Unenforceability Cases on hold until further notice

[angry cat]

Yes, tinkerbell, I have read that article!

[bobby9983]

I just received this in from a credit claims company I have an affiation with...

CIRCULAR REGARDING POTENTIAL STAY ON CCA CLAIMS

We are writing to provide information concerning a recent letter sent by Judge Halbert at Chester County court requesting representations regarding the proposal to determine some issues relating to Consumer Credit Act claims. We have read a number of e mail circulars regarding this issue, many of which are inaccurate and wide of the mark. We would like to dispel myths and provide an accurate account of the current position.

On 8th April 2009 a judgement was formally handed down by his honour Judge Halbert at Chester County Court a copy of this judgement is attached. It will be noted that the judgement represented a complete and unequivocal victory for the consumer, Mr Michael John Walker. Judge Halbert determined that SPPL had breached a prescribed term of the CCA and accordingly that the loan could not be enforced by them. He went a stage further, he indicated that there was also a schedule 1 (non prescribed term) breach. Although he was not obliged to make a finding in respect of the schedule 1 breach because he had already found that the agreement was unenforceable. He indicated within his judgment that in respect of the schedule 1 breach the court would not have exercised its discretion to allow the lender to enforce the agreement in any event.

In light of this complete victory by the consumer, SPPL have understandably appealed against the decision. As a result of this judgement a large number of cases are understood to have been issued or are expected to be issued at Chester County Court.

On 1st May, Judge Halbert sent a letter to all interested parties inviting representations regarding the proposal of certain distinct issues relating to CCA claims being considered by way of test cases. We have today been in a meeting with (Name removed) QC and we understand that (Name removed) QC will be attending to make representations in this regard. We further understand that the lenders do not wish for there to be a blanket stay on all CCA claims. The result of a blanket stay in relation to these issues could be disastrous for the lenders. In any claim where they sought to recover payments from a borrower and that borrower alleged unenforceability issues the banks claim would be stayed pending determination of the test cases. This would mean in the interim period the lender could not force the borrower to continue paying.

(Name removed) Ltd would welcome the determination of certain issues which currently represent grey areas, since this would provide additional certainty to the litigation process. A blanket stay on all CCA claims issues is unnecessary and would not be welcomed by consumers or banks alike. Contrary to some inaccurate reports we have read, there is currently no blanket stay on CCA cases. We understand that (Name removed) QC will be putting forward representations that will benefit the interests of (Name removed)’s client’s, introducers and Panel Solicitors’.

We would once again reiterate that the judgement of Judge Halbert handed down on 8th April 2009 was unequivocally in the favour of the consumer, that there is no blanket stay on CCA claims as some reports have misstated and that the judgement and opportunity to resolve certain issues can only be seen as a positive development.

We will of course keep you informed of any developments in relation to this issue and also make you aware of any further successfully decided cases for consumers.

[angry cat]

I just received this in from a credit claims company I have an affiation with...

CIRCULAR REGARDING POTENTIAL STAY ON CCA CLAIMS

We are writing to provide information concerning a recent letter sent by Judge Halbert at Chester County court requesting representations regarding the proposal to determine some issues relating to Consumer Credit Act claims. We have read a number of e mail circulars regarding this issue, many of which are inaccurate and wide of the mark. We would like to dispel myths and provide an accurate account of the current position.

On 8th April 2009 a judgement was formally handed down by his honour Judge Halbert at Chester County Court a copy of this judgement is attached. It will be noted that the judgement represented a complete and unequivocal victory for the consumer, Mr Michael John Walker. Judge Halbert determined that SPPL had breached a prescribed term of the CCA and accordingly that the loan could not be enforced by them. He went a stage further, he indicated that there was also a schedule 1 (non prescribed term) breach. Although he was not obliged to make a finding in respect of the schedule 1 breach because he had already found that the agreement was unenforceable. He indicated within his judgment that in respect of the schedule 1 breach the court would not have exercised its discretion to allow the lender to enforce the agreement in any event.

In light of this complete victory by the consumer, SPPL have understandably appealed against the decision. As a result of this judgement a large number of cases are understood to have been issued or are expected to be issued at Chester County Court.

On 1st May, Judge Halbert sent a letter to all interested parties inviting representations regarding the proposal of certain distinct issues relating to CCA claims being considered by way of test cases. We have today been in a meeting with (Name removed) QC and we understand that (Name removed) QC will be attending to make representations in this regard. We further understand that the lenders do not wish for there to be a blanket stay on all CCA claims. The result of a blanket stay in relation to these issues could be disastrous for the lenders. In any claim where they sought to recover payments from a borrower and that borrower alleged unenforceability issues the banks claim would be stayed pending determination of the test cases. This would mean in the interim period the lender could not force the borrower to continue paying.

(Name removed) Ltd would welcome the determination of certain issues which currently represent grey areas, since this would provide additional certainty to the litigation process. A blanket stay on all CCA claims issues is unnecessary and would not be welcomed by consumers or banks alike. Contrary to some inaccurate reports we have read, there is currently no blanket stay on CCA cases. We understand that (Name removed) QC will be putting forward representations that will benefit the interests of (Name removed)’s client’s, introducers and Panel Solicitors’.

We would once again reiterate that the judgement of Judge Halbert handed down on 8th April 2009 was unequivocally in the favour of the consumer, that there is no blanket stay on CCA claims as some reports have misstated and that the judgement and opportunity to resolve certain issues can only be seen as a positive development.

We will of course keep you informed of any developments in relation to this issue and also make you aware of any further successfully decided cases for consumers.

 

Okay!

You are a mortgage broker, is that correct bobby?

 

AC

[bobby9983]

Okay!

You are a mortgage broker, is that correct bobby?

 

AC

 

Lets say I have an interest in the financial services industry. I have had my eye on the financial claims management industry since it started about 12 months ago. The quote above is from a company I deal with. I thought their take on it may be helpful to the discussion. I have removed names to protect the innocent (?!) as it were.

[angry cat]

Thanks for the clarification but in prior posts you did state that you are a mortgage broker?

 

I presume, your post number: 202 came from the same source as this:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-2149296.html

 

AC

Edited May 8, 2009 by angry cat
error

[WelshMam2009]

Lets say I have an interest in the financial services industry. I have had my eye on the financial claims management industry since it started about 12 months ago. The quote above is from a company I deal with. I thought their take on it may be helpful to the discussion. I have removed names to protect the innocent (?!) as it were.

 

Out of sheer curiosity, are you able to post up the Walker judgement referred to??

[Tricky Dickie]

Lets say I have an interest in the financial services industry. I have had my eye on the financial claims management industry since it started about 12 months ago. The quote above is from a company I deal with. I thought their take on it may be helpful to the discussion. I have removed names to protect the innocent (?!) as it were.

 

Bobby thanks for that,the document you have posted mentions a copy of the judgenment being attached,is it possibel for you to put it up here please?

[angry cat]

Out of sheer curiosity, are you able to post up the Walker judgement referred to??

 

Yes, welshman that would be perhaps make matters clearer.

[WelshMam2009]

Yes, welshman that would be perhaps make matters clearer.

 

AC...I'm really starting to develop a complex with all this gender re-assignment taking place!!

[Tricky Dickie]

I just received this in from a credit claims company I have an affiation with...

 

 

 

 

CIRCULAR REGARDING POTENTIAL STAY ON CCA CLAIMS

 

We are writing to provide information concerning a recent letter sent by Judge Halbert at Chester County court requesting representations regarding the proposal to determine some issues relating to Consumer Credit Act claims. We have read a number of e mail circulars regarding this issue, many of which are inaccurate and wide of the mark. We would like to dispel myths and provide an accurate account of the current position.

On 8th April 2009 a judgement was formally handed down by his honour Judge Halbert at Chester County Court a copy of this judgement is attached. It will be noted that the judgement represented a complete and unequivocal victory for the consumer, Mr Michael John Walker. Judge Halbert determined that SPPL had breached a prescribed term of the CCA and accordingly that the loan could not be enforced by them. He went a stage further, he indicated that there was also a schedule 1 (non prescribed term) breach. Although he was not obliged to make a finding in respect of the schedule 1 breach because he had already found that the agreement was unenforceable. He indicated within his judgment that in respect of the schedule 1 breach the court would not have exercised its discretion to allow the lender to enforce the agreement in any event.

In light of this complete victory by the consumer, SPPL have understandably appealed against the decision. As a result of this judgement a large number of cases are understood to have been issued or are expected to be issued at Chester County Court.

On 1st May, Judge Halbert sent a letter to all interested parties inviting representations regarding the proposal of certain distinct issues relating to CCA claims being considered by way of test cases. We have today been in a meeting with (Name removed) QC and we understand that (Name removed) QC will be attending to make representations in this regard. We further understand that the lenders do not wish for there to be a blanket stay on all CCA claims. The result of a blanket stay in relation to these issues could be disastrous for the lenders. In any claim where they sought to recover payments from a borrower and that borrower alleged unenforceability issues the banks claim would be stayed pending determination of the test cases. This would mean in the interim period the lender could not force the borrower to continue paying.

(Name removed) Ltd would welcome the determination of certain issues which currently represent grey areas, since this would provide additional certainty to the litigation process. A blanket stay on all CCA claims issues is unnecessary and would not be welcomed by consumers or banks alike. Contrary to some inaccurate reports we have read, there is currently no blanket stay on CCA cases. We understand that (Name removed) QC will be putting forward representations that will benefit the interests of (Name removed)’s client’s, introducers and Panel Solicitors’.

We would once again reiterate that the judgement of Judge Halbert handed down on 8th April 2009 was unequivocally in the favour of the consumer, that there is no blanket stay on CCA claims as some reports have misstated and that the judgement and opportunity to resolve certain issues can only be seen as a positive development.

We will of course keep you informed of any developments in relation to this issue and also make you aware of any further successfully decided cases for consumers.

 

Before I saw this I had been told that Judge Halbert has been known previously to have favoured the consumer rather than the lender so this would probably explain the large number of cases being submitted there.

Also if claims companies are employing QCs to fight for the rights of consumers albeit clients of claims companies it can only benefit everyone

[yoda1312]

Over the last couple of weeks I have been taking in as much information as possible regarding CCA requests etc as I have the letters ready for despatch

to various credit card cos on Monday. A Big Thank you to all for your fantastic knowledge and support into this area.

I am not legally qualified but would it be reasonable to suppose that, whether this stay has or has not a national implication, putting in requests now will only add to the woes of the lenders?

The 12+2 rule will still apply one would presume?

Not trying to break into this thread just mainly wanted to say thank you to all above.

Edited May 8, 2009 by yoda1312

[creditcardmug]

Over the last couple of weeks I have been taking in as much information as possible regarding CCA requests etc as I have the letters ready for despatch

to various credit card cos on Monday. A Big Thank you to all for your fantastic knowledge and support into this area.

I am not legally qualified but would it be reasonable to suppose that, whether this stay has or has not a national implication, putting in requests now will only add to the woes of the lenders?

The 12+2 rule will still apply one would presume?

 

Since this only applies to court claims, it doesn't affect CCA requests

[paulwlton]

CAG gets a mention

 

BBC NEWS | Business | Judges seek hold on debt claims

[yoda1312]

Thank you ccmug

[angry cat]

AC...I'm really starting to develop a complex with all this gender re-assignment taking place!!

 

LOL!

Sorry WelshMam:)

 

Looks like Bobby has gone;

for now?

[angry cat]

CAG gets a mention

Indeed!

Not impressed with the comment from BBA though;

typical...

[yoda1312]

Originally Posted by yoda1312

Over the last couple of weeks I have been taking in as much information as possible regarding CCA requests etc as I have the letters ready for despatch

to various credit card cos on Monday. A Big Thank you to all for your fantastic knowledge and support into this area.

I am not legally qualified but would it be reasonable to suppose that, whether this stay has or has not a national implication, putting in requests now will only add to the woes of the lenders?

The 12+2 rule will still apply one would presume?

 

Many thanks ccmug you are one of caggers that's inspired me to proceed!

[steven4064]

CAG gets a mention

 

BBC NEWS | Business | Judges seek hold on debt claims

Unfortunately, so do the Rankines

[WelshMam2009]

LOL!

Sorry WelshMam:)

 

Looks like Bobby has gone;

for now?

 

No probs AC...

 

Yeah Bobby, typical man, never there when you need him!! lol

 

Seriously though, I would love to read that judgement as it may give us some clues as to which aspects might need clarification.

 

Perhaps PT or one of the others may have access to a copy...

[toto003]

If the circular posted above, is indeed correct that this is a matter for determining when courts would and/or would not enforce an agreement that breaches schedule 1 - but does contain all the prescribed terms.

 

See the Guide, a breach of schedule 1 means the agreement is improperly executed, and therefore only enforceable by a court.

 

This is an area of law that certainly does need clarification, - especially since the repeal of s127 ...

 

What I don't understand is why this has been "spun" by certain people [You know who you are!!] as being a pro-bank decision.

 

hypothetically, were I a member of the Law Society, and I was to distribute wholly inaccurate information. That is sensationalist and potentially alarming to the consumer, I would hope my fitness to remain as a member would be called into question.

 

Such an action might be constituted as bringing the organisation into disrepute.

[the main man]

Seems like Judge Halbert likes to play by the book...just ask North Wales Police:D

 

icNorthWales - Brunstrom speeding u-turn

[angry cat]

Unfortunately, so do the Rankines

 

Agreed Steven!

 

Those two individuals are given far too much publicity and have, are the cause of much trouble to the consumer:(

At the end of the day they lost;

the rub is why are they getting all this publicity?

 

Judge Brown had done his homework re: the pair but then all the other firms jumped on the bandwagon...Legal Firms exempt.

Edited May 8, 2009 by angry cat
grammar

[angry cat]

Yes Main Man, Noted!

[joemay]

The BBC have finally noticed.

 

BBC NEWS | Business | Judges seek hold on debt claims

 

CAG gets a mention.

 

"contact your lender if you are having financial difficulty", that's a joke, must people on here have contacted their lender and all they do is sell the debt off, they're not interested in restructuring or helping those in difficulty, it just make you want to scream:evil:

[creditcardmug]

"contact your lender if you are having financial difficulty", that's a joke, must people on here have contacted their lender and all they do is sell the debt off, they're not interested in restructuring or helping those in difficulty, it just make you want to scream:evil:

 

Exactly, they all say this, so that they can constantly browbeat you into paying them money you simply dont have, making matters worse:-x