May I suggest that you ask your solicitor why he thinks MBNA settled on the steps of the Manchester Mercantile Court. Waskman has not changed the CCA but has made some CMCs and solicitors realise they will need to do a proper job to earn their fee. Post some more details, Im sure you will still have a good case.

'I am a simple engineer from the plasma physics industry'. Im sure there must be a contradiction in that sentence somewhere:) Keep on posting OR, I enjoy your posts.

Hi all,

As promised on my earlier post i'm back with my update as you may remember but if you dont check out post 26 onwards for my posts on this thread.

I received a letter from brunel franklin on saturday telling me that my case could not be won and they were closing the file but heres the good bit the NO WIN NO FEE assessment payment I paid WELL they have decided to keep it and further down the letter they have offered me a GOOD FAITH £250 voucher to spend on one of their other no win no fee services if it wasn't so depressing i would have to laugh. I cant seem to upload the scan i've took it keeps coming up as a very small thumbnail (anybody help on this) I know a lot of members will be saying told you so for hooking up with these con men companies but there it is.Anybody that has any advise it would be welcomed, I did phone Brunel Franklin but as I expected got the run around passed dept to dept then the person i spoke to just quoted chapter and verse from the letter.I pity anyone else who is still waiting for the nice letter to tell them they have been conned. If anyone wants a scan of the letter i'm happy if i cant upload it to e-mail it.

Cheers Glenndalf

Seems to me like they must have been relying on non-compliance with s78 for the claim to go through:eek: Utter madness.

Yes Katie I think it would be a good idea for you to tell us who your CMC and solicitor is too. Firstly they write to you dismissing your claims in the 'light of Waksman' but when you put them on the spot they tell you they are looking for Prescribed Term breaches? Seems like a firm best avoided.

 

Found this article and I think it clarifes the point i have been asking about. If my copies are not easily legible then they have not complied with s78 and I am going to ring the solicitors now and find out what they are playing at:p

I would katie. Seems to me like you have landed a really inept firm of solicitors. In fact Im surprised you even went to a CMC having just read some of the other issues you are dealing with for your friends. You seem more than capable of handling these matters yourself, unike me:D.

from the 1983 regs (as ammended)

 

The credit limit expressed as:--

(a) a sum of money;

(b) a statement that the credit limit will be

determined by the creditor from time to time

under the agreement and that notice of it will be

given by him to the debtor;

© a sum of money together with a statement that

the creditor may vary the credit limit to such sum

as he may from time to time determine under the

agreement and that notice of it will be given by

him to the debtor; or

(d) in a case not falling within head (a), (b) or ©

above, either a statement indicating the manner in

which the credit limit will be determined and that

notice of it will be given by the creditor to the

debtor or a statement indicating that there is no

credit limit.

 

 

So it looks like they have complied

 

Dave

this issue is up in the Court of Appeal in March isn't it?

Prepared to "talk"? Yes, I bet they are.... but how much has it cost you in fees before they were willing to "talk". What are you hoping to gain from this? You've also mentioned that there's a barrister involved.... are you fully aware of the financial implications of what you're doing?

Thanks for your concern Priority One. Im not paying either my solicitor or barrister. They operate on a CFA. If I lose my costs are covered by ATE.

I'm a tad confused here...

 

The Manchester cases revolved around issuing a claim re. s78 non-compliance and your solicitor agreed it was foolish.

 

What grounds is he issuing a claim on then? I'm assuming you've instructed him to do this?

I think the point is that UCA claims are not just about compliance with s78. My lenders sent copies of signed agreements both of which omitted certain PTs. Apparently there are many many ways of attacking a CCA. Im told that the Waksman ruling gives the go-ahead for these claims under another section. My sol tells me he expects to find even more non-compliant credit agreements post Waksman. Sorry I cant be more succint....Im an engineer;-). I have faith in him though as he issued against another lender pre-xmas and they have indicated they are prepared to 'talk'. We will see.

Which world is your solicitor residing in?

This one presumably. Im sorry to disappoint, but thats the situation.

What are these claims for?

PT breaches on MBNA and Sygma agreements. I have insurance with 80e. Im told he is ready to issue on 100s of other claims. In his opinion issuing a claim on s78 non-comp was always foolish.

a hell of a lot has changed for the consumer as a claimant which is why these stoopid claims should be stopped!

Not according to my solicitor. He now intends to issue on my two remaining claims, having been given the go-ahead by the barrister. We will see.

Reg. 3 (1) does not state that the copy "may" be a true copy - it says that it "shall" be a true copy. And in Burchell (supra) Atkin LJ stated at pl05 that a true copy document is not merely a document which states in summary form the effect of the stipulations in the original or the true legal effect of the original - it is to be a copy of the original."

 

 

In order for a copy to be a "copy of the original" the copy has to be copied from the original

 

A microfiche is a copy of the original

 

so a copy of a microfiche is not a copy of an original

 

it is a copy of a copy of the original and therefore does not comply!

 

unless there is a witness statement and proof that the microfiche copy itself is a true copy of the original and has not had anything added. deleted or altered, then no one producing a copy of that copy can make a declaration of truth that the copy produced is a true copy of the original

 

he can only swear that it is a true copy of a copy of the original

 

any one so doing should be closely questioned

Brilliant:D so thats a copy then? Or is it:confused:

some cmc s say you still need the original to enforce and some say not that a copy will do who do you believe

There is more to it than that though according to my CMC. They issue based on prescribed-term breaches and/or unfairness regardless of the signature. They say it is folly to issue based on the lack of a sig doc and to be fair have said this since day 1.....rocky I have pmd u.

To even mention a forum suggests to me the judge was well aware of this particular thread. She has reminded us, in no uncertain terms, of who makes the decisions.

There are a number of cases like this one coming up, up and down the country, where debtors subscribing to forums to write of debts, are using technicalities and CCA 1974 to write off debts. I am not sure that the defendant has done the same or not.

Subscribing to forums? Pretty clear this thread had been decided upon some time ago. You never stood a chance.

Dont know if this link has been posted. apologies if it has.

 

PR Fire | Financial >> Landmark Consumer Victory in High Court Test Cases

Good stuff there from Cartel. Even though Cartel got ripped to bits in Manchester it seems like they are getting some really good publicity. I was gutted with the Waksman ruling initially but Im now most positive about it. I dont see a way out of this one for the banks.

Cabot starting to quote the "reconstituted" and prescribed terms on a separate page they haven't supplied argument here.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/241320-cabot-insisting-they-have.html

Not sure they have quoted anything new there Gyos. I have a simlar letter from them dated July 09. My solicitor has still put a claim in for me based on the sig doc/ separate T and C argument. I dont think Manchester has really changed anything here. 'Both parties agreed' on these issues.

Just read Newblokes posts. Some very interesting thoughts and a boat load of new angles. I like it.

Is it possible to get tickets for Carey vs HSBC yet?

As Cartal Clients didn't have ATE insurance RBS is going for a third party cost order against cartel and their solicitors to ensure they get their costs paid

:eek: Don't have ATE OMG:eek:. That is one seriously flawed business proposition they have.

It doesn't have to go to full trial but I know that Careys solicitors intend to as they consider it to be important for several reasons. Not so sure HSBC are so keen.........

 

Incidentally RBS have applied for cost orders against Cartel & their solicitors CCLS personally - Cartal Clients lost on costs today

Clients lost on costs? Would they be covered by ATE?

The decision on the agreement in Carey v HSBC was made by HHJ Waksman on assumed facts only. The actual facts re documentation is very different hence why it is going to proceed to full trial

Josie, does it HAVE to go to full trial? ie could either side withdraw? Could be a fascinating episode given the background.

Hi Shadow,

 

I spotted on another thread that there was no delay over "Manchester", the March/April date is for another issue. Could be wrong.

 

oilyrag

Carey vs HSBC may go to full trial in March.

Thats The Way I See It

 

The Creditor Will Have To Link The Constructed Agreement Back To The Original

 

Be It By Archive Etc

 

So Why Is This Having Such An Impact And Every Body Starting To Panic

:

Yes, here you are Mr/s Lender: A nice poisoned chalice for Christmas Eve.

I left numerous msgs for my solicitor who is handling a couple of cases for me. To his credit he came bck to me today. In his opinion the outcome of these cases will have no impact at all on my personal claims. 'Its just confirmed what we already know' and ' the banks have to link any recon' agreement to the original and that will cause them major problems'. I will sleep easier tonight:cool: