Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ruprecht

  1. Just to let you know, my £100 donation is good even if it is just to fund conference with a barrister. I will add another £100 if it proceeds after that. They are donations and there is no expectation of a return. That doesn't stop you donating back if you win in the end! LOL! You need to make your own mind up though how you are going to proceed over the next few days and get your stuff together. I don't see how much damage can be done by having a conference with the B when you have your bundle ready.
  2. Maybe CAG could setup a database of copies of agreements people have submitted by date of the agreement. You can do a DIY job already trowling the forums and finding unenforceable agreements people have posted. There has to be tens of thousands of people out there sitting on original copies from various periods. The banks cannot get around s127(3) and irredeemably unenforceable agreements.
  3. Does what they send have to actually show the signature though? The problem is a copy of the executed agreement could be just a copy of what was "agreed" at the time. Not an exact photocopy of the original signed agreement. The agreement is what was agreed. (I am starting to sound like Waksman!) Proving it really is a copy of the executed agreement is a different thing, especially if you/they don't have the original agreement. Does that make sense?
  4. I think you are right Mr. H. The Claim needs to be "nipped in the bud" before it gets to allocation, nevermind trial, using CPR 31.14 and strike out applications for non-compliance with it. The sad thing is that many consumers are too late before they realise all this and that is not surprising. When in debt you tend to not want to face up to it and bury your head in the sand. Even people who come here for advice have left it too late most of the time, it's been allocated and the trial date is a few days away.... The system fails these people, it always has and probably always will. My suggestion is that each court has a handful of judges who are clued up on consumer law, especially the CCA 1974. Any such cases that come up are put their way. The OFT should suggest that... don't hold your breath though.
  5. The approach is going to be different if you are defending or being pro-active. If you were being pro-active... The s77/s78 thing is always worth doing, it's only £1 and sometimes it brings up the original agreement. The DPA request is always worth doing, it's only £10 and sometimes it brings up the original agreement. Even if it doesn't you get to ask them specifically "where is it? why haven't you disclosed it?". It is always worth asking them outright "Do you have the original agreement, can I have a copy?". Reminding them of course about the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and that they must not mislead you. Fire off complaints to the OFT when you think they have. It may seem like they do nothing but we don't know what goes on behind the scenes. (Probably nothing LOL!) If you do not have a house (has anyone been taken to court that doesn't?) and they don't know where you work currently: make sure they know there is no economic benefit it suing you. Tell them if they start proceedings that you will defend such fully to your last breath and if they win then you will gladly shake their hand - then proceed to the room next door and file for bankruptcy. It is all about the money remember, it's nothing personal.
  6. Let us know when you need the funds to get the ball rolling! Maybe we could paypal it to you or something. I am not sure what the site rules are on this, maybe a mod can comment? Hopefully they will be 100% behind this. We can seek support in the media too, a "CONSUMERS FIGHT BACK TOGETHER" article! There is the chance they will settle though if they think they will lose and don't want the publicity..... I'd rather see them lose in the courtroom!
  7. The disturbing thing is the huge amount of cash us lowly taxpayers are paying for these Judges salaries and their huge public pension payouts. See Cost of judges' pensions has more than doubled in past five years - Telegraph if you are brave enough! I bet none of them have problems paying their credit cards. I have also found half of them, in about 40 cases, look down on the LiP as something they have trodden on and need to remove from their shoe. Treating them with contempt and simply ignore what they say. I tried the s127(3) thing about 8 years ago. The Judge even said he had shares in the bank that was Claimant in the hearing and he didn't care what the Consumer Credit Act 1974 said. I asked if he would just read s127(3) and he told me to be quiet. Why can't each court have say a couple of judges who are well briefed in Consumer Law and the CCA? Then send the cases their way? Maybe the OFT could suggest that.... that would protect the consumer more than the other stuff they get up to. I sometimes wonder if the Judges are thinking that their salary and pension pot comes from the government, the banks are now the government... I will make you pay!! Don't give up Humble!! We are with you.
  8. "3(b) the statement or notice is shown to be incorrect, the court may direct such relief (if any) to be given to the creditor or owner from the operation of subsection (1) or (2) as appears to the court to be just." One wonders how the creditor could show their previous notice is "incorrect" and seek just relief under this section by anything other than producing the original agreement.
  9. Will any ruling in our (consumers) favour actually go all the way to a trial though? If the banks think they are going to lose they usually settle and there is never a judgment. Didn't MBNA take this course at Manchester and settle on the court steps? I would be surprised if the ATE insurance didn't say if you got a good favourable offer to settle you had to take it or the insurance would be invalid. The insurer will be quite happy to keep taking premiums knowing nothing is going to go to trial. Who wouldn't settle if the banks offered to wipe the slate and pay the legal costs? The only stuff that seems to have gone to trial High Court wise has been very dodgy stuff that seems destined to lose and create a nice headline to keep the great unwashed public in line. I've not seen anyone here suggest going up as claimant against the creditor on a s78 basis, ever. Madness.
  10. Send them a Subject Access Request as per the Data Protection Act 1998. Make sure you always refer to it as an alleged debt. What CPR requests did you send them? Part 18 and/or Part 31.14? You need to try and kill this before allocation, make an application to the court seeking an order that they comply with the CPR request you made or that their claim be struck it. Hopefully you will find it is statute barred with the above.... Stop calling it a CCJ, that's only when they have obtained a judgment against you! :-P
  11. Do we need to update this thread after the recent judgments? It seems to me the courts don't want the great unwashed public flooding them with applications. Some of the High Court Judges have described our requests to see the original agreement as "fishing expeditions" and "abusing their s77/s78 rights". Some of the Judge's words, not mine. Maybe our only legal right to see it is through the Data Protection Act 1998? Is it still safe to go the CPR 31.16 route on the basis that it "might" be unenforceable as per S127(3)? I am thinking from the viewpoint of costs... We have no legal right to see the original other than under the DPA 1998 and even then there are conditions. i.e. if it is stored in a relevant filing system / only the "information" contained on it not the actual original. If you have a letter from the lender threatening legal action then you might be able to justify the CPR 31.16 that way. If the account is still active and live etc then beware!
  12. I thought it would have to be an appeal seeing as a judgment has been handed down or are there other matters to be decided in it? Does anyone know what the remaining cases are about?
  13. Here is a story about a case were HBOS were alleged to have harassed someone: Harassment claim against bank settled out of court Those Wescot bunch up there are buggers too, like to phone neighbours etc.
  14. As for the boxes, when I did it for an unspecified amount (I presume you are printing from the .pdf) you print it out with the maximum amount in the box and manually write in the boxes "NOT EXCEEDING" infront of the amount. The issue fee can exceed it. So say if you claimed 5k you'd still put NOT EXCEEDING £5,000.00 at the end. If I were you though I wouldn't do a claim on your own like this. Any sort of "injury" type of claim has to go through Pre-Action protocols etc. Damages are very hard to prove and quantify, I haven't had much success in that area! You will need medical reports/loss of income statements etc if you are going for it causing you distress/depression etc. If you really feel you have a claim then seek proper legal advice, maybe someone will take it on a no win - no fee. If nobody will then it probably means you don't have much of a case. I have been down the same road and sometimes it has got the desired results but you don't want to go to trial! Good luck!
  15. I read Aktiv Kapital made a loss, as did Cabot. 1st Crudits accounts are too hard to find with all the foreign companies etc in the chain, like many of the others. Inhouse DCAs don't count. Robinson Way's parent, London Scottish Bank went into administration back in November 2008. RW had a management buyout, they describe themselves as the "Jewel in the Crown" of LSB! There is something not right if the parent company making the loans goes busto but the DCA arm is making a profit??? LOL IMHO the whole area is a [problem]. The high street banks (who's own solvency is questionable) sell their bad debts to the debt collection companies. The DCAs buy these debts with loans from the very banks selling them. The bank can then write off the debt and put a performing loan on their books. The DCAs loan is constantly extended to infinity and has never ending repayment dates. The currency is inflated to hell. The bank never has to book in the true extent of the loss. Fred and Adam get their millions and live happily ever after. The sheeple are shafted as usual.
  16. Are the cases your legal friends are dealing with a mix of original creditors and DCAs who have bought bulk or mainly one or the other? Do they see the DCAs who have bought debts as more easy prey? I am thinking a lot of the DCAs out there now are close to going bankrupt (probably always insolvent and being propped up by their banker friends who loan them money only to buy their bad debts off them) and that they would be totally horrified at the cost of something going to trial. Does succeeding basically come down to if you get the ATE insurance? Are they still insuring as normal.... anyone tried recently? After 40 claims for various things for friends, family and myself, I feel I have failed if it even gets to a final hearing now days. Most wins were making it as commercially unviable as possible for the other side to proceed more than any basis in law. Welcome to the legal system. I do wonder though, if you are going to be pro-active, why not stop paying, wait for a legal threat letter off them, then apply for disclosure under 31.16 for all the documents they will be relying on. I don't really see where the s77/s78 stuff is heading. I get the impression the court will just let the claims mount up again then make a new judgment eventually to wipe them all out and take the £15M in court fees. (£150 x 100,000) I wonder how much they made in fees from all those bank charges claims. I suppose someone has to pay their salaries and pensions! I am glad of your input here Baggio, you are one of the few here with their ear to the wall.
  17. Do you think the bank is folding though because they think they cannot legally win or is it that they just don't want all the legal expense and hassle? i.e. having Margret from the application's department spend all her time travelling the country in attempts to prove hearsay evidence at hearings, endless directions hearings, legal fees, etc... If the debtor has no property and is intent on not paying them in any situation then the only commercial sense is for the creditor to walk away isn't it? I mean when faced with any litigation.
  18. Is it one of those evil DCAs hiding north of the border upsetting you? I sued one once and did it through the Scottish courts direct. Wasn't much fun or easy. Deciding which court to use depends on the case. Most contracts specify which courts will settle disputes. Harassment would be at the court in the area in which the harassment occured i.e. your local one if you were harassed.
  19. What is the real aim in the debtor issuing the proceedings? To get the creditor to give up and go away or be faced with a legal bill? Add that to a debtor with no money to pay them in anycase. It's like pressing the self destruct button and hoping they run away! Even if you get a declaration it isn't enforceable in the end they still don't have to bugger off...
  20. All the courts are Her Majesty's Courts and are there to carry out her wishes. She signs all Acts of Parliament to show they have her authority. Treason for ignoring such?
  21. The judgment really is like a missed penalty isn't it? It has got us all wound up and discussing what happened etc, even though nothing really did. We need to get back to concentrating on the game still being played! We already knew the s78 requests were pretty much a waste of time other than sometimes you got lucky and they produced a dodgy original agreement. I guess now they won't be showing us many original copies! Anything they produce other than the original if they are trying to enforce will need to be classified as hearsay evidence as soon as possible and everything they say must be questioned. Even the CCA 2006 requires the creditor to have to prove the relationship is fair and the Judge will have to be constantly reminded the CCA 1974 is there to protect the debtor against the large financial institution. Maybe it could be an Unfair Relationship if the creditor reconstructs executed agreements without any first hand evidence and with the debtor claiming he didn't sign/execute it? We already knew too that some judges enforced without an agreement anyway.... I suppose it's down to the people who are prepared to fight will win, the little guy always ends up being shafted. I still think it will be an uphill battle for a bank to prove an agreement was signed using hearsay evidence, especially if we can put a bundle together of them altering stuff! We will be back to the old days, those prepared to fight will win in the end... the banks will play the numbers game, 90% will give in.
  22. Here it is in full:- "231. Mrs Thompson went on to say that she had an alternative case which was to the effect that assuming Barclays had failed to produce a s78 copy, the Court had power to order them to do so by way of an injunction. And if they subsequently produce a copy of the signed application form, the issue of an IEA can be looked at then. And if they do not, then the Court should at least make a declaration at common-law, not under s142, that the agreement is permanently unenforceable and not merely unenforceable for the duration of a s78 breach as s78 (6) provides. I do not think that such an alternative argument assists Mrs Thompson. First I have to deal with the principal claim being made now, as to an IEA which is the focus of the applications. Second, the question as to the appropriateness of such an injunction is an open one: paragraph 16 of the judgment of HHJ Brown QC in Rankine (supra) suggests that it may be but that question did not arise directly for that decision there. Third, it ignores the fact that if a proper case of IEA is mounted, disclosure will take place and of course at that point, if not earlier when the bank makes its defence, it is going to have to disclose the documents relevant to that agreement, whether it had to disclose them at the earlier s78 stage or not. Finally, I do not see that a permanent declaration of the kind mentioned by Mrs Thompson would be appropriate when s78 (6) expressly says that the agreement will be enforceable for so long as the breach persists. If it does, the agreement remains unenforceable. If at some later stage it is cured it is difficult to see why the creditor should not then be entitled to enforce." 78(6) is:- "(6) If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with subsection (1)— (a) he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement; and (b) if the default continues for one month he commits an offence." Maybe after reading it in full you will agree there is a typo in the judgment or maybe I am not grasping something. I have had beer... it's Christmas! Or maybe it's a not missing rather than an un!
  23. The costs are here:- http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/ex50_e.pdf under "Civil Court Fees" section. Basically, starting a claim for something other than money in the CC is £150, the High Court is £400. Unless the CPR state you have to go through the High Court I am not sure why you would go near it. They might just bounce it back to the County Court eventually and you might be out £250 when you go for costs. Were you thinking of defamation/libel sorts of claims? You can do that in the County Court as long as both sides agree. Then again those sort of claims bankrupt everyone so the costs at the end might not matter. Or do you just want Judge Deed to hear it? :-P I know you said you just want to know for education reasons. I have found studying the Civil Procedure Rules and Practice Directions the best way to discover how the machine works. Check this out, should answer all your questions: http://www.justice.gov.uk/civil/procrules_fin/contents/practice_directions/pd_part07.htm
  • Create New...