The banks had to provide a copy of the case for the trial to all parties so I'm sure that Baggio with his legal connections will be aqble to provide it.

Its not online as its an old case.

sad isn't it

It is important that you try and understand that the ruling in relation to the assumed facts relates pureely to those assumed facts only

Becuase it was allegedly signed by her in the branch with the bank manager who was printing off the form in front of her at the time.

Yes your interpretation is wrong. The assumed facts in Carey were that the Prescibed terms were in the Terms andConditions which were physically arttached to the form at the time of signature.

on a closed account the last twelves payment history will stay on for 6 years.

Part of the assumed facts for HSBC was that Ms Carey signed the application form in the bank branch. so all documentation was allegedly together. I would remind you that this case is proceeding to trial as the assumed facts bear little resemblance to the true facts. Ms Carey never signed any application form at all.

The reconstitution decision relates purely to s.78 requests. Reference was made in the judgment that the creditor has to provide evidence that a document containing all the Prescribed Terms WAS signed by the debtor before an enforcement order could be made. In the judgment it is clear that it will be down to the facts of each case as to whether in a credit card agreement the Precribed Terms were contained or embodied. In the event of a signed agreement not being produced then it would be down to heresay evidence which if challenged corrrectly should not provide comfort to the creditor. The reconstituted documents provided under a s.78 request may well not be able to satisfy the court as to where within the original documentation the Prescribed Terms were i.e whether they were contained or embodied for enforcement purposes. In answer to you PM I meant that it would suit the purposes of creditors who do not have compliant credit agreements for the average person to believe that they can enforce an agreement by means of a s.78 reconstituted copy as a matter of course.

This is extremely misleading. Reconstitution applies to s. 78 only. Onlybsight of the original agreement normally would be able to provide confirmation that the prescribed terms were contained and signed by debtor. Anything else is hearsay evidence Though I would assume your advice is what the creditors would like to be the case for obvious reasons

Only as heresay evidence with sufficient proof which has always been the position - the judgment has not altered that position. In practice a copy of the signed original agreement will still be required though some LIPs may not be able to argue that point adequately

As cartel 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

No though they did win on the reconstitution point & unfair relationships. Costs were awarded per individual principle which was debated at hearing for the parties involved in each. Cartels claimants were involved in the the ones that the Banks won and not involved in the ones the banks lost so the net result was a cost order against cartel clients involved

It's still the case that it is likel. The court will want to see the signed document.

Don't think so so RBS is going after Cartel and CCLS personally as well - whether they will succeed is another matter

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 - cartel clients lost on costs today

Cartel clients actually lost the preliminary issues they were involved in. I believe that RBS is trying to get cost orders against Cartel and their solicitors personally

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

Abc

Manchester Judgment was delivered on 23 December. Check this thread out. Claim Stayed – Due to Unenforceable CCA Test Cases.

6 years

Add

Adv

Abc

Anc