Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Just circling back with a thanks and an apology.   Apologies because, I honestly thought I'd replied to thank everyone and update, but turns out I hadn't. Sorry. So first of all, a big big thanks to the Forum and all those that helped me on this thread, especially @dx100uk and @AndyOrch. The work you do is awesome and I'm sure I'm only one of many who are extremely grateful for your support. So, in terms of a belated update, Moriarty withdrew, well they said ADCB did. So that's a result. Whilst that was a few years back, I still get emails from odd 'agents' locally in UAE - usually at a weekend - or reminders from ADCB. The sums offered by the agents for a settlement are a fraction of the sums that were claimed - like 75% less - so one would presume if one wished to settle, dealing direct with ADCB may be even less. If it helps anyone, what I would say is this. 1) Listen to the advice from the trusted sources on here. They know their onions. 2) It can seem overwhelming to a layman with all this legal jargon, but don't let it scare you. Just take it a step at a time, listen and learn as much as you can from other threads, and trust the process. 3) I was surprised how shambolic Moriarty appeared to be in my case. Don't ever think the other party is above you in terms of knowledge, experience or how they will conduct themselves. Whilst it was during the pandemic, even on the remote calls with the court, in one instance Moriarty didn't even bother attending the call. In other instances, they didn't reply to certain requests I made via court process. Finally, they just give up the ghost, and a few years later I received confirmation of discontinuance. I'm not saying my experience is/was/may be typical, but what I took from it was it simply came down to brinksmanship and them playing the percentages on their part. Play the long game, take good advice, there's nothing to be scared off and if it's anything like my situation, you may well win the day. The longer things went on, the more you will feel you're on the right side. Especially once it gets into all the process, form submission and involvement of the court, stick to your guns and follow the advice.  It's nothing scientific, but if every case was like mine, it seems like these folks have the view that at some point, the defendant will crumble and give in, through fear or otherwise, so it's important to stay brave and keep pushing forward because the further you go, the more it will tilt in your favour. Play a straight bat and the long game. I've now come back to post due to another situation, different debt, and will start a new thread in due course.   So keep your chins up, fight the good fight and good luck to all, and sincere thanks for all the help.  
    • The NTK needs to be redacted, your VRN is still showing.
    • Hi, yes they swapped over after a brief period when the bank were sending something over.
    • Fair enough. But I don't understand why they send these letters. Do people really get scared and end up paying them?
    • That's a blessed relief. They would have been withdrawn because, as I said, they have no evidence that you were driving. That comes from the responses to the requests for driver's details which you failed to send. The important thing is that the speeding charges were laid. That makes life much easier (and far more likely to see a successful outcome). You need to make your SD and serve it on the court where you were convicted. The next you should hear is by way of a "Single Justice Procedure Notice" laying the four charges against you again. You will have three options (for each charge): Plead Guilty and do not attend court Plead guilty and attend court Plead not guilty You must plead Not Guilty to all charges. In the section headed “reason for not guilty plea” you can state that you will offer to plead guilty to the speeding charging providing, and only providing, the FtP charges are dropped. This is a procedure well known to all court users (prosecutors, magistrates and their legal advisors) and is carried out up and down the land daily. I’ll refer to it as “the deal”. Before the pandemic it was necessary to attend court to undertake this deal and speak to the prosecutor (the agreement of the prosecutor is required as the court cannot accept it without that agreement).  However, during the pandemic courts aimed to reduce the numbers of people required to attend to an absolute minimum and most courts accepted a written request to do the deal. Local police prosecutors made an agreement with their courts that the magistrates’ legal advisors could accept the deal. In some areas this arrangement has carried on. In others they have reverted to the old process where attendance was required. So your offer of the “deal” with either be accepted in writing and dealt with under the Single Justice procedure or you may have to attend court. In either event it is important to emphasise that you will plead guilty to speeding only if the FtP charges are dropped.  There may be slight variations to the process depending on how the individual area works but there is no reason why this should not be successful.    
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Unenforceability Cases on hold until further notice


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5337 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

I won't go into to the why's & wherefore's that's already been done other than to say this judgement is bad law in that a consumer simply exercising their legal rights can be deemed as untrustworthy when it come to obtaining future credit. In other words creditors can form a black list of those who have succeeded in enforcing their lawful rights making it difficult if not impossible for them move on in any meaningful way

 

JC,

 

I agree strongly, that is the real outcome of this judgment.

 

Dad

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

JC,

 

I agree strongly, that is the real outcome of this judgment.

 

Dad

 

 

Of course it is. How dare the plebs enforce their legal rights to the detriment of the establishment money men ........... they must be punished:mad:

 

Not only have we got bent bankers we also have the judiciary helping them

Link to post
Share on other sites

is anybody really surprised about bent judges beign involved?

 

but... have no fear.... the more of a con they make of actual law, the more of a fuss that will be kicked up on appeals from the consumer/CMC side, fuelling thousands more claims.

 

not a good idea for the banks, they should quietly shut up and get on with it, brown paper bagging judges will inevitably result in a huge scandal.

 

there is no doubt this is happening in my mind and many others, i have even heard there maybe some kind of undercover reporter who is pro the consumer, who is going to deeply ingrate himself into the system to prove these judges are taking backhanders.

 

interesting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The claimant was represented by Andrew Moran QC & Brendan Burke instructed by MJP Justice Ltd.

 

According ot his website Andrew Moran seems to specialise in:

 

  • General Commercial Litigation with a bias towards all aspects of shipping law
  • Personal injury – including accidents at sea, on offshore installations and in ports & harbours

Andrew Moran has a particular speciality in claims & prosecutions arising from marine and river pollution

  • Financial Services matters
  • Professional negligence with particular expertise in clinical negligence
  • Regulatory matters –arising in Environmental Law & Health and Safety Law

and MLP Justice seem to concentrate on personal injury compensation claims.

 

So that probably says it all!

 

Would you have chosen these people to represent you in relation to a Consumer Credit case??? :-o

 

Wonder if they arrived at court in a boat? And what was its cargo? :D

 

Male cowdung perhaps!

Link to post
Share on other sites

i have even heard there maybe some kind of undercover reporter who is pro the consumer, who is going to deeply ingrate himself into the system to prove these judges are taking backhanders.

 

interesting.

 

Very interesting, send him our way if you like :cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course it is. How dare the plebs enforce their legal rights to the detriment of the establishment money men ........... they must be punished:mad:

 

Not only have we got bent bankers we also have the judiciary helping them

 

Quite So!

 

Couldn't agree more.

 

Looks like it's;

Let Bash the Consumer...

 

AC

Link to post
Share on other sites

Enraged...

The Barrister for RBS, Mr. Handyside QC put forward to the Court that RBS were a Responsible lender: Utter Poppy Cock.

 

The Consumer bailed out RBS because they were NOT a responsible lender!

 

Furthermore, there are so many RBS cases on CAG that provide evidence to the effect that, RBS was an Irresponsible Lender

Link to post
Share on other sites

if you have the most money then you can buy the biggest bulls**ter and RBS's Bulls**ter, bulls**ted over the little bulls**ter. In this case a fishermans friend

 

i was up in court a little while ago on sexual offences charges and i was coughing a lot as i gave evidence

 

the judge said to me

 

"would you like to suck a fishermans friend"

 

I replied

 

"thank you M'lud- but don't you think i am in enough f****ing trouble already!

:D:D:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

 

http://www.credittoday.co.uk/news/news-item.cfm?news=1359

 

Screw tightens on claims management firms - 08/10/2009

 

Royal Bank of Scotland has secured a victory in a consumer credit case that a law firm said will "tighten the screw" on claims management companies’ practices.

 

Mr Justice Flaux found in favour of RBS in its case against Phillip McGuffick who sought to declare that a £17,000 loan from the bank was irredeemably unenforceable under sections 61 and 127 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

But in the Commercial Court, at the Royal Courts of Justice, it was concluded that claimants seeking to prove their credit agreements are unenforceable under the Act are still liable for monies owed.

 

During the case it emerged that only two repayments were made to RBS between August 2006 and May 2007, when 10 monthly payments of £346 were due. Since June 2007, the total amount owed has been £15,066.

 

The account was referred to Callcredit, Experian and Equifax and the debt recovery process was referred to Apex Credit Management, but to no effect. It was then referred to Capquest but again no repayments were made.

 

The claimant’s solicitors, MJP Justice, then wrote to the bank in February this year to dispute the credit agreement on the grounds that no reference was made to credit reference agencies in the original agreement.

 

MJP asked for documents relating to the original loan agreement and argued that while the debt was in dispute, no enforcement action could be taken. RBS has received hundreds of similar requests from solicitors and claims management firms for the same purpose.

 

But Mr Justice Flaux ruled that the claimant could not prevent RBS from making reports of the claimant’s non-payment to the credit reference agencies (CRAs). The court was asked whether the passing of information to the CRAs breached data protection law, but the court found the sharing of information to be lawful and legitimate.

 

The case was referred to the Commercial Court with a view to define and clarify the meaning of enforcement in the context of the Consumer Credit Act.

 

Law firm Eversheds said the case succeeded in doing so and it will be "invaluable" to all lenders now dealing with challenges to the enforceability of agreements.

 

The court decided that bringing legal proceeding is only a step taken with a view to enforcement and not actually enforcement. Consequently, steps taken before proceedings start, including demanding payment and threatening legal action, cannot be enforcement.

 

The court also found that demanding payment, issuing a default notice, threatening legal action and bringing legal proceedings did not constitute enforcement either.

 

Chris Busby, partner at Eversheds, said: "The decision undermines the practice of panel solicitors at claims management companies selling their services based on identifying unenforceable credit agreements. CMCs should now be warning customers that running these arguments and ceasing repayment of loans will have an adverse impact on credit ratings."

 

Claims management firm Cartal Client Review, which was not involved in the RBS case, called on the Ministry of Justice to review how claims management companies are regulated.

 

Carl Wright, chief executive of Cartel, said: "I believe the MoJ should hold a joint consultation with leading financial claims management companies to agree a set of standards that can be implemented across the industry to protect and better inform consumers."

[SIZE=2][COLOR=SeaGreen][FONT=Verdana][URL="http://www.nationaldebtline.co.uk/"][/URL][/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE]

Link to post
Share on other sites

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

 

http://www.credittoday.co.uk/news/news-item.cfm?news=1359[/quote]

 

 

Nice to see that rather than reading the actual judgement the journo has just printed whatever RBS' solicitors told him.

I have no legal qualifications whatsoever, so please check any input I have for accuracy. And please correct me if you disagree!

Link to post
Share on other sites

'The court also found that demanding payment, issuing a default notice, threatening legal action and bringing legal proceedings did not constitute enforcement either. '

 

This is blantantly incorrect - Im certain that the judge stated RBS has acted appropriately during the period of non-compliance with s77 precisely because they didnt take these actions.

I have no legal qualifications whatsoever, so please check any input I have for accuracy. And please correct me if you disagree!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yes...

 

Spin... Spin... Spin... and more Spin :-)

 

S.

 

That's a lot more polite than I would have put it. ;):oops:

[SIZE=2][COLOR=SeaGreen][FONT=Verdana][URL="http://www.nationaldebtline.co.uk/"][/URL][/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Handyside QC, may have been able to pull the wool over The Honourable Mr. Justice Flaux's eyes, in his opinion that the RBS is a Responsible Lender.

That may well be the case now, bearing in mind that the Bank is 70% owned by the taxpayer.

 

But,who in their right mind could describe this Bank as a Responsible Lender prior to its near collapse?

 

And, why did Judge Halbert of his own motion refer this case to the Commercial Court in London?

 

Methinks, that there is more to this than meets the eye...

 

As for Credit Todays spin on the case;

my words are too rude too write!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not currently informed enough to comment on the specific case here (although it doesnt sound right at all and the waters have been muddied further), however, I have recently sent CCA requests to banks.

 

What I want to know is, how does this affect people challenging the validity of their credit agreements, does it simply mean you should continue to make payments until the question of whether the agreement is enforceable has been answered? If it is enforcable, pay as normal, if it is found not to be, should payments then be withheld?

 

If you make payments as required, they cant note your credit file with adverse information can they?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not currently informed enough to comment on the specific case here (although it doesnt sound right at all and the waters have been muddied further), however, I have recently sent CCA requests to banks.

 

What I want to know is, how does this affect people challenging the validity of their credit agreements, does it simply mean you should continue to make payments until the question of whether the agreement is enforceable has been answered? If it is enforcable, pay as normal, if it is found not to be, should payments then be withheld?

 

If you make payments as required, they cant note your credit file with adverse information can they?

 

There's moral considerations to be made there.

 

If you continue paying, you're effectively acknowledging the debt each time, therefore can't legitimately dispute the enforceability of it - "well, you've been repaying it all these years", a Judge will say.

 

On the other hand, if you don't pay you will be Defaulted - enforceable or not, and this Judgment will be used against lesser minded mortals that don't know their rights.

 

Also, if you don't pay and they don't take you to Court, what are you going to do? Live with a Default that is inaccurate for 6 years? No way, Jose...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Handyside QC, may have been able to pull the wool over The Honourable Mr. Justice Flaux's eyes, in his opinion that the RBS is a Responsible Lender.

That may well be the case now, bearing in mind that the Bank is 70% owned by the taxpayer.

 

But,who in their right mind could describe this Bank as a Responsible Lender prior to its near collapse?

 

And, why did Judge Halbert of his own motion refer this case to the Commercial Court in London?

 

Methinks, that there is more to this than meets the eye...

 

As for Credit Todays spin on the case;

 

my words are too rude too write!

 

Halbert did not refer this case to the Commercial Court of his own motion,at the case conference in Chester in May he asked ther assembled legal teams to propose cases to be heard and RBS legal representative asked for this one to be heard.There was no objection from the claimants legal representative so Halbert refered it.

Maybe the claimants solicitor should have objected?

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5337 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...