any dca quoting rankin to get out of cca request

[postggj]

i know this topic has been debated on the forum

 

a pal of mine has just phoned saying a dca does not have to produce a cca as the rankin judgement set a precedence

 

in plain english please

 

what would the response to a dca be in this matter

[Hobbie]

Postggj,

 

I'm not aware of the rankin judgement, but if it was heard in the county court then it could not set any precedence what so ever, you have more information as to this case/judgement?

 

Cheers

[babybear39]

You mean precedent, and no, the rankine case did not set.

[42man]

In loose terms...The Rankine case was to do with a debtor taking the original creditors to court to ensure they couldn't enforce the consumer credit agreements against him/her....only one of the various creditors at the time was actually trying to enforce the agreement.....

[postggj]

hi baby bear

terrible speller

what would the reply to a dca be to get a cca

[babybear39]

Quote UCPD and CPUTR 2008 at the ijits

[postggj]

many thanks babybear

 

just a sugestion

 

it seems more and more dca are quoting rankine case to confuse

 

maybe a good idea to have a template for a reply to a dca

 

if anybody care to write one up, any future enquiries can be sent to that thread

 

maybe a stickie

[jon888999]

many thanks babybear

 

just a sugestion

 

it seems more and more dca are quoting rankine case to confuse

 

maybe a good idea to have a template for a reply to a dca

 

if anybody care to write one up, any future enquiries can be sent to that thread

 

maybe a stickie

Seems a good idea, I need that template!

Thanks

[confusedmum]

many thanks babybear

 

just a sugestion

 

it seems more and more dca are quoting rankine case to confuse

 

maybe a good idea to have a template for a reply to a dca

 

if anybody care to write one up, any future enquiries can be sent to that thread

 

maybe a stickie

 

subbing, and that would be great if someone could do it

[adamski]

Excellent idea if they ever read anything that is maybe PT could come up with a paragraph or two.

[pt2537]

the Rankines were slightly misguided in their pleadings in my opinion, they tried to obtain a declaration of unenforceability on the basis that the lenders had failed to supply an agreement

 

this was an error and many DCAs are latching on to the judgment and trying to bend it to suit all the issues that they come across, it is a fact that with the right arguments you can distinguish the Rankine judgment

[FANTASY CHARGES]

Case Law (or Common Law)

Law made by the courts to fill in gaps in law made by Parliament. Precedent is set by the Appeal Courts (eg House of Lords and Court of Appeal) and if similar circumstances prevail, then the lower courts must follow this precedent.

 

 

 

came across a definition of case law as above ,

 

 

 

 

if we quote the definition of case law it seems hard to suggest the rankin case can "pull rank " over case law

[FANTASY CHARGES]

do we know about this ???

 

can someone confirm if it is true ??

 

....regarding the rankine case in fact ..............

 

"The general rule is that a person who is not a party to proceedings (meaning fred bloggs you or me ) may

obtain from the court records a copy of—

 

(a) a statement of case, but not any documents filed with or

attached to the statement of case, or intended by the party

whose statement it is to be served with it;

 

(b) a judgment or order given or made in public (whether made at

a hearing or without a hearing"

 

 

definition of statement of case is below

 

Statement of case

A statement of case is a document prepared by a party in litigation. It is designed to be a short document which formally sets out the core aspects of their position in the litigation. The phrase is an umbrella term. The following documents are know as statements of case: (a) claim form; (b) particulars of claim; © the defence; (d) reply to defence; (e) defence to the counterclaim; and (f) requests for further information.

[Jesteruk]

LMAO! cant believe there quoting that case. Well ive already aired my views but if you have recieved a letter quoting rankine then try this letter:

 

Account Ref: xxxxxxxx

Dear Sirs

 

I refer to my letter dated XX/XX/XX in which I requested pursuant to s.77/78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, for you to provide me with a true copy of the credit agreement relating to the above account, together with any other documentation the Act requires you to provide.

 

You have replied quoting the Rankine Vs HBOS & Others, claiming that you do not need to provide the requested information, This has surprised me, as no precedent was sent in this case, May i remind you of the following cases:

WILSON Vs FCT (2003) UKHL "the court considered that under the CCA, it was bound to uphold Mrs Wilson's arguments and declare the agreement to be unenforceable"

Dimond v Lovell [2000] 2 WLR 1121 where a credit hire company's loan agreements failed to stipulate the prescribed terms and were therefore, as Lord Hoffman put it, "irredeemably unenforceable"

 

I am sure that I do not need to remind you of your legal obligations under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, and the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUTR).

 

If it is your view that you are not the creditor, s.175 of the CCA 1974 applies in the case of a simple assignment, and places a duty upon you to pass this request to the creditor. In the case of an absolute assignment, you are a creditor as defined by s.189. If you contend that you purchased the rights but not the duties of any agreement, you are reminded that s.189 of the Act is clear that an assignment is of both rights and duties.

 

If you are unsure of your legal obligations, please seek advice from either your legal department or you local CAB office.

 

Yours faithfully

 

That should sort them out if not wind them up! LOL

Edited September 25, 2008 by Jesteruk
Added Court cases

[blipvert]

subscribing

[KER]

subscribing

[postggj]

i think thats what we need

i would like to see a reply from a dca to that

[FANTASY CHARGES]

below is a link from the code of conduct issued by the solicitors regulatory authority

 

"the question is" just how close to the "......" are they ??

 

 

"Rule

 

11.01 Deceiving or misleading the court

 

• (1) You must never deceive or knowingly or recklessly mislead the court.
   
   
   
  (2) You must draw to the court's attention:
  
  • (a) relevant cases and statutory provisions;
    
  • (b) the contents of any document that has been filed in the proceedings where failure to draw it to the court's attention might result in the court being misled; and
    
  • © any procedural irregularity.
    

  (3) You must not construct facts supporting your client's case or draft any documents relating to any proceedings containing:

  • (a) any contention which you do not consider to be properly arguable; or ..............."
    

source

http://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/code-of-conduct/198.article

[NitrousOxide]

Hi,

Was Rankine VS HBOS definately heard in the small claims court?

[postggj]

DCA enforce or not after 14 years? - MoneySavingExpert.com Forums

 

the rankine was not a high court case

 

the dca are talking rollocks to scare people

[postggj]

confused now

another forum states high court

 

ignore last post until confirmation

[tinkerbell20]

DCA enforce or not after 14 years? - MoneySavingExpert.com Forums

 

the rankine was not a high court case

 

the dca are talking rollocks to scare people

 

 

Rankine was a High Court case.

[NitrousOxide]

So it set a precedent then?

They can ask you to pay with no proof?

[tinkerbell20]

So it set a precedent then?

They can ask you to pay with no proof?

 

If it comes to court tthey still have to produce a signed compliant consumer credit agreement. DCA's etc are overhyping the case

[NitrousOxide]

If it comes to court they still have to produce a signed compliant consumer credit agreement. DCA's etc are over hyping the case

OK I see,

The burden will always be on the claimant I suppose anyway. Otherwise anybody could sue anyone without any agreement.