Ok... slight change of topic but very relevant to something I brought up several pages back re. CPUTR 2008 (on this thread as well as another, I think)

I said in an earlier post about putting a creditor/DCA on the spot re. CPUTR and questioning them as to whether they hold or have ever held an enforceable CCA and if not to kindly confirm so in their response. I then said that to date, I have never had a reply from anyone one way or the other; only a generic response that mentioned nothing before never hearing from a company again.

Well.... this morning I've had my first reply.....

"We write with reference to your recently received letter and regret to advise you that we are unable to comply with your request as we are no longer dealing with this account. For the avoidance of doubt you should resubmit your request to the client"

The "request" was in connection to a microfiche application form which both creditor/DCA had tried to pass off as an Agreement several times....

Burden of proof right back where it belongs..... go CPUTR.... !!

Nice one.

I always include the CPUTR ref in my letters now.

Could you give me a lead as to what CPUTR actually stands for and and where can I read more about it(unless you will be kind enough to display the details)

Thanks

Stripper

I would appreciate your response and advice on how to use CPUTR.

Thanks

Stripper

Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.....

I have to log off here shortly but if you do a search there's a thread on it which should help you..... Look at ss. 5(2), 3(b), 6 and 7 in particular. I'll be back on here later.

Unfortunately P!, you are correct. I have found on many occasions when following a prolific poster's arguments across several important threads (threads I deem important anyway to me) I also draw the conclusion that they end up contradicting themselves and arguing both ends against the middle. That immediately undermines any respect for the what may be valuable information they have given previously.

Worse still, the wrong impression will be given to new members who may not have read all that others have and confuse them even more in what is a minefield. I would therefore respectfully suggest that some these people choose their words more carefully and in a less bombastic way.

I have notes which actually based on well affirmed statements by well thought of caggers made here on CAG that in summation as I have said previously close off EVERY avenue of defence/attack with regard to CCA Law for the alleged debtor, i.e it does not exist for "our" side, they haveactually put words into judges mouths (judgements) that have NOT been said or written and on one occasion I actually found that one long termer said that Waksman had actually changed Statute Law. I even have traced one member who is highly thought of on here posting a diametrically opposed argument on a DCA forum explaining fundamentally when the bovine excreta is removed how to undermine a cag position. Unless of course my Oxford MA English teacher at grammar school was teaching me a foreign language.

NONE OF US KNOW IT ALL EVEN IF WE HAVE/HAVE NOT HAD SUCCESS IN A COURT! PROPER HELP FOR THE LESS FORTUNATE IS THE GAME NOT EGO TRIPS!!

regards

oilyrag.

 

I have notes which actually based on well affirmed statements by well thought of caggers made here on CAG that in summation as I have said previously close off EVERY avenue of defence/attack with regard to CCA Law for the alleged debtor, i.e it does not exist for "our" side, they haveactually put words into judges mouths (judgements) that have NOT been said or written and on one occasion I actually found that one long termer said that Waksman had actually changed Statute Law. I even have traced one member who is highly thought of on here posting a diametrically opposed argument on a DCA forum explaining fundamentally when the bovine excreta is removed how to undermine a cag position. Unless of course my Oxford MA English teacher at grammar school was teaching me a foreign language.

 

NONE OF US KNOW IT ALL EVEN IF WE HAVE/HAVE NOT HAD SUCCESS IN A COURT! PROPER HELP FOR THE LESS FORTUNATE IS THE GAME NOT EGO TRIPS!!

 

regards

oilyrag.

CAG is not like it used to be Oily. There was a time when debt advice was really tight on here as I mentioned before on here somewhere... but many of those responsible for working together and giving tight advice back then have since left CAG for a variety of reasons. I have read similar posts to yours and have marvelled at the "advice" given out on these forums from time to time and the interpretations that somehow become "fact".

I certainly don't profess to know it all but I do know what works for me and for those I've assisted on here.... and my opinion is, that unless a member has first hand experience of challenging CCA law (not contract law) on the grounds that they talk about... either in or out of court, then they really do need to tone it down for those seeking the best way forward for them.

I have found on many occasions when following a prolific poster's arguments across several important threads (threads I deem important anyway to me) I also draw the conclusion that they end up contradicting themselves and arguing both ends against the middle. That immediately undermines any respect for the what may be valuable information they have given previously.

 

regards

oilyrag.

Just in case any of this applies to me, for somehow I seem to have become anathema here, I will re-iterate my position and thoughts, from which I do not believe I have ever deviated:

To enforce an agreement a lender needs to demonstrate to the court that the debtor signed a properly executed agreement as defined in s61(1)(a) of the Act.

Unfortunately the lender may have much leeway from the court as to how he may demonstrate that.

At the very least he may convince a judge by simply saying that the company has always maintained protocols such that the debtor must sign a form with his signature that identifies the agreement is made under the Act and contains all the prescribed terms before he gets credit. The lender may say that the application form that the debtor signed has the prescribed terms attached or on the reverse, we simply did not copy them because they are standard T&Cs applicable to all our products and we reproduce them here. Or of course lastly and at best, they may have a fully compliant signed agreement with all the PTs contained.

My contentions always have been to find the best possible arguments to defend each of those situations.

I think that people are speaking from several viewpoints here.... and there lies the problem for those trying to learn.

I don't assume that a case will end up in court, therefore I don't speak about what will or will not happen in court. I've had no cause to do that, since I've never been taken to court.... Therefore, any talk about what a Judge will or will not do doesn't apply to me or to anyone else who's not there yet.... it's an if, but or maybe argument.

Those who have already been issued with legal papers for court need a different argument. In many cases, people are taken to court because their argument hasn't been strong enough beforehand and the creditor/DCA sniffs an easy CCJ.... and in order to put in a good Defence, they'll need to pull out all the stops to discredit the Claimant's case. This seems to be where DD is coming from...

Then there are Claimants like yourself Basa.... and a different argument is needed yet again because you are the one bringing the case.

For anyone reading these forums though, it would seem that a trip to court is an eventuality that cannot be avoided and that is just not so. This is not the first time this has happened; it used to raise it's head a few years ago as well. I can recall having a very strong "debate" with a highly respected poster at the time who swore blind that HFC would take me to court and get a CCJ/Charging Order and that I was naive to assume otherwise. It never happened.... and that particular poster is long gone now anyway.

I think that's what Oily is referring to.... it's also what I've mentioned before as well; court is not an eventuality for everyone.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?240186-Dissecting-the-Manchester-Test-Case....&p=3224154&viewfull=1#post3224154

 

With respect DD.... you seem to be contradicting yourself..... . ...

 

I cannot see the point of denying that you ever signed an Agreement. Whether you've signed one or you haven't signed one is irrelevant until/unless the Claimant can prove it; i.e. the burden of proof is on the Claimant to prove their case against you...

 

What exactly are you trying to say?.... because I think some people on here are reading your words and thinking it's best to deny signing any Agreement if nothing has been produced or, if something is reconstructed..... regardless of the fact that monies may have passed through their hands.... which could make them look very foolish in court; unenforceable Agreement or otherwise.

i am not aware that i am contradicting myself but am happy to clarify and bluntly:-

DON'T LIE by making statements that you never signed and agreement and/or received the required copy of one when you know damn well you did! simply rely on the fact that you deny that the creditor has a properly executed/legally enforceable agreement

OR

if you know- or are confident that you cannot ever recall signing an agreement then you MUST (IMO) assert that fact (in writing) to the claimant at the outset and maintain that position

as i have said on numerous occasions (IMO) 99.999% of people seeking help on this forum are perfectly well aware that they entered into an agreement with a creditor- there is virtually no situation in which a defendant could deny- from all the available documentation that an " agreement" was entered into with the creditor

an agreement is an agreement is an agreement- the fact that it may not comply with the CCA or be legally unenforceable does NOT mean that the agreement was not entered into

therefore a denial that an " agreement" was entered into, or that " no debt is owed to the claimant" - is (IMO) just plain balmy and a LIE- not the best start in a defence in either case

the question therefore in the vast majority of cases is not that there was no agreement- but that there was no "legally enforeceable " agreement

The "Burden" of proof on the part of the claimant is NOT to prove that he has "current possession" of a signed executed agreement (The CCA says only that the creditor "Should" produce it to the court NOT that he "MUST do so)

The creditor can and will often succeed in arguing that due to the passage of time or some other reason the original has been lost/destroyed. "

the judge will in most cases readily accept that in very large organisations with millions of records- some may go astray (as opposed to the debtor who may only have a handful) - and which is why- incidentally the REAL reason why creditors get so much more leeway in terms of missing deadlines in court etc - and not the balonney spouted by some on here that the courts are "on the creditors side"

The claimant does not need to provide the signed agreement- he needs only to pursuade the court "On the balance of probabilities" that the defendant did sign an agreement (At some time in the past)

he will do so by reference to similar copies of agreements of the time and allege that their systems were such that the defendant could not have obtained the card/funds unless they had received the signed copy back and by reference to their accounts and statements to the defendant what the defendant has spent - and what he has repaid and what is subsequently still owed- so unless you can pick holes in that actual document as an agreement the court is likely to take the creditors evidence at face value

therefore if the documents they produce as detailed above include the correct prescribed terms- then the chances are in 95% of cases that the judge will ACCEPT their argument

there are clear references in cases quoted on this forum where the judge has commented that "had the defendant made positive assertions as to whether he had signed an agreement"- he may have taken a different decision

the clear inference being that the defendants silence on the matter was critical-

a judge who .sees that a defendant has only ever made such an assertion AFTER the defendant has seen the claimants evidence- is likely to give the amount of weight to that denial that i probably would if i were a judge! (not a lot)

the judge is far more likely to want to investigate the existence of a properly executed and/or legally enforceable agreement where the defendant has made these positive assertions from the outset- and even more impressed where correspondence from the defendant to the claimant - pre court process- where he has invited the claimant to comply with the overriding principles and settle the matter out of court by simply showing the defendant a true copy of the alleged properly executed agreement (which often turns out to be no more than a pre contractual application form)

finally, where the defendant has followed the foregiong procedure- offered to resolve the matter by the simple production by the claimant to him of the evidence of the claim- and the claimant then produces at the last minute- in court the document he relies on but which he never previously gave to the defendant -( and which is happening more often) then the defendant can argue that he may well have taken different decisions as to his continuance of his defence had the claimant acted honestly and openly and the claimant is suspect - is far less likely to get the costs he seeks- even if he does win the day (see BOS v Robert Mitchell)

to sum up and make things crystal clear

Dont LIE that you never signed and agreement

Dont head letters that you acknowledge no debt to the creditor when it is clear that you do

Dont sit on the fact that you genuinely did not- or cannot recall signing an agreement- make the assertion EARLY POSITIVELY and DEMAND (not under s78) a COPY of that agreement- and if (as they may) do not repsond then offer to traval at your own expense to the location of the document to inspect it

all in writing and ALL before any case is brought against you

the

if you read the CCA it clearly refers to the debtor " having signed" an agreement ( past tense)

 

in other words the courts will in many instances be prepared to accept the creditors argument that the debtor DID (past tense) sign an agreement similar to the one that the creditor now shows to the court as being the type of agreement that was in force at the time- even if the creditor cannot now produce the signed copy- and that due to the creditors practices it would not have been possible for the credit to have been advanced until that signed agreement was returned

 

higher/appeal courts may well take a different view- but then again most lower court judges (who are often no more than local solicitors) know full well that if they find for the claimant- the defendant often will not have the will/finances to appeal

 

thats the way the cookie is crumbling and why i now believe that the time for LIP's to stand in court and just repeat parrot fashion- phrases and arguments that they do not FULLY understand- and can argue the hjind legs of a donkey on-n are gone

 

as a result my advice is that if one is not prepared to come onto the site and then STUDY and LEARN the arguments they are looking for- then they should not be just simply given pro forma defences and arguments to use themselves which they clearly do not understand

First of all can I say that I totally agree with you DD about studying and learning the arguments - I could NOT agree with you more about that. That is utterly crucial.

That said, I have to respectfully disagree with you about signing an agreement. I know I am repeating myself - and I think P1 - but if you go into court and say you signed nothing then you better have a good argument. It can happen - once upon a time I had a loyalty/affinity card (for a large well known petrol company that you might associate with a seashore) and one day a new card appeared , bacbed by RBS, with instructions to go out and spend. This particular card has never drawn any kind of document - other than a computer dump of T&Cs with my name and address types at the top - because there isnt one. BUT in most cases, as I said above, if you say you didnt sign, they will say "impossible".

In any case, while you are right when you say that "clearly refers to the debtor " having signed" an agreement ( past tense)", s61 1a makes what form that agreement should take to be enforceable and in particular what it must contain (as opposed to embody - that's 1b) - the prescribed terms and it should be signed. So, even if there is a sig on the document, does it contain the prescribed terms? If there is no sig, then in my view its for them to prove that I did sign a document which was compliant. As you say, they might come back with the custom and practice/ our process argument, but even then they should be getting pushed to show what document I am supposed to have signed. To take an example, there used to be thread on here - maybe there still is - about MBNA "agreements" (sort of black museum), some of which might have been compliant, while others were not. But my point is that its not altogether fanciful to suggest that MBNA had an application form for about every day of the year. Which one did I sign? Merely to produce a computer dump of T&Cs (a recon) and say "it was like this" does not seem to me to be nearly good enough for two reasons - first we know that a whole variety of forms were in use, and secondly while they might be able to come up with the T&Cs reconstructed, that doesnt even begin to approach evidence of whether the prescribed terms were contained or merely embodied.

Like you, I am aware that if you get the wrong judge on the wrong day, all can go wrong, BUT that could happen even with your own sol (and lets be honest, some of them will charge you the full boonah, even if they are one page ahead of you on the CCA) . Moreover, it doesnt change the requirements of the law. But I think that pretty much takes me back to "you need to know what you are talking about", and I think we are both agreed on this.

i am not aware that i am contradicting myself but am happy to clarify and bluntly:-

 

 

 

DON'T LIE by making statements that you never signed and agreement and/or received the required copy of one when you know damn well you did! simply rely on the fact that you deny that the creditor has a properly executed/legally enforceable agreement

 

OR

 

if you know- or are confident that you cannot ever recall signing an agreement then you MUST (IMO) assert that fact (in writing) to the claimant at the outset and maintain that position

 

 

 

 

as i have said on numerous occasions (IMO) 99.999% of people seeking help on this forum are perfectly well aware that they entered into an agreement with a creditor- there is virtually no situation in which a defendant could deny- from all the available documentation that an " agreement" was entered into with the creditor

 

an agreement is an agreement is an agreement- the fact that it may not comply with the CCA or be legally unenforceable does NOT mean that the agreement was not entered into

 

therefore a denial that an " agreement" was entered into, or that " no debt is owed to the claimant" - is (IMO) just plain balmy and a LIE- not the best start in a defence in either case

 

the question therefore in the vast majority of cases is not that there was no agreement- but that there was no "legally enforeceable " agreement

 

 

 

 

 

 

The "Burden" of proof on the part of the claimant is NOT to prove that he has "current possession" of a signed executed agreement (The CCA says only that the creditor "Should" produce it to the court NOT that he "MUST do so)

 

The creditor can and will often succeed in arguing that due to the passage of time or some other reason the original has been lost/destroyed. "

 

the judge will in most cases readily accept that in very large organisations with millions of records- some may go astray (as opposed to the debtor who may only have a handful) - and which is why- incidentally the REAL reason why creditors get so much more leeway in terms of missing deadlines in court etc - and not the balonney spouted by some on here that the courts are "on the creditors side"

 

The claimant does not need to provide the signed agreement- he needs only to pursuade the court "On the balance of probabilities" that the defendant did sign an agreement (At some time in the past)

 

he will do so by reference to similar copies of agreements of the time and allege that their systems were such that the defendant could not have obtained the card/funds unless they had received the signed copy back and by reference to their accounts and statements to the defendant what the defendant has spent - and what he has repaid and what is subsequently still owed- so unless you can pick holes in that actual document as an agreement the court is likely to take the creditors evidence at face value

 

therefore if the documents they produce as detailed above include the correct prescribed terms- then the chances are in 95% of cases that the judge will ACCEPT their argument

 

there are clear references in cases quoted on this forum where the judge has commented that "had the defendant made positive assertions as to whether he had signed an agreement"- he may have taken a different decision

 

the clear inference being that the defendants silence on the matter was critical-

 

a judge who .sees that a defendant has only ever made such an assertion AFTER the defendant has seen the claimants evidence- if likely to give the amount of weight to that denial that i probably would if i were a judge!

 

 

 

the judge is far more likely to want to investigate the existence of a properly executed and/or legally enforceable agreement where the defendant has made these positive assertions from the outset- and even more impressed where correspondence from the defendant to the claimant where he has invited the claimant to comply with the overriding principles and settle the matter out of court by simply showing the defendant a true copy of the alleged properly executed agreement (which often turns out to be no more than a pre contractual application form)

 

finally, where the defendant has followed the foregiong procedure- offered to resolve the matter by the simple production by the claimant to him of the evidence of the claim- and the claimant then p;roduces at the last minute- in court the document he relies on but which he never previously gave to the defendant - who may well then have taken different decisions as to his continuance of his defence- is far less likely to get the costs he seeks- even if he does win the day

 

 

to sum up and make things crystal clear

 

Dont LIE that you never signed and agreement

 

Dont head letters that you acknowledge no debt to the creditor when it is clear that you do

 

Dont sit on the fact that you genuinely did not- or cannot recall signing an agreement- make the assertion EARLY POSITIVELY and DEMAND (not under s78) a COPY of that agreement- and if (as they may) do not repsond then offer to traval at your own expense to the location of the document to inspect it

 

all in writing and ALL before any case is brought against you

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the

I think you and I must have been hammering away on our keyboard at/about the same time when probably we should have been watching the Championship. Can I just say that I substantially agree with this. Where I would diverge is on the agreements that the lender comes up with in evidence. They really do need to be put to strict proof on this, since many of them will have a whole raft of forms on the go at any one time. Morover, how likely are they to put up a form of agreement that wasnt compliant? Sure, maybe what you did sign was compliant in which case, well, sorry! But, I have my own collection and frankly they do make me wonder if anyone who had even had a copy of the CCA go across their desk ever read these before they went out to the public. Not so much not all the prescribed terms, more NO prescribed terms. If the case goes that way, then they really do need to be pushed on this (eg get them to produce a signed agreement for someone else - they might mislay some but not all surely - for the same card you signed up for).Assertions should always be examined.

Unfortunately P!, you are correct. I have found on many occasions when following a prolific poster's arguments across several important threads (threads I deem important anyway to me) I also draw the conclusion that they end up contradicting themselves and arguing both ends against the middle. That immediately undermines any respect for the what may be valuable information they have given previously.

 

Worse still, the wrong impression will be given to new members who may not have read all that others have and confuse them even more in what is a minefield. I would therefore respectfully suggest that some these people choose their words more carefully and in a less bombastic way.

 

I have notes which actually based on well affirmed statements by well thought of caggers made here on CAG that in summation as I have said previously close off EVERY avenue of defence/attack with regard to CCA Law for the alleged debtor, i.e it does not exist for "our" side, they haveactually put words into judges mouths (judgements) that have NOT been said or written and on one occasion I actually found that one long termer said that Waksman had actually changed Statute Law. I even have traced one member who is highly thought of on here posting a diametrically opposed argument on a DCA forum explaining fundamentally when the bovine excreta is removed how to undermine a cag position. Unless of course my Oxford MA English teacher at grammar school was teaching me a foreign language.

 

NONE OF US KNOW IT ALL EVEN IF WE HAVE/HAVE NOT HAD SUCCESS IN A COURT! PROPER HELP FOR THE LESS FORTUNATE IS THE GAME NOT EGO TRIPS!!

 

regards

oilyrag.

if that is directed at me- as i would say to a creditor put up or shut up!

I think that people are speaking from several viewpoints here.... and there lies the problem for those trying to learn.

 

I don't assume that a case will end up in court, therefore I don't speak about what will or will not happen in court. I've had no cause to do that, since I've never been taken to court.... Therefore, any talk about what a Judge will or will not do doesn't apply to me or to anyone else who's not there yet.... it's an if, but or maybe argument.

 

Those who have already been issued with legal papers for court need a different argument. In many cases, people are taken to court because their argument hasn't been strong enough beforehand and the creditor/DCA sniffs an easy CCJ.... and in order to put in a good Defence, they'll need to pull out all the stops to discredit the Claimant's case. This seems to be where DD is coming from...

 

Then there are Claimants like yourself Basa.... and a different argument is needed yet again because you are the one bringing the case.

 

For anyone reading these forums though, it would seem that a trip to court is an eventuality that cannot be avoided and that is just not so. This is not the first time this has happened; it used to raise it's head a few years ago as well. I can recall having a very strong "debate" with a highly respected poster at the time who swore blind that HFC would take me to court and get a CCJ/Charging Order and that I was naive to assume otherwise. It never happened.... and that particular poster is long gone now anyway.

 

I think that's what Oily is referring to.... it's also what I've mentioned before as well; court is not an eventuality for everyone.

 

the fact of some caggers not being taken to court by any of their creditors cannot simply be said to be as a result of the caggers own pre court discussions/or stance

many caggers like myself have won some, lost some and prevented some- if i could claim that my pre court advice or actions were so invincible - then clearly none would have been in court#

the truth is likely to be that some agreements are more likely to be worth the creditors time in court than others- and that creditors in any event will always "sell some off " and try some on"

therefore being more a matter of "pot luck" as to which creditor takes which cagger to court- rather than any golden bullet pre court arguments! (IMO)

First of all can I say that I totally agree with you DD about studying and learning the arguments - I could NOT agree with you more about that. That is utterly crucial.

That said, I have to respectfully disagree with you about signing an agreement. I know I am repeating myself - and I think P1 - but if you go into court and say you signed nothing then you better have a good argument. It can happen - once upon a time I had a loyalty/affinity card (for a large well known petrol company that you might associate with a seashore) and one day a new card appeared , bacbed by RBS, with instructions to go out and spend. This particular card has never drawn any kind of document - other than a computer dump of T&Cs with my name and address types at the top - because there isnt one. BUT in most cases, as I said above, if you say you didnt sign, they will say "impossible".

In any case, while you are right when you say that "clearly refers to the debtor " having signed" an agreement ( past tense)", s61 1a makes what form that agreement should take to be enforceable and in particular what it must contain (as opposed to embody - that's 1b) - the prescribed terms and it should be signed. So, even if there is a sig on the document, does it contain the prescribed terms? If there is no sig, then in my view its for them to prove that I did sign a document which was compliant. As you say, they might come back with the custom and practice/ our process argument, but even then they should be getting pushed to show what document I am supposed to have signed. To take an example, there used to be thread on here - maybe there still is - about MBNA "agreements" (sort of black museum), some of which might have been compliant, while others were not. But my point is that its not altogether fanciful to suggest that MBNA had an application form for about every day of the year. Which one did I sign? Merely to produce a computer dump of T&Cs (a recon) and say "it was like this" does not seem to me to be nearly good enough for two reasons - first we know that a whole variety of forms were in use, and secondly while they might be able to come up with the T&Cs reconstructed, that doesnt even begin to approach evidence of whether the prescribed terms were contained or merely embodied.

Like you, I am aware that if you get the wrong judge on the wrong day, all can go wrong, BUT that could happen even with your own sol (and lets be honest, some of them will charge you the full boonah, even if they are one page ahead of you on the CCA) . Moreover, it doesnt change the requirements of the law. But I think that pretty much takes me back to "you need to know what you are talking about", and I think we are both agreed on this.

i think sometimes people forget to read my footnote- we are all here giving advice from our own experience- as far as MBNA are concerned- i trashed their so called agreement but still lost that one........ on other cases that went to court where i was less sure of my arguments winning- i won!!

ALL my advice is based on a common sense approach so that those who want to challenge the creditor know the realities of what they will face in court - rather than the old wives tales of bent judges etc etc

there is a lot of costs involved if one loses- therefore minimising that risk or eliminating it altogether (by not even defending) if one is not sure of their grounds-is my only aim

The supreme court decided in this case that it's not the banks standard practice that matters but whether that practice is correct or not. In this case it was wrong for years.

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2010/50.html

M1

the fact of some caggers not being taken to court by any of their creditors cannot simply be said to be as a result of the caggers own pre court discussions/or stance

 

many caggers like myself have won some, lost some and prevented some- if i could claim that my pre court advice or actions were so invincible - then clearly none would have been in court#

 

the truth is likely to be that some agreements are more likely to be worth the creditors time in court than others- and that creditors in any event will always "sell some off " and try some on"

 

therefore being more a matter of "pot luck" as to which creditor takes which cagger to court- rather than any golden bullet pre court arguments! (IMO)

Agree to disagree here I think DD... My ex repo debt never went to court either and that was £52K; eventually settled as a F&F at less than 2%.... way before the days of CAG.

I do see where you're coming from up to a point; in that creditors/DCAs will pursue cases that they believe are worth their time and effort.... but providing your argument is relevant/focussed and doesn't include silly assertations as to what you "never signed"..... the burden of proof remains with the creditor/DCA to provide what they believe to be compliant and if/when that burden of proof becomes too much of a headache and/or likely to draw interest from regulatory bodies (useless or otherwise), they're more likely to drop it.

 

ALL my advice is based on a common sense approach so that those who want to challenge the creditor know the realities of what they will face in court - rather than the old wives tales of bent judges etc etc

 

there is a lot of costs involved if one loses- therefore minimising that risk or eliminating it altogether (by not even defending) if one is not sure of their grounds-is my only aim

I appreciate where your advice is coming from re. battling things out in court and preparing a tight argument but bent Judges are certainly not an old wives' tale..... the incestuous links between the financial industry, Gov. legal profession, etc. has been going on for centuries.... why do you think CCA 2006 lost the benefit of sec. 127(3)? Why were the banks bailed out with public money? Why were they allowed to fleece us for years with unlawful charges? Why were the Lloyds' names compensated in the 1980s?.... Another thread maybe?.... lol!

Thanks PriorityOne for the link.Lots to read and digest.

Stripper

Unfortunately the position has moved on, but all I will say is if the cap fits then wear it. I will point out just ONE example there are many others. The Invalid Default thread is a classic of contradiction and misleading direction. "Letters of Acceptance ?????" denigration of everyone who said not to send one even on professional advice????? then look what the same people said later and what happened, its all there on the record to the extent that s87(1) is irrelevant even and may not as well be in the Statute.

I have met and worked with some truly clever and great people in the past. The really good ones were very humble people in actual fact but they taught me a very valuable lesson which has been born out by bitter experience in a fairly long life. The experience made even more bitter because I gave the people concerned the benefit of the doubt, most sadly were public servants or had a background in the public service.

There are three options for people who ram their opinions down others throats:-

1. they are a thief of other people's ideas.

2. they are very uncertain of the ground they are on

3. it is an outright lie they need to justify.

sorry if you don't like it but that is a fact plus I have pointed the finger at no-one in particular just the summation of a very long time reading and trying to learn, but as P1 says some of the statements on here now are appalling and at time downright wrong. Just because a lower court makes a poor decision does not make it legal nor does it make it right in particular when a higher court has already ruled on the subject. Our tactics, like P1's have kept us from the court so far quite unlike others, long may it be so.

regards

oilyrag.

The supreme court decided in this case that it's not the banks standard practice that matters but whether that practice is correct or not. In this case it was wrong for years.

 

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2010/50.html

 

 

M1

'SHALL' had a definitive meaning in this case...but this is a Scottish case what relevance does this have with Consumer Credit Mystery?

rgds

m2ae

Some judges have been using the assumption that banks procedures are correct as the have been doing it for years rather than looking at the facts. This case should be used to remind judges that years of custom and practice has no relevance if in fact the custom and practice is wrong.

M1

Although this was a Scottish case...IT was decided in The UK Supreme Court...Could this then be cited as Obiter upon the County Courts in view of DD saying that 'banks standard practice would not have been to loan monies UNLESS an agreement 'had' been signed?

The contextual facts are obviously different..HOWEVER we are dealing with a specific issue...here being customary banking practices (right or wrong).

In other words is the PRINCIPLE in THIS case general enough to apply to our problems?

rgds

m2ae

Priority One.... yes another thread.... all highly relevant even to those with pressing debt...

I appreciate where your advice is coming from re. battling things out in court and preparing a tight argument but bent Judges are certainly not an old wives' tale..... the incestuous links between the financial industry, Gov. legal profession, etc. has been going on for centuries.... why do you think CCA 2006 lost the benefit of sec. 127(3)? Why were the banks bailed out with public money? Why were they allowed to fleece us for years with unlawful charges? Why were the Lloyds' names compensated in the 1980s?.... Another thread maybe?.... lol!

Try http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/2010/09/douglas-carswell-mp-introduces-bill-to-stop-fractional-reserve-banking

cock-up here, sorry

Thanks for the link Charlie... I'll have a good read....