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

[diddydicky]

funny, PT felt that way too!!

[Peterbard]

when he makes posts like these on other forums- what opinion do you expect us to form?

 

QUOTE

 

Whatr precicely do you dissagree with.

 

Peter

 

 

 

Hi

 

I am afraid I agree. I used to be a contributor to CAG in the earlier years and at that point it was pretty much a discussion forum ,it was possible to glean bits of information and a lot of users found it very helpful. At that point I do not believe it offered advice as such it was as I say a discussion group.

 

Now however the site has been taken over by so called "Legal experts", Some of which as you say even claim to be solicitors.

 

I am unsure of the motivation of these people, one are two are I believe involved in the business, perhaps it is in there interest to perpetuate the myth. More likely these are people who are bathing in the praise from the people they are" helping "and the status that they lack in their real life

 

Here is very little discussion now one of these luminaries will give information on why a particular agreement is unenforceable and every one else just agrees and thinks they don’t have to honour there commitments to the creditor.

 

I have been excluded from that site now simply because I challenged some of the assertions made there.

 

In my day job I have seen many people who have come into our office and asked us to intervene with lenders, they have followed advice given on the CAG site and ended up with a CCJ.

 

The problem is that these forums can be very attractive to people who are in financial difficulties ,offering a quick fix. The idea is introduced that the agreement they have is unenforceable so they do not have to pay at all.

 

When this advice comes from someone purporting to be a solicitor ,many take it to be true ,and basically stop paying their debts.

By the time they find out it is all nonsense they have lost the window of opportunity to negotiate with the creditor or make alternative payment agreements.

 

 

Hi

One of the main offenders has the screen name PT257.

Currently he is on the Egg thread of the forum on the legal issues section.

 

There he is advising people not to pay there egg credit card agreements pending a "Test Case" he is involved in on June the 4th.

I belive he is employed by one of the debt cancelling firms.

 

This particular thread has created no end of problems for us with people following the advice and then coming to us when the creditors enforce.

 

Needles to say I can find no record of any such hearing.

 

The thread is called " Egg agreements and what I think is wrong with them"

 

I have complained to the site and tried to post contrary arguments on thread but they are moderated and just do not appear.

 

What precisely do you dissagree with

 

Peter

 

 
[quote name='diddydicky']when he makes posts like these on other forums- what opinion do you expect us to form?

QUOTE

Whatr precicely do you dissagree with.

Peter




I am afraid I agree. I used to be a contributor to CAG in the earlier years and at that point it was pretty much a discussion forum ,it was possible to glean bits of information and a lot of users found it very helpful. At that point I do not believe it offered advice as such it was as I say a discussion group.

Now however the site has been taken over by so called "Legal experts", Some of which as you say even claim to be solicitors.

I am unsure of the motivation of these people, one are two are I believe involved in the business, perhaps it is in there interest to perpetuate the myth. More likely these are people who are bathing in the praise from the people they are" helping "and the status that they lack in their real life

Here is very little discussion now one of these luminaries will give information on why a particular agreement is unenforceable and every one else just agrees and thinks they don’t have to honour there commitments to the creditor.

I have been excluded from that site now simply because I challenged some of the assertions made there.

In my day job I have seen many people who have come into our office and asked us to intervene with lenders, they have followed advice given on the CAG site and ended up with a CCJ.

The problem is that these forums can be very attractive to people who are in financial difficulties ,offering a quick fix. The idea is introduced that the agreement they have is unenforceable so they do not have to pay at all.

When this advice comes from someone purporting to be a solicitor ,many take it to be true ,and basically stop paying their debts.
By the time they find out it is all nonsense they have lost the window of opportunity to negotiate with the creditor or make alternative payment agreements.


Hi
One of the main offenders has the screen name PT257.
Currently he is on the Egg thread of the forum on the legal issues section.

There he is advising people not to pay there egg credit card agreements pending a "Test Case" he is involved in on June the 4th.
I belive he is employed by one of the debt cancelling firms.

This particular thread has created no end of problems for us with people following the advice and then coming to us when the creditors enforce.

Needles to say I can find no record of any such hearing.

The thread is called " Egg agreements and what I think is wrong with them"

I have complained to the site and tried to post contrary arguments on thread but they are moderated and just do not appear.[/quote]

What precisely do you dissagree with

Peter

Edited August 7, 2010 by Dodgeball
merged duplicated posts

[diddydicky]

you- basically

 

we've been here before - when people aired their feelings about your behaviour before- you seem inexplicably to have won the day and drove several useful members off this site when the mods protected you

 

its a bit like watching an army marching- where everyone is out of step except the sergeant major!!

 

i decline your invitation and respect your wishes not to be further "abused" (although i prefer the term "found out" to "abused)

[Peterbard]

Hi

It is rediculous to say i can drive anyone off this site. I myself was under modderation for months.

 

I have in fact a new respect for the modderators of this site because they seem to be at least even handed in there handling of posts on here.

 

That is the main reason in have re continued posting.

 

I dontt know what you mean about beinn found out i am an open book i dont hide behind a screen name, i dont pretend to have qualifications or expertise i do not posses, and i do not tell lies.

 

Peter

[basa48]

TBH I have no truck with peterbard commenting here. At least he offers up the convoluted, misleading and often disingenuous arguments we may meet in a PoC from a creditor. It exercises our minds to defeat such arguments.

[Peterbard]

you- basically

 

we've been here before - when people aired their feelings about your behaviour before- you seem inexplicably to have won the day and drove several useful members off this site when the mods protected you

 

its a bit like watching an army marching- where everyone is out of step except the sergeant major!!

Isnt the sergeant major usualy at the front, so wouldnt they all be out of step anyway???

 

i decline your invitation and respect your wishes not to be further "abused" (although i prefer the term "found out" to "abused)

 

Thinking about this it sounds that this is not your first time on this site, i have never found it nesesary to change my name on here how about you.

 

Peter

[Peterbard]

Pleas give examples

 

I have just given one of yours

 

Peter

[Peterbard]

HI

You know this really gets my goat

 

Why should you get away with this.

I have contributed greatly to thois site over the years . What have you done you know nothing your posts betray that you should just shut up and try and learn.

Peter

[basa48]

HI

You know this really gets my goat

 

Why should you get away with this.

I have contributed greatly to thois site over the years . What have you done you know nothing your posts betray that you should just shut up and try and learn.

Peter

 

OK this is just degenerating into a slanging match - maybe that is the purpose?

 

Lets try and stick to the whole point of CAG - that is to bring workable legal argument to the forum or court.

[Peterbard]

YOU started it

 

am quite happy to let it end here

 

Peter

[pawnbrokers]

well oh well, what the hell is goin on here, everyone has there own readings of what is what, so discuss and dismiss, but dont act like fools and children -

 

TIME Gentleman please" - get back on track and discuss issues, not people please - pb

[basa48]

YOU started it

 

am quite happy to let it end here

 

Peter

 

To whom is that directed?

 

It would help if you used the 'reply with quote' facility (you can delete the text to just leave a screen name if that helps).

[Peterbard]

Sorry my last postt was directed to the one directly above it,that is base48

[Peterbard]

well oh well, what the hell is goin on here, everyone has there own readings of what is what, so discuss and dismiss, but dont act like fools and children -

 

TIME Gentleman please" - get back on track and discuss issues, not people please - pb

 

Happy to

 

Peter

[basa48]

Sorry my last postt was directed to the one directly above it,that is base48

 

Then I will finish it. It ends here OK.

 

I will not respond to you except regarding matters of legal argument.

[patrickq1]

INTRODUCTION

His Honour Judge Waksman QC, sitting in the High Court, handed down judgment on 22 July 2010 in Joseph Sternlight & Others v Barclays Bank plc & Others [2010] EWHC 1865 (QB) on the enforceability of regulated running-account consumer credit agreements and other ancillary issues arising out of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the “CCA 1974”) and the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (the “CCAR 1983”). This emphatic decision is further justification for the robust approaches taken by lenders defending unmeritorious enforceability challenges.

BACKGROUND

Five test cases came before the High Court in July 2010 concerning credit card agreements. Because the rate of interest was variable, the lenders were required to state (as a prescribed term) the “rate of interest on the credit to be provided under the agreement” by Paragraph 4 of Schedule 6 to the CCAR 1983. If this was mis-stated then, because the agreements pre-dated the repeal of Section 127(3) of the CCA 1974, all the agreements would be irredeemably unenforceable.

Each agreement stated a rate of interest (either monthly or annually) and the annual percentage rate (the “APR”). The borrowers obtained an expert report from Neil Young, a mathematician and computer expert, who calculated the rate of interest on the assumption that the APR was the “driver” for the rate of interest. After undertaking his calculation, Mr Young expressed the view that each agreement had wrongly stated the “rate of interest” as required by Paragraph 4. It therefore followed, said the borrowers, that the agreements were irredeemably unenforceable.

The lenders, which were Barclays Bank plc, Bank of Scotland plc, Royal Bank of Scotland plc, Capital One Bank (Europe) plc and HSBC Bank plc, applied for summary judgment arguing that the claims failed to disclose a real prospect of success.

THE ISSUES

The Court had to determine the following issues:

 

1. Whether the borrowers’ approach, of treating the APR as the “driver” for the rate of interest, led to this rate being wrongly stated and therefore rendering the agreements irredeemably unenforceable.
   
2. Whether the agreements were irredeemably unenforceable where they stated the monthly rather than the annual rate of interest.
   
3. Whether there was a failure to state the total charge for credit.
   
4. Whether the borrowers were entitled to a pre-emptive order under Section 142 preventing the lenders for applying to the Court for a enforcement orders under Section 127 of the CCA 1974.
   
5. Whether an improperly executed agreement created an unfair relationship within the meaning of Section 140A of the CCA 1974.
   
6. If the Court decided that the agreements were irredeemably unenforceable, whether the lenders were prevented from registering adverse credit entries, requesting payment, issuing proceedings to recover monies due or taking steps before issuing proceedings.
   

RATE OF INTEREST & APR

Readers of our earlier review discussing His Honour Judge Tetlow’s decision in Jessica Catherine Brooks v Northern Rock (Asset Management) plc (formerly Northern Rock plc) [2010], Oldham County Court, 16 April 2010, where we acted for the successful lender, will be familiar with the issues raised in this case. In short, the Court dismissed in Brooks (again on an application for summary judgment) the borrower’s claims that the rate of interest stated on a consumer credit agreement must be the “nominal” rate of interest. Northern Rock had used the “effective” rate of interest meaning, after recalculating the figures, every other figure was wrong so the agreement was irredeemably unenforceable. HHJ Tetlow said, justifiably, that such an approach was “looking through the wrong end of the telescope.”

In a very robust judgment in Sternlight, HHJ Waksman QC rejected the borrowers’ argument that the APR was the “driver” for the rate of interest and decided that the rate of interest was the rate stated on the agreement. His reasons were:

 

• the borrowers’ proposition had a “surreal quality to it” as it led to the position that the borrower had agreed Mr Young’s re-calculated rate and not the contractually agreed rate of interest;
  
• there was a very clear difference between the nature and function of the APR and the rate of interest: indeed, the CCAR 1983 treats them as separate things. The borrowers’ argument meant that a prescribed term would be “driven” by prescribed information which was plainly contrary to the importance prescribed terms had been given in the CCAR 1983 and Section 127 of the CCA 1974 (before its appeal);
  
• the APR need only be stated at the start of the agreement when it is produced and signed: it is therefore a guide for borrowers at that date. Lenders are, however, allowed to change the rate of interest. In such a case, the APR cannot act as the driver any more when the rate is varied;
  
• the view expressed by HHJ Tetlow in Brooks that the borrower’s argument was “looking through the wrong end of the telescope” was approved and applied by analogy to these cases: the rate of interest had been contractually agreed and there was no reason to say it should be any other figure.
  

OTHER ISSUES

The Court also robustly, and shortly, dealt with the other issues raised by the borrowers. It decided that:

 

1. The borrowers’ argument that the agreement must state the annual rate of interest rather than the monthly rate was flawed. Paragraph 4 of Schedule 6 to the CCAR 1983 simply requires a term stating “the rate of interest”: it does not say the “annual” rate of interest.
   
2. There was no requirement by Paragraph 10 of Schedule 1 to the CCAR 1983 to state the total charge for credit but, even if there were, it would not render the agreement irredeemably unenforceable as suggested by the borrowers.
   
3. Even if there was a breach of Schedule 1 to the CCAR 1983, there was no evidence of prejudice or culpability put forward by the borrowers meaning the Court could not, and should not, decide whether to make a declaration under Section 142 of the CCA 1974.
   
4. Even if the agreement was improperly executed, it did not create an unfair relationship following the High Court’s decision in Carey & Others v HSBC Bank plc & Others [2009] EWHC 1681.
   
5. Even if the agreement was irredeemably unenforceable, the lenders were not prevented from registering adverse credit entries, requesting payment, issuing proceedings to recover monies due or taking steps before issuing proceedings following McGuffick v The Royal Bank of Scotland plc [2010] 1 All ER 634.
   

COMMENT

The Court’s stern approach to the borrowers’ claims, particularly on an application for summary judgment, is most welcome. Lenders will take considerable comfort from the fact that speculative enforceability claims like the ones raised in this decision, and the recent decision in Brooks, will be scrutinised and robustly dealt with by the Court. It is also pleasing that the Court approved HHJ Tetlow’s decision in Brooks on similar issues meaning the rate of interest and APR issue should now be beyond doubt. It therefore seems likely that future consumer credit challenges should quickly decline. It must also be the case that after the event insurers, who have been actively funding the adverse costs orders on these cases, will seriously review their position in the market. This can only be further icing on the cake for lenders.

[the_shadow]

INTRODUCTION

His Honour Judge Waksman QC,

 

I didnt really need to read the whole thing did I

 

S.

[diddydicky]

Hi

It is rediculous to say i can drive anyone off this site. I myself was under modderation for months.

 

I have in fact a new respect for the modderators of this site because they seem to be at least even handed in there handling of posts on here.

 

That is the main reason in have re continued posting.

 

I dontt know what you mean about beinn found out i am an open book i dont hide behind a screen name, i dont pretend to have qualifications or expertise i do not posses, and i do not tell lies.

 

Peter

 

i am pleased to hear that

 

no one can be in any doubt about my qualifications if they read the footnote- can they?

[basa48]

So yet again we see these dumb ass CMCs wreaking havoc by presenting frivolous half witted claims.

 

Claiming interest rates are miscalculated by a few percent or quoted monthly was never gonna get a judgment! As the judge said the 'propositions were surreal'.

 

I see no harm here to genuine claims based on sturdy arguments.

[diddydicky]

So yet again we see these dumb ass CMCs wreaking havoc by presenting frivolous half witted claims.

 

Claiming interest rates are miscalculated by a few percent or quoted monthly was never gonna get a judgment! As the judge said the 'propositions were surreal'.

 

I see no harm here to genuine claims based on sturdy arguments.

 

i have had no reason to question any agreements on the figures- but i seem to recall from other posts that there is a "limit" on the amount the percentage rate is allowed to go before it becomes an issue- cant remember what it was - but 0.1% seems to ring a bell

[lexis200]

HI

You know this really gets my goat

 

Why should you get away with this.

I have contributed greatly to thois site over the years . What have you done you know nothing your posts betray that you should just shut up and try and learn.

Peter

 

Yes, you used to be a good contributor. Lately though your main aim appears to have been to argue the toss on a case that could not have been handled differently or faster. When you were pulled up on your initial assertions that there was no case at all and were proved wrong, rather than being an adult about it and apologising for accusing PT of lying about a case being in place, you simply moved onto a new argument and ignored any and all responses to your 'queries' regarding it, preferring instead to patronise and put down anyone who replied.

 

The only reason you are now finding yourself in this position of 'being abused' is because of your behaviour over the last few months. You have given no-one any reason whatsoever to stick up for you, or even to tolerate you as you have been rude and obnoxious to anyone who has posted something that does not concur with your thoughts - and I'm sure you'll not break the habit when you respond to this post.

 

You are systematically ruining the threads you now post on by continuing with the same pointless jibes at all and sundry. You have shown what you think of CAG and it's members in your postings on other sites, so I, and I suspect many others, are at a complete loss as to why you are continuing to post here.

 

And for what it's worth, the last nine or so words of the quoted text from your post above are exactly what everyone suggested you do with regards to the Egg case which could not be sped up, only we phrased it as 'wait and see' rather than 'shut up'.

 

I often disagree with DD, and he knows that. We have had discussions in the past and still disagree about them, but that does not change the fact that he has a very good general knowledge of the issues on this site because he, like many of us, has spent days and weeks of his own time learning about them, so to accuse him of not knowing anything is just ridiculous.

 

Rant over, and my last post on the subject.

[lexis200]

So yet again we see these dumb ass CMCs wreaking havoc by presenting frivolous half witted claims.

 

Claiming interest rates are miscalculated by a few percent or quoted monthly was never gonna get a judgment! As the judge said the 'propositions were surreal'.

 

I see no harm here to genuine claims based on sturdy arguments.

 

Are there any claims companies that have done more good than harm to people trying to fight the banks on their own?

[diddydicky]

i would let it rest now lexis- for i think his "modus Operandi" is to keep the dispute running until such time as the site team start to cagbot folk

[Peterbard]

Yes, you used to be a good contributor. Lately though your main aim appears to have been to argue the toss on a case that could not have been handled differently or faster. When you were pulled up on your initial assertions that there was no case at all and were proved wrong, rather than being an adult about it and apologising for accusing PT of lying about a case being in place, you simply moved onto a new argument and ignored any and all responses to your 'queries' regarding it, preferring instead to patronise and put down anyone who replied.

 

The only reason you are now finding yourself in this position of 'being abused' is because of your behaviour over the last few months. You have given no-one any reason whatsoever to stick up for you, or even to tolerate you as you have been rude and obnoxious to anyone who has posted something that does not concur with your thoughts - and I'm sure you'll not break the habit when you respond to this post.

 

You are systematically ruining the threads you now post on by continuing with the same pointless jibes at all and sundry. You have shown what you think of CAG and it's members in your postings on other sites, so I, and I suspect many others, are at a complete loss as to why you are continuing to post here.

 

And for what it's worth, the last nine or so words of the quoted text from your post above are exactly what everyone suggested you do with regards to the Egg case which could not be sped up, only we phrased it as 'wait and see' rather than 'shut up'.

 

I often disagree with DD, and he knows that. We have had discussions in the past and still disagree about them, but that does not change the fact that he has a very good general knowledge of the issues on this site because he, like many of us, has spent days and weeks of his own time learning about them, so to accuse him of not knowing anything is just ridiculous.

 

Rant over, and my last post on the subject.

 

 

Hi do you want me to reply to this personally i would rather look at patricks post.

 

peter

[lexis200]

i would let it rest now lexis- for i think his "modus Operandi" is to keep the dispute running until such time as the site team start to cagbot folk

 

I was just typing and chatting to my kids, you lot just all butted in in the meantime:rolleyes: