

My reply:

To avoid any further misconception neither myself (nor greenberet from what I know) were always litigrants in person. For my part I had solicitors who all acted thoroughly weirdly in this case who took my case on, promised me solicitors who had audience rights in court as I instructed that this was essential..for those who do not know, this means a solicitor who has the right to present in court like a barrister has (not all do)...then who moved my case sideways within the firm to a colleague without rights of audience ...by this time having taken up time getting up to speed on the case at not inconsiderable expense. Then letting me down! Providing no one for court hearings with greater or lesser excuses...you name it from being too new to the case to having a funeral to not being free that date...

So in the chaos the only person with a cat in hell's chance of knowing the facts to present to a judge was yours truly.

I soon realised I simply could not trust my representation! I knew something very dodgy was going on...call it intuition...and this was my future being decided and my money at stake. The carelessness with it astounded me. Why were my solicitors not leaping around about there being no full disclosure!?

So the reason that we are seeing cases like mine is because people are getting to see the inner workings of the court process and how professionals behave within it. The inconsistencies and problems are being highlighted.

My case is a total disaster for all concerned. It has taken up 8 firms of solicitors so far (not all mine!)...far too long in court. It could have been sorted by firms talking to each other however unhelpful or unreasonable either party may have been behaving. The SRA have said it is not a solicitors role to necessarily do what their client instructs if it compromises their position of independence and duties to the court and their code of ethics etc. Meaning...even if the client says 'do your worst' to the other side they must weigh everything up and say no for example.

I can sleep soundly knowing I was not the one to lie. The entire case has embroiled numerous people whose task it is to administer justice in a complete charade. Behind it this litigation loan with its own cast of actors.

The things that make people feel like they are going mad is distortion and lies, heavy duty mind games to throw from the scent. But litigants in person are simply people with a whole host of skills of their own who are looking at what they observe and asking sensible questions...like 'what is going on here'!!!!?

@Xenia said...quote:

It tends to be spouses more than their legal advisers and judges who hide things in practice because the spouse has something to gain and instead the legal people can lose their career if they lie to the court.

MrsW's comment seems right to me - if there is material non disclosure which affects who got what you can go back to court as far as I am aware as in the few cases I linked to on this or the other thread where substantial assets were hidden so I presume if someone borrowed money frmo their mother or a loan company and didn't tell the othe rparty and then just paid those people back out of what that person recovered then presumably there is no skin off anyone's nose and does not affect the other spouse at all whereas if the loan comes off both parties' shares it is material to know it exists just like the mortgage on the marital home as it affects what is left to be divided between the two.

I say: spot on...it is a significant issue if a litigation loan exists and we need to know how many cases are going through court with litigation loans hidden and taken off the global pot BEFORE division so that there is no incentive to settle or designed as they can be with bespoke terms to them to gain some advantage by the loan holder side getting responsibility for the conveyancing and building into the marketing, negotiations on the sale and contract terms benefits solely for the loan holder client?

It would be genius if it were not actually dishonest, contrary to process, procedure and equality of arms and were there no massive conflicts of interest.

The problem is that this is a huge embarassment and scandal because this situation does not come about in a vacuum. It comes about by people making it happen. Please lawyers do go away and study these loans if you are operating them and consider the serious harm they can do.

Whether or not court knew from the off about the loan is unclear but I think they tried to accommodate it in a changed formula without naming it and starting afresh as to do so would reveal the dishonesty of the other side so the cover up began....

You make my point for me . . .

@Hiddentruth Your attacks on the judiciary, lawyers, lenders and the legal system in general is incoherent and wholly out of order. You have been unable, over scores of posts, to articulate clearly the legal issues involved in your case. This thread has become little more than an outlet for your conspiracy theories.

I am afraid I am going so many other things - never mind working today - to remember everyone's posts. I would imagine you have to disclose your debts on financial disclosure on divorce and that would include a divorce loan. I am sure masses of people hide assets on divorce sadly so I would not be surprised if a divorce loan as much as the £100k they have stashed in Jersey might be hidden by the richer party.

Loans to fund litigation can ensure people can litigate - so helpful for some and presumably in some divorces both sides have a divorce loan. On the other hand someone else funding your litigation can make it harder to settle and they will always want some say in how the money is spent so it is certainly an added complication.

In all litigation those who have a lot of money eg some very big commercial companies (although they are often the ones happier to settle earlier to avoid costs and risks of court I suppose) can afford to take cases further just as those who used to have legal aid in divorce had not too much to lose by fighting to the bitter end except legal aid I think is a loan so presumably that leaves them less when the house is sold.

On the point about not always following the client's instructions the SRA are right - we have a duty to the court not just the client and almost every week I refuse something - it is usually that the client wants me to put particularly nasty things in business solicitors' letters, threats, sometimes almost blackmail or just be unpleasant and instead I refuse and produce some professional anodyne letter and the client doesn't always like that. That's fine and they can write themseleves instead but I will not be breaking professional rules and you tend not to get very far anyway if you send unpleasant letters just for the sake of it.

On advocacy, some family lawyers avoid court altogether and commit just to negotiating settlements which can be good stance. Others might well be able to argue the case in court. My own view is that it can be cheaper to use good junior counsel instead as they do those hearings day in day out. On people not being available on particular days - it is a massive problem as the courts often will not give any say on dates and I imagine it is worse with family law than commercial law cases. Even in the kinds of cases I have done we have the same issue - might have to change counsel for an appeal hearing or a further hearing because it clashes with something else they have done. It is hard to find ways round that and it is just a fact of life in litigation. Counsels' clerks can fix a date which suits both sides to some extent for a first and possibly only trial hearing but all the other hearings you might have before that and any appeal you might well have to use a different lawyer just because good people are busy so not available for every hearing.

Xenia that’s a very helpful response. Says it better than I could.

@hiddentruth - how did you go through 8 firms of solicitors? What were you asking them to do that was contrary to the code of conduct?

Every time I come back to this thread I am gobsmacked by what I read.

@Xenia - if people don’t have time to read the full threads then don’t comment on what you think you have read - this Is what frustrates the poster - it is not the poster who has not made themselves clear but the person responding who has assumed an incorrect scenario and responded incorrectly

These posts are long because they need to be - to give as much relevant info as possible.

@Jubba you say

Youre both talking absolute nonsense

Just for the record have you been divorced and gone through the full court process? - you have already said you have no legal background

If I change my scenario to a police officer standing by and watching someone get beaten up in the street - maybe you will get the gist of what I’m saying - or maybe you have seen this too?

For those of you who seem to doubt

there is any dishonesty in the legal professional here’s 3 for starters
jglaw.co.uk/three-solicitors-struck-off-dishonesty-court-rejects-mental-health-arguments/

@Hiddentruth

You say

So in the chaos the only person with a cat in hell's chance of knowing the facts to present to a judge was yours truly

This I fully identify with Having realised i could not trust legal representation not once but twice and was also let win twice!

LET win haha -let DOWN

@Xenia you said many useful things including...

'..... I would imagine you have to disclose your debts on financial disclosure on divorce and that would include a divorce loan. I am sure masses of people hide assets on divorce sadly so I would not be surprised if a divorce loan as much as the £100k they have stashed in Jersey might be hidden by the richer party.'

I say: Please can you explain this comment a bit more @Xenia as you make the link between matching the sum of a litigation loan to a theoretical sum that may have been/be kept offshore by the loan holder...can you explain this please...are you meaning if the sum equals the offshore savings it somehow justifies offshore savings being kept out of the mathematical formula?

@zsazsajuju

I am chuckling now. Only you could read what I post and distort it to suggest I had 8 sets of solicitors and proposing I asked anyone to breach a code of conduct!!!!

That sort of modus operandi is not my style. You know this in your heart.

“Thinking critically means making reasoned judgments that are logical and well thought out. It is a way of thinking in which one doesn’t simply accept all arguments and conclusions to which one is exposed without questioning the arguments and conclusions. It requires curiosity, skepticism and humility. People who use critical thinking are the ones who say things such as, “How do you know that?” “Is this conclusion based on evidence or gut feelings?” and “Are there alternative possibilities when given new pieces of information?”

The problem is the things you think are relevant to bring to a hearing are often totally irrelevant to the legal position. Solicitors and barristers do know what is relevant and what details a judge needs. Because this fails to correlate with what you think is important you think they are wrong. Hmm . . .

Sorry, I meant to say despite their 6 to 7 years of training, you think they are wrong. Hmm . . .

@Jack65 - is telling the judge that the company in question has taken on two new employees despite previously saying it was going down the pan relevant or irrevelant information would you say?

Oh you are all entertaining me tonight!

Greenberet - I would guess that information is irrelevant as companies are not usually valued on the basis of the number of employees. Presumably there was an expert valuation of the company if it had significant value. And your expert will have challenged/agreed the valuation.

PARt 2. Of post 22.41

“The three terms most widely used today to this avail are detailed below.

1.) Conspiracy Theorist – This term is so overused that it really is devoid of any practical meaning. If you were to examine it at face value, though, it describes a person who is looking to understand injustices in our world and is willing to look at uncomfortable facts in search of negative influence… of which there is plenty in our world today.

However, ‘conspiracy theorist’ has literally become a derogatory term that is attributed to anyone who refuses to accept mainstream narratives at face value. It doesn’t matter that there is overwhelming evidence to indicate that mainstream media does not value objectivity or report on important issues thoroughly or truthfully.

@MrsWobble3 - you are not legally trained if I remember rightly so your guess is based on what?

Yes there was an experts valuation of the company - unfortunately the timing of this information meant that this question wasn’t put to the expert but maybe had judge acknowledged this information and the experts opinion sought in light of this new information a different outcome may have resulted.

As I said previously it is not common practise for a failing company to take on new staff - would you agree with this?

Emm @hiddentruth it’s all in your rantings above. How many solicitors firms then? Clarify your comment on the code of conduct.

I do think your posts highlight how important representation is in legal matters. I’m afraid you have been unable to explain clearly and coherently any actual issues with the legal system. A decent solicitor can explain the case clearly to the court and raise relevant matters while maintaining professional detachment.

@greenberet - some solicitors are dishonest of course as are people in all professions. There is a robust set of rules to deal with misconduct and the vast majority of solicitors are scrupulously honest and competent. The problem can often be that some clients lack the ability to understand the situation or simply don’t want to accept it. Not much that can be done about that.

Actually greenberet having been involved with insolvency in the past, it is perfectly possible for a company which is making losses (assuming that’s what you mean by “failing”) to take on new staff. If you wanted to challenge the valuation, you must present evidence. The judge cannot rule on anything else. What evidence did your ex present that the company was losing money? Presumably this was the experts evaluation, no? If you have some evidence your ex committed fraud or was dishonest why don’t you make an application to have the settlement set aside?

The court relying on the evidence before it is no sign of unfairness or dishonesty. Rather it is what we would expect to happen.

But greenberet - that information was almost certainly not relevant and therefore would not have changed the expert's view as it is would not have been a factor in the company valuation. So there was no reason for the judge to refer it to the expert. If you disagreed with the company valuation then you should have asked an accountant or valuation expert to analyse the valuation basis and principles and financial information used. That would be relevant - job ads on the website are not. I haven't checked but would not be at all surprised if BHS and Carillion were still advertising vacancies as they called in the receivers.

You know I can’t be bothered to engage on here anymore - I’m sure you lot could come up with an argument to say the grass is not green and expect me to accept it

@zsazsajuju - your choice of words continue to be inflammatory - anyone who had been through what Hiddentruth has been through regardless of whether you believe her or not - and I totally do - would not use the word ranting as an insult!

She has lost her Home ffs- through dishonest action of legals - she has every right to be as passionate about this as she needs to be - and any one with an ounce of compassion would get this

Look up the meaning of “rantings” - either you are using this word incorrectly or deliberately !

On this
"Please can you explain this comment a bit more @Xenia as you make the link between matching the sum of a litigation loan to a theoretical sum that may have been/be kept offshore by the loan holder...can you explain this please...are you meaning if the sum equals the offshore savings it somehow justifies offshore savings being kept out of the mathematical formula? "

My only point was looking at what people hide on divorce. More often it will be assets they hold off or on shore and they of course should never do that. They are much less likely to hide debts including divorce loans as debts are their own liabilities and to their disadvantage so presumably there is a massive incentive to disclose to your spouse tha tyou owe your kmother £20k, the credit card ciompany £100k and will haev to pay £50k legal fees and have additional costs under a divorce loan too from when you took it out. So I would imagine in most cases the last thing you would want to do is hide the fact you have debt.

For the point that we have to read all the posts I am afraid as this i not indenmified legal advice and we just pop on here to try to be helpful just as when I contribute on threads of all kinds there are ofetn 20 pages and veyr often I can just read page one or the latest page. That is just how it is. We cannot be banned for just chipping in with comments but obviously people are free to ignore posts from any of us.

We are more likely to have time to answer quick short questions. This is actually the nub of the problem there is all the time with law - clients every other day will send me something they say is quick or easy but I find I have to read 30 emails and 3 contracts in order to produce the answer and it takes loads of time which is why we usually won't quote for any work until we know exaclty how many hours it is likely to take so everyone knows where they stand.

On company valuations they are very difficult for small companies. I suspect the easy answer is to give husband and wife half the shares each and make both directors in some cases then neither can complain they were done out of profits or only left with business losses. Some companies have done that - there is one celrbity chef and I think a hair dresser and a clothing company where in each case the spouses continue to operate the business in which they own shares after divorce. Will not work well though for people who hate each other.

As for @MrsWobble3 - who said anything about “job ads on the website”

Good job your not a lawyer as your ability to absorb information is a bit off in my opinion and you would be giving advice based on an incorrect assumption of facts!