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.
(From House of Lords web site)
Tuesday 31 March
Appeal Committee The 33rd Report from the Appeal Committee was agreed to and the following Order was made:
Office of Fair Trading (Respondents) v Abbey National plc and others (Petitioners) That leave to appeal be given; and that the petition of appeal be lodged by 15 April.
'I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.'
Thomas Jefferson 1802
Well could have been worse-werent the HOL expected to give their answer within 8 weeks ?
In all probability its been decided that after being given KBs from 4 judges-why delay the 5th and final one ?
The last appeals of October were done and dusted quite quickly.
We can assume that the OFT and the banks have already arrived at some conclusions-this is last chance saloon.
It wont come a day too soon for those 65,000 claimants with cases stayed......The Judges must surely be cancelling holidays this summer ?
If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.Private message facilities are offered for users to communicate issues that are/or could be seen to be inappropriate for posting on the main forum.Site rules explain this in more detail.If you are approached by private message with a view to asking you to visit another website,please inform the site team via the report icon. Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed. Donations help CAG to help YOU Click here
"The House met at 2.30pm.
Prayers were read by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford."
I think the banks might just need them.
If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.Private message facilities are offered for users to communicate issues that are/or could be seen to be inappropriate for posting on the main forum.Site rules explain this in more detail.If you are approached by private message with a view to asking you to visit another website,please inform the site team via the report icon. Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed. Donations help CAG to help YOU Click here
Well could have been worse-werent the HOL expected to give their answer within 8 weeks ?
In all probability its been decided that after being given KBs from 4 judges-why delay the 5th and final one ?
The last appeals of October were done and dusted quite quickly.
We can assume that the OFT and the banks have already arrived at some conclusions-this is last chance saloon.
It wont come a day too soon for those 65,000 claimants with cases stayed......The Judges must surely be cancelling holidays this summer ?
If we don't get a decision before 31st July 2009 its a wait until October for the next sitting of the Law Lords.
Somehow I think this is in the equasion-July should be adequate...lets see how quickly the appeal is listed following the April 15 deadline-that should give more than a little insight.
If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.Private message facilities are offered for users to communicate issues that are/or could be seen to be inappropriate for posting on the main forum.Site rules explain this in more detail.If you are approached by private message with a view to asking you to visit another website,please inform the site team via the report icon. Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed. Donations help CAG to help YOU Click here
My problem is that I cannot get my head around the fact that it goes to the House of Lords!! Isn't that House made up of Titled CEO's from the banking establishment??? or am I mistaken??
Forgive my ignorance!! but how can this be fair????
The same 'Law lords' that are members of the same Masonic lodge as the 'political lords' or 'other' Law Lords'?
FTD
The same Law Lords that have been the basis of the OFT test case. First National case in 2001. Everyone has said at every point in the case that the banks will win. Think about what they have won?
Justice Smith---LOST
High Court Appeals(3 judges including the Master of the Rolls)-----LOST
(the masonic lodge, so far, isn't working very well for the banks)
can you name which Law Lords are part of the Masonic Lodge with evidence? Name and shame 'em. It will help the OFT appeal if they were to, ermmmm, lose.
should i dare to say that there could be a case for "a conflict of interests" with the law lord and lodges ? ;-)
You can always say that and the only issue I would have is proving that as a court of Law requires the burden of proof.
Can I ask anyone if there is masonic lodges at The European Court of Justice(just so I am certain where we might go with the thread if the appeal goes to the ECJ)?
Everyone has said at every point in the case that the banks will win.
I don't think that's quite right, YB. Everyone feared at some point in the case that the banks would find a way to win, and I think that until such time where it's all done and dusted, there will always be that worry.
Having been stitched up as much as we have been over the years, you can hardly blame people for ranging from cautious to paranoid. And I am sorry to say that the Solomon judgment of Smith J has done nothing to reassure the masses. (they're not penalties, but they're not for a service either .) The banks themselves are of course fuelling this mistrust, after shafting us for years, they promised to deal with this test case as expeditiously as possible, and now seem set to take it as far as they possibly can, whilst the stays (yes, I know the reasoning behind, but you have to admit they thoroughly advantage the banks) stay in place and frustrate people in their efforts to get justice.
I know what you are saying about the Lords being unlikely to reverse themselves, but by the same token, it would be premature to celebrate already, it's not over till the fat Lords and Ladies sing... Until the final judgment is given and all our stays lifted, there is little reason for people to rejoice and the ever ongoing fear that the banks will find a way to keep their claws on our money has to stay in all our minds, that is only natural.
Apologies to people who I was in the process of helping, I may be gone some time.
The stays won't be lifted when this part of the case is resolved. Bookworm, I that you do actually READ and DIGEST the information on the test case. I hope people don't fall into the trap of believing that if or when the decision states that bank terms can be assessed under UTCCR 1999 that the stays and the waiver will be lifted. They will not and to think so is unfortunately misguided. I suspect we maybe looking at a minimum of 12 months.
So Now We Really Know
National plc and others (Petitioners) That leave to appeal be given; and that the petition of appeal be lodged by 15 April.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by MARTIN3030
Re: So Now We Really Know
should i dare to say that there could be a case for "a conflict of interests" with the law lord and lodges ? ;-)
