Unenforceability Cases on hold until further notice

[underdog13]

Subbing.

 

And hoping they might stop harrassing people for debts they've written off anyway.....

 

Amen to that;)

[yourbank]

Originally Posted by twobeercans

When i first noticed this thread i must of picked up entirely the wrong idea lol.

I got the impression that this judge whatshisname was refering selcted cases to another court in order to get some set criteria in place from thse hearings. Hopefully to enable easy decision making in the CC. I.e speeding everything up. Straight forward script for assessing a CCA ect ect.

 

 

 

I think that is spot on

 

 

Duncan Pearson from a Claims Company thinks so

 

In the meantime, in relation to the Chester County Court issue, a proposal has been submitted to the senior judiciary because County Court judges require ‘directions’ in relation to the unenforceable claims they are dealing with.

 

The ‘direction’ process is a formal way of the judiciary giving guidance to lower courts on how to process, examine, determine and conclude cases. This is a normal and common practice within the courts. In relation to the specific case and the implications of the proposed stay being converted into an actual stay of proceedings, we continue to work closely with the leading experts, including the lawyers and barristers who conducted the case and continue to have utmost confidence in the law and the decision that was made on appeal.

[cerberusalert]

Judges in England and Wales are considering putting on hold up to 100,000 claims for the cancellation of credit card and other consumer debts.

BBC NEWS | Business | Judges seek hold on debt claims

 

The above was posted on another forum so I thought I'd update this thread with the latest news.

[Demonbarb]

Judges in England and Wales are considering putting on hold up to 100,000 claims for the cancellation of credit card and other consumer debts.

BBC NEWS | Business | Judges seek hold on debt claims

 

The above was posted on another forum so I thought I'd update this thread with the latest news.

That's old news and is probably on page 3 of this thread!

[militantconsumer]

That's old news and is probably on page 3 of this thread!

 

Not to mention inaccurate news by the sound of it.

[Docman]

Well, maybe old news is good news.

Anyway, my take on this whole story is that I think the judiciary are trying to deal with the issue proactively and not get caught out as with bank charges cases. With that issue, thousands of cases have created a backlog due to the actions of the banks involved until they were dragged kicking and screaming to the Commercial Court.

The Commercial Court cannot overrule the House of Lords rulings nor ignore the statute. However, could the Commercial Court issue Directions that declarations of enforceability should not be issued to the borrower/debtor?

The purpose of the Act was to prevent a finance company from having a greater say in the agreement. The legislation was and still is a consumer PROTECTION statute and not a consumer WEAPON. Therefore I pose the question, could the court decide that where a lender and a borrower have operated a non-compliant credit agreement, the borrower is prevented from later obtaining a declaration from the court that the agreement is unenforceable. The lender would still NOT be able to enforce the agreement if the borrower defaulted, in line with the statute and case law.

It seems to me that the credit claims firms would quickly go out of business and there could be another side effect. Banks and credit card companies would have to treat the customers fairly at last possibly by charging more realistic interest rates.

[Docman]

Oh, and I forgot to add that sides of bacon have been seen on the outside of the top of the HSBC and Barclays towers in Canary Wharf!

[Spamalot]

swine flew again!

[paulwlton]

So much conjecture at the moment, its a tad confusing to be fair mate.

 

Some suggest this Judge is consumer friendly and is only trying to make the mass of cases in the pipeline get through smoother and swifter... others suggest more underhand tactics by banks/government etc.

 

For my money, how can they rattle the consumer now? After precediants set out by Wilson and other case law?

 

It would all be out in the open and it would look bloody bad on the banks and government if they tried to whitewash it all.

 

With the might of the multi million pound claims industry and their own barristers etc... i doubt it will be an easy task for the banks....

 

Ultimately, this will backfire on them.... as soon as the truth is out, there will be a DELUGE of claims.

 

My reading of it is that the courts are to try and determine consitancy (on their judgments) in relation to agreements that they have discretion on under s 65 not s 61 which they have no discretion on prior to April 2007, unless the agreement is unsigned of course...IMO a winner for the consumer.

 

PW

[paulwlton]

To qoute persons in the know.

 

 

 

 

 

Judge Halbert simply wants the Court to consider what the effect of introducing such a stay on cases might be. He has also submitted a proposal to the senior judiciary because County Court judges require ‘directions’ when dealing with unenforceable claims. The ‘direction’ process is a formal way that the judiciary gives guidance to lower courts on how to process, examine, determine and conclude cases and this is a normal and common practice within the courts

The tabloid style press reports persist in talking about a “legal loophole” which borrowers are using to “wipe out debt”. This may attract headlines but it is simply not true. The real facts are that the lenders have been illegally over-charging APR on loans or else charging APR on what should have been a one-off fee which - again unlawfully but very profitably for the banks - which was added into the total credit to be charged. In this way the lenders have been clawing in untold millions in profits by duping the consumer.

Now they’ve been found out they are apparently pouring their money into a covert PR/marketing campaign to discredit the legally backed move to challenge these loan/credit agreements for unenforceability.

It’s also useful to remember that if the cases are suspended, it works both ways and lenders will not be able to try and enforce the debt through the courts - imagine the impact that will have on the thousands of cases where the banks are pushing consumers into repossessions on the back of these debts?

The message today is don’t be taken in by the hype. The Consumer Credit Act 1974 has been tested up to the House of Lords and is regularly stated in case Law.

I have said it before and I’ll say it again: Don’t be bullied by the banks - whether that is by threatening letters or calls to your home, or by an unscrupulous campaign of misinformation through the press.

[underdog13]

To qoute persons in the know.

 

 

 

 

 

Judge Halbert simply wants the Court to consider what the effect of introducing such a stay on cases might be. He has also submitted a proposal to the senior judiciary because County Court judges require ‘directions’ when dealing with unenforceable claims. The ‘direction’ process is a formal way that the judiciary gives guidance to lower courts on how to process, examine, determine and conclude cases and this is a normal and common practice within the courts

The tabloid style press reports persist in talking about a “legal loophole” which borrowers are using to “wipe out debt”. This may attract headlines but it is simply not true. The real facts are that the lenders have been illegally over-charging APR on loans or else charging APR on what should have been a one-off fee which - again unlawfully but very profitably for the banks - which was added into the total credit to be charged. In this way the lenders have been clawing in untold millions in profits by duping the consumer.

Now they’ve been found out they are apparently pouring their money into a covert PR/marketing campaign to discredit the legally backed move to challenge these loan/credit agreements for unenforceability.

It’s also useful to remember that if the cases are suspended, it works both ways and lenders will not be able to try and enforce the debt through the courts - imagine the impact that will have on the thousands of cases where the banks are pushing consumers into repossessions on the back of these debts?

The message today is don’t be taken in by the hype. The Consumer Credit Act 1974 has been tested up to the House of Lords and is regularly stated in case Law.

I have said it before and I’ll say it again: Don’t be bullied by the banks - whether that is by threatening letters or calls to your home, or by an unscrupulous campaign of misinformation through the press.

 

Well said, PW:)

 

Sounds good to me - bring on the stay;)

[vjohn82]

Too many appeals = directions required

 

Simples!

[paulwlton]

Well said, PW:)

 

Sounds good to me - bring on the stay;)

 

A lawyers wording...not mine.

 

I thought i'd just mention that a District Judge would not enforce a Barclaycard application form this morning....I guess I won.

 

Paul

[toddle2u]

Was in Birmingham CC today for an allocation hearing on an unenforceability issue. The DJ asked the othersides solicitor if he was aware that there was likely to be a universal stay on these issues whilst test cases were heard. Idiot solicitor answers 'I think you are mistaken that is only on bank charges' DJ replies (sternly) 'I am not mistaken it is to do with enforceability and if you do not produce an agreement next time we meet this debt IS unenforceable. You can explauin all you like why you do not have an agreement but at the end of the day without an agreement there is nothing you can do to enforce this debt'. Agreeement is from 1988 so they won't produce one. Result

[car2403]

IMHO, this has to be a good thing, as those numpty judges that have enforced unenforceable debts are going to be made to sit up and take notice of the litigant in person claimants in front of them pleading for them to apply the law correctly cannot simply dismiss it out of hand as trying to avoid the debt.

 

Without the number of appeals showing a certain level of concern, we wouldn't have even gotten this far, it's obvious.

 

If only this had happened 18-24 months ago, then litigants like me wouldn't have had such unjust decisions levied against them because of blinkered Judges.

 

This can only be a good thing, even if it will likely drag things out a lot longer.

 

Providing that there is a stay applied, that is...

[steven4064]

How refreshing to come across an enlightened judge though

[underdog13]

A lawyers wording...not mine. Informative and encouraging though, so thanks for posting it up.

 

I thought i'd just mention that a District Judge would not enforce a Barclaycard application form this morning....I guess I won.

 

Paul

 

Interesting - were you in a county court this morning with Barclaycard? Were they trying to enforce or did you seek a declaration of unenforceability, if you don't mind me asking?

 

Either way, great result - congratulations:)

[car2403]

How refreshing to come across an enlightened judge though

 

Nope, he's just found he was some work to do with dealing with all the appeals, so he's decided to do something about it

 

[the_shadow]

IMHO, this has to be a good thing, as those numpty judges that have enforced unenforceable debts are going to be made to sit up and take notice of the litigant in person claimants in front of them pleading for them to apply the law correctly cannot simply dismiss it out of hand as trying to avoid the debt.

 

Without the number of appeals showing a certain level of concern, we wouldn't have even gotten this far, it's obvious.

 

If only this had happened 18-24 months ago, then litigants like me wouldn't have had such unjust decisions levied against them because of blinkered Judges.

 

This can only be a good thing, even if it will likely drag things out a lot longer.

 

Providing that there is a stay applied, that is...

 

As long as the Stay is for both sides unlike the banks charges one I'd be happy.

 

S.

[vjohn82]

As long as the Stay is for both sides unlike the banks charges one I'd be happy.

 

S.

 

It would be I imagine if they are making a sweeping direction for something such as this

[foolishgirl]

The DJ asked the othersides solicitor if he was aware that there was likely to be a universal stay on these issues whilst test cases were heard. Idiot solicitor answers 'I think you are mistaken that is only on bank charges' DJ replies (sternly) 'I am not mistaken it is to do with enforceability and if you do not produce an agreement next time we meet this debt IS unenforceable. You can explauin all you like why you do not have an agreement but at the end of the day without an agreement there is nothing you can do to enforce this debt'.

 

IMHO, this has to be a good thing ....

 

....Providing that there is a stay applied, that is...

 

Stay or no stay, it seems this issue has jumped into No1 spot in the judiciary's sight & that can't be bad. Maybe it will have a few DJs brushing up on Consumer Credit legislation.

[twobeercans]

oh i feel much better now, thought my perception was totally naffed for a while there.

 

I been in court representing myself a number of times (don't start it was county court rofl), i have to say i have always found both DJ and CJ to be most ammicable. It seems entirely logical that not many judges would be 100% on consumer law so concrete guidance has got to be a must. I have been aghast lately at some of the injustices i have seen in a few of the peoples court experiences on here.

such as; you made payments to them, you used the card therefore on balance of probabilities there was an agreement but they must have lost it thereby they then go on the enforce the agreement WTF IS THAT!!???

Might as well stick in your own defence that "they sent me a letter saying i didn't have to pay them back but i lost the letter" it has about as much relevance does it not??..

"A few well placed commercial court rulings dating in 2009 will hopefully put an end to those in the judiciary that think creditors need protecting from consumers."

 

just my thoughts on this

[citizenB]

My reading of it is that the courts are to try and determine consitancy (on their judgments) in relation to agreements that they have discretion on under s 65 not s 61 which they have no discretion on prior to April 2007, unless the agreement is unsigned of course...IMO a winner for the consumer.

 

PW

 

Stay or no stay, it seems this issue has jumped into No1 spot in the judiciary's sight & that can't be bad. Maybe it will have a few DJs brushing up on Consumer Credit legislation.

 

At the moment it is very much a DJ lottery if this brings about consistency as PW has already said then I think this will be good for us all.

[toddle2u]

were you in a county court this morning with Barclaycard? Were they trying to enforce or did you seek a declaration of unenforceabilit

No it wasn't Barclaycard it was a retail fashion chain and they were trying to enforce

[underdog13]

No it wasn't Barclaycard it was a retail fashion chain and they were trying to enforce

 

sorry toddle2u - I was refering to PW's post.

 

Congrats on your result, though. Would have loved to see the judge give that solicitor a ticking off, lol.

Edited May 12, 2009 by underdog13