Hmm suspicious

I am well aware that the agreement in question was enforceable as they had not disclosed the statement Yes it didn't set a precedent and yes each case will be viewed on its merits (like every case that goes before the courts) However the Mcguiffick decision does have its ramifications whether you like it or not. Can I ask have you actually read the complete judgement and considered the ramifications or have you just focused on the fact that the agreement was enforceable and therefore not bothered to read the rest of it

Other peoples opinions, views and potential ramifications of Mcguiffick Kraken1 and a few others who I believe have actually read the judgement and understand it like myself can see outside the box and are looking at the bigger picture. As for those who slated me if you disagree with me and state that what I have said is rubbish please do the decent thing and back up what you say with reasoned arguments for why. The Consumer Credit Act is not black and white there are many grey areas in between Kraken1 I will get back to you with the paragraph relating to issue of proceedings not being enforcement However logically the issue of proceedings can never be enforcement on the basis that if it was it would take away the lenders right to argue that the agreement was enforceable in a court of law. Mickie x

Neither the uneducated nor the manipulator I am the Solicitor... one of many who is currently acting for the Consumer in relation to these agreements and one of many who is currently considering the implications of McGuiffick in light of a number of cases which I have running in County Courts up and down the Country An agreement is declared irredeemably unenforceable The debt remains outstanding and the debt is not made void and is not written off When you enter into an agreement you entered into a contractual relationship where the consumer had obligations to repay and the lender had obligations to report for non payment. If your loan agreement is declared unenforceable the fact is that the debt relating to that agreement will remain on your credit file and the lender as part of their contractual obligation is likely to make an adverse reference which will be on your credit file It may not say default on payment but more than likely the courts eventually will make a decision as to the precise wording of the reference following a determination of unenforceability That will then remain for all other lenders to be seen potentially affecting a persons ability to get further credit Further as the contractual obligation still remains under Mcguiffick there is nothing stopping the lender from continuing to pursue the debt and or issue proceedings (although in reality it is unlikely) but hypothetically it could happen

Finally on the point of SPPL v Walker What are your views? Which way do you think the Court is going to decide?

Hello SPPL v Walker was heard on the 14th October @ the Court of Appeal Judgement has been reserved to be given at a later date. No further information will be decided this month and I would expect a Final Decision at some point in November maybe later. McGuiffick ruling effectively concerned whether or not the Banks failure to provide a CCA pursuant to S77/78 prevent them from pursuing for the debt and reporting to credit reference agencies. The answer as we all know was yes they can which effectively means in my view that they can still pursue you for that debt even if the court decides that your agreement is irredeemably unenforceable. The reason for me saying that is on the basis that whilst the CCA 1974 and the Regulations thereunder are there to effectively protect the consumer and if the lender has not complied with their obligations then they don't have a right to enforce which is quite correct. However in the background the debt is still there and the contractual obligation remains. It will in my view never be declared void. It will alsways remain owing and due. The ramifications of this are that if the court declared your agreement irredeemably unenforceable potentially the lender still could pursue you for the debt, make adverse refernces to credit reference agencies and issue proceedings in respect of that debt. The McGuiffick case confirmed that issuing of proceedings was not classed as enforcement I understand the reasoning as to why in that if that had been classed as enforcement then the judge would have been restricting a persons right to justice. However it does beg the question as to what is enforcement? How far is the lender permitted to go before it constitutes enforcement of the debt Will the lender be able to get a money judgement against the consumer but not be able to enforce to recover that money In respect of credit referencing the Mcguiffick ruling leaves it wide open for Banks to continue issueing adverse reference even after an agreement has been declared unenforceable. In future a court may give further guidance as to what references the lender is permitted to make. Whether after an agreement is declared unenforceable the court may specify what wording is to be used in those references Currently in any event even when you do have an unenforceable agreement the contractual obligation remains and the debt remains owing and due. Whilst the court may have determined an agreement unenforceable the next step will be that the consumer will stop paying and the lender will then make a reference to the CRA's. There is no doubt in my mind that if the court finds in the consumers favour the consumers credit rating will be affected potentially resulting in refusal for credit in cases where previously the consumer had a 100% clear credit rating. Whilst I think McGuiffick is unlikely to be appealed I am positive that there will be further guidance from the courts as to how the lender is to treat the consumer following an agreement being declared unenforceable especially with regard to adverse references and the cra's All that on a Friday afternoon Mickie xx