Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Speaking of the reformatory boys, here they are with all of their supporters, some of whom traveled with them from miles away, all carefully crammed together and photographed to look like there were more than about 80 .. rather like Farages last rally with even fewer people crammed around what looked like an ice cream van or mobile tea bar ... Although a number in the crowd apparently thought they were at a vintage car rally as they appeared to be chanting 'crank-her'. A vintage Bentley must be out of view.   Is this all there is? Its less than the Tory candidate. - shut up and smile while they get a camera angle that looks better
    • in order for us to help you we require the following information:- Which Court have you received the claim from ? Canterbury If possible please scan redact and upload a full page copy of page 1 of the claim form. ( Name of the Claimant ? Moneybarn No 1   How many defendant's  joint or self ? One Date of issue – top right hand corner of the claim form – this in order to establish the time line you need to adhere to. 29/05/24 Acknowledged by 14/06/24  Defence by 29/06/24  Particulars of Claim PARTICULARS OF CLAIM   1.  By a Conditional Sale Agreement in writing made on 25th August 2022. Between the Claimant and Defendant, the Claimant let to the Defendant on Conditional Sale. A Ford Ranger 3.2 TDCi (200 P S) 4x4 Wildtrack  Double Cab Pickup 3200cc (Sep.2015) Registration No, ******* Chassis number ***************** (“The Vehicle”).  A copy of the agreement is attached   2.  The price of the goods was £15,995.00.  The Initial Rental was £8500.00.  The total charge for credit was £3575.;17 And the balance of £11,070.17 was payable by 59 equal consecutive monthly instalments of £187 63. payable on the 25th of each month.   3.  The following were expressed conditions of the set agreement,   Clause 8: Our Right to End this Agreement  8.1   Subject to sending you the notice as required by law, any of the following events will entitle us to end this Agreement: 8.1.2  You fail to pay the advance payment (if any) or any of the payments as specified on the front page of this agreement or any other sum payable under this Agreement. 8.1.3 If any of the information you have given us before entering into this Agreement or during the term of this Agreement was false 8.1.4 We consider, acting reasonably, that the goods may be in jeopardy or that our rights in the goods may otherwise be prejudiced. 8.1.5 If you die 8.1.6 If a bankruptcy petition is presented against you; if you petition for your own bankruptcy, or make a live arrangement with your creditors or call a meeting of them. 8. 1.7 If in Scotland, you become insolvent or sequestration or a receiver, judicial factor or trustee to be appointed over any of your estate, or effects or suffer an arrestment, charge attachment or other diligence to be issued or levied on any of your estate or effects or suffer any exercise, or threatened exercise of landlords hype hypothec 8.1.8 If you are a partnership, you are dissolved 8.1.9 If the goods are destroyed, lost, stolen and/or treated by the insurer as a total loss in response to an insurance claim. 8.1.10 If we reasonably believe any payment made to us in respect of this Agreement is a proceed of crime. 8.1.11 If steps are taken by us to terminate any other agreement which you have entered into with us.   Clause 9.  Effect of Us Terminating Agreement   9.1 If this Agreement terminates under clause 8 the following will apply 9.1.1 Subject to the rights given to you by law, you will no longer be entitled to possession of the goods and must return them to us to an address as we may reasonably specify, (removing or commencing the removal of any cherished plates) together with a V5 registration certificate, both sets of keys and a service record book. If you are unable or unwilling to return the goods to us then we shall collect the goods and we'll charge you in accordance with clause 10.3 9.1.2 We will be entitled to immediate payment from you for all payments and all other sums do under this agreement at the date of termination 9.1.3 We will sell the goods or public sale at the earliest opportunity once the goods are in a reasonable condition which includes a return of the items listed in clause 7.1.4 9.1.4 We will be entitled to immediate payment from you of the rest of the Total Amount Payable under this agreement less: ( a) A rebate for early settlement ias required by law which will be calculated and notified to you at the time of payment (b) The proceeds of sale of the goods (if any) after deduction of all costs associated with finding you and/or the goods, recovery, refurbishment and repair. Insurance, storage, sale, agents fees, cherished plate removal, replacement keys, costs associated with obtaining service history for the goods and in relation to obtaining a duplicate V5 registration certificate   4, The following are particulars required by Civil Procedure Rules. Rule 7.9 as set out in 7.1 and 7.2 of the associated Practice Direction entitled Hire Purchase Claims:-   a)     The agreement is dated 25 August 2022. And is between Moneybarn No1 Limited  and xxxxxxxxx under agreement number 756050. b)    The claimant was one of the original parties to the agreement. c)    The agreement is regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. d)    The goods claimed Ford Ranger 3.2 TDCi ( 200 PS) 4x4 Wildtrack Double Cab Pickup 3200 cc (Sep2015} Registration No ^^^^^^^ Chassis number ***************** e)     Thw total price of the goods £19570 f)     The paid up sum £1206 5 g)    The unpaid balance of the total price £7505 (to include charges) h)    A default notice was sent to the defendant on 20th February 2024 by Firrst class post i)      The date when the right to demand delivery of the goods accrued 14 March 2024 j)      The amount if any claimed as an alternative to delivery of the goods 7505 22 include charges ]= 5.  A the date of service of the notice the instalments were £562.89 in arrears. 6. By reason of the Termination of the Agreement by the notice, defendant became liable to pay the sum of £7502 7. The date of maturity the agreement is 24th August 2027. 8. Further or  alternative by reasons of  the Defendant breaches of the agreement by failing to pay the said instalments, the Defendant evinced an intention no longer to be bound by the Agreement and repudiated it by the said Notice the claimant accepted that repudiation 9. By reason of such repudiation the claimant has suffered loss and damage.   Total amount payable £19570 Less sum paid or in arrears by the date of repudiation £12064 97 Balance £7505 (to include charges.) ( The claimant will give credit if necessary for the value of the vehicle if recovered.)  The claimant therefore claims 1.    An order for delivery up of the vehicle 2.    The MoneyClaim to be adjourned generally with liberty to restore,  Upon restoration of the MoneyClaim following return or loss of the vehicle. the Claimant will ensure the pre action protocol for debt claims is followed. 3.    Pursuant to s 90 (1)  of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. An order that the Claimant and/or its agents may enter any premises in which the vehicle is situated in order to recover the vehicle should it not be returned by the Defendant 4.    further or alternatively damages 5.    costs.   Statement of truth The Claimant believes that the facts stated in these Particulars of Claim are true. The Claimant understands that the proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes or causes to be made a false statement in the document for verified by statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth. I am duly Authorised by the Claimant to sign these Particulars of Claim signed Dated 17th of April 2024   What is the total value of the claim? 7502   Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? No   Never heard of this   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? n/a Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? No   When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? After  Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? In a garage  Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes  Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. Original Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? n/a   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? They said sent but nor received   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? None seen   Why did you cease payments? Still Paying,   What was the date of your last payment? Yesterday  31st May 2024   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? Yes on 12 Feb 2024   What you need to do now.   Can't scan, will do via another means as you cant have jpg
    • Now that is an interesting article which adds afew perspective that I hadn't thought significant - but on reflection of the perspectives offered ... Now Starmer is no Blair, however 'blairite he may be perceived, but the Tories aren't tories and aren't even remotely liberal   The fast 'unannounced and unexpected election call from sunack may well be explained by the opinion linked that he hoped reform would be unprepared and effectively call a chunk of Farages largely empty bluster - making him look even more of a prat, leave scope for attacks on shabby reform candidates and mimimise core vote losses to reform - while throwing the 'middle ground' (relative) tories TO THE DOGS - and with the added bonus of likely pacifying his missu' desire to jogg off to sunny cal tout suite somewhat   thumb in the air - I expect about 140ish tory seats, but can hope for under a hundred Reform - got to admit the outside possibility of 1, maybe 2 seats with about 8% of the vote - but unlikely. I think projections of over 10% of the vote for reform is nudged and paid for speculation - but possible with the expected massive drives from Russian, Chinese and far right social media bot and troll prods targeting the gullible.
    • Commentary June 2024 WWW.ELECTORALCALCULUS.CO.UK Interesting article about just how bad it could be for the Tories.  Also Tories could be hoping on Reform not having candidates in many seats, as they were not ready.  
    • Even a Piers Morgan is an improvement and a gutless Farage Piers Morgan calls for second Brexit referendum WWW.THELONDONECONOMIC.COM Piers Morgan and Nigel Farage have faced off over Brexit and a second referendum in a heated reunion on BBC Question Time.   “Why don’t we have another referendum about Brexit?” he questioned. “I seem to remember when 2016 came around we were told there was going to be control of our borders and it was going to be economically beneficial to this country. And eight years later we have lost complete control of our borders… and economically it seems to have been a wilful act of self-harm.”   ... Piers missed off : after all somebody said a 48/52 decision would be "unfinished business" by a long way - was that person just bul lying (again)  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

High Court Judgement - The Rankines v Just about Everybody


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4593 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

davefirewalker posted a judgment that was made in the High Court at the end of May, the link is here:-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/84285-ccas-dave-against-world-38.html#post1554322

 

The people involved were really trying it on and deserved everything thye got by the sounds of it.

 

However, the judge did make, what to me sound like some very worrying comments which seem to go totally against what some of the more experienced members here have been saying is the correct interpretation of the law.

 

I just wonder what people think:-

 

s77/s78 request.

 

The judge said at [12] that it was not necessary for the terms and conditions to be sent in reply to a s77/78 request:-

 

"Mr and Mrs Rankine also sought to contend as a new thought at trial that as only the front page was scanned in, therefore the entire agreement had not been sent. The back only contained the standard conditions which were sent separate anyway so that is a very bad point an perhaps it was not surprising that it had not emerged until then.

 

He said at [16] that a s77/78 request was invalid after the agreement had been terminated so s78(6) could not be used to halt enforcement.

 

He then went on to say that in any case "enforce" is not descriptive of bringing proceedings (so a creditor can commence a court case even if they haven't responded to a s77/78 request). Doing this is merely a step taken with a view to enforcement and so is ok. The only recourse the debtor has is to seek an injunction under s170

 

 

Cancellation Rights

 

I have seen a couple of defences/witness statments from Tomtem8 that refer to notice of cancellation rights not having been given.

 

What the judge has said here (at [18] - [27]) is that in the case of credit cards for example that voluntarily give cancellation rights then they don't have to abide by all the procedures for giving notice of those rights.

 

Default notice

 

He said at [41] and [43] that if there is anything wrong with the default notice then it does not bar the creditor bringing a court action, but a debtor can only seek an injunction under s170.

 

He also said at [45] that if the default notice was overstated by only a small amount then that does not matter (in this case it was overstated by £10 when she had arrears of £347 and a total debt of about £6k. He then went on to refer to Woodchester Lease v Swaine as support of his position.

 

So, he is saying that a default notice does not have to be entirely accurate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 137
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

im afraid the judge made an error on a lot of his points,

 

if you read Woodchester for example it is clear the figure to remedy the default must be accurate the judge, Kennedy LJ even went as far as saying the amount owed is NOT a de mimimus issue so that is one error for starters

Link to post
Share on other sites

One does, however, have to wonder if this is what creditors have been waiting for, a precedental judgement to quote verbatim.

 

I think the Rankines have done a huge disservice to those battling under the terms of the CCA. I was struck especially by the Judge's remarks that the Rankines openly "boasted" in court that they had managed to "wriggle out" of £65K of debt. They have brought this on themselves, but unfortunately also on every other poor so and so out there.

 

I also wonder if it is worthy of note that it is perhaps best to allow the creditor to sue you than the other way round. You would at least then have the opportunity to pick their claim apart bit by bit. I do think that the result of this will be that creditors will be far more confident in commencing legal proceedings than they would have done previously. After all, they have a precedental judgement to rely on.

 

What a shocking state of affairs, thanks Rankines!

 

Regards,

 

Corn x:)

  • Haha 1

CLICK ON THE SCALES IF YOU THINK I HAVE HELPED!

 

I AM NOT SCARED ANYMORE!:rolleyes:

 

MBNA - To quote "The Carpenters", We've Only Just Begun..................;):D

HSBC - Settled.

Capital One - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) issued.

Goldfish - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) issued.

Tesco - SAR issued.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i think the main thing to take from this is................................

 

if you are going to sue someone under the CCA, DO IT PROPERLY and DONT POOCH IT UP

 

I really do think that this judgment changes nothing

 

their pleadings were nothing like what we argue on here in our defences and i think that they have done no harm to us, infact i think the judgment clarifies matters and that can only be in our favor

 

on point that i did chuckle at, they have a civil restraining order which means no more litigation yet their website still says they get rid of credit card debt one wonders how exactley they are going to achieve their objectives

Edited by pt2537
Link to post
Share on other sites

i think the main thing to take from this is................................

 

if you are going to sue someone under the CCA, DO IT PROPERLY and DONT POOCH IT UP

 

Sound advice PT:) I nearly did just that (although the claim was brought against me in this instance) until I sought advice from a Barrister who actually rubbished all my arguments but found the "golden nugget" as it were.

 

It is very easy to screw things up but I maintain that I would never bring proceedings against a creditor other than in a "charges" situation.

 

I love that term "pooch it up". That is going to by my new word from now on.

 

Regards,

 

Corn x:)

CLICK ON THE SCALES IF YOU THINK I HAVE HELPED!

 

I AM NOT SCARED ANYMORE!:rolleyes:

 

MBNA - To quote "The Carpenters", We've Only Just Begun..................;):D

HSBC - Settled.

Capital One - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) issued.

Goldfish - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) issued.

Tesco - SAR issued.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Corn,

 

i think the thing with litigation, if you are looking for a section 142 declaration, it must be in circumstances where the creditor has provided you an improperly executed agreement and one that is only enforceable by court order per S65(1)

 

then you could as per the rankine ruling, take them on and totally fillet their donkey for them

Edited by pt2537
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Corn,

 

i think the thing with litigation, if you are looking for a section 142 declaration, it must be in circumstances where the creditor has provided you an improperly executed agreement and one that is only enforceable by court order per S65(1)

 

then you could as per the rankine ruling, take them on and totally fillet theri donkey for them

 

Yes, I agree with you completely, however, I ought to perhaps read the ruling more thoroughly before I comment further, it was read in haste and needs to be digested at leisure. I still think this will have major implications for many creditors though. Bloody Tesco's will have a field day with this and they are one of my bugbears!

 

I would really love to "pooch them up" and "fillet their donkey":p but that will have to wait until another day......

 

Regards,

 

Corn x:)

CLICK ON THE SCALES IF YOU THINK I HAVE HELPED!

 

I AM NOT SCARED ANYMORE!:rolleyes:

 

MBNA - To quote "The Carpenters", We've Only Just Begun..................;):D

HSBC - Settled.

Capital One - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) issued.

Goldfish - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) issued.

Tesco - SAR issued.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Nicklea!

 

Just spotted this Thread.

 

I suggested over on Davefirewalker's Thread HERE that CAG should start a Thread devoted to this Judgement, and now I see you have already done so!

 

One suggestion, could this Thread be re-named to add the name Rankine?

 

Then this Thread could run on from here to discuss this and perhaps be elevated in visibility, as I think many people are going to be sent a Copy of this as a form of banking Intimidation, albeit not as convincing as the bankers would like.

 

Cheers,

BRW

Link to post
Share on other sites

Done.

 

I agree that the problem is not about the judgment as such, full of flaws as it is, and as PT says, the arguments (I'm being generous here) used by the Rankines are somewhat different from the ones used to good effect here. The problem is for all the less well informed sods who are going to get that case thrown at them to try and browbeat them in submission as indeed they tried with DaveFW, only they picked on the wrong guy in this instance!

 

Unfortunately, for one DaveFW, how many who will give up faced with a High Court Judgment? :-(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Bookworm!

 

Unfortunately, for one DaveFW, how many who will give up faced with a High Court Judgment?

 

Absolutely.

 

Hopefully this Thread may help others to adopt Davefirewalker's attitude when faced with what appears to be a handy new weapon in the banker's intimidatory arsenal.

 

Cheers,

BRW

Link to post
Share on other sites

Done.

 

I agree that the problem is not about the judgment as such, full of flaws as it is, and as PT says, the arguments (I'm being generous here) used by the Rankines are somewhat different from the ones used to good effect here. The problem is for all the less well informed sods who are going to get that case thrown at them to try and browbeat them in submission as indeed they tried with DaveFW, only they picked on the wrong guy in this instance!

 

Unfortunately, for one DaveFW, how many who will give up faced with a High Court Judgment? :-(

 

I must admit, when I first received the judgement I panicked a little (for little read a lot :) ).

 

Then when I read it fully I realised it was full of bad judgements, and bore little resemblance to the case I am bringing. As Bookworm has said "they have picked the wrong guy".

 

I have spent a good deal of time mulling this over, researching and getting prepared, and what I am going to do was not entered into lightly.

 

The judge in the rankine case was obviously very biased and based his decisions accordingly, but I do agree that they were trying it on and somewhat deserved what they got.

 

rgds

 

Dave

Edited by davefirewalker

** We would not seek a battle as we are, yet as we are, we say we will not shun it. (Henry V) **

 

see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,

Straining upon the start. The game's afoot:

Follow your spirit; and, upon this charge

Cry 'God for Harry! England and Saint George!'

:D If you think I have helped, informed, or amused you do the clickey scaley thing !! :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read the Judgment but does anyone actually have a copy of their "rambling" pleadings.

I have run this past a very good barrister who also says the Judgment is flawed and felt that from the Judges comments he had got their number and used whatever he could to find against them.

He also disagreed with the Judge's comments on enforcement and said "if taking someone to court isn't enforcement I don't know what is".

This comes down to being sure and certain of your case and KISS!

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my view the problem I believe with this Judgment is that if you go infront of the Judge and argue that you are not paying the creditor because they didn't do one or the other things under the CCA 1974, then you are asking for trouble. If you argue your case from the point of view that you requested a CCA because you felt that they were putting unfair interest/charges and you wanted to be clear that this was allowed and in the absence of such an agreement although you do not deny owing the money it's unenforceable. Then perhaps you stand a better chance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my view the problem I believe with this Judgment is that if you go infront of the Judge and argue that you are not paying the creditor because they didn't do one or the other things under the CCA 1974, then you are asking for trouble. If you argue your case from the point of view that you requested a CCA because you felt that they were putting unfair interest/charges and you wanted to be clear that this was allowed and in the absence of such an agreement although you do not deny owing the money it's unenforceable. Then perhaps you stand a better chance.

 

Yes this is the case I am putting forward

 

I do not deny that I owe the money, but I found out in earlier investigations about charges that the agreement was flawed. As such the agreement is unenforceable.

 

If this is the case they were not allowed to enforce the agreement ie to add interest. I still owe the money but because of the agreement status they cannot collect.

 

Any interest was paid in mistake and is due restitution. There a few recent precedents that allow this in common law.

 

I think I have them panicking at the moment :) They must be or they wouldnt have sent the rankine judgement to try to put me off.

 

rgds

 

Dave

** We would not seek a battle as we are, yet as we are, we say we will not shun it. (Henry V) **

 

see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,

Straining upon the start. The game's afoot:

Follow your spirit; and, upon this charge

Cry 'God for Harry! England and Saint George!'

:D If you think I have helped, informed, or amused you do the clickey scaley thing !! :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're absolutely right. Somewhere, it meets this fine rope we're walking on CAG, where we do not, ever, condone debt evasion, and yet try and provide all the tools to help people fight their cases. Unavoidably, some people will use those tools to try and shirk their responsabilities, but it gets to the point where it has to be seen as collateral damage in order to help the many who have genuine grievances, and I do believe the majority will meet their moral obligations, with only a small handful of serial debt avoiders.

 

In some cases, it will come down to a moral stance, and if the judge thinks you're just a serial debt-dodger, he will be less inclined to be impartial and to judge only on the legal argument basis. So yes, I agree that how you wrap it all up is going to be paramount.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we have to accept that now & again Judges make bad law & I suspect like some other recent Judgment in the case of the Data Protection Act it should be ignored or at least not held to be a firm precedent.

 

This Judgment not only goes against the spirit of the act but also it's clear & present language as used by the framers when the act was drawn. It also ignores entirely the many proceeding precedents which say precisely the opposite But then like most litigants in person he realizes they are unlikely to appeal

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we have to accept that now & again Judges make bad law ...........................But then like most litigants in person he realizes they are unlikely to appeal

 

 

In my reading of it, he REFUSED leave to appeal, and in fact put an injunction on them claiming again.....

 

He must have been well p*ssed with them :)

 

Dave

** We would not seek a battle as we are, yet as we are, we say we will not shun it. (Henry V) **

 

see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,

Straining upon the start. The game's afoot:

Follow your spirit; and, upon this charge

Cry 'God for Harry! England and Saint George!'

:D If you think I have helped, informed, or amused you do the clickey scaley thing !! :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I read the judgement for the second time this morning and I have to say that they bl88dy deserved it. Not only were they sticking two fingers up at the banks in a BIG way they were also aiming to profit from helping others to do the same whilst paying no court costs as they were on income support:confused:.

 

I also saw that the banks were awarded serious amounts of costs. What or who will pay them?

BANK CHARGES

Nat West Bus Acct £1750 reclaim - WON

 

LTSB Bus Acct £1650 charges w/o against o/s balance - WON

 

Halifax Pers Acct £1650 charges taken from benefits - WON

 

Others

 

GE Money sec loan - £1900 in charges - settlement agreed

GE Money sec loan - ERC of £2.5K valid for 15 years - on standby

FirstPlus - missold PPI of £20K for friends - WON

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you Goldlady. There's a huge difference between setting a wrong right by an individual & creating a business out of those who have been wronged - they're no better than those they took to court.

Guess they can always take a loan out to pay their costs - & it won't matter if they have an enforceable CCA or not 'cos they can't take it to court....;)

Any knowledge I possess or advice I proffer is based solely on my experiences in the University of Life. Please make your own assessment of legality, risks & costs before taking any action.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my reading of it, he REFUSED leave to appeal, and in fact put an injunction on them claiming again.....

 

He must have been well p*ssed with them :)

 

Dave

 

If he does they could appeal anyway & possibly win if they could put together a reasonable argument showing clearly that the Judge erred in law which he did on a number of occasions IMHO

 

In fact I venture to say that if this did come to an appeal the Judge might be criticised by the court for not only his errors in law but also what was his obvious dislike & bias against this pair.

 

In other words he appears to have let his heart rule his judicial head by possibly allowing his personal feelings to cloud his findings

Edited by JonCris
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello JonCris!

 

In other words he appears to have let his heart rule his head by possibly allowing his personal feelings to cloud his judgment

 

That did come across loud and clear!

 

I like the nice banks.

 

I don't like the nasty Rankines.

 

IMHO, he failed to sit in the middle and judge. He took sides, and it showed, quite badly in places which could yet be the making of the Rankines. Not that they deserve it!

 

As you say...

 

I also don't think we have heard the last of Basil & Amanda

 

Cheers,

BRW

Link to post
Share on other sites

If he does they could appeal anyway & possibly win if they could put together a reasonable argument showing clearly that the Judge erred in law which he did on a number of occasions IMHO

 

In fact I venture to say that if this did come to an appeal the Judge might be criticised by the court for not only his errors in law but also what was his obvious dislike & bias against this pair.

 

In other words he appears to have let his heart rule his head by possibly allowing his personal feelings to cloud his judicial head

in theory they could apply for Judicial review of the decision as like you said there is ap[parent bias on the trial judges part

 

so more tax payers money to be frittered away then:rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

If he does they could appeal anyway & possibly win if they could put together a reasonable argument showing clearly that the Judge erred in law which he did on a number of occasions
I think you just have put your finger on the flaw in that plan, JC. :-D
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...