Unenforceability Cases on hold until further notice

[star_scream]

..

[MARTIN3030]

There is another point for consideration here too....if the powers that be are anticipating a potential 100,000 + cases to be going before their Courts.....it would seem to dispel the claims and suggestions by credit cleanse and reclaims outfits that they can sort out the process quite easily by filling a few forms in and sending a couple of letters.!!

[vjohn82]

There is another point for consideration here too....if the powers that be are anticipating a potential 100,000 + cases to be going before their Courts.....it would seem to dispel the claims and suggestions by credit cleanse and reclaims outfits that they can sort out the process quite easily by filling a few forms in and sending a couple of letters.!!

 

But what powers? I still think some clarification is needed here. I am under the distinct impression that the judge is seeking a direction based upon the number of these hearings going to appeal?

[MARTIN3030]

Ok lets get on with the discussion in hand-the inappropriate link has now been removed,and an apology made so the matter is closed

[star_scream]

You posted the original post on the judge freezing claims... but the actual ruling was nothing of the sort. In fact the appeal was upheld. Therefore the publishing of the documents contravened your post.

 

If I am wrong I am happy to admit it... but it seems strange to have a go at the poster of what seems to be information that stops the conjecture and actually tells the story of the case.

 

I was having a go at the poster because he put this guys address on the internet for all the world to see.

I can only assume the total embarrasment that may have caused him. It was totally irresponsible. I don't have a problem with the judgment being posted, if it hadn't been sent confidentially, and it didn't have the guys address on.

 

Not sure I understand your first part though. I simply posted a link to the news

[MARTIN3030]

But what powers? I still think some clarification is needed here. I am under the distinct impression that the judge is seeking a direction based upon the number of these hearings going to appeal?

 

There is still a few sketchy points that need clarification-we only know as much as you-hopefully more detailed info will be forthcoming in the next few days....certainly its true to say that theres a lot of people eager to get more info.

[vjohn82]

The way I see it, if Parliament wanted the issue of unenforceability to disappear, then the CCA 2006 wouldn't have left the carve out for s.127(3-5) claims to continue under agreements made under the 1974 Act. This was quite specific, so was obviously debated when the Bill was being put through the HL and Parliament. As a result, I would summarise that the Judges felt that case law should prevail and that consumers that entered into technically incorrect agreements should be protected. The lenders would have tried to insist on the repeal applying to agreements retrospectively, so in the consultation period, this definitely would have been debated.

 

As such, the result was that the Bill was passed without the repeal applying to pre-2006 agreements. Therefore, the case law stands and I doubt that any judge hearing a case would rule against the previous case law, which appears to be fair to the consumer and lender - assuming the lenders bothered to draft the CCA's correctly!

 

This is still the best post on the subject IMO...

 

But hopefully the issue will be clarified and disctrict judges will get the rulings right first time around

[spartathisis]

I appreciate why the doc has been taken down, but is there any chance it can be reposted without details? I think it would be a good one to keep for when DCa`s say cases have been stayed. I didnt even look at the guys name I was more interested in the judgement!

 

Pleeaassee!

[bobby9983]

I would be happy to repost with Tippex a plenty. But will defer to more senior members for the decision. Moderators?

[star_scream]

I would be happy to repost with Tippex a plenty. But will defer to more senior members for the decision. Moderators?

 

Bloody ell!!!

 

Why don't you first ask the company who sent it to you in confidence if it's OK with them to post it first!!

 

**EDITED**

Edited May 10, 2009 by car2403
Removing personal insults

[spartathisis]

The test cases will no doubt be those which make up the majority of the cases appearing in front of the judges, once decided it makes for an easier process and gives uniformity across the county court system. How many stories are posted up of different judges giving varying judgements even though case law is available.

 

I think it will be good for the consumer in that you should go to any court and get the same judgement if the points are the same. Lets face it there arent that many arguments to put forward as in the main case law already exists and the contracts involved are to be honest simple and relatively short. It will make life easier on us all, i think.

[Lula]

Bloody ell!!!

 

Why don't you first ask the company who sent it to you in confidence if it's OK with them to post it first!!

 

Have you no integrity at all???

 

If everything that had been marked confidential had been kept confidential then the Bank Charges, CCA enforcability etc etc campaign would have have got where we are today, you seem to have a real beef with a few posters on here can I ask that you keep it to yourself because it isnt helping.

[vjohn82]

Bloody ell!!!

 

Why don't you first ask the company who sent it to you in confidence if it's OK with them to post it first!!

 

**EDITED**

 

Why would he need to? It's now case law and will be on the list for perusal soon enough... anyone can search for it when it is uploaded to the law databases...

 

**EDITED**

Edited May 10, 2009 by car2403
Removing personal insults

[spartathisis]

Well said Lula.

 

Bobbys error was in not noticing the name and address were still on and removing them. We have enough to put up with without facile comments from fellow caggers.

[star_scream]

Why would he need to? It's now case law and will be on the list for perusal soon enough... anyone can search for it when it is uploaded to the law databases...

 

**EDITED**

 

What's wrong with me is he was sent confidential information. He cares not that the company who sent it ( i ASSUME) has told him it is confidential and to keep it to himself. He decides to plonk it up on the internet for all to see. If I send something to anyone and ask them to kep it confidential, I would like to think they would do just that!!!

 

As, and when, it comes into the public domain, good- everyone can see it for themselves then.

Edited May 10, 2009 by car2403
Quotes edited posts

[vjohn82]

The test cases will no doubt be those which make up the majority of the cases appearing in front of the judges, once decided it makes for an easier process and gives uniformity across the county court system. How many stories are posted up of different judges giving varying judgements even though case law is available.

 

I think it will be good for the consumer in that you should go to any court and get the same judgement if the points are the same. Lets face it there arent that many arguments to put forward as in the main case law already exists and the contracts involved are to be honest simple and relatively short. It will make life easier on us all, i think.

 

Absolutely spot on... this is a good thing and one to be welcomed. It's about time the judges were directed as to the proper procedures for these types of claims and which precedents to refer to.

[star_scream]

If everything that had been marked confidential had been kept confidential then the Bank Charges, CCA enforcability etc etc campaign would have have got where we are today, you seem to have a real beef with a few posters on here can I ask that you keep it to yourself because it isnt helping.

I don't have a 'beef' with any particular poster. I have an opinion on peoples integrity. Thart is my opinion and I am entitled to that.

 

Please see my above post why I feel that it should not have been posted.

If I kept it to myself, the guys address would still be up here for all to see , and maybe even could have led to CAG being sued, I don't know. But at the moment, I am not having a go, just replying to posters.

[MARTIN3030]

I would be happy to repost with Tippex a plenty. But will defer to more senior members for the decision. Moderators?

 

 

As per response in the pm-repost with some edits is fine.

[bobby9983]

Bloody ell!!!

 

Why don't you first ask the company who sent it to you in confidence if it's OK with them to post it first!!

 

**EDITED**

 

The company that sent it to me are currently taking hundreds of pounds upfront off people in the hope that they will have their debts wiped off. They sent it out to thousands of inroducers, I doubt they had the permission of the plaintiff or the defendant so I would be question their integrity not more as they were the one's who leaked it. Jesus wept do you think the Telegraph asked for permission before they published the names and addresses of all those involved in the Mp's expense claims scandal?

Edited May 10, 2009 by car2403
Quotes edited posts

[bobby9983]

I won't bother posting. Good luck you lot.

[fermi]

As per response in the pm-repost with some edits is fine.

 

Edited version then.....

Walker vs SPPl-e.pdf

[GaryH]

Interesting. Not quite sure on the face of it what a test case will acheive though? The laws clear already. Whether contract is compliant or not with the CCA is a question of fact dependant on its terms.

[WelshMam2009]

Please see my above post why I feel that it should not have been posted.

If I kept it to myself, the guys address would still be up here for all to see , and maybe even could have led to CAG being sued, I don't know. But at the moment, I am not having a go, just replying to posters.

 

In fairness, the Judge himself stated that the judgement was only confidential until formally handed down on 8 April 2009 and we are well past that date.

 

The judgement can be obtained from the court and, as an appeal, will no doubt be available online in the near future. As far as I can tell, it is in the public domain and I see no lawful reason for anyone to sue.

[toto003]

Interesting. Not quite sure on the face of it what a test case will acheive though? The laws clear already. Whether contract is compliant or not with the CCA is a question of fact dependant on its terms.

 

That's not the case (pardon the pun) GaryH.

 

There is no precedent for breaches of schedule 1 - where the court does have discretion to make an order to enforce.

 

This also applies to post April 2007 agreements, and the restriction of 127(3) doesn't apply - so the courts also have discretion to make that order.

 

What is interesting - is that in the Walker case, the judge specifically stated that the breaches of Schedule 1 alone were enough for the court to refuse to make an order to enforce.

 

up until now, everyone had assumed the court would simply find in favour of the creditor.

[vjohn82]

Interesting. Not quite sure on the face of it what a test case will acheive though? The laws clear already. Whether contract is compliant or not with the CCA is a question of fact dependant on its terms.

 

If the law was clear then there wouldn't be any rulings against the claimants... the very fact that this particular case was an appeal (which was then upheld) shows that there is a lack on understanding.

 

It's been said already; there is a direction that will be issued on how to handle these types of claims to ensure that there are fewer appeals going through the system. It makes no sense to the judiciary in having their time wasted in this manner.