Mystery of the Vanishing Posts Part II


The Mysterious Case of the Vanishing Posts introduced a strange new development on Legal Beagles: posts that go bump in the night. Looks like there may be a little nocturnal gremlin amongst the Beagles with magic powers to make posts vanish into thin air.

Perry Mason got involved along with PI Paul Drake and between them, they managed to track down some of the missing posts. They are out doing the same again and, as expected, they’ve come up with the goods.

OP with court claim


This OP had received no response to their post, or had they? Actually, they did get a response during the night, however, the response had disappeared this morning. Later on, a member of site team stepped up. Obviously we are doing some good work here as they are paying a lot more attention to the OPs than they previously did. Still doesn’t explain what happened to the first response.

They are quick to tag, which doesn’t really do the OP any good, especially when one of them is Their Nemesis. Then another poster asks whether this could have been originally a storecard. They are probably thinking about one of the better known cases involving Santander, the one of Santander v Mayhew, however, as the poster pointed out, they mention a “contract” rather than a credit agreement regulated by the CCA. Usually when the PoC mention a “contract”, it refers to a current account rather than a credit card.

The reference to an overdraft as opposed to a storecard turned credit card as well as the importance of acknowledging service had already been pointed out last night.

Kati then says that the particulars of claim are rather sparse. WHERE did she read that? Could it be she can still view the post above? Because that’s were it was written to start with…


OP willing to pay for a clean credit file


This OP had a default they knew nothing about. Amethyst had replied but the OP then asked another question and received no reply. Obviously Amethyst can’t clone herself 10 times to answer each and every post, and, in many cases, an answer only generates further questions.


The OP was prepared to throw money away in exchange for a clean credit record. Someone had to tell them it doesn’t work that way, once a default is recorded, paying it in full doesn’t get it removed, and neither can you get a solicitor to sort this out for you. Taking a creditor to court over a default is a minefield, something that the Beagles know only too well, but the OP wouldn’t know any of it unless someone tells them. They were told but…


Key question not answered, or was it?


Here, the OP had been receiving help with their claim but then they received letters that they didn’t understand. They had obviously misunderstood the whole idea of sending out document requests and thought that, if they failed to receive the documents, they would have to pay the claim in full.


Despite getting several replies, no-one had addressed the key question asked which was simply whether they would have to pay, or did they? Looks like they DID, but…



This OP received a response to his claim but that was a week ago and they’ve not been back since, even though the OP has posted twice in response to that reply. Sometimes people are just not able to go back to respond, and this seems to be happening quite a bit these days, one has to wonder why that may be. The OP has posted twice since, but has received no response, or have they?


Looks like they have, and were told not to send a SBd letter but instead, to file a proper defence and include facts about their non compliance with document requests. The only question is…


OP facing eviction due to rent arrears


This is an interesting one, because this thread was already featured in the previous instalment of The Mysterious Case of the Vanishing Posts. As explained on that post, this OP had decided against claiming JSA but still wanted to claim housing benefit and council tax support. The post below, which explained a few facts and suggested it may be best to claim, vanished a couple of nights ago.


The OP obviously missed the missing post and responded to Debt Camel, saying they are facing eviction for rent arrears. It doesn’t sound like they have a lot of savings and falling into rent arrears is a very serious situation to be in. Debt Camel replied asking whether they’d attended the CAB session, but the issues surrounding JSA, UC and housing benefit have not yet been addressed, or have they?


Looks like they have, but, once more…


Yet anther constructive dismissal v destructive removal situation

Unfair dismissal due to reorganisation

When posts first started to vanish, we looked at a case where the OP had resigned and was thinking of issuing a claim for constructive dismissal. It seems to be a common misconception that, if anything goes wrong at work, you can just resign and then claim constructive dismissal. That would put a stop to all the unpleasantness at work, avoid the painful and often long-winded disciplinary and dismissal process and, when asked for a reason for leaving your previous job, you can truthfully state that you resigned. So far, so good, however, people think they can still take legal action against their former employers. A good example of having your cake and eating it, if it worked.

Most people don’t seem to be aware that constructive dismissal cases are very hard to win and have very low success rates at the Employment Tribunal. Ideally they should be aware of this before they resign so they don’t rush to do so in haste, and the only way to spread the word is to post it up. Even when the OP in question has already resigned and there’s not much they can do about it, it’s always constructive to point it out, for the sake of thousands of others who will be reading these posts.

In this case, the OP had already resigned so there wasn’t much that could be done to prevent it, however, the poor OP didn’t get any responses to her query, or did she?


Looks like she did, at least a warning about constructive dismissal claims and the suggestion that they should take legal advice from a law clinic, as was also suggested on a similar post that also disappeared. One would think that pointing people in the direction of free resources would be a good thing. Once more…


Simple question, simple answer


Here we have an OP who had been receiving help from Amethyst, however, they never received a response to their last question, which was quite a simple one, or did they?


The matter of unless orders vs embarrassed defences could be the subject of a whole website and a heated discussion on the merits of both approaches, but this wasn’t the point here. The question was merely at which point should one be filed. With a small claim, they should be filed before you file your defence as pointed out above, due to legal technicalities which are also, briefly, explained above. As ever, the real question is…


Another constructive dismissal, another destructive removal and yet another simple question not answered

6 weeks & still no grievance outcome

This OP posted three days ago and has not received a single reply, or has she?


Yet another employee who thinks the answer is to resign and then claim. Not much that can be done about the past, however, the question was quite simple, yet no-one answered it, or, more accurately, they did, but…


There are a few more posts still missing but the above does paint a concerning picture. OPs are being deprived of answers while posts go missing all the time.




  1. Agent 99 says:

    While they have removed all the posts noted above as well as those mentioned under The Mysterious Case of the Vanishing Posts, they have left this most useful and informative thread, in place: Louis-vuitton-jwfm-dggk-jfag

  2. BillK says:

    Amethyst posts:- “It is almost a shame to remove such an eloquent post” – so she leaves it there.

    Meanwhile – back in reality-land – people are making vitally useful posts, and someone is shamelessly removing them with gay abandon.

    Amethyst is aware of this, but does nothing.

    Legal Beagles is actively and knowingly causing people to lose money and status in court by sabotaging the efforts of well-meaning and knowledgeable contributors. If the motive is to make a profit for themselves or someone else, then I believe we have a bunch of ‘Rogue Traders’ in need of some wider publicity. If the motive is simply to ruin people’s chances in court for no apparent reason, then I believe we have what amounts to a perverse and sadistic ‘Public Nuisance’ group that needs to be dealt with by the proper authorities.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *