Unenforceability Cases on hold until further notice

[the main man]

Note, the press are on to it!

 

Judge freezes credit claims

 

AC

 

This made me laugh..

 

"In reality, cases have simply ground to a halt as banks and lenders up their game and become more clued up on the Consumer Credit Act and subsidiary legislation"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Obama's stress test has caused the BoA to catch a cold, this has now mutated into a form of Chester swine flu.

[twobeercans]

subbing with interest

[star_scream]

My copy of the CCA 1974 gives s189 as definitions. Am I looking at the wrong thing?

 

What does s189 say?

[paulwlton]

Think its more to do with Unfair Relationships & probably multiple agreements. Bradley Say's appeal case is being heard by Court of Appeal in October.

 

Can you expand please?

 

I have an hearing on Tuesday...could this be stayed now?

Edited May 8, 2009 by paulwlton

[angry cat]

Can you expand please?

 

I have an hearing on Tuesday...could this be stayed now?

 

At present, I believe that the stays are just in Chester but of course, that could change over the next 2 weeks.

 

Best to speak to your court manager and obtain the status of your hearing.

 

AC

[angry cat]

I will make a comment that most likely will not be popular.

 

Unless one is extremely knowledgable and/or, one has saught Counsels opinion, it would be foolish to go rushing into litigation, requesting a declaration of unenforceability.

 

One should only follow that route if one has a high percentage chance of winning.

Furthermore, all other avenues must be followed prior to such action.

 

The consequence of failure would seriously impact on so many members who are patiently following protocols.

 

"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread"

 

AC

[Desperate Daniella]

Absolutely agree with you, AC

 

DD

[the_shadow]

I will make a comment that most likely will not be popular.

 

Unless one is extremely knowledgable and/or, one has saught Counsels opinion, it would be foolish to go rushing into litigation, requesting a declaration of unenforceability.

 

One should only follow that route if one has a high percentage chance of winning.

Furthermore, all other avenues must be followed prior to such action.

 

The consequence of failure would seriously impact on so many members who are patiently following protocols.

 

"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread"

 

AC

 

Maybe not popular but very valid, the system is automatically weighted against a LiP, shouldnt be but it clearly is........ and just look at what the rankines have managed to do, muddy the waters on what was a clear(ish) issue

 

S.

[tinkerbell20]

Maybe not popular but very valid, the system is automatically weighted against a LiP, shouldnt be but it clearly is........ and just look at what the rankines have managed to do, muddy the waters on what was a clear(ish) issue

 

S.

 

 

The test cases i9f properly argued are to be welcomed as it should result in assisting many LIP's by obviating the need to go to court

[the_shadow]

The test cases i9f properly argued are to be welcomed as it should result in assisting many LIP's by obviating the need to go to court

 

Perhaps I'm being deeply suspicious or just negative but I've seen what the bank stay has done... people still get defaulted, credit records still get wrecked.

 

I'd like to see a lot more information on what this stay means to people using unenforceability as a defence as opposed to going in as a claimant as surely the two will be linked.

 

S.

[steven4064]

What it should mean is that, if you get taken to court by a finance company or DCA and challenge the enforceabiilty of the agreement, the case should be stayed until the outcome of the 'test case'. We should certainly be asking for that in Defences, AQs, etc.

[WelshMam2009]

What it should mean is that, if you get taken to court by a finance company or DCA and challenge the enforceabiilty of the agreement, the case should be stayed until the outcome of the 'test case'. We should certainly be asking for that in Defences, AQs, etc.

 

 

But only for cases due to heard in Chester???

[Undercover-Elsa]

What it should mean is that, if you get taken to court by a finance company or DCA and challenge the enforceabiilty of the agreement, the case should be stayed until the outcome of the 'test case'. We should certainly be asking for that in Defences, AQs, etc.

Thanks for clarifying Stephen. Only thing I'm not sure on is: can payment legally be witheld throughout the stay?

Elsa x

[Tricky Dickie]

Note, the press are on to it!

 

Judge freezes credit claims

 

AC

 

Interesting ,when I went on line to look at his article earlier this morning there was a facility for people to post opinions about the article but now it has been taken down.Somebody must not have liked what was being posted

[pinknico]

Does this in anyway affect Secret Commission cases?

[count orlok]

"The ruling means that over-indebted borrowers will have to carrying on repaying loans until a judgement is made." I would have thought that the oposite also applied, if you are making reduced payments on the advice of a 3rd party, and the creditors are saying you must pay more, they too will have to carry on accepting lower or no payments untill a judgement is made. Also in the many cases where there is no agreement I can see no reason why they should not carry on as before.

 

Surelly there can only be a case to hold where there is an original agreement to make a judgement on. No CCA still must mean no case?

[Cougar1]

subbing

[blueboy987]

Whilst the details still seem a bit sketchy, isn't this potentially good news?

 

If a lender files a claim for a debt that falls under the CCA, it should mean that a carefully worded defence will result in the claim being immediately stayed.

 

If anything, I can see lenders being more up in arms about this decision as it could put a stop to them getting their money back through the courts for a couple of years due to the appeals processes.

[Undercover-Elsa]

Interesting ,when I went on line to look at his article earlier this morning there was a facility for people to post opinions about the article but now it has been taken down.Somebody must not have liked what was being posted

Oops I did have a bit of a go at that sanctimonious pratt Robert from London... sure others must have too LOL

[WelshMam2009]

"The ruling means that over-indebted borrowers will have to carrying on repaying loans until a judgement is made."

 

It's only horsey Daniella and her company Ultimate Law who have made that statement, as far as I can tell.

[WelshMam2009]

Oops I did have a bit of a go at that sanctimonious pratt Robert from London... sure others must have too LOL

 

Yeah, I wrote something about it taking the banks since 1974 to become "clued up" about the Consumer Credit Act!!

[WelshMam2009]

If a lender files a claim for a debt that falls under the CCA, it should mean that a carefully worded defence will result in the claim being immediately stayed.

 

I didn't think the stay was binding on other courts, outside of Chester.

[Cougar1]

Does any body else think that UK26 pending case might have some influence on the reasons for trying to change the law

[Kraken1]

I'm having difficulty trying to work out what specifically the test case is intended to determine especialy that there's allready relevant case law that would prove most cases in the debtor's favour.

 

But many of those cases predated the 2006 changes which ran in some form up to Oct last year. Whilst some points will still be valid, others, such as those that rely on 127(3) won't be. Then there are weird decisions in the CC and like Rankine etc. Add in the new directive next year and I think a fair chunk of everything is a bit up in the air. If everything is so set and so clear why are lenders suing, debtors defending and why are they all getting different judgements?

 

Whilst the details still seem a bit sketchy, isn't this potentially good news?

 

If a lender files a claim for a debt that falls under the CCA, it should mean that a carefully worded defence will result in the claim being immediately stayed.

 

If anything, I can see lenders being more up in arms about this decision as it could put a stop to them getting their money back through the courts for a couple of years due to the appeals processes.

 

I would agree - I can see claims management cos and lenders being a tad miffed about this, but I think it could be beneficial generally. It might result in a huge number of claims being issued though; lenders will need to issue anyway to prevent some claims being barred.

 

I don't think that there is any conspiracy about this, just lots of similar claims and lots of contradictory judgements; and the thought that some of these companies doing this are ropey.

[Tricky Dickie]

I didn't think the stay was binding on other courts, outside of Chester.

 

 

The letter from Derek R Halbert from Cheshire County Court says that 'the proposal is to select the test cases and then stay all others until the test cases have established the requisite principals'

It then says that representations are invited from all parties in all CCA cases which have commenced in Cheshire but nowhere does it specify that only cases in Cheshire will be stayed.

Elsewhere in the letter it mentions that a number of claims being submitted nationally and an estimate of 100,000 claims being mentioned which sounds a lot for Cheshire alone.

My interpretation is that whilst the test cases will come from those in Cheshire any stay will apply to all cases nationally