Unenforceability Cases on hold until further notice

[angry cat]

I won't bother posting. Good luck you lot.

 

Err!

 

That pdf file link is up for all to see on many other websites.

 

However, I must admit that I did raise an eyebrow after printing the doc. off and noticed the name/address had not been removed, prior to posting.

 

No point crying over spilt milk.

 

AC

[paulwlton]

That's not the case (pardon the pun) GaryH.

 

There is no precedent for breaches of schedule 1 - where the court does have discretion to make an order to enforce.

 

This also applies to post April 2007 agreements, and the restriction of 127(3) doesn't apply - so the courts also have discretion to make that order.

 

What is interesting - is that in the Walker case, the judge specifically stated that the breaches of Schedule 1 alone were enough for the court to refuse to make an order to enforce.

 

up until now, everyone had assumed the court would simply find in favour of the creditor.

 

The court has total discretion for a breach of schedule 1 this discretion would be based up on the prejudiced caused by the breach, so in that respect each case would be different. IMO a precedent could not be determined under a breach of schedule 1 simply because there are many variations and each would need to be fully assessed.

[toto003]

The court has total discretion for a breach of schedule 1 this discretion would be based up on the prejudiced caused by the breach, so in that respect each case would be different. IMO a precedent could not be determined under a breach of schedule 1 simply because there are many variations and each would need to be fully assessed.

 

Perhaps not all of Schedule 1, But certain aspects (I concede it is a narrow area of law) but the decision has resulted in a flood of claims being submitted to Chester.

 

HHJ Halbert would not have called for the test cases unless he thought otherwise.

[Baggio]

what test case?

 

people are being hoodwinked by the dis-info being peddled in the press.

 

akin to the Daily Mail's now infamous 2006 piece about deluded consumers trying reclaiming "PPI and unfair bank charges"

 

When will joe public wake up !!!!

[toto003]

what test case?

 

people are being hoodwinked by the dis-info being peddled in the press.

 

akin to the Daily Mail's now infamous 2006 piece about deluded consumers trying reclaiming "PPI and unfair bank charges"

 

When will joe public wake up !!!!

 

There is no "test case" as such yet. However, HHJ Halbert has placed a stay on certain CCA cases submitted to chester, with a view to passing a select few to the commercial court.

 

have you not read this thread ?

[angry cat]

I/We woke up many years ago!

[Baggio]

There is no "test case" as such yet. However, HHJ Halbert has placed a stay on certain CCA cases submitted to chester, with a view to passing a select few to the commercial court.

 

have you not read this thread ?

 

yes i have, have you?

 

he has APLLIED for a stay.....not placed.

 

HUGE difference.. again i bring up DIS-INFO!!!!!!!

[toto003]

yes i have, have you?

 

he has APLLIED for a stay.....not placed.

 

HUGE difference.. again i bring up DIS-INFO!!!!!!!

 

it isnt that big a difference in this case, it is semantics, CCA cases at chester have been contacted to make representations for a decision within 14 days.

 

If it isn't an "official" stay, it is effectively one in reality.

 

The fact that HHJ Halbert's proposal to the commercial court has been accepted makes it more likely than not test cases WILL be selected.

 

The fact that the matter has also been referred to regional and national directorates, - reinforce that.

 

Although I concede, it is not a guaranteed yet.

 

Please calm down and avoid the temptation to be as sensationalist as the press.

[tosh1]

subbing

[Spamalot]

Taking the swine flu pandemic with a pinch of salt and now this particular brand of sensationalist media hype.....maybe putting my head in the sand or maybe I'm just not being taken in ...yesterdays news....todays toilet paper

[I've got no money]

Bloody ell!!!

 

Why don't you first ask the company who sent it to you in confidence if it's OK with them to post it first!!

 

**EDITED**

 

If this is about posting the Judgment from Chester

 

The Judgment is, as it has been handed down by the Judge, a matter of Public Record - there is no priviledge attaching to its' contents - anyone can get a copy

Edited May 10, 2009 by car2403
Quoted edited post

[the_shadow]

Not wanting to sound a killjoy but I joined this thread for the informative discussion of the press reporting after the county court ruling in Chester... I didnt join to discuss the validity of claims companies and what they bring to the table or rather dont!

 

If its just me that feels this way then I apologies and will unsubscribe.......

 

S.

[I've got no money]

OK - can we now go back to talking about unenforceable agreements.

[angry cat]

OK - can we now go back to talking about unenforceable agreements.

 

Agreed!

Sigh.....

 

AC

x

[MARTIN3030]

Phew....time for a Coffee.

[Undercover-Elsa]

Hear Hear, it's a crucially interesting thread, I don't fell qualified to comment on the technicalities but I've been following it all day..

Elsa x

[pt2537]

I appreciate why the doc has been taken down, but is there any chance it can be reposted without details? I think it would be a good one to keep for when DCa`s say cases have been stayed. I didnt even look at the guys name I was more interested in the judgement!

 

Pleeaassee!

There seems to be some confusion, the Judgment will have the personal details of the parties, this is normal just look at London North Securities and Meadows, Mr & Mrs Meadows address was on the judgment, it is normal thats for sure, this judgment will be available via the law society library service so will be in the public domain.

 

ive lost count of the number of times weve seen wilson and hurstanger posted, the Wilsons address was in the judgment too.

 

you do not need permission of the parties if the case is openly reported

[car2403]

Off topic posts about CMC's moved;

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/198695-validity-claims-management-companies.html

 

There has also been some edits made to posts that breach the site rules - usually, the site team would PM members saying what had been edited and why, but there were so many of them I really don't have the time to do that in this instance. Feel free to PM me regarding any posts I've moderated if you have any queries - I'll be happy to help.

 

You will have been CAGbotted, for the edits and the moves...

[Baggio]

Good idea, this thread became 2 threads in one.

[beachcomber60]

I am VERY angry in being CAGbotted because I posted ONE reply yesterday merely asking that we return to the main topic of this thread.

 

My interest has absolutely nothing to do with claim companies and my interest is solely in the unenforceability cases being stayed.

 

My post got CAGbotted, however the following post BACKING my comment that we should return to the main debate was left in place.

 

I feel insulted & let down in getting CAGbotted simply for asking that we return to the main subject of the thread.

[never-in-doubt]

I am VERY angry in being CAGbotted because I posted ONE reply yesterday merely asking that we return to the main topic of this thread.

 

My interest has absolutely nothing to do with claim companies and my interest is solely in the unenforceability cases being stayed.

 

My post got CAGbotted, however the following post BACKING my comment that we should return to the main debate was left in place.

 

I feel insulted & let down in getting CAGbotted simply for asking that we return to the main subject of the thread.

 

Sorry to sound thick but what is a cag bot? I love the term but don't think it's sounds too healthy

[fermi]

No idea what being CAGbotted means, but neither do I care.

 

I would rather this stays on topic, so I assume a good thing?

 

Sorry to sound thick but what is a cag bot? I love the term but don't think it's sounds too healthy

 

Been here (lurkin...) a long time and I'm none the wiser.

[yourbank]

Cagbot is post unapproved or edited or moved. I have no idea how it works

[foolishgirl]

 

Don't panic, Mr. Mainwaring!!

 

Look again at Angrycat's quote here from the company representing Walker, then look below it at pt's quote from another thread made earlier today:

 

"PRESS RELEASE

Dear All,

I would like to bring some remnants of sanity to the subject of the alleged

“100,000 Frozen Unenforceable Credit Agreement claims.”

There is a lot of nonsense being published in the media about a "stay" or "freeze" of all Consumer Credit Act claims. Categorically, this is completely untrue.

There is NO STAY, and NO CASES have been frozen.

This has been confirmed with the Court in Chester this very morning (8th May 2009) by our Legal team, who won the Walker case that is referred to. This is a malicious rumour being put about by those with a very different agenda.

The only thing the Judge is suggesting is that the Court wants to consider what would be the effect if such a stay was brought in.

Our legal team have a meeting booked to discuss this matter in detail on 18th May in Chester, with His Honour Judge Derek R Halbert.

Attached to this email is a copy of the correspondence that has been published by Judge Derek R Halbert of the Chester County Court. Please read this carefully. It is important that you understand the inference of the correspondence. Reports have appeared in the media over the last couple of days stating that Chester County Court has issued a stay on all proceedings relating to unenforceable credit agreements. These reports are incorrect, yet they have appeared in newspapers, websites and various editorials.

The TRUE FACTS are that as a result of a case in the name of Walker at Chester County Court which was appealed to Judge Derek R Halbert and which the lender, Southern Pacific Personal Loans Ltd, lost due to their non-compliance with the prescribed requirements of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The issue of the appeal related to a specific technical point about what constitutes

the “total amount for credit”.

 

Duncan Pearson

Legal Sevices Director

My Claims Supermarket Ltd"

 

 

'the claims management industry is panicking about a civil circuit judge suggesting that it may be appropriate to hold a series of test cases, now it seems t his panic has transferred to here

 

the facts are that there is NO stay at this time. this matter will not be decided until at least the end of next month. i have spoken to the court manager at Chester High Court on this topic and we have been invited to make representations to the judge and we have done so, primarily on the issue of Consumer protection from enforcement on challenged agreements

 

this has all kicked off because of the Walker case, this district judge who heard the case got it horribly wrong, this lead to the appeal being before HHJ Halbert, he realised the issues and if you read the judgment, he seems very consumer friendly'

 

And just to add to a search for answers as to how all this confusion has come about, can someone explain why the original pdf of this judge's letter posted on CAG has a ref. no. on it that appears to be a claim number derived from the Warrington County Court, starting 9WA00....???

 

Anybody else see that as odd?

[MARTIN3030]

Those who have been cagbotted,were not singled out specifically,some inappropriate links were removed and possibly quotes in posts containing those links.

I was actually Cagbotted myself twice during the process !!