Im sorry to say Baggio but im reading it the same as Gaz,the only way a court cant enforce is if no signed agreement is admitted by the banks,but their not going to admit that when they can come up with"we wouldnt of given the credit without a signed agreement" line which the judge admitted he intended to believe.

Getting the feeling the banks dont even need a solicitor to fight their corner as all the judges seem hell bent on defending them as much as they can,little people shafted again as usual are we going to do something about it? As i keep reading on here the law is black and white and yet it keeps getting twisted to benefit the banks.:mad:

Does anybody know what effect this will have on enforcability claims REALLY or is everyone second guessing at the mo? as there seems to be lots of different opinions.

Unfortunately the british way seems to be to lie down and take anything thrown at us without the balls to do anything about it.

So 2 different outcomes to the same case,or am i missreading it?

So in stark contrast to what Baggio was telling us? Who do we believe,i seem to remember you giving out the opposite advise to Baggio when the cases started aswell,im preety new to all this but have to question whos side you are on?

like to just add the guy who got the 42k was made redundant from the job they bought him back to do!!!

Hi im after a bit of information on this little problem, please help if you know the answer. A freind of mine has been told he will be getting made redundant after 10 years with the company the problem is there is someone working there who got made redundant in may with a payoff of 42k they brought him back in june and hes still there doing the job my mate is doing, can they make him redundant while this other guy is still there having already been paid off? Any nhelp much appreciated. Hi any ideas anyone:(

Hi I'm a couple of months further down the road with these clowns at mbna, they can continue to ask for payment as much as they like but thebottom line is you don't have a legal obligation to pay them anything while the account is in dipsute,they might and probably will tell you differently, in the hope you don't know your rights and you are scared into making a payment.

Maybe were all being a bit doom and gloom here,you never know we might get the judgement were hoping for!!

Nothing in this country would suprise me as far as sticking it to the "little people" goes. It seems everyone of the government is on the fiddle as regard exspenses,but thats ok,but god forbid you should question the legality of a contract,how dare you!!!

Does anybody else think it speakes volumes that nothing about theses cases has been on th news this week? The bank charges was front page and headline news!!

Sorry meant to say they couldn't produce the documents,not that they said they never had any!!

I've read 2 recent cases on here where there was no agreement produced and 1 I read yesterday where there was neither an agreement or DN the creditor admitted as much to the court and it made no difference to the outcome. I'm sure I've got that right I'll have a look and find them if I can

11 remaining cases are heard? Does this mean 2 have been heard already? Do we know thw outcome?

Ihope your right,i too have several cases where the agreement does not contain the prescribed terms and all has gone quiet for the moment,but why do i get a niggling doubt in the back of mind that says we are gonna get shafted by the courts!!!

Hi to everyone on here,im very new to this and would like to ask the following question,as Baggiop states there is Law and Case Law backing these claims on UCA,so why do some people keep losing depending on the Judge they end up with surely the Law is the Law?