Unenforceability Cases on hold until further notice

[henderson50]

Hi AllNot sure if this is the right place to ask advice, help or which poison to take.Briefly,Got myself in a nightmare by investing in a property venture which has resulted in blowing a lot of money.I have been pushed into an IVA because of what I do for a living Bankruptcy would be a big problem.The terms of the IVA are a noightmare and due to the creditor demand quite frankly have agreed to something I am finding impossible to fund.Did'nt know about unenforceable agreements til recently. 85% of the debt I have is in CCA's prior to 2007. Cards and loans.Can I check their enforceability whilst in the Iva. Picked up the mane of Tostrun from another thread, they won't assist whilts I'm iN the IVA. Any suggestions would be welcomed, i'm talking 21 agreements.Thanks for your helpHenderson

[paulwlton]

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:)

 

Cl Finance were trying to enforce a Barclaycard agreement/application.

[foolishgirl]

Well done Paul, another one bites the dust

[underdog13]

Cl Finance were trying to enforce a Barclaycard agreement/application.

 

and to think they wasted all that money on legal costs - what a shame; not:lol:

[Mr Silver]

Call me old fashioned but I thought a Stay could be lifted with a well argued case at Judicial Review?

 

The European Court of Justice and Human Rights could also be used to support Consumer's rights.

 

There's clearly a split in the ruling class between the 'old money' (the establishment, the 'old boy network'/judiciary/ the law) and the 'new money' (represented by bankers/ investment bankers/credit card companies and big business).

 

It seems like the Judges are delaying ''justice'' but who is pulling their strings? Who do they represent? Old money or new money?

 

The banks are pleading poverty ''we have no money to lend'' and are technically bust (comparatively speaking) and without Government / central bank BoE / FED support and Government backed insurance guarantees they would be now; moreover many of the banks are now technically owned by the Government - thus the refunds are coming from the Government (British and American/ European) in all but name and we the taxpayers are now funding their REFUNDS! And our own refunds!

 

Amazing but true!

 

I know it sounds crazy but that is what it amounts to!

 

Kafka couldn't have written a better narrative!

 

Unfair bank charges - refunds - estimated amount at least £2 billion? in the UK alone- although a drop in the ocean when compared to the ''unfair'' super-profits 'charges'' made over the boom years £5 billion per annum - have now come to an end while a Stay is in place.

 

This Stay must be lifted at once! MPs and Euro MPs must be told to DEMAND immediate REDRESS and REFUNDS for consumers!

 

Of course the British Reclaim for 'unfair charges' refunds will spread over the world (especially in Europe??) or should do with consumers now quite rightly DEMANDING their REFUNDS!

 

This should now become a class action with ALL those claiming refunds employing the best lawyers/Counsels money can buy!

 

The blair-brown gravy train and their friends in the City of London are now clearly concerned that the game is up so have called in a few 'favours'' to delay the inevitable victory of the Consumer and the people to reclaim their rights and their money.

Edited May 12, 2009 by Mr Silver
Typos, font colours and clarity!

[WelshMam2009]

Hi AllNot sure if this is the right place to ask advice, help or which poison to take.Briefly,Got myself in a nightmare by investing in a property venture which has resulted in blowing a lot of money.I have been pushed into an IVA because of what I do for a living Bankruptcy would be a big problem.The terms of the IVA are a noightmare and due to the creditor demand quite frankly have agreed to something I am finding impossible to fund.Did'nt know about unenforceable agreements til recently. 85% of the debt I have is in CCA's prior to 2007. Cards and loans.Can I check their enforceability whilst in the Iva. Picked up the mane of Tostrun from another thread, they won't assist whilts I'm iN the IVA. Any suggestions would be welcomed, i'm talking 21 agreements.Thanks for your helpHenderson

 

Best to start your own thread Henderson and that way you can keep all the replies together!!

[henderson50]

Hi

 

How do I do that?

 

Thanks

[car2403]

Hi

 

How do I do that?

 

Thanks

 

My sig has a beginners guide.

 

We may need a new thread for each agreement, though. :-|

[lunar jim]

subbing

[car2403]

ihate debts CCA query moved here;

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/199226-ihate-debt-cca-query.html

[Stubie]

Subbing

[yourbank]

Call me old fashioned but I thought a Stay could be lifted with a well argued case at Judicial Review?

 

The European Court of Justice and Human Rights could also be used to support Consumer's rights.

 

There's clearly a split in the ruling class between the 'old money' (the establishment, the 'old boy network'/judiciary/ the law) and the 'new money' (represented by bankers/ investment bankers/credit card companies and big business).

 

It seems like the Judges are delaying ''justice'' but who is pulling their strings? Who do they represent? Old money or new money?

 

The banks are pleading poverty ''we have no money to lend'' and are technically bust (comparatively speaking) and without Government / central bank BoE / FED support and Government backed insurance guarantees they would be now; moreover many of the banks are now technically owned by the Government - thus the refunds are coming from the Government (British and American/ European) in all but name and we the taxpayers are now funding their REFUNDS! And our own refunds!

 

Amazing but true!

 

I know it sounds crazy but that is what it amounts to!

 

Kafka couldn't have written a better narrative!

 

Unfair bank charges - refunds - estimated amount at least £2 billion? in the UK alone- although a drop in the ocean when compared to the ''unfair'' super-profits 'charges'' made over the boom years £5 billion per annum - have now come to an end while a Stay is in place.

 

This Stay must be lifted at once! MPs and Euro MPs must be told to DEMAND immediate REDRESS and REFUNDS for consumers!

 

Of course the British Reclaim for 'unfair charges' refunds will spread over the world (especially in Europe??) or should do with consumers now quite rightly DEMANDING their REFUNDS!

 

 

This should now become a class action with ALL those claiming refunds employing the best lawyers/Counsels money can buy!

 

The blair-brown gravy train and their friends in the City of London are now clearly concerned that the game is up so have called in a few 'favours'' to delay the inevitable victory of the Consumer and the people to reclaim their rights and their money.

 

Judicial review for bank charge waiver has been looked at in depth and discounted as no prospect of success.

[diddydicky]

well i have read all these threads with interest, here is my (non legal ) take on all of this

 

There is too much negativity and hysteria being created when it is clear to anyone looking dispassionately at the facts that the omens are clearly good for the debtor not the creditor

 

 

why would the judge in question rule an appeal in favour of the debtor and then immediately seek to get in cahoots with mbna or anyone else with the intent to side with them - it doesn't make any sense!

 

I am convinced that this is part of a strategy to pull the plug on these claim companies and make the creditors aware that no prescribed terms means exactly that and that all courts will take the same line

 

 

ie NO prescribed terms on same document= no enforceable agreement= don't waste the courts time

 

As has been said there is too much case law up to the HOL to suggest that the whole thing will be turned back on its head

 

this will immediately kill off the claims industry which has sprung up (ripping clients off in the process) as the creditors will have no defence to these claims anymore and so prevent the vast majority of these claims ever coming to court. The debtor will be able to represent themselves as LIP with more confidence that the rules are being applied uniformly

 

That is my opinion

[Hopster]

let me join this one please.

[Hopster]

keep me posted on this one please.

[Docman]

well i have read all these threads with interest, here is my (non legal ) take on all of this

 

There is too much negativity and hysteria being created when it is clear to anyone looking dispassionately at the facts that the omens are clearly good for the debtor not the creditor

 

 

why would the judge in question rule an appeal in favour of the debtor and then immediately seek to get in cahoots with mbna or anyone else with the intent to side with them - it doesn't make any sense!

 

I am convinced that this is part of a strategy to pull the plug on these claim companies and make the creditors aware that no prescribed terms means exactly that and that all courts will take the same line

 

 

ie NO prescribed terms on same document= no enforceable agreement= don't waste the courts time

 

As has been said there is too much case law up to the HOL to suggest that the whole thing will be turned back on its head

 

this will immediately kill off the claims industry which has sprung up (ripping clients off in the process) as the creditors will have no defence to these claims anymore and so prevent the vast majority of these claims ever coming to court. The debtor will be able to represent themselves as LIP with more confidence that the rules are being applied uniformly

 

That is my opinion

 

 

A beacon of commonsense. I couldn't agree more.

[vjohn82]

well i have read all these threads with interest, here is my (non legal ) take on all of this

 

There is too much negativity and hysteria being created when it is clear to anyone looking dispassionately at the facts that the omens are clearly good for the debtor not the creditor

 

 

why would the judge in question rule an appeal in favour of the debtor and then immediately seek to get in cahoots with mbna or anyone else with the intent to side with them - it doesn't make any sense!

 

I am convinced that this is part of a strategy to pull the plug on these claim companies and make the creditors aware that no prescribed terms means exactly that and that all courts will take the same line

 

 

ie NO prescribed terms on same document= no enforceable agreement= don't waste the courts time

 

As has been said there is too much case law up to the HOL to suggest that the whole thing will be turned back on its head

 

this will immediately kill off the claims industry which has sprung up (ripping clients off in the process) as the creditors will have no defence to these claims anymore and so prevent the vast majority of these claims ever coming to court. The debtor will be able to represent themselves as LIP with more confidence that the rules are being applied uniformly

 

That is my opinion

 

What I have said all along...

 

The political equivalent is "gaining cross party support" - in other words an all encompassing direction, based upon precedent, to stop the raft of appeals going through the system which wastes the courts time.

[Baggio]

does anybody actually have the stats on the number of cases that actually go all the way to the courts?

 

and how many are settled out of court?

 

i would imagine the VERY large majority of claims never go near the courts.

[Hopster]

I have no info on this, just what I have read on CAG and I have read plenty !! I believe that they will all do a deal prior to court. What we want to know is whether some of these agreements are enforceable or not.

[vjohn82]

does anybody actually have the stats on the number of cases that actually go all the way to the courts?

 

and how many are settled out of court?

 

i would imagine the VERY large majority of claims never go near the courts.

 

I doubt there would be any statistics for this... when I settled out of court for a friend they made sure we signed a cofidentiality agreement which meant we couldn't release the outcome of the case to any other person. We wanted to go to the newspapers but obviously couldn't.

[masmit]

I doubt there would be any statistics for this... when I settled out of court for a friend they made sure we signed a cofidentiality agreement which meant we couldn't release the outcome of the case to any other person. We wanted to go to the newspapers but obviously couldn't.

in other words settled for compensation to be hushed,

& why not it is a personal claim i would.

[Tricky Dickie]

I have just spoken to Chester County Court and apparently the announcement made by Halbert last week only applies to cases WHERE THE DEBTOR IS TAKING ACTION AGAINST THE CREDITOR.

ALL ACTIONS WHERE THE CREDITOR IS TAKING ACTION AGAINST THE DEBTOR REMAIN UNAFFECTED AND WILL PROCEED AS NORMAL.

So much for justice,the intention is obviously that there will be a review and stay for people taking their lender to court but the lenders can sue our arses off as normal!

The defence I entered against MBNA action is that the agreement is in breach of the 1974 Consumer Credit Act so I asked the clerk to ask halbert to consider treating my case the same as the ones where the lenders are being taken to court by borrowers.

I will keep you posted about how things go.

[steven4064]

That is interesting TD - thanks for finding out.

[Tricky Dickie]

Interesting,I think its downright criminal and I will be really ****ed off if Halbert refuses to stay my case along with the others.

Can anyone advise ?

[Baggio]

Interesting,I think its downright criminal and I will be really ****ed off if Halbert refuses to stay my case along with the others.

Can anyone advise ?

 

That cannot and will not happen, that would make the conspiracy against the consumer so bloody obvious.