Unenforceability Cases on hold until further notice

[42man]

This might be speculation about MBNA's unenforceable agreements !!!

[Tricky Dickie]

This letter came from a mortgage broker who refers people to this Ultimate Law outfit to deal with PPI claims

[Lula]

OK, so not all claims are stayed, and, unless you hear specifically from your court, carry on as normal.

[citizenB]

CB -we are all thinking the same;)

 

We certainly are

[Tricky Dickie]

OK, so not all claims are stayed, and, unless you hear specifically from your court, carry on as normal.

 

The letter from the court states that all cases in that court will be stayed until the test cases take place but how long will it be before all othe courts follow suit?

[Tricky Dickie]

Please forgive my ignorance but if they can do it in Cheshire how long before the cases are stayed everywhere else?

Don't know how to attach stuff here but have copied and pasted a letter from a law firm in Cheshire.

 

 

6th May 2009

 

Dear [client]

 

 

PPI and Unenforceability Claims

 

 

Yesterday evening we received notification from the court in Chester that all enforceability claims are to be stayed pending a decision of a few select “test cases” in London.

 

 

We appreciate that this news comes as a great disappointment to our clients.

 

 

 

We would now clarify the situation as follows:

 

 

 

1) Credit Card & Loan Enforceability Claims

 

 

Where we are pursuing credit card or Loan enforceability claims, these claims have now been stayed. That is to say they are on hold awaiting the outcome of test cases that will be heard in London.

 

We cannot advise how long this process will take – it could take some considerable time – probably in excess of 6 months. As soon as there has been a decision by the court in London, we will update you and advise you of your options. If the stay is lifted, it may then be possible to continue to progress your case to court.

 

Whilst court action is no longer a route open to us, we shall continue to progress cases directly with lenders and endeavour to reach a satisfactory outcome without recourse to the courts.

 

It is important that you continue to meet your monthly payments on your credit cards / loans unless we advise otherwise.

 

If you have advised us that you wish to pursue the refund of credit card charges, we will continue to progress this aspect.

 

 

 

2) PPI claims

 

 

PPI claims are separate claims to unenforceability claims and can still be progressed. We will continue to progress PPI claims accordingly.

 

It is important that you should continue to meet your loan payments as they fall due unless we advise you otherwise.

 

We understand the disappointment that this news brings and will of course update you as soon as the situation becomes clearer or there has been a development with your case. In the meantime, we would kindly request that you do not contact us, as we have no further information other than that which is referred to in this letter.

 

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

 

 

Ultimate Law Limited

Edited May 7, 2009 by citizenB
title amended on merged posts

[Lula]

hav e you actually received a letter from the court addressed to you?

[banker_rhymes_with]

Is it me, or does anyone else feel that certain DCAs could be spreading some disinformation here?

 

Cheers,

BRW

[angry cat]

Have checked on the Law Society;

Ultimate Law are indeed registered.

 

I took a look at their website, looks like they are a 'no win, no fee' firm.

 

Interesting that they cite chester;

MBNA are based in Chester.

 

I also am aware that Stephensons have a case being heard around now;

Stephensons use Bradley Say.

 

AC

[underdog13]

Is it me, or does anyone else feel that certain DCAs could be spreading some disinformation here?

 

Cheers,

BRW

 

God, I hope that's all it is, BRW:-|

[Tricky Dickie]

hav e you actually received a letter from the court addressed to you?

 

 

No the letters are addressed to third parties and I just have copies however I have been in touch with a solicitor I know who deals with such cases and he tells me his company is seeking clarification from the Chester High Court on the grounds that there has already been good case law such as Hurstanger and Wilson regarding the vast majority of cases which deal with the prescribed terms which has been tested in the House of Lords.His company will therefore be arguing that there is no reason or justification for these cases to be stayed in that it will not be in the public interest for that to be the case.

Regarding cases which deal with non prescribed term breaches they can be welcomed as that may serve to clarify some grey areas and even open up additional means to claim on

[angry cat]

There has also been a challenge by Lloyds Tsb and Barclays re: PPI:

 

Daniella Lipszyc, a solicitor specialising in financial irregularity at Ultimate Law says:

The banks are using the legal system to overturn a justifable ban, I am aghast and disgusted."

 

AC

[Tricky Dickie]

I have been in touch with a solicitor I know who deals with such cases and he tells me his company is seeking clarification from the Chester High Court on the grounds that there has already been good case law such as Hurstanger and Wilson regarding the vast majority of cases which deal with the prescribed terms which has been tested in the House of Lords.His company will therefore be arguing that there is no reason or justification for these cases to be stayed in that it will not be in the public interest for that to be the case.

Regarding cases which deal with non prescribed term breaches they can be welcomed as that may serve to clarify some grey areas and even open up additional means to claim on

[broken arrow]

Has anybody contacted Chester Court?

[angry cat]

MBNA methinks...

AC

[creditcardmug]

Theres no recipient apparent on the letter... a bit odd...who was he writing to?

Edited May 7, 2009 by citizenB
title amended on merged posts

[underdog13]

I have been in touch with a solicitor I know who deals with such cases and he tells me his company is seeking clarification from the Chester High Court on the grounds that there has already been good case law such as Hurstanger and Wilson regarding the vast majority of cases which deal with the prescribed terms which has been tested in the House of Lords.His company will therefore be arguing that there is no reason or justification for these cases to be stayed in that it will not be in the public interest for that to be the case.

Regarding cases which deal with non prescribed term breaches they can be welcomed as that may serve to clarify some grey areas and even open up additional means to claim on

 

That's good to know, TD.

 

I must admit, I thought the same as the solicitor you refer with regards to existing case law (though I'm just a layperson). The only reason I can see for these cases to be stayed and new 'test cases' - carefully selected of course - is to benefit the creditor.

 

Makes one wonder if someone, somewhere along the line is in receipt of brown envelopes stuffed with cash....

Edited May 7, 2009 by citizenB

[steven4064]

Whats the significance of Cheshire-and in particular Chester......MBNA live there ?

Yes they do Edited May 7, 2009 by citizenB
title amended on merged post

[WelshMam2009]

Theres no recipient apparent on the letter... a bit odd...who was he writing to?

 

Note it's not dated...has to involve MBNA...

 

This letter is being sent to all parties in all CCA cases which have so far been commenced in Cheshire

Edited May 7, 2009 by citizenB
title amended on merged post

[angry cat]

Theres no recipient apparent on the letter... a bit odd...who was he writing to?

 

Yes, very odd!

did the above letter come from the Ultimate Law website?

 

I actually looked on there today; idle curiosity as they were mentioned in the Mail; 2 May 2009.

Nothing showed up this afternoon.

 

AC

Edited May 7, 2009 by citizenB
title amended on merged post

[angry cat]

OOH, I (amongst others) have had a run in with Chester TS re: MBNA.

 

Now this!

Did someone mention brown envelopes?

 

AC

Edited May 7, 2009 by citizenB
title amended on merged post

[angry cat]

Nothing showing on the Ultimate Law website!

 

AC

Edited May 7, 2009 by citizenB
title amended on merged post

[pt2537]

I have been in touch with a solicitor I know who deals with such cases and he tells me his company is seeking clarification from the Chester High Court on the grounds that there has already been good case law such as Hurstanger and Wilson regarding the vast majority of cases which deal with the prescribed terms which has been tested in the House of Lords.His company will therefore be arguing that there is no reason or justification for these cases to be stayed in that it will not be in the public interest for that to be the case.

Regarding cases which deal with non prescribed term breaches they can be welcomed as that may serve to clarify some grey areas and even open up additional means to claim on

Absolutely , there is already sufficient established case law that sets the ground work out clearly

 

the problem is that the agreements we see, they contain all manner of different combinations of errors, for most of them, there is established case law to show the law on misstated prescribed terms etc, so i fear that staying all claims will only serve to help the creditors who will be left with the ability to expect repayment of loans while the debtor is left with no recourse

Edited May 7, 2009 by citizenB
title amended on merged post

[Tricky Dickie]

The letter was sent to a third party who deals with Ultimate Law and I was then sent it and asked to comment

Edited May 7, 2009 by citizenB
title amended on merged post

[creditcardmug]

The letter was sent to a third party who deals with Ultimate Law and I was then sent it and asked to comment

 

No, sorry i meant the letter sequest put up

Edited May 7, 2009 by citizenB
title amended on merged posts