HFC agreement turned up Help

[REST ON A SUNDAY]

you know this wilson lady really was ahead of her time !!!

 

here she is in another case

 

we should call this the 4 corners case law

 

[2007] EWCA Civ 299

 

 

Wilson & ANR v Hurstanger Ltd

[2007] EWCA Civ 299

 

 

Wilson & Anor v Hurstanger Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 299 (04 April 2007)

 

Schedule 1 to the 1983 Regulations sets out the "information to be contained in documents embodying regulated consumer credit agreements". Some of this information mirrors the terms prescribed by schedule 6, but some does not. Contrasting the provisions of the two schedules the Judge said:

33. In my judgment the objective of Schedule 6 is to ensure that, as an inflexible condition of enforceability, certain basic minimum terms are included which the parties (with the benefit of legal advice if necessary) and/or the court can identify within the four corners of the agreement. Those minimum provisions combined with the requirement under section 61 that all the terms should be in a single document, and backed up by the provisions of section 127 (3), ensure that these core terms are expressly set out in the agreement itself: they cannot be orally agreed; they cannot be found in another document; they cannot be implied; and above all they cannot be in the slightest mis-stated. As a matter of policy, the lender is denied any room for manoeuvre in respect of them. On the other hand, they are basic provisions, and the only question for the court is whether they are, on a true construction, included in the agreement. More detailed requirements, which are designed to ensure that the debtor is made aware, so far as possible, of specified information (including information contained in the minimum terms) are to be found in Schedule 1.

I agree. The discretionary power under section 65 (1) to order enforcement of an agreement which does not comply with schedule 1 may be exercised on terms discharging the debtor from having to pay any sum payable under the agreement (section 127 (2)).

 

 

------------------------------------

 

 

Goode Consumer Credit Law and Practice (page 322) & Blackstone's Guide

to the Consumer Credit Act. agree on this matter

 

 

[REST ON A SUNDAY]

11. Kpohraror v Woowich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119.

 

woolwich not woowich

 

can't get a link but here is a summary

 

 

Kpohraror -v- Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119

 

The bank in breach of contract was held liable for injury to the customer's

business reputation because it knew that he was a trader, but not for

further business opportunities alleged to have been lost by reason of

circumstances of which the bank was unaware on the basis of the limited

facts known to it. Evans LJ : "I would prefer to hold that the starting point for

any application of Hadley -v Baxendale is the extent of the shared

knowledge of both parties when the contract was made .... . When that is

established it may often be the case that the first and the second parts of the

rule overlap or at least that it is unnecessary to draw a clear line of .

demarcation between them This seems to me to be consistent with the

commonsense approach suggested by Scarman LJ in H. Parsons (Livestock)

Limited -v- Uttley Ingham & Co. Limited [1978] QB 791 at 813 and to be

applicable here."

[REST ON A SUNDAY]

here is another possible case ?//

 

 

 

 

Vanessa Dawn Dimond R J Lovell -v- Vanessa Dawn Dimond

R J Lovell [1999] EWCA Civ 1311

Dimond v Lovell [1999] EWCA Civ 1311 (29 April 1999)

 

a summary here

 

 

An arrangement loaning a car and postponing payment of hire charges until

 

 

settlement of a damages claim was a consumer hire agreement. If made by

 

 

unregulated person it was unlawful and the cost of hire was irrecoverable.

 

 

The claimant's car was damaged in a traffic accident. She sought to recover

 

 

the cost of hiring an alternative vehicle. The defendant said the car hire

 

 

agreement was invalid in failing to comply with the Act. Since payment had

 

 

been delayed, it was a regulated hire agreement. Held: The agreement

 

 

created a running account credit account, for a restricted use, and was

 

 

invalid. The claimant could not recover damages, since she had in fact had

 

 

use of a car. No trust could be implied to remedy the hire company's failure

 

 

to comply with the statute.

[trevor33]

Wow ROAS, you have been busy. Thanks loads for that. I will digest the info asap. I am still in the process of copying all the other documents at the moment and don't want to muck it up.

Regards Trevor.

[trevor33]

i think we need pt.... to confirm here

 

but to me

 

c) Disclosure of documents by each party by 29th October and any request to inspect original of a copy document by 12th November.

 

this does not say file ...... anywhere

 

by file i mean file at court ....... so to me personally i don't think the court needs anything filed as this will be just part of the trial bundle

 

but as i say we need authorative advice.

 

I think I will send all I have anyway. I do not want to fall foul of CPR.

[REST ON A SUNDAY]

I think I will send all I have anyway. I do not want to fall foul of CPR.

 

 

give the court a ring ... will do no harm

[trevor33]

Cannot phone now, too late. Need to post these on Monday latest. Thanks anyway.

[trevor33]

11. Kpohraror v Woowich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119.

 

woolwich not woowich

 

can't get a link but here is a summary

 

 

Kpohraror -v- Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119

 

The bank in breach of contract was held liable for injury to the customer's

business reputation because it knew that he was a trader, but not for

further business opportunities alleged to have been lost by reason of

circumstances of which the bank was unaware on the basis of the limited

facts known to it. Evans LJ : "I would prefer to hold that the starting point for

any application of Hadley -v Baxendale is the extent of the shared

knowledge of both parties when the contract was made .... . When that is

established it may often be the case that the first and the second parts of the

rule overlap or at least that it is unnecessary to draw a clear line of .

demarcation between them This seems to me to be consistent with the

commonsense approach suggested by Scarman LJ in H. Parsons (Livestock)

Limited -v- Uttley Ingham & Co. Limited [1978] QB 791 at 813 and to be

 

applicable here."

I cannot see anything in this post relevant to my case (Must be the time of night). I am now getting my head round all these cases but this one foxes me. Where do I find the case?

regards Trevor.

[car2403]

I cannot see anything in this post relevant to my case (Must be the time of night). I am now getting my head round all these cases but this one foxes me. Where do I find the case?

regards Trevor.

 

Trevor, I've sent you an email with most of the judgments you need.

 

Have a read of this to see why the K case is important;

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/115630-pricing-default.html

[trevor33]

Anyone know where I can get this case law from, tried everything.

 

Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119.

[trevor33]

Chris, Just writing my post when I got your message. Will have a look and get back to you. Thanks Trevor.

[car2403]

Anyone know where I can get this case law from, tried everything.

 

Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119.

 

Yup, it's in that email

[trevor33]

Chris. Do I need to include all the pages of the CCa in my bundle, or is just a reference to them OK.

[car2403]

I wouldn't bother with the Act, TBH - the Judge will most likely have access to that in chambers anyway.

 

It's more the cases you're going to need.

[trevor33]

Thanks again Chris. I would like to clear up a point about the time a creditor gives for a person to remedy a DEfault Notice. Is it 7 OR 14 days. I noticed in some judgement it was quoted as 7 days.

[car2403]

It was 7 days but was amended to 14 by regulations under the Act.

[trevor33]

The last point Chris, then I think I will be sorted. The case of Wilson v Robertson (London), I have read through it but cannot see the wood for the trees. (I think my brain is becoming addled) What piece of it is relevant to me?

[car2403]

I wouldn't worry too much about the actual meanings of the Wilson Judgments, as they are notoriously well known and mostly agreed to as to their effect. The actual Judgment in each case isn't that important to your case, they just (collectively) outline what the impact of not complying with the CCA has on the question of enforceability. That is, without a correctly executed signed credited agreement, the debt can't be enforced via the Courts and any "advance" under it is irrecoverable in law as a result, in a nutshell.

[trevor33]

I wouldn't worry too much about the actual meanings of the Wilson Judgments, as they are notoriously well known and mostly agreed to as to their effect. The actual Judgment in each case isn't that important to your case, they just (collectively) outline what the impact of not complying with the CCA has on the question of enforceability. That is, without a correctly executed signed credited agreement, the debt can't be enforced via the Courts and any "advance" under it is irrecoverable in law as a result, in a nutshell.

Thanks for that Chris.

I do have an ace up my sleeve though. About Default notices. Hence my question on earlier post about days. The case of Kpohraror v woolwich bs is the one for this I think.

Do I need to send copies of legal cases and acts to w/mans?

Best regards Trevor.

[trevor33]

Woops, sorry Chris. If I had read your post correctly, I would know what the case is about.

[trevor33]

Well. All of the disclosures sent off today. Now onto the next phase.

Thanks again everyone for your help. Lets hope for a favourable outcome.

[trevor33]

Got the disclosure list from w/mans today.(it was on time!!!!!). What a load of rubbish. It was a standard form with boxes ticked. Unable to determine who filled it in. Can I complain to the court.

The default notices are copies, do they need originals?

And the folowing from them:-

"I have control of the following documents, but I object to you inspecting them.

1. Correspondence and memoranda between the claimant, its insurers, solicitors, third parties and other advisors in the litigation.

2. Draft pleadings.

3. Proofs of evidence and correspondence for the purpose of obtaining evidence."

List did not contain any reference to my OH even though she is co-defendant, but the accompanying letter was to both.

Is it worth now asking to view the alleged Agreement and T&C's.

Trevor.

[tinkerbell20]

Just to give you heart.............:grin: GE money through their solicitors Howard Cohen threw the towel in last week and discontinued their claim against me even though they were using the Rankine argument. I had defended on basis that the agreement was unenforceable and they had served a variety of faulty default notices..............:grin::grin: I was told the day before the case was due to be heard ..............now I'm just trying to workk out waht I can claim for costs...........

[trevor33]

Just to give you heart.............:grin: GE money through their solicitors Howard Cohen threw the towel in last week and discontinued their claim against me even though they were using the Rankine argument. I had defended on basis that the agreement was unenforceable and they had served a variety of faulty default notices..............:grin::grin: I was told the day before the case was due to be heard ..............now I'm just trying to workk out waht I can claim for costs...........

Well done Tinkerbell20. II am sure you will find somewhere what you can claim.

It has been an uphill battle for me and OH so I hope they will discontinue.

Regards Trevor.

[trevor33]

Sent off a complaint to the court yesterday about our "friends" Weightmans. They sent copy documents 10 days late with nothing to oh. Asked the court to strike out their claim for frustrating court process. Don't think it will happen though. I have to serve same to w/mans but I think I might delay sending to them.