Advertisement

Court Hearing on 08/02/2010..Please Help

306 Views  ⚫  Asked 8 Years Ago
asked on Jan 13, 2010 at 22:44
by   screwedupbigtime
Hello,

I have an outstanding credit balance for my UOB card totaling RM3.7k...And right just now, i received a letter from the court asking me to attend the hearing on the 08/02/10...I have been following this forum and i understand that the bank cannot sue me bankrupt because im owing less than RM30K...suppose that i decide not to attend the hearing, the court will then proceed with the "judgement" thingy, am i right to say this? and..:

1)If the court issues WSS..will they seize my car although it is not fully paid yet?
2)If i admit to their claims (by not attending the hearing and fight)....will i be sued bankrupt in this six years time?im not good in calculation by as far as im concern,im only owing RM 3.7k...by 6 years time i dont think my debt will reach RM 30k due to the limitation act,am i right to say this?

I really need your help here guys.....thanks a lot in advance....and if you do by any chance view my post,Notalawyer,please do reply as im looking forward to hear your opinion....
0 had this question
Me Too
0 favorites
Favorite
[ share ]
37 Answers
 1   2   3   4   Next »  Last »

answered on Jan 13, 2010 at 22:45
by   screwedupbigtime
wrong icon...i was smiling...
0 found this helpful
Helpful

answered on Jan 13, 2010 at 23:48
by   vkpc
3.7k only also cannot pay meh?
0 found this helpful
Helpful

answered on Jan 14, 2010 at 01:38
by   screwedupbigtime
if got money surely i'll pay lorr....but now no money thats why im asking...plus no job right now...
0 found this helpful
Helpful

answered on Jan 14, 2010 at 03:05
by   notalawyer
1. No. The car belongs to another bank until it is fully paid up.  You are only renting the car from the bank.
2. Since the amount owing is small, don't attend court also can.

UOB is the only bank which will sue it's customers for amounts less than RM 5k.
No other bank does that.
Maybe their panel lawyers have no other job to do.
0 found this helpful
Helpful

answered on Jan 14, 2010 at 06:02
by   screwdupbigtime
Thanks for the reply notalawyer..u made me feel very relieved now so does this mean that i wont be sued for bankruptcy or the bank would somehow find a way to make me bankrupt?
0 found this helpful
Helpful

answered on Jan 14, 2010 at 07:39
by   screwedupbigtime
(4) An action to recover any penalty or forfeiture or sum by
way of penalty or forfeiture recoverable by virtue of any written
law shall not be brought after the expiration of one year from the
date on which the cause of action accrued:

Provided that for the purpose of this subsection the expression
“penalty” shall not include a fine to which a person is liable on
conviction for a criminal offence.

Does the excerpt above means that after a year of not paying my debts, the penalty or fines such as late payment charges and also overlimit charges will not be counted thereafter?

Thank you in advance...hope all of you could light me up on this as i've no idea on what that excerpt really means....
0 found this helpful
Helpful

answered on Jan 14, 2010 at 10:21
by   notalawyer
Where you get that from?
0 found this helpful
Helpful

answered on Jan 14, 2010 at 10:27
by   screwedupbigtime
from the limitation act 1953..but i cant understand law terms though..
0 found this helpful
Helpful

answered on Jan 14, 2010 at 10:45
by   screwedupbigtime
anyway notalawyer..i dont really understand what it means...im assuming that after a year time all the penalties such as late payment charges and overlimit charges will be "vapourized"..am i right to say this??im hoping that anyone of you could share your knowledge on this with me..i appreciate your help as it could provide me with a peaceful state of mind...many thanks..
0 found this helpful
Helpful

answered on Jan 14, 2010 at 10:59
by   notalawyer
It sure seems like it.

The bank may argue that the penalties are due from the agreement between you and the bank, not from "virtue of any written law".
You can argue that the agreement's binding properties are due the clauses in "Contracts Act" which is a law,
and also since penalties by way of laws are already not allowed after 1 year, what more mere contracts which are subservient to (smaller than) any law.

I think this issue needs to be tested in a Court of Law.
0 found this helpful
Helpful


 1   2   3   4   Next »  Last »

Your Answer





By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.