Jump to content

Ruprecht

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    159
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ruprecht

  1. Does anyone know if the cases in Manchester went ahead today? I think it was just going to be a case management conference so I doubt we can expect anything juicy yet. I am thinking if an agreement is irredeemably unenforceable they shouldn't be able to issue a default notice should they?So it follows they shouldn't report a default has occurred on the credit file. The Statutory Regulations have in the wording for a default notice as "further enforcement action will be taken". That definately implies that the default notice is enforcement action and the people who drafted the regulations also considered and defined it so. Why has nobody put that to a judge yet? If someone went for an order under the DPA 1998 that the record wasn't accurate as no default occurred under the CCA1974, I don't see how they could defend it. Then again if they can report payment history anyway a row of 6,6,6,6,6,6,6,6,6,6,6,6,6 as payment history is just as bad anyway. At least you'd get to annoy them a little though and it might disappear altogether as a result of that process!
  2. Yes it was mainly about if they could report an unenforceable agreement to the CRAs. The judgment actually reaffirmed that some agreements pre April 2007 are irredeemably unenforceable. We all knew that anyway didn't we? People with nasty credit files will just have to wait 6 years for it to drop off! Might be a good idea to have as little as possible to do with the banks anyway.
  3. I suppose people should be grateful that they reaffirmed the s127(3) stuff. Let them waste their time and money singing for a payment on an unenforceable agreement. :-P
  4. Even the judge said it was a bad case to use it as a test case. The agreement in it wasn't irredeemably unenforceable but I got the impression the judge would have made the same judgment even if it was. Basically the debt still exists, it's just not enforceable. Down to sitting out the 6 years until it disappears and ignoring constant letters from one DCA and another, reporting them to the OFT when they threaten legal action. I wonder how many times the bad debt is written off against different tax bills as it goes round and round like this.
  5. One of the London judgments is now online. It dealt with if an unenforceable agreement can be reported to CRAs. The judge decided they can continue to report it and it didn't amount to enforcement. McGuffick v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc [2009] EWHC 2386 (Comm) (06 October 2009) I wonder what the case would be if they issued a defective default notice though. The account hasn't really defaulted then has it, so can they say it has?
  6. One of the London judgments is now online. It dealt with if an unenforceable agreement can be reported to CRAs. The judge decided they can continue to report it and it didn't amount to enforcement. McGuffick v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc [2009] EWHC 2386 (Comm) (06 October 2009) I wonder what the case would be if they issued a defective default notice though. The account hasn't really defaulted then has it, so can they say it has?
  7. No cases of interest showing for tomorrow (30th September 2009) at the Commercial Court in London . Court Hearings - Commercial and Admiralty Court
  8. So what would stop the banks, on finding an unenforceable agreement, to just shred the thing then do the affidavit instead? Or maybe dispense with actually looking for the agreement altogether and say it is lost, here's an affidavit ..... The fact that people have already found the banks having many unenforceable agreements (the ones that have produced) should be evidence enough not to just take their word for it! Was there a hearing in London today? I checked the listings and nothing jumped out. Someone else posted the London hearings are at the end of September and not today. Did anyone attend if it was today?
  9. Glad things worked out for you in the end. You can have a sigh of relief, relax and put your feet up now!
  10. I dont think you have a strong enough case to go before a Judge with this, he is going to want to know why you haven't done anything for 4 years since you first found out about the judgment. I know stuff was going on in your life and we all forget stuff. If it was me and I really wanted this removed I would try writing a nice letter to whoever is in charge of the DVLA explaining the situation, maybe even ask your MP for help and to write a letter for you. Say you thought they'd take into count your appeal at the time and you had so many other things going on in your life you had no time to deal with this. If you do take this to court months could pass before anything happens anyway! It is not unknown for a claim to take over a year for the final hearing. The DVLA might just show up in the end and say "no record of SORN received" and you have no proof you sent it. If you are certain you did send the SORN then wrote appealing the fine and are not worried about paying the fine if they ask for it or pass it to debt collectors, you could maybe do a subject access request under the data protection act and see if their data shows anything about it? Maybe proof of the SORN or your original appeal of the fine? Quote the reg number of the previous car when you do it and your driving license number. Could put you on a better footing if you can get any proof in your favour off their systems.
  11. I think I would not get involved in trying to remove it if it was me. June 2011 sounds like a long way away but it is only 21 months away. If you have a bankruptcy on your file then that is going to take 6 years from it's date to drop off anyway so nobody will be rushing to give you any credit etc till that has gone. Best not wake sleeping giants!
  12. Maybe you could scan and post what you submitted to the forum? Delete any personal info. Then someone could comment and maybe you can make a complaint to the Court Manager if need be. I have found some small town type of county courts are full of jobsworths that don't know what they are doing, but if it has been put before a judge you could have made a mistake somewhere.
  13. The country is quite mad these days isn't it. I might be tempted to plead not guilty by reason of temporary insanity and request a jury trial. But then I am temporary insane a lot LOL!! :-P
  14. Surely the costs in obtaining the Liability Order have to remain at just that? How do they get away with adding other stuff on not relevant to those proceedings? How can they ask for £130,000+ in costs just for printing out a spreadsheet of 2000 names? That's pretty much all they did and send a few quangos on a day out to the court. Frightening! Look out for black mercedes pulling up outside your house in the middle of the night MC!
  15. Are you going after the bailiffs too? Maybe I shouldn't ask....
  16. These companies even go after charities! Yikes! It is nearly always (99% of the time) around just a small table in an office room. Have you got a copy of the contract you signed? If not make it clear to the judge that you signed on behalf of the charity and not in a personal capacity. Say the word "charity" as many times as you can get away with! People can only ever be made bankrupt if more than £750 is owed too. Make sure you say the charity only owed the £400 and everything else is added on charges. Dispute everything, hold them to strict proof. Don't worry yourself too much about it, I would hope the judge awarded you costs too!
  17. If you get the old judgment set aside but end up with a new judgment with a current date you can always pay the new judgment within 28 days and then it will never appear on your credit file. CCJs only go on your file if you don't pay them in full within 28 days of the judgment date. Can you afford to pay if you lose? If you challenge it you will have to pay an application fee to the court, unless you get benefits or have a low income. £75 I think it is currently. I read your post quickly and cannot discern wether you deserved the fine or not (none of us do really) :-P If you did or you think they can prove you did I wouldn't challenge it. The CCJ will still drop off your credit file after the 6 years if you pay it or not. I presume you are building up some good credit history now, maybe mobile contract or a PAYG debit card that will report good credit history? You'll need at least 2 years good history these days if you want any finance company to have anything to do with you. If you don't have 2 years until June 2011 ish then there is no point trying to get it removed now, I'd wait. Are you wanting to open business accounts or something and want a clean file now? Or are you wanting to build good credit history now but get turned down? There is a more complicated way to get rid of it. You could try getting them sign a consent order to have the judgment set aside and you'd have to pay them to agree to it. Once you contact them though they might just come for the money! Place your bets!
  18. Write to them here and enclose a copy of the SD you got! You could help someone else from having to go through what you have. Enquiries and Reporting Centre Office of Fair Trading Fleetbank House 2-6 Salisbury Square London EC4Y 8JX
  19. There is a full list, as of April 2009, of banks offering basic accounts, here: Basic bank accounts - FSA Money made clear - products explained It tells you what ones give you a debit card and accepts direct debits etc.
  20. This is what I read incase anyone out there dares to read it http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/data_protection/detailed_specialist_guides/what_is_data_for_the_purposes_of_the_dpa.pdf It seems to come down to if they have filed it in a "structured filing system". If they have filed it in name or account number order you are definately entitled to it. "Is the information in the files indexed or subdivided to allow ready access to specific information about a particular individual? YES - This is likely to be a ‘relevant filing system’ and the information is ‘data’ for the purposes of the DPA." If they have filed all the agreements together by date you should be entitled to it. "Purely chronological filing of information covering a variety of categories is unlikely to constitute a ‘relevant filing system’ (and the information will not be ‘data’ covered by the DPA). However, where records relate to a single category of information these may be held in a ‘relevant filing system’ even though the records are filed in purely chronological order – provided, as always, that the single category refers to individuals or criteria relating to individuals, and the system facilitates ready access to specific information about those individuals." If they filed all sorts of things together in date order; agreements, applications, corresponence, toilet rolls, etc., then you are not entitled to it. "Information falling into various different categories which is filed purely in chronological order is unlikely to be held in a relevant filing system. The collection of information is structured by reference to date rather than “by reference to individuals or by reference to criteria relating to individuals”. Are these the conclusions you came to as well? I suppose there is nothing to stop the banks claiming anything about how they file stuff. It is highly unlikely they just put all the agreements into boxes at random with other stuff. Notice how easy and fast they come up with an agreement when it is enforceable??
  21. Are they also dealing with cases in which there is no agreement too? I can see the banks deciding they don't have it in a lot of cases now... I think people only do the s77/s78 request to find if there is an original agreement still in existance with the signature on. It's all very well getting just a photocopy of what the terms etc. would have been. You need to get something with the signature on and the dodgy terms. But then the banks are going to pretend they don't have that if they see it is unenforceable aren't they? I noticed someone say it was a "Directions Hearing" in October so I am guessing nothing is likely to be decided for a while yet, maybe next year.... The old drag it out forever method the banks so enjoy using. I have had a company who have had 100 days to find it saying they are still looking for it, bare with us... I bet they have it and are waiting for the legal dept to decide if they should shred it or not. Does anyone know if they would have to supply a copy of an agreement under a Data Protection Act request if it was on microfiche or paper? Then force them to say if they have it or not as per the subject access request? I spent all day reading stuff on the Information Commissioners website about manual filing etc. didn't make much sense. Might be a cheaper way to get them to admit if they have it than CPR 31.16 route.
  22. I guess this matter is subject to one of the test cases recently discussed. There is no agreement but the "creditor" still places a default on the "debtors" file with the credit reference agencies. I will use "creditor" and "debtor" for simplicity, I know everything is alleged etc... I am presuming one argument against allowing them to place such an entry is the Wilson judgment. The Lords in this judgment described that in the absence of an enforceable credit agreement under the CCA 1974 that the "creditor" was infact giving the "debtor" a "gift". I am not sure how one would "default" on a gift they were given. Maybe it was the wrong choice of words in the judgment. If there is no agreement forthcoming at all, do they have any authority to process data on the "debtor" in any way? Is the default a process towards enforcing or part of enforcement? Is placing a default on a credit file a backdoor way to enforcing? What are people's own views on this.
  23. If we have to make an application for disclosure should we be quoting section 52 of the County Courts Act 1984 rather than section 33 of the Supreme Court Act 1981? I have been googling this for a bit and get the feeling section 33 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 is only for High Court cases now but then I could have missed an amendment here or there. I guess it doesn't matter if you mention CPR 31.16 too but if you deal with the courts a bit you know how picky they are!
  24. The solicitors sound like they are trying it on. It is up to the judge what track it is allocated too, that's why you fill in allocation questionaires! They should point out to the Solicitors that it hasn't been allocated to a track yet and that their letter will be forwarded to the court as to their frustrating of the proceedings.
×
×
  • Create New...