Jump to content


freakyleaky

H.O.L Test case appeal. Judgement Declared. ***See Announcements***

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3405 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

There is a precedent in that the McLibel 2 even though they lost against McDonalds they won damages against the UK & one of the main concerns of the EU court was that legal aid was not available to them. Therefore the trail was not fair & a clear breach of Article 6

 

They also criticised the law in that there was little protection for those who spoke out against corporations which affected the everyday lives of citizens & the environment. They thought our libel laws too erroneous. Of course in this regard they are wrong its the Judgments that have been too erroneous

 

As the Banks have said it is in the interest to take it higher and back then Mclibel2 ATE's were not so popular...can't ATE be used by Walls

 

m2ae

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
300 caggers 2000 visitors says it all.... this site is losing its power!!!

 

what do we do????

Actually, that's pretty average for this time of the year, the numbers always drop a fair bit in summer. ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hey well im just sitting here doing nuthin important and watchin nurses.

 

hope all is aok in the land of the living.

 

Word as it mateys that the milk suply is being restricted in some areas due to a stopage in delivery of some kind.

 

Heyn ut you know this link shud keep the mind focused and distracted for a while you think?


Any typos spelling mistakes are due to leprechauns in my keyboard they move the letters around sometimes (edited for bookworm god bless her sole) Deep Peace be with you.

 

“I would say to the House as I said to those who have joined this government: I have

nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat. We have before us an ordeal of the

most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of

suffering.

 

You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: Victory. Victory at all costs —

Victory in spite of all terror — Victory, however long and hard the road may be, for

without victory there is no survival.”

 

(Winston Churchill Addressing the House of commons.)

 

All complaints go to the lootube. All conversations go in the white box then you click submit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK whuts mae2 confused about were all here to help?


Any typos spelling mistakes are due to leprechauns in my keyboard they move the letters around sometimes (edited for bookworm god bless her sole) Deep Peace be with you.

 

“I would say to the House as I said to those who have joined this government: I have

nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat. We have before us an ordeal of the

most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of

suffering.

 

You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: Victory. Victory at all costs —

Victory in spite of all terror — Victory, however long and hard the road may be, for

without victory there is no survival.”

 

(Winston Churchill Addressing the House of commons.)

 

All complaints go to the lootube. All conversations go in the white box then you click submit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:confused:

Always happy to help where I can!

:lol:

Beware of legal advice given on a private forum - do you REALLY know who is posting? Are they REALLY accountable for their posts? What if you follow their advice and get something wrong?

It was Winston Churchill who said; "Democracy is the worst way to run a country except for all the others"

 

Advice and comments posted by car2403 are offered purely without prejudice. They reflect only my personal opinion and do not represent the opinion of this forum or it's management. You should always seek legal advice from a qualified legal advisor. As a member of the site team, I disable reputation - reputation points mean nothing, please check my posting credentials yourself and make an informed decision. You shouldn't PM me and await a reply - I may be too late with a response. No replies will be given in Private Messages - just as with getting advice from the forum, getting advice via Private Messages is dangerous. CAG is about sharing successes so others can follow your example, this is primarily why I'm here, so please don't be offended if I don't offer replies in PM that doesn't comply with this. Help CAG to help others by keeping your thread up to date.

 

 

USEFUL LINKS; New User Guide to CAG | Can't find what you're looking for? | Intro to Consumer Credit Litigation | Is My Agreement Enforceable | Default (Surleybonds) Template Letter | Defaults - background, removal methods, challenges and taking a claim to Court | Digital Signature Guide | Overdrafts and the CCA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The FSA has backed earlier guidance issued by the OFT and confirmed that, in its view, ‘read and understood’ terms in consumer contracts are unfair. The FSA said that including a contractual term or a tick box on a website asking a consumer to confirm that they had read and understood the contract would be unfair and in breach of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations. Companies should not reject customer complaints because they had ticked a box saying that they had read and understood the contract. The FSA said:

“A declaration requiring consumers to agree that they have read and understood a contract is, in our view, unfair. This is because the statement may not be true and may not reflect what has actually happened. Consumers may not have either read or understood the contract and so are not in a position to declare that they have in fact done so. In this instance, the declaration is effectively meaningless and does not reflect the circumstances in which the particular consumer signs their contract.

The law requires consumers to be given an opportunity to examine all the terms in a contract.

A declaration of this nature could be used by a firm to claim that it gave customers an opportunity to read a contract when it did not actually do so. The firm could argue that because a consumer has signed to say that they have read and understood a contract, this means the firm has fulfilled its obligation to allow the consumer to examine all the terms. This may not in fact be true. Therefore the use of a declaration in this way is unfair.

It is preferable for ‘have read and understood declarations’ instead to give a clear warning to consumers that they should read and understand terms before signing them and that consumers should ask questions if they do not understand any terms”

The FSA thought that it was fair to ask consumers to make declarations relating to matters which were within their own knowledge, such as personal information including age, gender and address.

The OFT has already issued guidance which makes it clear that asking consumers to declare that they have read and understood an agreement is unfair.

“Declarations that the consumer has read and/or understood the agreement give rise to special concerns. The Regulations implement an EU Directive saying that terms must be clear and intelligible and that consumers must have a proper opportunity to read all of them (see Part IV). Including a declaration of this kind effectively requires consumers to say these conditions have been met, whether they have or not. This tends to defeat the purpose of the Directive, and as such is open to serious objection.

In practice consumers often do not read, and rarely understand fully, any but the shortest and simplest contracts. It might be better if they tried to do so, but that does not justify requiring them to say they have done so whether they have or not. The purpose of declarations of this kind is clearly to bind consumers to wording regardless of whether they have any real awareness of it. Such statements are thus open to the same objections as provisions binding consumers to terms they have not seen at all.

Much more likely to be acceptable is a clear and prominent warning that the consumer should read and understand the terms before signing them.”

Click here to read the FSA’s statement

Click here to read the OFT’s guidance

  • Haha 1

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

 

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by patrickq1 are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Patrickq1,

 

Very good can you put the above in the PPI forum too as I believe it also applies there also.

 

PF


If I have been of help to you please feel free to click my scales to the left Thanks.:)

I have no legal training and the advice I offer is what I have learnt here and offered as a matter of support. Before you commit to any Legal action you are advised to contact a qualified legal practitioner.

 

Finally if you succeed with your claim please consider a donation to consumer action group as those donations keep this site alive.

 

CARTER V Co-Op

BANK CHARGES

REFUNDED £3567

 

POMPEYFAITH V Co-Op PPI

OFFER MADE BUT REFUSED

ONGOING AND STILL ONGOING

NOW WITH THE OMBUDSMAN

 

R.I.P BOB aka ROOSTER-UK you have always been a Gent on these boards and you will be remembered for that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well how long has this been going on for then and cannot this be applied to Consumer contracts???....especially when contracts are NOT cancellable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes It Will Be Applied To Consumer Contracts ,if You Read The Full Eu Data Protection Act Its In Their,you Can Use This Eu At The Moment But It Means The Supreme Court Throwing It Out First And I Do Not Think They Would Dare ?

Patrickq1


http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

 

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by patrickq1 are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see scenarios where consumer credit agreements or other complicated commercial agreements are executed on lenders premises in front of an ''impatient'' representative and how this would apply...but not so much for s62's where cooling off periods are allowed or other contracts where ''sufficient time is allowed for reading and understanding the t&c's..but even so there are many cancellable contracts that have been signed within the cooling off periods that really needed expert advice before execution...

 

I gonna copy and paste that extract Patrick onto my word document very good of you thanks...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consumer Credit Agreements usually state...''sign this only if you wish to be legally bound'' surely any signing after seeing that must indicate the customers intention still to be bound

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Full Eu Data Protection Act

Purely for the record; and not to be digested at this time of night, where might I find this exceedingly useful document and is it in English? - don't fancy trying Flemish at ANY time of day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I missing something here? Either a term is fair or unfair. What bearing can it have on the question if you said you understood the term?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Am I missing something here? Either a term is fair or unfair. What bearing can it have on the question if you said you understood the term?

 

Is the question not 'is the term fair or not?' and 'is the term fair or not under the regulations?', though?

  • Haha 1

Always happy to help where I can!

:lol:

Beware of legal advice given on a private forum - do you REALLY know who is posting? Are they REALLY accountable for their posts? What if you follow their advice and get something wrong?

It was Winston Churchill who said; "Democracy is the worst way to run a country except for all the others"

 

Advice and comments posted by car2403 are offered purely without prejudice. They reflect only my personal opinion and do not represent the opinion of this forum or it's management. You should always seek legal advice from a qualified legal advisor. As a member of the site team, I disable reputation - reputation points mean nothing, please check my posting credentials yourself and make an informed decision. You shouldn't PM me and await a reply - I may be too late with a response. No replies will be given in Private Messages - just as with getting advice from the forum, getting advice via Private Messages is dangerous. CAG is about sharing successes so others can follow your example, this is primarily why I'm here, so please don't be offended if I don't offer replies in PM that doesn't comply with this. Help CAG to help others by keeping your thread up to date.

 

 

USEFUL LINKS; New User Guide to CAG | Can't find what you're looking for? | Intro to Consumer Credit Litigation | Is My Agreement Enforceable | Default (Surleybonds) Template Letter | Defaults - background, removal methods, challenges and taking a claim to Court | Digital Signature Guide | Overdrafts and the CCA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read/understood declarations confer no benefit on the supplier and are therefore pointless. Since they serve no purpose it is equally pointless to object to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...