Dear Kevin,
Thank you for your time this week in discussing the abuse of personal guarantees.
“We are all on the same page and will keep fighting for Justice. “
You commented that your preferred aim was/is a Financial Services Tribunal to ‘get cases back into the courts’. I would agree with this in many respects but this can go horribly wrong for litigants in person, as evidenced by Emily Dugan’s article.
diyLAW suggests an alternative to overburdening the court system with Personal Guarantee-cases, which we have been discussing at length with LexisNexis and the Judiciary. Will you look into this concept?
Mindful of ‘solutions rather than problems’ the solution to the abuse of personal guarantees may be Areopa’s concept, in which a major bank has already shown an interest. We invite you to look at this.
You also referred to the accepted principle, now mysteriously missing from the Lending Standards Board`s rules; banks always first commit to look at business assets before determining whether personal assets are appropriate. That isn’t what happens. We are convinced that the abuse of this principle has proliferated due to perjury in Jeff Lampert’s case.
Kind regards
Jane Farmer