Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yes typed it, how would I input it any other way, probably timed out took over half hour. H
    • You typed it in? actually typed it all out? if so, maybe you took too long or something, like session timed out. Does the status show defence filed or no change?
    • Hi just typed all defence clicked next and it's deleted all. Any help
    • I forgot to say, there is one last possibility and that is that they will receive your letter of rejection and simply fold, accept the rejection and refund you. Don't wait too long for this. Seven days maximum – but in that seven days you could send your letter of claim anyway and when that you don't hear from them or when they start mucking around at least you are seven days closer to beginning the legal action – and they will know it (which is the important thing).
    • Okay that is excellent that you have an email between the garage and the warranty company confirming that there is a serious problem with the gearbox. That is very powerful evidence. I think the situation is this: you have sent them a letter of rejection but the reputation of big motoring world is that they won't take a lot of notice and they will try to prevaricate and maybe even blame you. Clearly you don't want the car any more and anyway it sounds as if the cost of repairs is going to be enormous. You don't know if the warranty company is going to step up to the mark but the whole thing is going to take a long time and I understand that you have lost confidence in big motoring world because of this event and also their reputation which you are now discovering on Facebook and on this forum and no doubt elsewhere. On the basis that you don't want the car any more and you want your money back, you need to hurry things along. I think the first thing is that you need to decide if you are prepared to bring a claim in the County Court. Even without the warranty money, the claim is worth more than £10,000. For actions less than £10,000, you bring a "small claim" and this means that even if you lose the case you won't be liable for the other side's costs. If you win the case then not only will you get your money plus interest but also you will recover all of the costs of the action. For actions more than £10,000, you go to something called the "fast track" and in the event that you lose the case, then you could be liable to reimburse the winner some of the costs. This means that in addition to not recovering your own money, you would lose your own court fees and also you would have to to bear the costs of the other side probably something less than £5000 – but as a rough guess. If you bring your court claim then your chances of success are almost 100%. Frankly if you brought a court claim then I can imagine that big motoring world will put their hands up and pay you out rather than face go to court and losing and getting a judgement against them. However, it you need to consider that this is a risk factor – although my view it is a negligible risk factor. If you did bring a court case, it wouldn't be instant. If they put their hands up then it would probably happen very quickly. If they didn't put their hands up then you could take anything up to a year for the matter to be resolved and during that time you would be without your car and without your money and in the middle of litigation. I'm explaining this to you say that you understand how it works. Bring a court case would be really the last resort when everything else has failed. However, I'm quite certain that you would win and it would be stupid of big motoring world to try to resist. In order to bring a court case you would have to send a letter of claim giving them 14 days to accept rejection and organise the refund otherwise you would begin the claim. Don't imagine that you could bluff this. If you did send a letter of claim then you would have to go through with it otherwise you lose all credibility and you might as well pack up and go home. So with this in mind, here are possible courses of action you could take. You can simply wait and see what their reaction to your letter of rejection will be. However they may not reply or else they may find some other reason to delay and of course during that time you will be without your car and without your money blah blah blah, not knowing if big motoring world were going eventually to start acting sensibly and respectfully towards you. The second thing you can do – and I think this has been suggested on Facebook – is that you can go along there and simply make yourself present and talk to other customers and generally speaking make a nuisance of yourself and embarrass them to the point where you would be explaining to other potential customers to be careful, to look on Facebook, and to do some careful research before they put their business to big motoring world. This has a reasonable chance of success although you would have to be careful. You should go accompanied by a friend and there should be no anger, no arguments, nothing that could be considered as being overly aggressive so that big motoring world would have no justification in kicking you out or even worse, calling the police. If you did this, then I would suggest that you record everything on the telephone carried in a pocket. A fully charged battery will probably keep a voice recorder and a telephone going for more than 20 hours or 30 hours. The other person can video any incidents so that everything is clear and you can inform big motoring world then it will be going up on the Internet. If you did this, my favourite option would be to issue the letter of claim giving them 14 days, and then going along to big motoring world with a copy of your letter of rejection and a copy of the exchange between the mechanic and the warranty company and a copy of your letter of claim – all settled together – and probably about 20 or 30 copies in all and I would start handing them out to any customers who came in. Big motoring world will soon get the picture and they will either move your the premises in which case you stand outside and carry on doing it or they will finally give in. Of course there is a chance that they won't give in and they will simply call your bluff – but in that case I think you have no choice other than to follow through with your 14 day threat in the letter of claim and to begin the legal action. At the same time you should be putting up reviews on Google and also trust pilot explaining exactly what has happened and also explaining that the mechanic has confirmed to the warranty company that there is the serious problem, that you have asserted the right to reject and that this is been ignored by big motoring world and that you have now sent a letter of claim and that you will be starting a legal action in 14 days. Once again, don't bluff about the legal action. If you threaten it – then you must mean it – and on day 15 you click of the claim. You don't need a solicitor for any of this. It's all fairly straightforward and of course we will help you all the way that it the decision is yours to make and I think you need to make it fairly quickly. I think the cost of starting an action for about £13,000 is 5% and then also if it goes to trial which I would say is almost impossible – there would be an additional fee. You would claim interest at 8%. A judge might award a lower figure but frankly if you can show that big motoring world is attempting to ride roughshod over your very clear statutory consumer rights, I can imagine that the judge will want to show displeasure by awarding the full 8% which is a pretty good rate – even though it's not compensation for the hassle and the distress you are going through. If you decide to get solicitor, then if you win the case, because it is over £10,000 you will recover some of your costs but you won't recover all of them. If the solicitor begins by having exchanges of letters then I doubt whether you will be up to recover the cost of those and you could easily find that you're chalking up 500 quid or even a thousand simply on initial exchanges of correspondence. Also you need to bear in mind that if after having exchanges with a solicitor, big motoring world cave in – then you definitely won't get those costs back because you won't have gone to court and therefore a judge will not have made the order for payment of those costs. I suggest very strongly that you avoid paying any money for a solicitor and that you do it yourself. It's not a big deal – although you will have to you react quickly to the help we offer on this forum. Also, an additional benefit is that you will learn a lot and you will gain confidence and eventually you will feel good about suing anybody else who gets in your way. Nothing not to like! If you do decide to instruct a solicitor then you must take control of the solicitor. Most of them prefer to sit in an office writing letters on the clock. If you do decide to instruct a solicitor then you must instruct the solicitor very firmly that they should send one letter of complaint giving seven days. A second letter – a letter of claim giving 14 days and that they must then begin the action. If you don't do this. If you don't take control then it will simply cost you money, you will be without your car even longer and of course without your money. The whole thing is a nightmare. I think I've laid out the options but please do ask questions. I hope you can see that this is the kind of advice that you won't be getting on Facebook. Nothing against Facebook. It's good as a meeting place and to make people realise that they aren't on their own – but after that the advice given is weak and confusing.  
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

why you shouldnt use section 77/78 CCA 1974 if you want the signed agreement


pt2537
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4915 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

No i have good earnings every month and savings

 

They have no case as they have no agreement

there you go - you answered your own question

 

sometimes it is easy to lose sight of the fact that litigation for THEM is a business and has a bottom line whereas for the debtor it is sometimes undertaken on priniciple or a desire for revenge

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

there you go - you answered your own question

 

sometimes it is easy to lose sight of the fact that litigation for THEM is a business and has a bottom line whereas for the debtor it is sometimes undertaken on priniciple or a desire for revenge

 

Whoooa Hold on DD take a look at my 1253 Post

Beck

"There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. one is by the Sword. The other is by Debt."

 

Barclaycard PPI Refund £4300:whoo:

Barclaycard = Mexican Stand Off

 

TSB = Mexican Stand Off

 

Santander = :mad2: MungyPup is coming to get yahh :mad2:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive am with a long battle with 1st Credit and decided to do a 31 CPR request.

 

They have sent me a unreadable application with no P/T and said this is all the evidence they have and will be producing this to the Court WHEN they decided to start proceedings....:D

 

 

HAK

 

Great soon as they issue proceedings I will go for Summary Judgment..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive am with a long battle with 1st Credit and decided to do a 31 CPR request.

 

They have sent me a unreadable application with no P/T and said this is all the evidence they have and will be producing this to the Court WHEN they decided to start proceedings....:D

 

 

HAK

 

Great soon as they issue proceedings I will go for Summary Judgment..

 

Do a CPR 31.14 first for your agreement :D

Beck

"There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. one is by the Sword. The other is by Debt."

 

Barclaycard PPI Refund £4300:whoo:

Barclaycard = Mexican Stand Off

 

TSB = Mexican Stand Off

 

Santander = :mad2: MungyPup is coming to get yahh :mad2:

Link to post
Share on other sites

yo've lost me!

 

I answered my onw questions months ago

Beck

"There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. one is by the Sword. The other is by Debt."

 

Barclaycard PPI Refund £4300:whoo:

Barclaycard = Mexican Stand Off

 

TSB = Mexican Stand Off

 

Santander = :mad2: MungyPup is coming to get yahh :mad2:

Link to post
Share on other sites

31.16

 

31.14 is for disclosure after they have filled

Edited by Beck1968
typo

Beck

"There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. one is by the Sword. The other is by Debt."

 

Barclaycard PPI Refund £4300:whoo:

Barclaycard = Mexican Stand Off

 

TSB = Mexican Stand Off

 

Santander = :mad2: MungyPup is coming to get yahh :mad2:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read the first and last 10 pages or so of this thread and I think I'm pretty much aware of what the arguments are.

 

I have 3 credit card companies chasing me for money. As each has threatened to sue me I've used the argument that I would need a copy of their agreements with me in court so please would they send me true copies etc... The responses have been along the lines of "we don't have to provide what you asked for under section 78" because ... load of usual drivel. Now, I haven't asked them for this under section 78 - I've asked for disclosure under Civil Proceeding rules.

 

One did send me a photocopy of my original application - which plainly isn't compliant with the CCA 74 Act although their accompanying letter said that the Act was mentioned on the form (it wasn't).

 

However, where they haven't complied with a request under the Civil Proceeding rules, I could take them to court to ask the court to compel them to do so.

 

Assuming that all agreements are faulty (under the CCA 74) as I suspect that they are what would I then do? It's a 99% certainty they won't sue me (I have almost zero assets and I'm unemployed) but I want to get the whole thing dead and buried. Can I take them to court to stop trying to enforce the unenforceable? Is that a wise move? Are there other ways?

 

I don't want to hijack this thread so please feel free to point me elsewhere.

 

Thanks.

PhiltheBear

 

Lloyds TSB - At the Sign of Flogging a Dead Horse

Link to post
Share on other sites

apologies- thought you were suggesting 31.14 for HIM to apply to them!!

 

No Need...We all get thread lost

 

there giving HAK the run around and probably empty threats

although HAK should try a 31.16 just to see their response

 

"WHEN" they do take HAK to court it's 31.14 time

Beck

"There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. one is by the Sword. The other is by Debt."

 

Barclaycard PPI Refund £4300:whoo:

Barclaycard = Mexican Stand Off

 

TSB = Mexican Stand Off

 

Santander = :mad2: MungyPup is coming to get yahh :mad2:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read the first and last 10 pages or so of this thread and I think I'm pretty much aware of what the arguments are.

 

I have 3 credit card companies chasing me for money. As each has threatened to sue me I've used the argument that I would need a copy of their agreements with me in court so please would they send me true copies etc... The responses have been along the lines of "we don't have to provide what you asked for under section 78" because ... load of usual drivel. Now, I haven't asked them for this under section 78 - I've asked for disclosure under Civil Proceeding rules.

 

One did send me a photocopy of my original application - which plainly isn't compliant with the CCA 74 Act although their accompanying letter said that the Act was mentioned on the form (it wasn't).

 

However, where they haven't complied with a request under the Civil Proceeding rules, I could take them to court to ask the court to compel them to do so.

 

Assuming that all agreements are faulty (under the CCA 74) as I suspect that they are what would I then do? It's a 99% certainty they won't sue me (I have almost zero assets and I'm unemployed) but I want to get the whole thing dead and buried. Can I take them to court to stop trying to enforce the unenforceable? Is that a wise move? Are there other ways?

 

I don't want to hijack this thread so please feel free to point me elsewhere.

 

Thanks.

 

You can take them to disclose your agreement under 31.16

or you can just sit back and see if they take you then do a 31.14 for your agreement.

At the end of the day......it's up to you

Beck

"There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. one is by the Sword. The other is by Debt."

 

Barclaycard PPI Refund £4300:whoo:

Barclaycard = Mexican Stand Off

 

TSB = Mexican Stand Off

 

Santander = :mad2: MungyPup is coming to get yahh :mad2:

Link to post
Share on other sites

if you take them to court you ask the court to rule on their enforeablity

 

but there will be upfront costs- i think there are exemptionss - you need to check

 

I think for the sake of 3 quid and 2 weeks it is well worth making s78 requests because you cannot simply "go fishing" for documents from someone just to see if anything is ammiss

 

you have to give a reason what documents you want and why you beleive there may be cause of action

 

clearly if they have sent you nowt, or a load of ballcocks from the s78 you can use this to demonstrate that you have reason to beleive the agreement you seek is defective

 

IMO

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your kind, and swift, responses.

 

I think for the sake of 3 quid and 2 weeks it is well worth making s78 requests because you cannot simply "go fishing" for documents from someone just to see if anything is ammiss

 

you have to give a reason what documents you want and why you beleive there may be cause of action

 

clearly if they have sent you nowt, or a load of ballcocks from the s78 you can use this to demonstrate that you have reason to beleive the agreement you seek is defective

 

IMO

 

I've made the requests - their answers have been that the info they are supplying IS S78 info, so I guess that requesting it again would be pointless.

 

I think I'm being thick here (sorry!). What exactly would I take them to court for? Simply to get a ruling that their agreements were unenforceable? If so, how would I do that?

 

And, taking the first part of your response last :)

 

if you take them to court you ask the court to rule on their enforeablity

 

but there will be upfront costs- i think there are exemptionss - you need to check

Being unemployed the vast majority of court fees are waived, I believe. So I'd be hoping to do it for very little outlay.

 

 

Beck: I can take them under 31.16 to get a copy of the "agreement". But my question is - what can I do after that? How do I make them desist if their "agreement" doesn't comply with CCA 74?

PhiltheBear

 

Lloyds TSB - At the Sign of Flogging a Dead Horse

Link to post
Share on other sites

99% of what you have all said has gone straight over my head!!!! :confused:

So............can you tell me if a creditor cites certain parts of an agreement covered by the CCA1974, that favours them, and omits the parts that favour me, do I have any grounds for saying this agreement is unenforcable? and if I do what can I do about it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately Rankine says that issuing proceedings is NOT enforcement - IMO Rankine is wrong in law HOWEVER it is a High Court Judgment which you may face if you run DD's argument - so you need to be prepared to meet it

 

Hi IGNM,

 

As I understand it, the Chester referrals (two of them anyway) are intended to make a determination on this.

 

The two cases (due Oct 09) relate to injunctions served by consumers to remove CRA defaults where an agreement is deemed unenforcible. The arguement is that to allow CRA defaults is enforcement.

 

If these cases are found for the consumer then there is a logic that any act based on the terms of an agreement is enforcement and is prohibited where the agreement is defective.

 

Perhaps these cases are the olive branch for arguing that "enforcement", as referred in the act, constitutes any act derived from the terms of the agreement.

 

Also, the act refers to:

 

6) If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with subsection (1)—

(a) he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement;

 

So the act prohibits enforcement by the creditor as opposed to enforcement by the court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

6) If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with subsection (1)—

(a) he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement;

 

 

personally (and again going back to the dear old right minded person) it seems to me to be PERFECTLY clear that ( he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement;) means exactly that- he is not allowed to enforce any of the terms of the agreement

 

the clear inference IMO is that the agreement is "suspended" until such time as compliance.

 

To take it any other way would mean that there was no sanction on the creditor at all for failing to comply since if the debtor was maintaining his payments the net result of the creditor failing to comply with the s78 would be zero)

 

The failure of them to comply means that you can if you wish withold payments, and while they can (maybe/maybe not) ask for them they can't make you pay them without taking you to court, which unfortunately for them is a no-no (assuming they take a blind bit of notice of the legislation) if they don't have an agreement.

 

Which means that the result of them failing to comply is no money, and no way of them getting that money unless they annoy you enough to pay it.

 

Like I keep saying though, it's all opinion on what it means, so I feel it just can't be stated as fact unless there is someone somewhere who proves it to be one way or another.

 

I know we've discussed this before DD, and as you know I do agree that Bennions intentions seem clear, but that's not anything the judge (or indeed the creditors) have to take as gospel. They too will interpret 'enforce', and they may or may not go our way.

 

If my wondering thoughts can actually be proved wrong rather than just thought wrong I'd be WooHooing round the front room (well not quite, but I'd be pretty pleased:D), as I'd love to be able to put the 'you may not blah blah blah' bit in my letters, but as it stands I feel it's a leap to do so. And they always ignore it anyway, then go on to inform you that's not what the CCA refers to (which kind of illustrates what I'm trying to get at - it's all about what you read into it).

 

Just seen your post Stubie, this would be excellent if it goes the right way. It's just a shame the Act's not clearer in the first place so that court was not necessary in order to decide what it means

Perhaps these cases are the olive branch for arguing that "enforcement", as referred in the act, constitutes any act derived from the terms of the agreement.

Time flies like an arrow...

Fruit flies like a banana.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So the act prohibits enforcement by the creditor as opposed to enforcement by the court
#

 

Its the same thing enforce is through the courts...to ask for payment isn't to enforce.

Live Life-Debt Free

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your kind, and swift, responses.

 

 

 

I've made the requests - their answers have been that the info they are supplying IS S78 info, so I guess that requesting it again would be pointless.

 

I think I'm being thick here (sorry!). What exactly would I take them to court for? Simply to get a ruling that their agreements were unenforceable? If so, how would I do that?

 

And, taking the first part of your response last :)

 

Being unemployed the vast majority of court fees are waived, I believe. So I'd be hoping to do it for very little outlay.

 

 

Beck: I can take them under 31.16 to get a copy of the "agreement". But my question is - what can I do after that? How do I make them desist if their "agreement" doesn't comply with CCA 74?

 

if yu have already got the ss78 responses and they have not disclosed a properly executed agreement you then make you request again this time for a genuine copy of the original as would be produced by then in support of any claim and under CPR rules not s78

 

if they fail to comply then i think )you need to check with others ) its an application to the court to force them to produce and i think the action is s142 to get the ruling

 

you need to use the search buttom at the top of the page to find the threads that ciover these ( the legal issues section woould be a good start)

 

this is a self help site so you need to do some digging yourself too

Link to post
Share on other sites

The failure of them to comply means that you can if you wish withold payments, and while they can (maybe/maybe not) ask for them they can't make you pay them without taking you to court, which unfortunately for them is a no-no (assuming they take a blind bit of notice of the legislation) if they don't have an agreement.

 

Which means that the result of them failing to comply is no money, and no way of them getting that money unless they annoy you enough to pay it.

 

Like I keep saying though, it's all opinion on what it means, so I feel it just can't be stated as fact unless there is someone somewhere who proves it to be one way or another.

 

I know we've discussed this before DD, and as you know I do agree that Bennions intentions seem clear, but that's not anything the judge (or indeed the creditors) have to take as gospel. They too will interpret 'enforce', and they may or may not go our way.

 

If my wondering thoughts can actually be proved wrong rather than just thought wrong I'd be WooHooing round the front room (well not quite, but I'd be pretty pleased:D), as I'd love to be able to put the 'you may not blah blah blah' bit in my letters, but as it stands I feel it's a leap to do so. And they always ignore it anyway, then go on to inform you that's not what the CCA refers to (which kind of illustrates what I'm trying to get at - it's all about what you read into it).

 

Just seen your post Stubie, this would be excellent if it goes the right way. It's just a shame the Act's not clearer in the first place so that court was not necessary in order to decide what it means

 

i'll keep sniffing around- maybe i'll get the chance to take it on myself shortly!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

;point taken but i was referring to the "day to day" enforcement of the agreement not litigation

 

i e not being able to charge interest or late payment fees

 

I don't think that I'd agree that charging interest is enforcement - late payment fees are a different issue - I'd argue that overlimit and late payment fees are likely to be illegal more generally.

 

I'd view enforcement as sending threatening letters etc

If I've helped feel free to add to my reputation.

 

I am not a Practising Lawyer. My comments are my opinion only. You should not rely upon those comments and should always take your own professional advice from a practising Solicitor or Barrister

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi IGNM,

 

As I understand it, the Chester referrals (two of them anyway) are intended to make a determination on this.

 

The two cases (due Oct 09) relate to injunctions served by consumers to remove CRA defaults where an agreement is deemed unenforcible. The arguement is that to allow CRA defaults is enforcement.

 

If these cases are found for the consumer then there is a logic that any act based on the terms of an agreement is enforcement and is prohibited where the agreement is defective.

 

Perhaps these cases are the olive branch for arguing that "enforcement", as referred in the act, constitutes any act derived from the terms of the agreement.

 

Also, the act refers to:

 

6) If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with subsection (1)—

(a) he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement;

 

So the act prohibits enforcement by the creditor as opposed to enforcement by the court.

 

To be honest I don't know exactly what the Chester cases are however Rankine suggested that the appropriate step to be taken where the creditor hadn't complied with s77/78 would be to apply for an Order staying the proceedings.

 

I'm not sure if I agree with your interpretation of a difference between enforcement by a creditor or the court - IMO its' the same thing - the court only does anything if one of the parties asks it to...

If I've helped feel free to add to my reputation.

 

I am not a Practising Lawyer. My comments are my opinion only. You should not rely upon those comments and should always take your own professional advice from a practising Solicitor or Barrister

Link to post
Share on other sites

if they fail to comply then i think )you need to check with others ) its an application to the court to force them to produce and i think the action is s142 to get the ruling

 

Thanks - I think it's an s142 declaration I'd need.

 

 

As another issue - given the title of this thread - it seems to me that there are 3 different ways of applying for information:

a) Using section 77/78 of the CCA

b) Using CPR 31.16

c) Using the Data Protection Act.

 

It seems there's a lot of wriggle room for them under a) However, if I really want to go on a 'fishing expedition' would c) be a better route? Presumably as my original agreement is 'data' they'd have to supply that, along with everything else? OK, it would cost me £10 as opposed to £1 for 'a' and nothing for 'b' but would it be a viable/better option?

PhiltheBear

 

Lloyds TSB - At the Sign of Flogging a Dead Horse

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that I'd agree that charging interest is enforcement - late payment fees are a different issue - I'd argue that overlimit and late payment fees are likely to be illegal more generally.

 

I'd view enforcement as sending threatening letters etc

 

Agree!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4915 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...