Jump to content

Vulture_Bank

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    273
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Vulture_Bank

  1. The correspondence which she exhibits includes a letter dated 12th September 1995 from Harrods, described as coming from them,{NOW DOES THIS RING A BELL WHEN MBNA WRITE PASSING OFF AS ABBEY HALIFAX A & LEICESTER ETC} but on reading the small print it was from Harrods Card Services (that is the trading name of the plaintiffs) which had enclosed with it a copy statement of her account as at 26th June 1991, and the letter says that accompanying that statement was the pro forma letter to which I have just referred
  2. now another question here in this case is raised by statement a statement b now as we know the assignment cannot have been vaild on 26th june 1991 as the letter was only posted then (must allow for date of service) so that statement is invalid ..... a small fact but what are the consequences which were missed at the time !!
  3. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-606715.html
  4. pt2537 please have a look at these two cases amazing what they got away with in 1998 First Personal Bank v Sim [1998] EWCA Civ 988 (12 June 1998) First Personal Bank Plc v Sim [1998] EWCA Civ 1194 (10 July 1998) the second case was mentioned on this site in march 2007 as backing up the need for the original terms and conditions by a " member" we have our old friends cohens and CL Finance here "One thing is clear, the plaintiffs could not unilaterally impose changed conditions upon the defendant without her consent, and if she was ignorant of those matters, of the assignment and of those conditions, she cannot have consented to them, either expressly or impliedly by carrying on the operation of the account."
  5. well it can't be a legal absolute assignment can it i'd suggest you send the same letter to each (to let them know they are competing) and mention that you intend to claim a refund of penalty charges etc and seek clarification on who to pursue . since neither assignment can be absolute hsbc would have to be involved in any court case
  6. Credit Professionals Ltd www.credit-manager.co.uk With the recent launch of Lovetts Pre-Legal "No Collection - No Commission" service that is operated by CPL staff in the Lovetts name, it has been decided to bring the operational functions of the two businesses into closer harmony. The IT systems have now been linked so that Lovetts Account Executives and CPL’s Debt Recovery Managers can share information on commercial debts and seamlessly move debts from Pre-Legal into the issue of a County Court Claim. It also enables CPL’s own debt recovery clients to access the very best of services from a specialist law firm at advantageous rates. Lovetts website is linked to the CPL website so that their clients can access the credit reporting, recruitment and consultancy services offered by CPL. [March 2003] another one "passing off" ........ data protection act anybody ???
  7. yes the word factoring has arisen as well regarding "equitable assignments " which is similar ? the worrying point is the "passing off as" down the phone ......
  8. amazingly found this link last night !!!!! Debt Purchase for Trade Debts Debt Purchase DetailsIf you are looking for an immediate injection of cash but do not want to commit to long term finance solutions, you may consider selling the debt on your sales ledger. Whether this is an individual debt or the whole ledger, as long as the debt has a value and can be supported by a contract the debt purchase might be the solution for you. Debt Purchase is not there to offload uncollectible debt, but will release funds to you without waiting for payment to be made. The anticipated cost of collection will still be incurred along with a deduction for the risk involved, as once the debt is purchased from you and the money is paid, there is no come-back to you, but it gives you immediate funds to use in your business. Through our network of alliance partners who are the most reputable and professional debt collection agencies, we are able to find you the best debt purchase deal. You will need to allow a verification process which will often entail allowing us to contact the debtors to value the debt, but only after your express permission has been granted. This will be done in the name of your company to ensure that your service is not jeopardise but will not be done until you have discussed this with our representative to ensure this is the best facility for you. Once you submit your details one of our account managers will contact you that's what we call rumbled !!!! should this be a sticky !!!!
  9. paul you have taken the scans down does it say on the assignment thing aktiv capital asset investments limited & aktiv capital asa because just realised the company should be aktiv Kapital asset investments limited & aktiv Kapital asa is this my mistake or theirs ??
  10. will sort that lot out next year heres a link to a new thread put in scotland section of cag basically its about bradford and bingley securisation ,,,,,, but it mentions differences in law (and equitable assignment)that relate to scotland ( specially for seahorse ) http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/scotland/124617-bradford-bingley-securisation-scottish.html or direct to the source ( only 200+ pages) http://www.investis.com/bbg/pdfstorage/mort0405a.pdf bits here relating to the consumer credit act and liabilities [url=http://www.investis.com/bbg/pdfstorage/mort0405a.pdf][/url]
  11. http://www.investis.com/bbg/pdfstorage/mort0405a.pdf specially for seahorse suggest you search the above link to reveal secrets on "assign" then search the 200+ pages for "scot" Set-off risks in relation to FlexAbility Mortgages, Choices Loans, further drawdowns under Buy-to- Let Loans and delayed cashbacks may adversely affect the funds available to the Issuer to repay the Notes As described in – There may be risks associated with the fact that the Mortgages Trustee has no legal title to the Loans and their Related Security, which may adversely affect payments on the Notes, the Seller will make, and in the future may make, an equitable assignment of the Loans and their Related Security or in the case of Scottish Loans, a transfer of the beneficial interest in the Loans and their Related Security, to the Mortgages Trustee, with legal title being retained by the Seller or, as applicable, the relevant Originator. Therefore, the rights of the Mortgages Trustee may be subject to the direct rights of the Borrowers against the Seller or, as applicable, the relevant Originator, including rights of set-off existing prior to notification to the Borrowers of the sale of the Loans. Setoff rights (including analogous rights in Scotland) may occur if, for example, the Seller or, as applicable, the relevant Originator fails to advance to a Borrower a drawing under a FlexAbility Mortgage, a Buy-to-Let Loan or a Choices Loan when the Borrower is entitled to draw additional amounts under a FlexAbility Mortgage, a Buy-to-Let Loan or a Choices Loan or if the Seller or, as applicable, the relevant Originator fails to pay to a Borrower any delayed cashback which the Seller or, as applicable, the relevant Originator had agreed to pay to that Borrower after completion of the relevant Loan. You should note, however, that the Seller and Mortgage Express do not currently offer delayed cashbacks, but either of them or any other Originator may offer products in the future with those features and those loans may be assigned to the Mortgages Trustee. If the Seller or, as applicable, the relevant Originator fails to advance the drawing or pay the delayed cashback, then the relevant Borrower may set off any damages claim (or analogous rights in Scotland) arising from the Seller’s or, as applicable, the relevant Originator’s breach of contract against the Seller’s or relevant Originator’s (and, as assignee or holder of the beneficial interest in the Loans and their Related Security, the Mortgages Trustee’s) claim for payment of principal and/or interest under the Loan as and when it becomes due. These set-off claims will constitute transaction set-off as described in the immediately preceding risk factor. The amount of the claim in respect of a drawing will, in many cases, be the cost to the Borrower of finding an alternative source of finance (although in the case of FlexAbility Mortgages, Buy-to-Let Loans or Choices Loans which are governed by Scottish law, it is possible, though regarded as unlikely, that the Borrower’s rights of set-off could extend to the full amount of the additional drawing). The Borrower may obtain a loan elsewhere, in which case the damages would be equal to any difference in the borrowing costs together with any consequential losses, namely the associated costs of obtaining alternative funds (for example, legal fees and survey fees). If the Borrower is unable 40 to obtain an alternative loan, he or she may have a claim in respect of other losses arising from the Seller’s or, as applicable, the relevant Originator’s breach of contract where there are special circumstances communicated by the Borrower to the Seller or, as applicable, the relevant Originator at the time the mortgage was taken out or which otherwise were reasonably foreseeable. In respect of a delayed cashback, the claim is likely to be in an amount equal to the amount due under the delayed cashback together with interest and expenses and consequential losses (if any). A Borrower is entitled to set off the full amount of any failed drawing or failed cashback. A Borrower may also attempt to set off against his or her mortgage payments an amount greater than the amount of his or her damages claim (or analogous rights in Scotland). In that case, the Servicer will be entitled to take enforcement proceedings against the Borrower, although the period of nonpayment by the Borrower is likely to continue until a judgment is obtained. The exercise of set-off rights by Borrowers would reduce the incoming cashflow to the Mortgages Trustee during the exercise. However, the amounts set off will be applied to reduce the Seller Share of the Trust Property only. Further, there may be circumstances in which: * a Borrower might seek to argue that any Loan or Extension Advance is wholly or partly unenforceable by virtue of non-compliance with the CCA; or * certain drawings may rank behind liens created by a Borrower after the date upon which the Borrower entered into its mortgage with the Seller. ================= http://www.investis.com/bbg/pdfstorage/mort0405a.pdf
  12. ummmmm feel those dates are hiding something and some vey interesting finds here !!! sep 2006 Staggering Impairments Clobber Aktiv Kapital june 2006 Aktiv Kapital's Earnings Fall feb 2006 Audit Nightmare at Aktiv Kapital Causes Deep Drop in Profits jan 2006 Revenue Growth Slows at Aktiv Kapital oct 2005 Portfolio Management Group Acquired by Aktiv Kapital in Canadian Expansion feb 2005 Aktiv Kapital's CEO Abruptly Resigns Amid Acquisition of Two More Collection Firms
  13. am I stupid thick or both --- reading that first page of appendix 1 it says this deed of assignment is made between (1) first national etc................ and (2) aktiv capital asset investments limited .......... whereas the assignor, GE capital global finance ltd, the assignee and aktiv kapital asa entered into an agreement on xx 2004 (the agreement) there are 4 parties mentioned here not 2 as they are trying to pass off if you don't read it properly they are not showing you an agreement "as mentioned" how are we supposed to know there is a relationship between (a)first national and ge (B)aktiv capital asset investments limited & aktiv capital asa
  14. United Kingdom, Banking and Financial, Buy To Let Lending - Deloitte - 21/06/2007 09:45:23, Financial Services, Loans, Mortgages and Leasing, Real Estate, Landlord & Tenant, Market Commentaries, Rental & Residential Property you have to scroll a long way down the page to see Taxation Developments On Securitisation Securitisation as a whole, and specifically the securitisation of mortgage loans, is an increasingly popular means of raising finance. Significant developments in the corporation tax treatment of securitisation companies are expected to provide a further boost to undertaking securitisations using a UK Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) for both UK and overseas originators. In addition, there have been a number of recent VAT cases that have in some respects clarified the VAT treatment of the SPV but also raised issues for further thought. A summary analysis of the key developments in both corporation tax and VAT on securitisation is set out below. These issues should be given careful consideration both by building societies that already have well developed securitisation programmes and those considering securitisation for the first time. Corporation tax and securitisation One of the key economic drivers behind securitisation is that finance can be raised at a lower cost than would otherwise be possible; this is achieved through the use of an SPV with an enhanced credit rating. In order to obtain an enhanced credit rating, there should be the greatest certainty of flows in and out of the SPV as possible, with taxation being one of these flows. The introduction of new accounting standards regarding the accounting for debt and derivatives under both International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) and UK GAAP caused a particular issue for UK SPVs as it threatened to make the accounting profit too volatile to be an acceptable basis for computing cash tax liabilities. Interim measure The UK tax authorities, as a result of extensive lobbying, responded to the issue in an effective manner by introducing a temporary regime whereby securitisation companies continue to base their tax calculations on accounting profits determined under ‘old’ UK GAAP (i.e. pre FRS 26). In effect, retaining the previous status quo. However, it was always recognised that the preservation of ‘old’ UK GAAP for tax purposes was a temporary measure and provision was left for new regulations to be implemented. The date to which the ‘old’ UK GAAP rules can apply has been previously extended to accounting periods ending before 1 January 2008, and provision was made in the recent budget for this to be extended to a later (unspecified) date. Securitisation Regulations The new Securitisation Regulations, that have effect for periods of account beginning on or after 1 January 2007, resolve the issue on a more permanent basis by breaking the traditional link in the UK between accounting profits and taxable profits. In effect, the Securitisation Regulations tax a securitisation company in accordance with its retained cash, subject to commercially required cash reserves, as set out in the waterfall (the waterfall being the priority of payments in the SPV set out in the transaction documents). The Regulations obviously needed to be carefully drafted to ensure that they will only catch those companies they are intended to catch and are sufficiently robust to prevent companies being artificially engineered to fall into the rules (i.e. for avoidance purposes). Experience to date suggests that, with the inevitable exceptions, these aims should be broadly achieved, particularly in relation to the securitisation of mortgages. For existing SPVs it is noted that the transitional provisions have been extended such that it is uncertain when (if ever) SPVs that entered into a securitisation prior to 1 January 2007 will be obliged to apply the new Securitisation Regulations. There are provisions to elect into the new regulations for such SPVs that meet the criteria, and, although to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, most SPVs are likely to want to elect in as the new regime is a favourable one. The time limit for the election is within 18 months of the end of the first accounting period beginning on or after 1 January 2007 and is irrevocable. Where the Securitisation Regulations apply taxable profits are therefore comparatively certain and the SPV is only taxed on a small margin (typically the waterfall provides for a margin of just 0.01% of the principal of the balance outstanding on the Notes to remain in the SPV). Certain conditions must be met in order for the Securitisation Regulations to apply; two key issues being that, firstly, the SPV is a "securitisation company", and secondly, that the payments condition is met. Securitisation company – there are a number of ways in which a company will be regarded as a "securitisation company" within the Securitisation Regulations, and accordingly a securitisation company is defined by means of a number of attributes. These require careful consideration when assessing potential securitisation structures, however in a traditional mortgage loan securitisation they should not be overly onerous to meet. Payments condition – the payments condition aims to ensure that cashbox companies cannot be smuggled into the regime by requiring securitisation companies to pay out all their receipts within a given time period except to the extent that cash reserves are required for credit enhancement and similar purposes. In essence it is a revenue protection mechanism for HMRC as the flows out of the SPV should be taxable in the hands of a UK resident tax payer. However, again, in a vanilla securitisation structure this condition should also be met without difficulty. Other practical issues encountered to date include the means of obtaining sufficient comfort for the rating agencies that the assets involved are "financial assets" (another condition of the regulations) and queries relating to stamp taxes on securitisation. Clearance procedures There are no specific clearance procedures or tax rulings available in respect of the Securitisation Regulations, however the more general clearance mechanism of a Code of Practice 10 (COP 10) application is worth consideration. On the one hand, it should be clear whether or not the conditions of the Securitisations Regulations will be met, however this is new legislation and as such structures rely on obtaining as much certainty as possible and all securitisation transactions come under very close legal scrutiny; a positive COP 10 could help prevent further queries arising at the implementation stage. The new tax rules are a significant development for securitisation in the UK and are welcomed. Although implemented due to the introduction of IFRS, they also remove many other tax issues, such as those concerning the deductibility of interest, that have historically needed to be overcome in the UK. The Regulations do set out a number of conditions that must be met and to this extent require careful monitoring, however they do offer the degree of certainty that is so fundamental for a securitisation transaction to function properly. VAT and securitisation The purpose of this section is to highlight a few of developments that have taken place in recent months as a result of case law, which affect the treatment of VAT in relation to securitisation programmes. (It does not deal with the roles and responsibilities of the cash and administration managers, as currently, these appear to be unchallenged by HMRC, and the assumption is that the securitisation is of UK loans/mortgages/ receivables involving a UK originator and a UK SPV.) (i) VAT Treatment of the Assignment of ‘loans’, receivables etc. by the originator. The assumption here is that, as is typical with loan/mortgage securitisations, the loans/mortgages etc are transferred/ assigned to the SPV without the completion of the transfer of full legal title, that is, only the beneficial/economic benefit interest is legally transferred. Where this happens, the High Court’s ruling strongly suggest that there is no supply by the originator/assignor to the SPV, but is rather simply a precondition necessary for the securitisation to take place [MBNA Europe Bank Limited (2006)]. This means that there may now be no exempt supply to consider in relation to the cash paid to the assignor by the SPV and, as a result, any VAT incurred on costs will be residual. Given that most Societies have very low or ‘nil’ VAT recovery, the practical implication of this is that there is little change to the amount of VAT that the originator may reclaim:D (mbna's failed attempt to get VAT relief) .(ii) Does the SPV act as a ‘factor’? Prior to the MBNA decision, it was thought that the assignment either, was an exempt supply for VAT purposes or, might be made as part of a factoring arrangement where the SPV was a factor. This latter point has caused some debate on whether the SPV is acting as a ‘factor’. However, for a supply of factoring to occur, the person to whom the loans/debts/receivables are assigned must (a) do something for the seller/assignor and (b) charge the seller for doing it. In essence, a factor will typically charge the assignor for ‘debt collection’ services etc. and this is a VATable supply. However, the general view is that, in securitisations, the assignee does nothing for the assignor and does not charge any consideration for services; it merely acquires the right to the loan/debt/receivable. This debate now appears to be resolved by the High Court. In its decision [MBNA paragraph 102] the Court refers to transactions which, like the assignment of receivables in the MBNA securitisation case, are not supplies for VAT purposes. One of these transactions is that of factoring and the assignment of debts to a factor. In this way, the Court clearly sees a difference between securitisation and factoring. (iii) What else, for VAT purposes, does the SPV do? If the SPV is not acting as a ‘factor’ and does not appear to be supplying anything to the assignor, what is it doing from a VAT perspective? The only other thing that the SPV will do is raise capital by issuing financial instruments, typically commercial paper, notes or bonds. Following the ECJ ruling in Kretztechnik [Kretztechnik AG v Finanzamt Linz, Case 465/03], HMRC issued a Business Brief [business Brief 21/05 – 23 November 2005], in which they state: "The issue of other types of security, such as bonds, debentures or loan notes, should…be treated as non-supplies [for VAT purposes] when the purpose of the issue is to raise capital for the issuer’s business." Prior to this, the issue of bonds etc by an SPV in a securitisation was seen by HMRC as a supply for VAT purposes and, where the purchaser of the bond etc was located outside the EU, this gave the SPV a right of recovery of VAT incurred on costs relating to the non-EU element of its supplies. As a result, where the above conditions apply, any input tax is, following the ECJ ruling above, now to be treated as ‘residual’ and can only be recovered if the SPV makes any supplies that will give it a right to reclaim any of the VAT it incurs. The interesting point, from a VAT perspective, is that, if the SPV is doing nothing for the originator, for example, it is not acting as a factor, is it in ‘business’ for VAT purposes? If it isn’t, then HMRC may well see the issue of the notes, bonds etc by the SPV as a supply for VAT purposes. This would, presumably mean that it was in business, and it would now be able to register for VAT to recover any VAT relating to the issue of the notes, bonds etc to non-EU counterparties. It might also be a requirement that the SPV is not registered for VAT in order to protect its bankruptcy remote status; although, with correct management of any claim, this should not present a risk to the SPV. The fact that the SPV cannot reclaim any VAT it incurs, underlines the importance of ensuring that ‘servicing’ fees etc are treated as exempt by any supplier. Clearly, this is an area where there is need for clarification. Securitisation is a complex area for VAT and there is still much more certainty needed in determining exactly what, for VAT purposes, happens (if they don't know who does ? )in a securitisation. "Certain conditions must be met in order for the Securitisation Regulations to apply; two key issues being that, firstly, the SPV is a "securitisation company", and secondly, that the payments condition is met."
  15. in order to cement the meaning of the above may we refer to the following :-- HOUSE OF LORDS Lord Goff of Chieveley Lord Lloyd of Berwick Lord Hoffmann Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Clyde OPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENT IN THE CAUSE INVESTORS COMPENSATION SCHEME LIMITED (APPELLANTS) v. WEST BROMWICH BUILDING SOCIETY AND OTHERS (RESPONDENTS) ON 19 JUNE 1997 House of Lords - Investors Compensation Scheme v. West Bromwich Building Society http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199798/ldjudgmt/jd970619/invest02.htm The meaning of the language The objection to the plain meaning is the inclusion of the words "for undue influence" after "rescission"; for any lawyer would know that there are other grounds on which the investor might claim rescission, for example, on the ground of misrepresentation. Why, therefore, should the draftsman have specifically included one of the grounds on which the investor might claim rescission, but not others? We do not know the answer to this question. It may be that if one had access to the preliminary drafts of the Claim Form, or to the mind of the draftsman himself, the answer would emerge clearly enough. It may be that a claim for rescission on the ground of undue influence was, for some reason, uppermost in the draftsman's mind; so he put the words in. But we cannot go into the draftsman's mind. We having nothing to go on but the words he has used. The inclusion of undue influence is odd, but not so odd as to obscure the meaning. "Or otherwise" must relate back to "whether sounding in rescission." Any other construction would leave "whether" hanging in the air. So "or otherwise" covers claims in contract and tort. It is not limited to other grounds for claiming rescission. The drafting is slovenly. But I do not have any great difficulty with the meaning. It is said that the plain meaning would make the words in brackets otiose. So indeed it would. But words in brackets are often otiose, especially brackets in the format "(whether . . . or otherwise)." They show that the general words which precede the parenthesis are not limited to any particular kind of claim, but cover all claims so long as they are claims for reduction of sums due. What are the alternatives? Mr. Vos submits that section 3(b) means "any claims sounding in rescission (whether for undue influence or otherwise) in which you claim an abatement . . ." I agree with Evans-Lombe J. that such a construction does violence to the language. I know of no principle of construction (whether by reference to what Lord Wilberforce said in Prenn v. Simmons [1971] 1 W.L.R. 1381, 1384-1386 or otherwise) which would enable the court to take words from within the brackets, where they are clearly intended to underline the width of "any claim," and place them outside the brackets where they have the exact opposite effect. As Leggatt L.J. said in the Court of Appeal, such a construction is simply not an available meaning of the words used; and it is, after all, from the words used that one must ascertain what the parties meant. Purposive interpretation of a contract is a useful tool where the purpose can be identified with reasonable certainty. But creative interpretation is another thing altogether. The one must not be allowed to shade into the other………….
  16. note there are two companies with very similar names lowells and lovells THE CITY OF LONDON LAW SOCIETY FINANCIAL LAW SUB-COMMITTEE DIRECTIVE ON FINANCIAL COLLATERAL ARRANGEMENTS: REPLIES TO QUESTIONS FROM H.M. TREASURY CONTAINED IN NOTE OF APRIL 2003 SETTING OUT INITIAL POLICY AND LEGAL QUESTIONS (Warning attempting to understand this thread may seriously damage your brain -- however there are some valuable snippets in here) http://www.fmlc.org/papers/fmlc1may2.pdf i "Moreover, the consequences of a failure to register the assignment set out in Section 344(2) are potentially extremely serious" "The ability of a party under a properly drafted netting agreement to close out and net an existing transaction against the counterparty is not in general affected if the claims owed to the counterparty are assigned or charged to a third party or attached by a judgment creditor of the counterparty, provided that, broadly, the relevant party had no notice " etc etc
  17. worth a read http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/hsbc-bank/61022-tifo-hsbc-personal-account-2.html & "As well as being legal or equitable, assignments of either kind may be on sale or by way of security. An assignment on sale is a permanent disposal of the contract. A legal assignment of this sort will normally be subject to stamp duty. However, where the assignment is by way of security, it has the effect of a mortgage. No stamp duty is payable but the assignment must be registered at the Companies Registry under s395 Companies Act. http://www.raisefinance.org/arbitration_and_assignment.shtml "
  18. Dear Charlieho so if we believe the above then no absolute assignment can have taken place (which of course we need to be notified about) at best if any assignment regarding the relationship between abbey and mbna has taken place .....then there has been an equitable assignment ------ meaning abbey is liable for any refund of charges etc. not MBNA Consequently may it be suggested that mbna have scored an own goal with the above. would be intersting to lodge a FORMAL complaint with abbey to quote Queen victoria " they would not be amused" especially as abbey and mbna now have a decree nisi the MBNA hole gets deeper IT WOuld be interesting to write to ABBEY (SANTANDER) and find their views on the situation
  19. and for the lazy ones out there http://www.francisbennion.com/pdfs/fb/2002/2002-009-all-england-law-reports.pdf Interpreter’s need to understand nature of an Act (Code s 29) 26.16. It is necessary to understand that an Act usually has a scheme. The drafter will have designed it conceptually. Like an engine, its various elements interlock so as to function efficiently. Unless it is the subject of disorganised composition (for references to which see Supplement Index), it will not just flow on hither and thither in an undirected way. On the contrary it will form an organic unity, which is the reason for the linguistic canon requiring an Act to be construed as a whole (see Code s 355). In their work of interpretation, the courts take account of this. So in relation to an argument put forward on the Human Rights Act 1998 Lord Hope of Craighead objected that the argument was ‘inconsistent with the scheme of the 1998 Act’: R v Lambert [2001] UKHL 37, [2001] 3 All ER 577, at [112]. Similarly in his dissenting judgment in Bettison and another v Langton and others [2001] UKHL 24, [2001] 3 All ER 417, at [17] Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead said of a change in the law alleged to have been made by the Commons Registration Act 1965 s 15 that it would be ‘inconsistent with the scheme of the legislation’. http://www.francisbennion.com/pdfs/fb/2002/2002-009-all-england-law-reports.pdf 26.32. In Wilson v First County Trust Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 633, [2001] 3 All ER 229 the Court of Appeal allowed counsel to cite Hansard on the Consumer Credit Act 1974 s 127(3). This was not done under the rule in Pepper v Hart (the legal meaning was clear) but to ascertain what ‘led Parliament to enact a provision in those words’ (see Morritt V-C at [35]). http://www.francisbennion.com/pdfs/fb/2003/2003-061-consumer-credit-1974-s127-3.pdf Consumer Credit Act 1974 s 127(3) As the draftsman of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 I would like to thank Dr Richard Lawson for his interesting and well-argued article (30 August 2003) on Wilson v First County Trust Ltd [2003] UKHL 40, [2003] 4 All ER 97. Dr Lawson may be interested to know that I included the provision in question (section 127(3)) entirely on my own initiative. It seemed right to me that if the creditor company couldn’t be bothered to ensure that all the prescribed particulars were accurately included in the credit agreement it deserved to find it unenforceable, and that the court should not have power to relieve it from this penalty. Nobody queried this, and it went through Parliament without debate. I’m glad the House of Lords has now vindicated my reasoning and confirmed that nobody’s human rights were infringed. 167 Justice of the Peace (2003) 773.
  20. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-1097290.html what do you think this one is the works of shakespeare page 6 of 10 yet agreement page 1 of 4 bottom left corner :lol::lol:
  21. no you have got it the wrong way around the date you received the letter of assignment IS THE RULING FACTOR if the date on the letter that is was sent states a date xth october and the letter says the absolute assignment took place on the yth of october then the date yth of october is totally irrelvant so the date that the absolute assignment begins in law is at the earliest x+2 of october and more likely x+5 of october remember also save all envelopes as well as letters in future because more and more letters are being sent by uk mail
  22. must stress that the responses (opinions) were from a variety of companies that in reality are behind these store-cards Note it is believed on the evidence of appendix 3.1 on the link That there is a very high probability that non of the responses can be attributed to MBNA Europe (it is believed at 2005 they were not active in the store-card market) The contributors as per appendix 3.1 on the link Appear to be ARGOS ( 3 STORECARDS) AUSTIN REED ( 1 STORECARD) BEALES( 1 STORECARDS) CREATION( 16 STORECARDS) FENWICKS ( 1 STORECARD) FORTNUM & MASON ( 1 STORECARDS) GECF -- GE MONEY TO YOU & ME ( 24 STORECARDS) HSBC ( 3 STORECARDS) IKANO ( 5 STORECARDS) JENNERS ( 1 STORECARD) LLOYDS TSB ( 2 STORECARDS) STYLE ( 13 STORECARDS) so without any need to do any statistical analysis it is suggested that on the balance of probabilities the actual source of the comments can fairly easily guesstimated
×
×
  • Create New...