You need to check your agreement for improper execution. ie the loan agreement and the PPI agreement need to be separately and clearly documented in order to be enforceable. As is mentioned elsewhere here, lenders were so keen to lend the money that often, very often, the loan and PPi were simply lumped together, but are 'caught' by Section 18 [Multiple Agreements], where they are in reality separate consumer credit agreements, one providing credit for a loan, and the other, PPI (Section 19 CCA 74 (linked agreements) providing credit for an insurance policy. Check out your pal's agreement to see if it complied, and then seek out yours. John Story www.ruinedbynatwest.com

Serioulsyfedup, I couldn't agree more. The problem is that the judges are keen to uphold the common law in preference (prejudice) to the Statute, and here, as you suggest they have supported the creditor by utilising the "balance of probabilities" common law test, (which requires 51%), as opposed to the Statute's "though shalt keep x,y,z" (ie 100%) to 'presume' that the creditor, as a responsible lender would 'in all probability' have supplied the proper documents, but, again, in all probability, these records were 'probably' lost !! What an absolute nonsense this is, where the CCA actually says "Lenders don't like documenting because it places the debtor at a disadvantage should problems arise (cos most can't afford the costs of litigation), so we'll make it clear DOCUMENT and KEEP the documents". As you say, and as Mr Bennion said, this then makes things very simple for all concerned. Odd, innit, how suddenly, all these lenders are "mislaying" documents they swear they produced ? It's nothing other than Daylight robbery, perpetrated by Common Law advocates. John Story www.ruinedbynatwest.com John Story

Chin Up Kaz, I am continuing in genuine dismay where the common law (Judge's rule of precedent) decisions in these cases grow further and further away from the provisions clearly expressed within the Statute. These days I take a wider view of things insofaras my own challenges to the Court, that in my case, Story (a leading case on Section 18 CCA 1974), the Judges concealed evidence to reach a decision favourable to the bank (Natwest) knowing that the precedent set would be binding upon the lower courts. That the decision in Story was binding is evidenced by the string of cases that followed - where there is no analysis of the true CCA position in that a regulated debt is refinanced. But, never mind the intricacies that feature in Story - the principle remains the same, in that Parliament intervened to repel the Common Law as it applied to consumer credit on the principle that the Common Law 'buried' the true ratio of individual cases under the mass of case law that develops over the years - as Lord Crowther held as the main reason for recommending that a new legal framework should replace this thicket of conflicting case law. Sadly, the Common Law has successfully defeated Mr Bennion's drafting, and he himself states that a reason for this is that the drafter of eg the 1983 agreements regulations, drafted some 9 years after the passing of the original 1974 CCA, did not himself understand Mr Bennion's drafting, clear as it was. So, where does this leave us ? Evidently we need another Royal Commission that is prepared, as Crowther was, to criticize the common law, but, let's face it, noone is prepared in today's economic climate to upset the applecart, which would be the inevitable conclusion of such an objective tribunal. I am maintaining my approaches to the Court of Appeal to reopen Story on the grounds that the Court deliberately concealed evidence of an existing regulation to favour the bank. Naive ? Whether naive of me or not, the facts speak for themselves - the Judges took a political decision to hide evidence knowing that at least £300 Billions' depended on their decision - a sum now vastly increased which the country just cannot afford to address. A very sad state of affairs. John Story www.ruinedbynatwest.com

Check out www.ruinedbynatwest.com to see how our judges have "fudged" evidence to pervert the Statute - specifically where regulated agreements, as these are defined by the Section 8 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 - when such regulated agreements are refinanced by Multiple Agreements as these are defined by Section 18 of the 1974 CCA as was dratfted by Mr Francis Bennion. Mr Francis Bennion - who drafted the 1974 CCA, has written to say that The Court of Appeal was "wholly Mistaken" and "Incorrect" in its misapplication in Story, (where 3 regulated agreements are refinanced) and that the Court "reveals" "an uncertain judicial grasp" of his drafting - but the Court refuses to hear him, whilst paradoxically, it upholds the dissenting views to Bennion, of Guest and Loyd and Prof Roy Goode, the latter with whom I communicated in the 90's. Prof Goode told me in the 90's (letter to hand) that where the CCA 1974 "bit" the terms of a relevant agreement the Court must uphold the CCA. He (Prof Goode) has not been asked by me to opine on the existing indebtedness that features in Story - "the undoubted existing debt of about £12000" (Auld LJ) that existed in Story - which was refinanced ("replaced" (Auld LJ) by a new agreement which provided £35000 over the similar 3 fracilities - where the existing sum of £12000 which was refinanced neatly falls within the £15000 limit that qualified under Section 8 at the material time. IE the existing debt was regulated - satisfying the Issue on the Appeal which sought regulated agreements - The Court refuses to reconsider, under my many applications to reopen on the basis that regulated agreements were refinanced in Story - where regulated agreements were promised as being determinative of that Appeal. One might legitimately expect that our senior judges might be bound to uphold the Rule of Law as far as such evidential matters are concerned, but in Natwest V Story & Pallister (CA May 7 1999)[termed Story in the authorities - the latest being Southern Pacific V Heath] the judges have concealed material evidence of regulation in Story that was determinative of that apeal, and the concealment of that material evidence in Story serves only to favour Natwest and the Coomon Law when the precedent mis- set in Story is applied to following cases under the assumedly proper rule of precedent - that we contend was, and is, perverse - ie the ruling in Story was set in order to protect Natwest, initially, and to protect other creditors that followed the policy of opacity in consumer credit agreements, from the regulatory interference that was contemplated following the precedent set in Story - ie the judges are seen to have stepped over the line where they conceal the undoubted regulation in Story - where, I repeat, the Bank of England and OFT awaited the ruling before they were empowered to initiate investgations into transparency in Consumer Credit Agreements where the OFT opined (subject to the ruling of the Courts) that he CCA applied in Story. In Story - nothing was written as demanded by the CCA 1974 - it was all done by handshake where the bank also promised us £500,000 of future IF we followed their business plan and advice - which was all secured against our valuable home......... which we did............................................ SO WHAT ??? At least £300 Billions (2004 figres) reli9es on the concealment of the regulation in Story John Story Former Principal Lecturer (International Computers Ltd), First Defendant Natwest V Story & Pallister www.ruinedbynatwest.com

Well Done Priority One. I think you are right to show your thinking. It maintains objectivity - establishes transparency. My point remains that the common-law(yers), albeit "flat earthers" in their thinking, are right insofaras this important statute (CCA) was not implemented to allow "won't pays" to avoid their liabilities by technical defences. We all make mistakes and the thought of a feckless borrower walking away from substantial borrowings on what is clearly an honest mistake on the part of a bank employee, is distasteful to the majority. However, there are serious exceptions, where a trader will deliberately set out to 'wrong foot' any potential legal challenges by cleverly not documenting terms so as to expose a potential claimant to the rigours of the common law - where a defendant will need to find extremely large sums to cover costs - as Natwest did to us in the 80's where our costs exceeded £1.5 millions of Legal Aid funding and where the Judgments are clearly biased against the consumer as you also suggest . See www.ruinedbynatwest.com Happy Easter !! John Story First defendant - National Westminster Bank PLC V Story & Pallister

Hello Diddy! Well put! The presumption (that 'the law tolerates and accomodates' ) extra curriculae contractual activity directly addresses the point I question in Story. As Mr Bennion reminds us (in his opinion of Story), Section 173 does not tolerate and accomodate either party "contracting out" (or stepping out as you say) and it does not tolerate it for the reasons of the type you then illuminate. Even our silk, Jonathan Gilman QC got that wrong when he had suggested that application of the CCA could be "negatived" if the parties agreed to it ! The point (that the protection is non-negotiable) is ignored, overridden, by the Common Law, as are eg, EU directives on Consumer Credit that forbid a trader to lend on anything other than the borrower's ability to repay. The UK practice of lending against the family home to, say those who rely solely on state benefits is most strongly condemned by the EU - I've been contacted by countless people who complain that they were loaned sums they simply could not repay from their benefits and they faced repossession. This scenario, of course, gathers very little sympathy indeed and for the most obvious of reasons, but that reason was directly addressed by Crowther when he turned the risk around to deter traders from repossessing in such situations; a Court would see from the paperwork that ridiculous lending practice had contributed to the problem. People in that particular situation face a hostile audience wherever they go because of the common law tradition of caveat emptor - "Buyer Beware" - when will the credit industry face up to social policy and accept that their lending policies must be addressed in the light of reason ? Regretably, the reality is that Debtor Protection is a very poor relation as far as the Common Law is concerned, I take heart from the fact that when my row with Natwest started in 1989 with the "inspirational" threats of Harry Jackson "We'll see to it that you're F...ing ruined" (as in "Ruinedbynatwest") my family was in a very bleak wilderness with very little support - a support that is now vastly enhanced by the majority of contributors who input to sites like this one. I say "majority" because it is a sad reality that the credit industry has infiltrated the content to a certain extent to create confusion that deflates the progress that is definitely occurring in this important area of social law. John Story www.ruinedbynatwest.com

------------------------ Diddy! Don't forget that Section 173 CCA(74) forbids "Contracting-Out" of the CCA - which serves to reinforce Parliament's intentions that clever traders (and clever punters) WILL NOT be able to exclude a consumer's (or a debtor's) rights !!! Similarly, don't forget the Constitutional Maxim "The Common Law Must Not Defeat The Statute" - although the common law courts hate those of us who remind them of this maxim (Why??? FOR GOD's Sake, WHY ???) they cannot allow a common law agreement (as the likes to which you refer) to have the effect of overriding either S 173 CCA or the constitutional requirement that where a conflict arises as between the common law and the statute (here the CCA) the common law must give way to the Statute- and if it does not give way, it does so unlawfully. THis is the fundament of my case (Story) against both Natwest (they have very powerful legal teams), and the Courts - they have turned a blind eye to the fact that in Story the facts show that the banker/customer relationship was effectively on a statutory basis, where I had banked with Natwest since 1970, and that since that date (and certainly since the CCA was implemeted in 1977) I had a continual "roll up" and "roll over" of what were CCA regulated agreements (that were continually repaid, by the way). The Judgment in Story clearly shows this pattern, but ackowledgement of the (regulated) history between Natwest and myself would have the effect of putting the banker/customer relationship onto a statutory footing - this case setting legal precedent. John Story www.ruinedbynatwest.com

'BigDebtor ! Thanks for that ! I've another posh one here - sorry to get ideas above my station, but I have (it says here) Diagnosis:- "An open communited fracture right distal tibia fibula" Impressed ? (Don't be - it's b****y painful) AND it goes on, "Procedures" "I/M nail tibia and wound debridement right ankle" In other words "Serves the silly demented delusional old sod right for showing off!" (Dancing with a bunch of 20 somethings, I was er, "demonstrating" my 60's London Mod 360 degree spins at the time). Impressed ? Don't be - it's .......... painful !!! Sorry to be off thread ! John Story www.ruinedbynatwest.com

Hi Mistermind ! You write, "Have not followed this subject in detail. Is it the case that Mr Bennion who crafted the law now criticises the judiciary on what they do with it? The legislative branch instructing the judiciary branch? Are the judges on their part saying the legislators could not do their job?" Sorry if I appeared to go off thread ! I mustn't do that ! I was replying to a question put by BigDebtor who enquired as to state of play with Story. I'm not conspiratorial - I must set out thye facts of my experiences in this matter as objectively but as concisely as possible ! Objectivity to the fore, I reassure everyone that I am fully accountable for the content of any posts I make - and that I only make these posts because all parties, Natwest, Counsel, Judges, regulators, MP's etc know that the CCA applies to Story and that it does so for the reasons expounded by Mr Bennion. Of course, more questions are raised than are answered by the Courts who refuse, point blank to determine whether Section 8 CCA (1974) applies to that which Auld LJ termed "an undoubted existing debt of about £12000" (AUld LJ). The section plainly does apply and in reality we see Natwest placing the Courts in an invidious position because the OFT and Bank of England awaited the ruling of the Court before deciding what licencing action was necessary to regularise the situation. By finding that the CCA did not apply, the bank was off the hook, but Section 8 was offended, as was Parliament and as was the rule of law which forbids the Court to override Parliament in this way. The fact that £300 Billions plus of so-called debt consolidation agreements across the UK relies on this single ruling may also shed light on the issue. Finally, to those who follow the CCA, ask yourselves why in all of the multiple agreement refinancing cases, Story is referred to as binding precedent but the existing agreements in all of those cases are not analysed against Section 8 - WHY ? IE why is existing regulation concealed or otherwise disregarded where Mr Bennion rightly identifies it as determinative ? John Story www.ruinedbynatwest.com

Thanks BD! State of play is that the Court of Appeal await any " new evidence" I am able to provide to support my second Taylor V Lawrence application to reopen. The first T v L application requested a determination of the "undoubted existing debt of about £12000" (Auld LJ) that was refinanced by THE infamously contraversail Multiple agreement that caused Mr Bennion (the CCA's draftsman) to speak out. That application, including Mr Bennion's opinion/evidence was rejected without comment by the very same Auld LJ who Bennion described in his evidence as "revealing" "an uncertain judicial grasp" of the intended working of the CCA - where Mr bennion went as far as to say that the decision of Auld LJ was "wholly mistaken" and "incorrect" - Auld had effectively refused to determine the primacy of the Section 8 point re the existing debt, and he had rudely (I say)refused to hear Mr Bennion. The second Taylor V Lawrence application submitted that Auld LJ had acted without authority where he had removed the regulation from that existing indebtedness without Jurisdiction - where S 173 prohibited him from "contracting out" of the CCA into the Common Law which enabled him to find for a non-CCA-compliant bank. Furthermore, the authorities state that the Court when determining the law within such a test must apply Audi Alterem Partem (hear the other side) to show the worlld that the principle of equity (fairness) was the Court's guide in determining the unprecedented matter; Auld LJ had refused to hear Bennion and hadreinforced his ultimate reliance on the common law to determine the matter. DM Hendy rejected that application stating that I had abused process by resubmitting the Section 8 material where that material had already been considered by the Court. I replied, stating that the Section 8 material, although being of primary consequence and providing a criminal burden of proof in the consumer's favour, HAD NEVER been considered by the Court where the Court had identified the test within S 8 as determinative of the original Appeal - the Court had not provided as it says it will on the tin- and that in refusing to determine its own stated Issue the Court was sailing very close to criminal contempt and perverting the Course of justice where the evidence supplied by S 8 surpassed the criminal standard.The point was obvious; the CCA applied to the creditor/debtor relationship in this, and in every similar fact case that followed. (The refinancing of multiple regulated agreements as in eg debt consolidation loans). DM Hendy at the Court of Appeal awaits my further input having rescinded his earlier rejectioni to allow me to submit "new evidence". I'm recovering from a badly broken leg justly apportioned to this silly old sod where, celebrating turning 60, I just had to show off my 60's London mod dance steps (rapid spins) to a bunch of admiring young women (In my dreams!). Whilst I recover, I am seeking counsel with the b***s to address the matter, and I discuss the matter withg a prominent CMC. But, as I stated earlier I strongly suspect because that the evidence in this case (The Common Law (Auld LJ) supresses/oppresses the Statute) brings the Judiciary into disrespect. Section 8 satisfies the stated Issue on the original appeal to the criminal burden of "beyond reasonable doubt" - Never before has such an overwhelmingly strong burden of proof (Section 8 CCA) shown ill feeling on the part of the Common Law against the Statute. Very dangerous stuff indeed. John Story www.ruinedbynatwest.com

Reassert the principle with every appearance in Court, and demand from legal representatives reasons as to why they do not address the underlying jurisdiction problem at their every appearance in Court. And there you have it - a glowing inconsistency in the law - the common law is like a cancer that eats away at the CCA - and noone in any authority has the guts to put a stop to it - it's certainly not a good career move for a common lawyer to effectively accuse his seniors of contempt - but's that's exactly what it is. I still act in person, because I've not found a single barrister with the b***s to stand up to the senior judiciary on the point; that's not to say there's no movement - when I started out 20 years ago I was very much alone, pooh-poohed at every turn - compare that to today's environment which is increasingly inched with every controversial Judgement toward the almighty legal showdown that is unfortunately very overdue. I do not preach aggression but I certainly do not preach acquiescence either. State your truth, pass the word and demand answers. It is worth it. John Story www.ruinedbynatwest.com

Thanks BD ! An ex lecturer with ICL, I learned to work from the general to the specific, to speak with authority on that which you know about, and to state the obvious because there is always someone who doesn't see that obvious ! To, "Know your subject, know your audience" is not easy by any means but it signposts direction and principle. I say all that because I see everyone (including myself) floundering with the CCA's Secondary legislation (the stuff that followed Bennion) the judges have great difficulty with it but that in itself is no reason for them to ignore the overriding purpose of the CCA which was to repeal the Common law and to replace it with a "new legal framework"` - which Bennion did admirably - my quest is to focus attention on the principles of social policy which underpin the CCA - and to highlight the fact that (for whatever reason - I am not a political animal) the Common Law is unlawfully hostile toward the CCA. That is the body of evidence that accumulates with every passing day - the Common law imposes its own contractual tests upon what are clear consumer credit agreements as defined by Section 8, at inception - once S 8 catches the terms of an emerging agreement there is no place for those common law tests that have crushed the CCA in every single precedent set thus far; there are certainly no constitutional grounds that allow the common law to defeat the statute in this way. In short the common law judges act without authority, Jurisdiction, ie unlawfully with every dumbing down of the CCA. "Only Parliament may take away that which Parliament has given". John Story www.ruinedbynatwest.com www.ruinedbynatwest.com

Elizabeth1 Quote:- "Lenders can also take considerable comfort from the Court of Appeal’s decision that it is the agreement that must be considered. Lenders will often advance monies to borrowers who wish to use part to pay off existing debts and part for unrestricted use. Lenders may even include a contractual provision requiring certain debts to be paid off as a condition of advancing the loan.................. ____(text omitted)____ This, the Court of Appeal said, did not automatically make the agreement a multiple agreement. Instead, it is clear that the Court will look at the agreement and see whether it (and not the credit) falls within Section 18." EndQuote Hi Elizabeth ! Admirable report of stateofplay re S 18 ! Don't forget that the CCA regulates the terms of the agreement by which credit is provided - and not the credit itself. It is hardly surpising (given the confusion that emanates from the common law courts) that such reports that seek to answer common questions about Sec 18 omit to mention the primary purpose of the CCA which is to regulate the borrowing relationship between creditor/debtor that comes into being when terms of the type protected by Section 8 are caught by the CCA - often overlooked is the policy that the protection provided at inception is to remain thereinafter and the protection is to remain no matter how the creditor tinkers with terms later in an attempt to avoid the consequences of that protection - a protection that was put on the statute books in order to combat the cancer of burdensome, unsustainable debt. In that respect the CCA remains an awesome example of legislative foresight where it also insisted on transparency in consumer credit agreements in order to protect the debtor against the mischief of undocumented credit agreements. At present the string of common law cases continually cited on these threads makes plain that the common law has not allowed itself to be repealed - and this is evident from the common law Judgments where they are still full of common law reasoning that, incidentally, defeats the Statute - this dumbing down of the statue by the common law is unlawful under The Bill of Rights Act (1689) "Only Parliament may take away that which Parliament has given". The Common Law Courts (High Court and above), in all of these cases, have failed to give way to the burden of proof issues that this parliamentary policy raises - the onus (to prove a case) shifts from the debtor to the creditor - the creditor is to prove CCA compliance if he wants to enforce the agreement - so why do all these cases give the benefit of any doubt raised by the non-documentation of terms to the creditor who has not documented as required by his CCA licence ??? This happened in Story where we had to prove, to the criminal burden, that a multiple agreement contained a strict common law refinancing term - where nothing at all had been written but where 3 existing agreements that were refinanced by the multiple agreement, were already regulated under Section 8 and had been for many years where the debt was continually rolled up (refinanced) by handshake. The Court has refused to determine that the existing agreements were indeed regulated agreements where their total of £12000 was within the limit that qualified for the protection of Section 8 - and where Mr Bennion has opined that these existing primary agreements are regulated and are to remain regulated under S 18 where their existing regulated terms form a distinct part of the new multiple agreement. The reason for the overriding (social policy) requirement to document imposewd by the CCA is quite plain - it is to allow the Court to trace the papertrail of debt from its inception (Section 8 - wherever the borrowing commenced) to ensure that abuse does not lie at the root of the particular relationship - abuse occurs in varying forms and degrees of course, and that is why S 127 (3) carries such onerous consequences for the (licensed) creditor who fails for whatever reason to not properly document terms as required as a condition of his CCA licence. People overlook this - that these lenders are well aware that the CCA simply says "We've had enough of creditors resorting to extra-judicial (and judicial) tactics, wrongfully, to enforce by any means, an undocumented credit agreement - GET YOUR ACT together or else". In none of the (in part, refinancing, 'multiple agreement') test cases I have seen (Hannah, Story, Meadows, Heath) does the common law give way to Section 8 - the courts' preferring to seek evidence as to the terms by which existing regulated agreements are refinanced - and, finding for the creditor where no evidence exists (because none is written) the common law in effect refuses to pass the batton to the CCA. Point being that there is no place for these common law evidential tests once an agreement of the type regulated by Section 8 arises. THAT IS THE PROBLEM - IN ALL OF THE ABOVE TEST CASES, (including Heath) THE JUDGES JUMP INCORRECTLY ONTO THE "LADDER" AT THE 2ND, 3RD or even 4TH rung where Section 173 CCA forbids the Court to "Contract out" of the CCA where eg Rung no 1 constitutes a regulated agreement. The courts do not have authority to remove that protection provided by Section 8 at inception and implied to the remaining rungs of that ladder by policy where the original debt is subsequently taken up that ladder in any form. Witness refinancing agreements (S 11(1)©), modifying agreements (S 82(3) "once regulated always regulated") and of course Section 18 (Multiple Agreements) which is very clear where existing agreements are regulated - S 18(1) applies to those existing regulated terms. John Story www.ruinedbynatwest.com

---------------- I was referring to PaulW's "deed" and to whether it may be of interest to the Police ? John Story www.ruinedbynatwest.com

--------------------- Careful !!! I'd show it to the Police. John Story www.ruinedbynatwest.com

----------------- Bit off thread but relevant, We are aware that a number of DCA's have bought questionable ie possibly unenforceable CCA regulated accounts at knock down prices. Now, what we don't know is who knew what, and when, during the negotiated sale of these CCA regulated credit agreements in the regard of their unenforceability ? IE was there full disclosure ? Criminal law require that both the wrongful deed (Reus Actus) and the guilty mind (mens rea) be proved to secure a proper conviction. IE - We do not know whether these (alleged) debts (ie unenforceable) were sold "in good faith" ( whether the seller was transparent on the issue of enforceability) or whether there are potentially criminal fraud issues where the accounts were not sold in good faith. Also, If these accounts were sold in good faith as unenforceable, were the individual debtors subsequently notified by the DCA's that they were being chased for unenforceable accounts ? These are matters that would have interested my Dear old dad when he served on the Serious Crime Squad. These are matters which interest me because HHJ Jack QC, during the Story trial,opined that "if Natwest knew it had a problem with the CCA, the last person it would tell would be you [ie me, Story]. It would hand the matter over to its lawyers to sort it out " John Story www.ruinedbynatwest.com

Costs in Story exceeded £1.5 millions - and they did so because the lawyers on all 3 sides, concentrating on common law arguments, were thus able to spin it out interminably - (about 7 years then 2 to Appeal and that was 10 years ago now), to the point where the fundamental Section 8 CCA case (Regulated Agreements) was overlooked - very cleverly, it got lost by the Judges in the common law undergrowth !! And hence my advice to any interested parties - STICK TO THE STATUTE - EVEN WHEN 'AMBUSHED' by the common law-yers - you'll get eaten alive in the undergrowth if you stray off the path for whatever reason, otherwise. It's not ideal - but it's all we LIP's (litigants in person) have. 17 Lever Arch files of court docs were created and saved (2 complete copies)(interesting where Natwest wrote sweet FA at the time the debt grew from £1500 to £130k !) ! Most of the lawyers stuff (about 10 egg boxes (the big ones)full) just had to go - but I kept the letters from Mr `Bennion and Professor Goode, and Lord Alexander of Weedon (Natwest Chairman) promising it would be proplerly handled (!!!) and a letter from one Gordon Brown who was very interested in the proceedings (1991) I'm glad I kept all that lot - the mice had to eat something ! John Story www.ruinedbynatwest.com

Thanks Angrycat (Top Cat !) I have now read the full (!!!) Judgment from HHJ Waksman QC. It's quite clear that he addresses the S 78 position only within that Judgment. He talks of ancilliary claims as to unenforceability as "speculative" and possible "abuses of process" only because the creditor has not sought to enforce a regulated agreement - he makes it plain that the duty to provide a properly excuted agreement to enable enforcement remains. Well, that's how I read him !! You see, we had no written agreements at all in Story that contained the terms of the regulated agreements that feature (£12k),yet the bank effectively sought and was granted enforcement of an IEA in relation to (at least) the 3 regulated agreements that were refinanced verbally in Story many, many times over before Mr Jackson was moved from the branch and his policies (to not document regulated agreements) emerged (and the bank started threatening all his clients). Thanks again for the material ! It was very helpful indeed ! I am to take it up with the Court of Appeal (again) John Story www.ruinedbynatwest.com

Brilliant stuff, Mystery1 ! This is what we need - properly and objectively researched material that goes to the root of the policies behind the CCA. I have to restrict my input (to comply with the overriding requirement for objectivity) to that of which I have first hand knowledge or that which I may repeat on oath as 'kosher'. I'm still outraged that the Court entertains these discussions about recreating CCA Agreements where the CCA is itself clear - the problem is that the secondary legislation has really complicated the issue, as Mr Bennion opines because the drafter did not understand the CCA itself. Clear records have to be kept for a multitude of reasons including the moneylaundering concerns you illustrate here.How can the Courts overlook "best possible practice" and the tort issues that eg Nick20054 raises ? How many other businesses may recreate records to suit their own purposes - as we saw with PaulW's case - well done, Paul! Why on Earth do the courts not refer back to Lord Crowther when determining all of these CCA issues ? Why does the Common Law still presume a position of authoritative dominance in determining the CCA when Lord Crowther (and Bennion) make plain that the common law into consumer credit was repealed by the CCA - meaning that once we see terms that are caught by Section 8 (Regulated Agreements) - and we have a regulated agreement on our hands - thereinafter only statutory tests (those found in the CCA) are to be applied by the Courts - including the transfer of the case to the County Court under S 141 (Jurisdiction) - cases commenced and heard and determined in the High Court are 'improperly brought' as defined by Section 141(2) and therefore unlawful - why does nobody challenge the Common Law Courts under Jurisdiction (S 141) ? John Story www.ruinedbynatwest.com

Good article ! Well done PaulW. The policy requirements from Lord Crowther, from which Mr Bennion drafted the CCA required as a fundamental principle of the new Act that the documentation was to preceed the provision of the credit - traders would be licenced and compliance would be a term of their licence - and infringements could be reported to the Bank of England which could suspend or revoke a banks banking licence. I'm not at all surprised with the above comment from (here) Barclaycard - What surprises me is that people give such statements creedence when the banks know full well that they are to keep full records of the relationship including, of course, copies of the original signed agreement (not the application form) - THE CCA agreement itself. And that such requirements are a fundamental term of their licence !! How many other businesses are allowed by the Common Law, to destroy and, worse, to RECREATE in order to enforce their contractual, ie legally binding, commitments ? Where is the OFT and the old lady in all this ?? You see, (I'm told to shut up on these threads) but the truth behind the legal precedent set in Story (that affects £300 Billions' across theUK) is that we had no written loan agreements whatever over 3 years where 3 regulated agreements were continually refinanced. Natwest was very astute where it came to documenting and perfecting the 3 legal charges we gave over our substantial family home. Section 8 CCA removes all doubt in Story, despite the ruling in Story, and despite the criticisms I receive on this thread - that 3 regulated agreements are ignored by the Court. This is the travesty that we require reopened despite the hostilities we are bound to attract from the credit industry and its agents. John Story www.ruinedbynatwest.com quote from mailonline article (above) 9 Jan 2010, "Barclaycard made no comment on how it deals with Morgan Stanley paperwork, but said: 'We strongly disagree with any suggestion we commonly issue incorrect paperwork.' "

"... Bennion and his masterful act really are true champions for the consumer". Well Done, Baggio !!! and Well Done Mr Bennion !!! There's much ado about nothing on these threads without an informed read of the background to the CCA - it's remarkable that it exists in the first place and people fail to realise its true significance For example, much of the common law opposition comes because the CCA represents only the 4th class of agreements that must be evidenced in writing to be enforceable at law, after, 1 Contracts regarding the sale or interest in land, etc 2 Insurance contracts ("of utmost good faith" must be demonstrable), and 3 Marine Contracts (obviously where boundaries are traversed) I suggest that peeps reflect on the enormity of the background to Parliament's decision to add CCA contracts to this privileged class of agreements. There had been far too many suicides where people "did the right thing" where, free of statutory controls, the banks changed their minds over verbally agreed terms and took steps to repossess the family home - which, interestingly had invartiably been properly documented as security for the unwritten agreements ..... Think about it folks before condemning Bennion !! Keep the faith - as Dr Vernon Jones (Martin Luther King's mentor) said, "If you see a good fight - get in it!" John Story www.ruinedbynatwest.com ...... And I repeat that soliloquy to those who make statements about the Act's intention without having first read Crowther's Report "Consumer Credit - Report of the Committree" [Command 4596]. A fascinating read that goes to the root of your valued contributions, Baggio. Properly observed, the Act serves both sides of the fence people refer to.

Oily Rag, "Astute, opaque, political whatever HHJW has spoken so why do we not deal with that. How about the tort and contract lawyers (or wannabes) giving of their wisdom here? We use TORT to warn off trespassers why are statements being made elsewhere that this (or CONTRACT) not apply to the subsection of it that is CCA74 et al?" My withdrawal stems from the forceful rejection by some of my studies over the past 20 years as a party to a significant test case that pertains to the subject matter on this thread. I have repeated oftentimes that areas of the Common Law that are in any way pertinent to this thread were repealed by the CCA - and such areas are covered BY the CCA in any event. Read The Crowther Report [Command 4596] for further clarification. and I repeat my caveat to ALL CAGGERS - that if their case is CCA relevant that is to say, IF it is caught by Section 8 CCA, then "Stick to Section 8 CCA" - the common law constitutes very thin ice indeed for the unqualified - the ice gives way and what lies beneath are very murky waters indeed ! The Common Law is very serious stuff indeed, jealously guarded by common law practitioners. I speak generally, to all Caggers when I say, STICK TO THE STATUTE John Story www.ruinedbynatwest.com

Yes Andrew ! The thread is entitled Claim Stayed – Due to Unenforceable CCA Test Cases. Others (who maintain anonymity) might care to reflect on relevance/qualification and justification. John Story www.ruinedbynatwest.com