Unenforceability Cases on hold until further notice

[I've got no money]

Ultimatelaw, credit wise and all others are for some reason miss leading the market and general public. CMC's are throwing brick bats at each other, all in some way conning the general public out of large front end fees and large back end fees. Then along comes a very sensible judge HHJ Halbert who hears a case in Chester County Court against Southern Pacific Mortgages Limited who had in the first instance a repossession order against the borrower. The case is eventually listed before him and he finds for the borrower. The decision in the case is based on a miss statement of the amount of credit. Interest was charged by the lender on an item that was included wrongly in the AOC, a mandatory fee which should have been a cost of credit. Very good straight forward decision. Well reasoned and easy to follow.

 

HHJ Halbert for some reason then went of the rails and referred to Moore-Bic LJ and other Judges an idea he had to stay claims under the CCA 74 for some test cases to be heard in the commercial court in London before HHJ Andrew Smith.

 

The position to me seems ill thought out. This is settled law it has been through the House of Lords and in the CA in 2007 Tuckey LJ was well able to see what was and was not a case for unenforceability. He decided in Wilson v Hurstanger that the agreement was enforceable.

 

The courts have made it very clear.

quote

I would agree with that in respect of S127 (3) however I'm not sure if the position is so clear cut in respect of cases where the court has a discretion - we also don't know what the point in the test cases is.

[Josie8]

Ultimatelaw' date=' credit wise and all others are for some reason miss leading the market and general public. CMC's are throwing brick bats at each other, all in some way conning the general public out of large front end fees and large back end fees. Then along comes a very sensible judge HHJ Halbert who hears a case in Chester County Court against Southern Pacific Mortgages Limited who had in the first instance a repossession order against the borrower. The case is eventually listed before him and he finds for the borrower. The decision in the case is based on a miss statement of the amount of credit. Interest was charged by the lender on an item that was included wrongly in the AOC, a mandatory fee which should have been a cost of credit. Very good straight forward decision. Well reasoned and easy to follow.[/font']

 

HHJ Halbert for some reason then went of the rails and referred to Moore-Bic LJ and other Judges an idea he had to stay claims under the CCA 74 for some test cases to be heard in the commercial court in London before HHJ Andrew Smith.

 

The position to me seems ill thought out. This is settled law it has been through the House of Lords and in the CA in 2007 Tuckey LJ was well able to see what was and was not a case for unenforceability. He decided in Wilson v Hurstanger that the agreement was enforceable.

 

The courts have made it very clear.

 

quote

 

I would agree with that in respect of S127 (3) however I'm not sure if the position is so clear cut in respect of cases where the court has a discretion - we also don't know what the point in the test cases is.

 

I understand it to be unfair relationships being considered which is untested law at present

[I've got no money]

 

I understand it to be unfair relationships being considered which is untested law at present

 

On that basis then the only cases that should be stayed are those involving unfair relationships

[Josie8]

 

On that basis then the only cases that should be stayed are those involving unfair relationships

 

I would anticipate that to be the case - though there is a multiple loan appeal due to be heard in October at Court of Appeal so I would expect multiple loan agreements to be stayed as well. I also understand the lender in Halberts case is appealing.

[pt2537]

 

I would anticipate that to be the case - though there is a multiple loan appeal due to be heard in October at Court of Appeal so I would expect multiple loan agreements to be stayed as well. I also understand the lender in Halberts case is appealing.

i understand that is the case also,

 

personally reading the judgment of HHJ Halbert it is clear that the loan agreement was unenforceable and that Wilson and FCT applied, so i dont see what prospect of success any appeal has on the enforceability issues

[I've got no money]

i understand that is the case also,

 

personally reading the judgment of HHJ Halbert it is clear that the loan agreement was unenforceable and that Wilson and FCT applied, so i dont see what prospect of success any appeal has on the enforceability issues

 

Yes - I've read it a few times now and I can't see how its' got any chance of a successful appeal

[Josie8]

i understand that is the case also,

 

personally reading the judgment of HHJ Halbert it is clear that the loan agreement was unenforceable and that Wilson and FCT applied, so i dont see what prospect of success any appeal has on the enforceability issues

 

 

We are both in agreement there. They are probably more concerned about HHJ Halberts obiter ruling

[BubbleCat]

quite frankly I think this is a scare monger tactic. Where are the dates on theses statements / announcements?

 

The DCA's may have finally got the message, that they have as much power as a soggy tissue

[Baggio]

quite frankly I think this is a scare monger tactic. Where are the dates on theses statements / announcements?

 

The DCA's may have finally got the message, that they have as much power as a soggy tissue

 

On the money, simply to frighten off the poor consumers, who are out there, struggling in a mountain of debt, families breaking up, suicides being commited etc etc

 

when all along, the consumer had the law on his side... yet the law creaters wanted to hide this fact from the consumer with bull**** disinfo tactics in order to prevent financial claims againt the banks..... which they now more or less own.

 

Hmmmm, interesting, yet thoroughly disgusting conflict of interests.

 

they will not get away with it.:twisted:

[BubbleCat]

Perhaps it's time we created about the fact we know our rights and we are sticking together to fight:

 

(1) The people who got it wrong in the first place

(2) The DCA's and their unprofessional ism.

 

Do these big conglomerates not take any shame in commissioning such idiots, only for them to be subjected with the contempt they deserve.

[paulwlton]

Perhaps it's time we created about the fact we know our rights and we are sticking together to fight:

 

(1) The people who got it wrong in the first place

(2) The DCA's and their unprofessional ism.

 

Do these big conglomerates not take any shame in commissioning such idiots, only for them to be subjected with the contempt they deserve.

 

A banker once said: " never over estimate the intelligence of the borrower"....hows that for contempt.

 

PW

[Mightyacorn]

All this seems irrelevant in what they've allowed Yes Loans to get away with......

BBC NEWS | Programmes | Moneybox | Banned director runs loan firm

 

Banned Director, unlicensed credit broker........ working with OFT.......

 

 

What chance have we got.........?????

[Hopster]

listwen to BBC Mobneybox at just after noon today

[Demonbarb]

Authorisation Voluntarily Surrendered:D

Because the orginal Brunel Franklin have split but if you also look on the search you will see Flairford Securities authorised on 30/04/09 who trade as Brunel Franklin etc

[angry cat]

listwen to BBC Mobneybox at just after noon today

 

Listened but not impressed!

 

However, I did note that some CMC's are charging £500 up front, just to look at an agreement

 

AC

[Demonbarb]

Listened but not impressed!

 

However, I did note that some CMC's are charging £500 up front, just to look at an agreement

 

AC

And some don't charge a farthing at the front or the backend. There is good and bad in all industries, it's a pity there are so many unscrupulous ones involved in this one that tar the rest with the same brush.

[diddydicky]

and who are the ones with no fees upfront or on the back end pray tell if you would be so kind- some nervous folk on here might apporeciate such a free service

[paulwlton]

and who are the ones with no fees upfront or on the back end pray tell if you would be so kind- some nervous folk on here might apporeciate such a free service

 

Worth researching.

 

Mis-sold Loans

[Wigeon]

In my experience the ones that do not charge upfront and back end are those charging the lawyers fro the cases.

The whole claims 'industry' is based on the payment of legal costs and the destruction of the Legal Aid scheme by the current government.

Claims do not run themselves and with the greatest respect to this site and the others who help people to run their own cases it is but a fraction of claims being run.

Most people need actual hands on support, and yes before anyone starts saying you have a vested interest in this ...........I do. I do accept that these sites CAG being one of them has done more for Consumer Rights than the CAB, Legal Aid board, as well as all the other voluntary groups etc put together. It is still a drop in the ocean.

A single example for those who challenge ASU/PPI insurance policies. A Question

How does the mechanism work for lenders and brokers to make money from the sale of these types of polices and once knowing that they do how do you prove it. ???

[pt2537]

How does the mechanism work for lenders and brokers to make money from the sale of these types of polices and once knowing that they do how do you prove it. ???

Crikey, they make money in many ways, from secret commission payments, from charging more than the cost of the policy, from ramping up the interest on the loan when you take the PPI so that they can pay the commission out of your payments to name but a few

[pt2537]

as for how to prove it

 

Pre action discovery for the underwriting sheet is a good place to start

[Wigeon]

Companies like this specialise in selling claims to lawyers and still do on the grounds of unenforceability alone. They are very new into the market and have been in the sector for a few months. They make their money from lending money to solicitors selling insurnace from which a large commission is earned and selling expensive and unrecoverable reports which alos earn the aprties a large commission. The insurnace has to be paid upfront and the lawyer has to fund it. So all in all they do very well out of it. But have they been succesful as yet ????

[pt2537]

Companies like this specialise in selling claims to lawyers and still do on the grounds of unenforceability alone. They are very new into the market and have been in the sector for a few months. They make their money from lending money to solicitors selling insurnace from which a large commission is earned and selling expensive and unrecoverable reports which alos earn the aprties a large commission. The insurnace has to be paid upfront and the lawyer has to fund it. So all in all they do very well out of it. But have they been succesful as yet ????

sorry havent had my second cuppa of the day

 

i thought we were talking about the lenders who mis sell the PPI and the tactics they use to conceal it?

 

thats how your comment came accross

[Wigeon]

This is why lawyers are needed. Let me start with the Pre action matter. CPR 31.16 in the last 20 months some 2000 of these actions have been taken with a win rate of 70% but a costs awarded against the applicant of over 80%. This elaves either the lawyer or the client with a bill for 300 to 400 pounds.

 

The CPR claim rarely gets you what you wnat in the documents field.

[Wigeon]

Very very few now exactly how and more importnatly how much the lenders are making he money that they earn.

 

Only brokers earn a secret commission lenders do not earn a commission.

Edited May 17, 2009 by Wigeon