Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
Any advice given by me is based solely on my experience in claiming, my experience in CAG or my opinion. I have no legal background. I want to encourage others to reclaim what is theirs.
Got a DCA breaking OFT guidance. Complain to the OFT about the DCA. Help put an end to these practices-
Interesting that the POC read as if when the OFT started looking into the charges (as per their promised investigation), the banks tried to argue that they were charges for service, which is what then led to this court action. That explains a few things.
Apologies to people who I was in the process of helping, I may be gone some time.
This is facinating: Bank charges truly are about to go the way of the dodo.
From the particulars of claim:
1. The banks have to provide profit and loss accounts to the OFT - haha - I cant wait to see this.
2. The banks argument is basically that the charges are a core 'service' and are therefore not an unfair contract. How in the world are they going to argue that OD charges are a service?
In particular - how are they going to argue that they are a 'core' service? Certainly they are a core profit generator but that won't win over a high court.
Definition of service: "work done by one person or group that benefits another"
- I dont see any consumer benefits
The banks are idiots - The OFT will tear them apart in court. This is going to be so funny.
In this post i shall try to explain how the law reasons in relation to a contract. Previous posts concerned the formation of the constitution, it is time to put that constitution together and explain it's nature(sole) , and why the law holds a contract to be almost sacrosanct.
Definition of the constitution
The body politic ( self governing body) has a head (the crown) a conscience ( Christian) a body ( the people).This is the constitution we all live inside bonded by our Christian blood and protected by the crown( God). When you enter into a valid contract generally in the course of your survival you have a binding agreement one which the law considers sacrosanct, and will allow no man to plunder. The only way your contract can be disturbed other than inter se, is by, a properly constituted act of parliament( lawful authority) incorporated into the body politic.( Christ's blood). This is the reason a judge sitting under the “crown” cannot hear this case, the instrument known as UTCCR has not been lawfully( witnessed) incorporated into the body politic.( baptized if you like).
In others words you are all being conned, which i think you all know anyway. the courts and the government have closed ranks.
Crucial to your understanding of law, is that, legal reasoning grew out of religious thinking( the chancellor) and, peoples need to have certainty in their lives( the common law). I'm sure you are all aware of just how strict the common law is in relation to evidence( your bundle) presented to the court, that is because the judge sitting under “crown” must be certain when reaching a judgment.
Are we forgetting about the Bill of Rights Act 1689, a constitutional statute, whereby a penalty cannot be applied to a person or body prior to any conviction by a Court of Law?
Acts of Parliament may be amended and adapted, but those that are cast in stone cannot be altered.
The banks' argument that penalties applied to peoples' account were actually services is fickle. They have invested heavily in technology, which brought in the bucks, but meant there was no manual intervention when making a charge / penalty, and therefore no justification for the £39 charged for none payment of a DD etc.
Where a service cannot be proven (the banks have yet to provide a Breakdown of the charges they make) therefore no service could have been provided. The OFT is now focussing on the justification of any such "service".
This makes VERY interesting reading, especially the POC for the OFT case in relation to Abbey claims in which the Bank HAS admitted to 'breach of contract by the Claimant' in its defence to the claim. That admission by Abbey means, IMHO, that the OFT Test Case has absoloutely NO relevance to claims in which Abbey have filed such a defence, as the OFT Particulars of Claim seeks ONLY to establish if the banks that claim these to be 'service charges' (as Abbey have only done in the most recent claims) are acting lawfully.
GaryH has already done much truly excellent work on this issue, and I would have thought that attaching a copy of the OFT POC to an application for Stay Removal in such an Abbey claim would give the Claimant a 'cast iron' case for having the stay removed and allowing the case to continue. The only issue remaining in these claims, as GaryH has already said, is if Abbey's charges are 'in proportion' to their costs.
Does anyone know, for certain, if it permitted to use a copy of the OFT POC in this way?
All the best - Adam.
I do my best to be helpful, but at the end of the day I'm not a professional - please seek further advice if you're not sure. On the other hand, if I have helped, please click my scales - thanks
Current Claims (all for friends!) -
Abbey - over £4k - Court claim issued & AQ filed ('Tish vs Abbey'). Alloc'n Hearing 21 Sept - Claim stayed 29/8/07.
Cap One - just under £2k - WON (just over 2k!)('Tish vs Cap One')
Cap One - just under £1000 - WON (just over £1k) Nov 07 (JimmyBoy vs Cap One)
Lloyds TSB - £3.5k - Court claim issued, defence rec'd and AQ filed; Alloc'n hearing 7th Sept Claim stayed 29/8/07! (JimmyBoy vs Lloyds')
MBNA - over £1k for mis-sold PPI - WON - approx £1500(IpswichWitch vs MBNA . . .)
Some VERY good advice there for stay removal in Abbey cases such as ours.
All the best - Adam.
I do my best to be helpful, but at the end of the day I'm not a professional - please seek further advice if you're not sure. On the other hand, if I have helped, please click my scales - thanks
Current Claims (all for friends!) -
Abbey - over £4k - Court claim issued & AQ filed ('Tish vs Abbey'). Alloc'n Hearing 21 Sept - Claim stayed 29/8/07.
Cap One - just under £2k - WON (just over 2k!)('Tish vs Cap One')
Cap One - just under £1000 - WON (just over £1k) Nov 07 (JimmyBoy vs Cap One)
Lloyds TSB - £3.5k - Court claim issued, defence rec'd and AQ filed; Alloc'n hearing 7th Sept Claim stayed 29/8/07! (JimmyBoy vs Lloyds')
MBNA - over £1k for mis-sold PPI - WON - approx £1500(IpswichWitch vs MBNA . . .)
The body politic ( self governing body) has a head (the crown) a conscience ( Christian) a body ( the people).This is the constitution we all live inside bonded by our Christian blood and protected by the crown( God). When you enter into a valid contract generally in the course of your survival you have a binding agreement one which the law considers sacrosanct, and will allow no man to plunder. The only way your contract can be disturbed other than inter se, is by, a properly constituted act of parliament( lawful authority) incorporated into the body politic.( Christ's blood). This is the reason a judge sitting under the “crown” cannot hear this case, the instrument known as UTCCR has not been lawfully( witnessed) incorporated into the body politic.( baptized if you like).
That is because our constitution is founded on Religious thinking, see if you can understand this for this way your contracts with the banks are voidable.
Charter 1066. the conqueror's address to the nation.( his will)
Here is set down what William, king of the English, established
in consultation with his magnates after the conquest of England:
. 1. First that above all things he wishes one God to be revered
throughout his whole realm, one faith in Christ to be kept ever
inviolate, and peace and security to be preserved between
English and Normans.
But first a summery:
1) we have seen that the conqueror's last will and testament is vested in the crown and that parliament are subject to it when making laws, as are the courts when making judgments and the queen when applying the seal of state.
2) We have seen how the body politic has been put together with a head, a conscience and body, bonded with Christ's blood, which feeds and nourishes the body and mind, and must be kept ever pure.
3) And any contract which has been executed inside the body is considered to be sacrosanct and, that it's Christ's blood that makes it legally binding, and therefore capable of being protected by the crown (the law).
4) We have also seen how a “written” law( subject to his will) becomes incorporated into the body politic and runs side by side with those natural rights.
Are we forgetting about the Bill of Rights Act 1689, a constitutional statute, whereby a penalty cannot be applied to a person or body prior to any conviction by a Court of Law?
Acts of Parliament may be amended and adapted, but those that are cast in stone cannot be altered.
The banks' argument that penalties applied to peoples' account were actually services is fickle. They have invested heavily in technology, which brought in the bucks, but meant there was no manual intervention when making a charge / penalty, and therefore no justification for the £39 charged for none payment of a DD etc.
Where a service cannot be proven (the banks have yet to provide a Breakdown of the charges they make) therefore no service could have been provided. The OFT is now focussing on the justification of any such "service".
Tide
In answer to your question, there are no written laws of England that cannot be amended or abolished, save only the last will and testament of the conqueror which is vested in the crown.
As i have said the instrument known as UTCCR has not been properly incorporated into the body of are laws (it does not run in the blood), it is not the law of the land in other words. And therefore cannot be heard by a judge sitting under the crown.
The common law is a creature of creation, in other words it accepts the law exists, it is therefore a matter for the courts to find and express what that law is, which in itself, is continuously evolving.
In other words there is no such thing as a hypothetical case in English common law, for the law is vested in us all. Which is what a test case would be. A precedent is born out of a dispute between two or more persons having legal capacity to do so, it is not the law of the land it can be used by courts of a similar status when deciding disputes on similar facts.
As I have said you are all being giving the legal run a round. If you do not understand the law, these people will tie you all up in knots.
In answer to your question, there are no written laws of England that cannot be amended or abolished, save only the last will and testament of the conqueror which is vested in the crown.
The Bill of Rights Act 1689 CANNOT be amended or abolished, nor can it be superceded by any other Act.
It is unlawful to apply a penalty to any account unless this has been agreed and included within the contract.
With respect to the POC's, the OFT have requested that the banks provide copies of agreements currently in force and those which will be in force come the 1st October 2007.
This refers to current and proposed conditions and is intended to introduce a remedy going forward.
However, it leaves room for a precedent with respect to contracts that have been in dispute but does not relate to conditions or terms of contracts made 5 years ago for example.
Paragraph 17 of the POC's
17. If any of the Banks' respective Relevant Terms and Charges are unfair" within the meaning of the 1999 Regulation, the continued use by the Bank in question of such terms and charges in relation to its customers who are consumers could constitute a Community infringement under section 212 of the Act.
As the application of charges and the claiming of charges made is currently in dispute, the banks cannot make any charges to bank accounts until this case is resolved. If they do so, then they must continue to repay charges made.
Anybody who has a charge made to their account should therefore contact the bank and demand that it is refunded until this matter is resolved.
OFT Test Case POC's
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by dewhit20
