Unenforceability Cases on hold until further notice

[dad]

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

[JonCris]

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

[Baggio]

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.

[diddydicky]

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???

 

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

 

Male cowdung perhaps!

[AA99]

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

[angry cat]

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

[angry cat]

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

[kel123]

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

[diddydicky]

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

[AA99]

:d:d

[kel123]

good one.....or too salty (sorry about that) LOL

[fermi]

: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."

[haggis1984]

: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.

[the_shadow]

:rolleyes:

 

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

 

 

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

 

Oh yes...

 

Spin... Spin... Spin... and more Spin

 

S.

[JonCris]

:rolleyes:

 

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

 

Apparently Lord Denning was wrong an elephant is NOT an elephant

 

This judgement MUST be challenged

[the_shadow]

Apparently Lord Denning was wrong an elephant is NOT an elephant

 

This judgement MUST be challenged

 

Everyone says the same re: Rankine but it hasnt yet has it

 

Banks have deep pockets ;-)

 

S.

[JonCris]

PS the court did NOT say the debtor was still liable in law They might still owe the money The debt doesn't disappear but it can't be recovered by recourse to the courts as the agreement is unenforceable

[haggis1984]

'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.

[fermi]

Oh yes...

 

Spin... Spin... Spin... and more Spin

 

S.

 

That's a lot more polite than I would have put it.

[angry cat]

PS the court did NOT say the debtor was still liable in law They might still owe the money The debt doesn't disappear but it can't be recovered by recourse to the courts as the agreement is unenforceable

 

Correct!

[angry cat]

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!

[along]

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?

[car2403]

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...

[Tricky Dickie]

Oh yes...

 

Spin... Spin... Spin... and more Spin

 

S.

 

 

Could have been worse the Journo could have quoted Daniella Lipsynk

[Tricky Dickie]

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?