Are texts admissible in court?

the shadow · 1 May 2012 at 11:43

My thinking too.. for something Trivial like this case would the cps be interested? if that is the only evidence.
would she be eligible for legal aid there are other questions also how much money are we talking about?

Quote
Are you a solicitor or in any way professionally qualified to give a legal opinion? no this is GD

Metalface Mark · 1 May 2012 at 11:45

the shadow said:
My thinking too.. for something Trivial like this case would the cps be interested? if that is the only evidence.
would she be eligible for legal aid there are other questions also how much money are we talking about?

She already has legal aid as she was off on maternity leave when it all started (3 years ago), and its over 40k. He earns about 150k a year and claims he only pays 25% tax on that.

the shadow · 1 May 2012 at 11:47

Trivial it's not 40K :eek:

good luck

TwsT · 1 May 2012 at 11:56

If it's in her name she may well be stuffed.

My Mrs "bought" her ex his car. When they split he took it, it was registered in his name as his but she owns the debt (wasn't a lot left on the debt certainly not worth arguing over.) Nothing she could do but pay it off.

Is it CC and loan debt? or bills? If it's CC or loans or anything regulated by the FSA then the persons name will always take the fall. She would have to persue the money back from him in a separate civil proceeding. All very awkward.

From my experience Creditors don't care who used the money the person who signs on the line gets dragged through the hedge.

Metalface Mark · 1 May 2012 at 11:58

Credit card that was transferred from his cards to hers to take advantage of 0%.

Sefirosu · 1 May 2012 at 11:59

It probably depends on reasonable doubt. No one is going to use someone's phone behind their back and lie to their ex about some debt problem.

Castiel · 1 May 2012 at 12:15

Metalface Mark said:
Credit card that was transferred from his cards to hers to take advantage of 0%.

In that case there should be a trail of paperwork and therefore evidence to support her claim.

TwsT · 1 May 2012 at 12:16

Good luck :/

See what the solicitor says.

Metalface Mark · 1 May 2012 at 12:16

Castiel said:
In that case there should be a trail of paperwork and therefore evidence to support her claim.

For some cards she has this, its going back 8 years to the first one, so she probably has evidence for that on maybe half the amount.

Myshra · 1 May 2012 at 12:21

Telescopi said:
Can the mobile phone company be ordered to release sms records in a civil case? I think the texts on her phone could be reason for suspicion but I would be amazed if they were admissible on their own - the records of the phone company however are.

Only Criminal i'm 99% sure.

Metalface Mark · 1 May 2012 at 12:28

TwsT said:
Good luck :/

See what the solicitor says.

Cheers

Skull · 1 May 2012 at 12:40

Texts and emails where he admits the debt are most definitely admissible!

Remember that in civil cases the burden of proof is "on the balance of probabilities" and texts, emails and credible oral testimony from your girlfriend would sink him in court, especially if all the stuff that £40,000 was spent on is in the ex's possession! He's playing hardball but as soon as he speaks to a lawyer he will be told to fold and pay up.

Now for the usual GD comment about the incomprehensible foolishness of taking on £40,000 of debt in the name of a non-spouse....

Captain · 1 May 2012 at 12:48

Get him to admit it on the phone and record the phone call.

Metalface Mark · 1 May 2012 at 13:00

They dont speak really, he's quite abusive in his texts at times, any time they do chat it usually ends up in an argument. All very frustrating for all involved really.

Nitefly · 1 May 2012 at 13:00

Metalface Mark said:
Credit card that was transferred from his cards to hers to take advantage of 0%.

Really? Unfortuantly if she was aware of this and had sat on it, and the card is in her name...?

Err, yikes good luck! If anything (best circumstances IMO) then she is going to have a personal claim against him, but she will continue to be in debt to the bank.

Metalface Mark · 2 May 2012 at 08:03

Yeah she was aware, it was always going to get paid off shortly, but then something would come up, like a new Ferrari or Maserati and it would get pushed back.

Threepwood · 2 May 2012 at 08:39

Wether it's in her name or not, they still have a oral contract that he will pay it back....

... the point of all this I presume is to proove that the oral contract was entered into in the first place.

Aod · 2 May 2012 at 08:45

Texts are admissible in court although there is a degree of process required to determine/prove that the person in question actually sent them.
Something like an unlock-code or pattern if he has a smartphone goes a very long way towards this.
Email is substantially more reliable as evidence, the requirements to demonstrate that the person in question actually sent the email are substantially less stringent due to the nature of the email service.

while it's unlikely to come to this in a simple civil suit, a digital forensic investigator would be able to analyse the person in question's devices to build up a conclusion which would be given to the court. you'd probably have a pretty airtight case.

TL;DR - Texts and Emails are admissible as evidence, they would form conclusive evidence if it could be proved without uncertainty that the person in question sent the messages.

Metalface Mark · 2 May 2012 at 09:27

Thanks

Mercenary Keyboard Warrior · 2 May 2012 at 12:09

Surely it comes down to the more the better.
"Easy" to claim someone sent one text to a random person with his mobile "by mistake"

Much much harder to claim anything like that if there are multiple texts over a period of time.

Maybe she should try to get more details from him.

How is he doing with paying it off, its the debt declining or is it being added to as well?

If hes slowly paying down it may be worth considering not rocking the boat maybe? But if hes still adding and in effect not reducing HER risk then its more of an issue.
Although if he is still racking up debt and its only him it may be easier to prove the debt was his and not hers all along