High Court Judgement - The Rankines v Just about Everybody

[davefirewalker]

If you are sure that the agreement sent to you is missing prescribed terms I would reply, something along the lines of.......

 

blah blah blah....etc.....

 

I would refer you to Sections 61, 65 and 127 of the CCA 1974, and the recent binding decisions in the high court and court of appeal regarding the lack of prescribed terms in regulated consumer agreements. I refer the the cases of Wilson V FCT and Wilson V Hurstanger.

 

Both these BINDING judgements hold that if a regulated agreement is missing any prescribed terms, or if the terms are misstated then the agreement is irredeemably unenforceable.

 

In Wilson V Hurstanger it is stated that the prescribed terms should be within the signature document and not in any other document. I believe that the document sent to me with my signature on does not contain the prescribed terms and as such is unenforceable.

 

blah blah blah.....

 

add some more if you wish....or I'm sure someone else on here will add to or correct it

 

Dave

[robcag]

blah blah blah.....

 

add some more if you wish....or I'm sure someone else on here will add to or correct it

 

 

Hi Dave

 

Perhaps something which should be added would be a suitable translation of the statement "The judgement by Judge Brown to which you refer is not binding and can easily be shown to be of a similar hue to that of his name, i.e. a worthless load of sh1te"

 

Cheers

Rob

[guitarlady]

Thanks Dave. I appreciate that.

[citizenB]

guitar lady, you might find it in your interests to update your original thread with this information as well. If you are able to scan in your documents minus personal information, you will get loads of help. The link below will find your original thread.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/145429-hello-im-newbie.html

[guitarlady]

Thank you all for taking the time to reply. I will try to link the two. Cheers

[guitarlady]

Robcag, I had a good laugh at your suggested footnote... would love to!!

[MAGDA]

I was reading up on the Rankine Judgement and the following caught my attention:

 

"Mr and Mrs Rankine assert that in the Tesco, Halifax, BOS and HFC cases that they, or via their dormant limited company Momentum Network Limited through a “Mr Smithson” requested a copy of the relevant credit card agreement but none was supplied as it ought to have been under Section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act. I am satisfied on the evidence of Rachel Hinchcliffe (BOS & Halifax), Mrs Glanville (Tesco) and Manoj Dudrah (HFC) that copies were despatched as requested in each case. The contemporaneously recorded electronic records of each company supports and verifies their evidence. Mr and Mrs Rankine are being perversely and deliberately untruthful to assert to the contrary."

 

Are these companies electronic records so beyond reproach or misinterpretation that if they say they sent something, then that is deemed to be an irrefutable fact. From my own experience, the Rankines may have been completely truthful when they claimed not to have received the agreements. The banks claimed their electronic records proved otherwise. The judge chose to believe this and the Rankines were branded as liars. I am in a similar situation where I have requested agreements from a DCA and the response that I have received is that it has been sent to me many, many times. In that case then, why haven't I received it, after all, their other letters seem to arrive perfectly intact. I truly believe they do not currently have the agreement and certainly do not believe it has been sent as claimed. I have repeatedly asked for the company (if they have in fact sent the agreement previously) to provide a further copy, but they refuse. This company claimed (just as the Banks did in the rankine case) that if this were to go to court, they would simply refer to their electronic records and the court would be satisfied that they had fulfilled my request.

[rosierose]

From my own experience, the Rankines may have been completely truthful when they claimed not to have received the agreements.

 

I can only echo your comments Magda. To my certain knowledge HBOS in particular use this tactic. It is a shameful indictment of the moral standards of these companies and the bodies supposedly employed to protect our rights as consumers that this practice continues without penalty or redress.

[JonCris]

MAGDA S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) them & if it gets to court & they claim to have sent them request a paper copy of their computer audit trail for the days that they claim they sent them

[MAGDA]

ok Joncris, will do. They even had the nerve to state in writing that they had sent the agreements by recorded delivery and we were basically too lazy to collect them from royal mail, as they apparently were delivered when we were out. I asked for the recorded delivery reference numbers and complete silence..... Unfortunately though, a lot of judges are under the impression that these companies are completely honourable and above reproach, which is far from the truth. Many thanks, magda

Edited July 25, 2008 by MAGDA
typo

[andrew1]

. Unfortunately though, a lot of judges are under the impression that these companies are completely honourable and above reproach, which is far from the truth. Many thanks, magda

 

Don't be so sure, they are learning fast.

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Magda!

 

Unfortunately though, a lot of judges are under the impression that these companies are completely honourable and above reproach...

 

The bias of their impressions may well be influenced by other factors, such as: time of day, their considerable old age, the size of the brown envelope, their portfolio of underperforming Shares in the Finance Industry, behind the scenes pressure on the Judical System...that sort of thing.

 

It is a sad fact that there are too many biased Judges...a quick trawl though CAG is enough to confirm that. And that's the cases we know about!

 

Don't be so sure, they are learning fast.

 

Let's hope so.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[MAGDA]

Hi Banker, yes it's a hard old life being a judge. One of the judges at our local court is apparently partial to a bacon sarnie, so I will have to take one along for him when my cases are finally heard. You never know, it might just do the trick - pehaps that's something the Rankines should have considered, could have been an entirely different outcome. I too hope that these judges are in fact realising that not all is as black and white as it seems, but will have to wait and see. Magda

[andrew1]

Hi Banker, yes it's a hard old life being a judge. One of the judges at our local court is apparently partial to a bacon sarnie, so I will have to take one along for him when my cases are finally heard. You never know, it might just do the trick - pehaps that's something the Rankines should have considered, could have been an entirely different outcome. I too hope that these judges are in fact realising that not all is as black and white as it seems, but will have to wait and see. Magda

 

That reminds me of when I used to go visiting clients I hadn't met before trying to get new business. It's just like someone coming to dinner, you prepare and it goes like a dream (mostly) and so too visiting clients. A quick chat with the receptionist or assistant on the phone and find out clients interests and innocently bring something up re that when visiting and chatting...you're in....No different with a Judge, what's wrong in saying to that Judge something like " bringing out the truth about this companys' wrong doing is as sweet as a bacon sandwich m' lud" just like he/she would agree with the sweetness of the sarnie - word association - he'd agree with you!

 

 

Sarah

[MAGDA]

Yes, I'll have to keep dropping the words 'bacon sandwich' into the conversation at every opportunity, it will be a landslide victory in my favour. To be honest though, I still think it depends on who you get on the day. I think some judges are a bit more enlightened than others and will act fairly toward both parties, but others still frown on people in debt and are extremely biased in favour of the creditor, in which case the debtor will not stand any chance of winning as the judge has already made up their mind.

Edited July 26, 2008 by MAGDA
typo

[BlueSquirrel]

I am beginning to think I am going mad (always a possibility) but I seem to remember reading about a case where someone sued for damages caused by an incorrect default and the amount awarded was about 100k. Can anyone tell me what the case was - or did I dream this one??:o

[pt2537]

youre not going mad,

 

it was Richard Durkin vs HFC, he got £116000 damages in total

[BlueSquirrel]

Thank you That was in a Scottish court though wasn't it, so presumably doesn't necessarily help us pursuing UK issues?

[JonCris]

why not? although not setting a precedent Scottish Judgments are often quoted in English courts as are courts of other jurisdictions

[ncf355]

This company claimed (just as the Banks did in the rankine case) that if this were to go to court, they would simply refer to their electronic records and the court would be satisfied that they had fulfilled my request.

 

In that situation, I would ask for a court order that they produce either:

 

a) the original agreement

 

b) a copy, sworn as a copy of the original by a solicitor

 

to you prior to the hearing and to the court at the trial itself

 

Not many (if any!) solicitors would be stupid enough to produce b) if it wasnt the real deal

[MAGDA]

Hi ncf, I'll certainly bear that in mind if they submit a claim on this account. I have actually complained to trading standards about this company, but haven't heard anything as of yet. It is beyond belief how underhanded this company (and I know many others are the same) actually are. This is what I think some judges fail to realise. Thanks, Magda

[Docman]

Well I finally got around to reading the judgement in this case last. I have three main points to post.

Firstly, on most points, I think the judge was correct. The CCA was always intended as consumer PROTECTION legislation to protect consumers of financial services from the various antics of banks and the rest. It was a shield, not a sword, no matter how much many of us feel we need one!

Secondly, I agree anyone filing a defence in the manner often drafted on this site should not have a problem. The nearest issue of concern is in relation to S 78. In the Rankine case, as I understand it, four of the five banks involved had not commenced an action. The only one who had was Tesco Personal Finance (AKA Royal Bank of Scotland). The judge had ruled that Tesco's HAD supplied a valid copy of the CCA (see paragraph 12). There was no need for the judge to go on in paragraph 16 about 'enforcement' etc. IMHO (and I am open to correction please), the judges comments in paragraph 16 are 'by the way' comments. I think they are called 'obiter dictum' or some such Latin phrase. But basically, this means that they are NOT binding on a lower court, but are only persuasive. As they stand, the comments in paragraph 16 are some of the oddest I have ever read. And against the judges 'comments' there is the BINDING ruling in the Wilson cases. In short, nothing to worry about.

Finally, remember the Rankines went to obtain declaration under the CCA in what I think is called 'equitable relief'. In other words, this is a remedy that the court can order if it is just and right in the circumstances, instead of just awarding a money judgment. But I always thought that someone asking for 'equitable relief' should go to the court with clean hands, without any other motive. It seems to me that the judge had realised that the Rankines were out to gain from the venture by forming a company and starting these cases, rather than defending themselves against greedy banks.

[gaz2006]

youre not going mad,

 

it was Richard Durkin vs HFC, he got £116000 damages in total

 

Have you got details of this case somewhere ? Por favor regards Gaz

[andrew1]

Have you got details of this case somewhere ? Por favor regards Gaz

 

ooops - wrong case sorry..!

Edited August 6, 2008 by andrew1
wrong case

[gaz2006]

nothing there re durkin !!