Jump to content

hisholinessthepope

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    235
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by hisholinessthepope

  1. bispers are you after a letter that says you failed to send me a copy of credit agreement, account in default etc?
  2. WILSON & ANR.- and -HURSTANGER LTD Wilson & Anor v Hurstanger Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 299 (04 April 2007)
  3. In Wilson v Robertsons (London) Ltd ([2005] EWHC 1425, paragraph 45 - I laughed at the comment that "Indeed Mrs Wilson, who appears to be something of an authority on pawnbroking, ......" Had to remind myself it was judge making the comment.
  4. With regard to Next this thread might be worth reading. It also has a link to services charge (interest) http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/store-cards/69695-next-directory-covered-cca-2.html?highlight=Next+directory
  5. Thank you Pam, sorry to hear of you unsuccessful claim. Having re-read Wilson with your post in mind, it denies totally the lender any form of restitution to recover the sums via other legal means. But as you state, Wilson had not paid any monies so the debtors restitution is not mentioned. If I may quote the whole of paragraph 72 this time 72. Undoubtedly, as illustrated by the facts of the present case, section 127(3) may be drastic, even harsh, in its adverse consequences for a lender. He loses all his rights under the agreement, including his rights to any security which has been lodged. Conversely, the borrower acquires what can only be described as a windfall. He keeps the money and recovers his security. These consequences apply just as much where the lender was acting in good faith throughout and the error was due to a mistaken reading of the complex statutory requirements as in cases of deliberate non-compliance. These consequences also apply where, as in the present case, the borrower suffered no prejudice as a result of the non-compliance as they do where the borrower was misled. Parliament was painting here with a broad brush. If the lender loses all rights under the agreement, as the Lords stated, how does he have any rights to retain any monies paid? Surely all monies paid were under a misapprehension that the lender was entitled to receive the monies? Thoughts?
  6. Pam, in the Wilson case it is true that initially Wilson did not repay any monies. She then commenced proceedings and in the first court case the judge reduced the interest and Wilson appealed to the Court of Appeal. Pending the appeal Mrs Wilson paid £6900 to redeem her car. The court of appeal then ruled the agreement was "unenforceable" and ordered the return of the repayment of the £6,900 plus interest of £662. "The overall result was that Mrs Wilson was entitled to keep the amount of her loan, pay no interest and recover her car." This was cause for concern and the case was moved on to the House of Lords, where the Attorney General appeared on behalf of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Cherry picking outrageously one bit for the House Of Lords, I like the following; Lord Nicholls states "72. Undoubtedly, as illustrated by the facts of the present case, section 127(3) may be drastic, even harsh, in its adverse consequences for a lender. He loses all his rights under the agreement, including his rights to any security which has been lodged. Conversely, the borrower acquires what can only be described as a windfall. He keeps the money and recovers his security." Now I appreciate that the above paragraph concerns the security (her car) but the House of Lords did nothing about the court of appeal returning the monies she had paid. Would it be to large a leap to say one could recover all monies paid to an unenforceable agreement? All comments welcome
  7. Subscribing, you have my blessing on any action against BOS!
  8. I prayed and found this place. Time to dish out some retribution. With a smile and a blessing of course!
×
×
  • Create New...