Unenforceability Cases on hold until further notice

[pt2537]

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.

erm, nope sorry gotta disagree

 

never had an adverse costs order against me, got a hearing in two weeks for PAD and i expect my costs to be awarded

 

have a look at Black and Sumitomo and also SES Contracting these cases support the view that there should be as a minimum no costs ordered but these cases did not cite breach of protocols so if you add breach of pre action protocol to the mix you should have your costs awarded

 

Id say and there is also proof on this site that this effect that a CPR 31.16 claim ALWAYS gets you what you need.

[pt2537]

also you have not mentioned the changes to the Practice Direction protocol which now makes it clear that where the other side breach it they shall be awarded costs against them

[Wigeon]

Next Miss selling is an over sold irrelevant term in respect of the arguments over PPI. The term allows an easy 'get out' for lenders, FOS system, CMC's running the FOS system, and brokers. The money recovered on this method is 30/40% to what they should recover.

[pt2537]

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.

erm but the broker can also be the lender in the case of a sale of PPI,

[Wigeon]

The courts are awarding disclousure and Black v Sumitomo tells you what not to do if you want to make a sensible application for 31.16. Thats still not an answer to the problem as was the DPA requests, the infromation you need is not held in the client records and what is needed is the issuing of proceedings, but I accept that the new rules may help on the matter of costs. Making sure the lawyers run the cases the right way also helps. Some do not even understand send all letters to lenders and their lawyers recorded delivery simple but still ignored to often.

[Wigeon]

erm but the broker can also be the lender in the case of a sale of PPI,

 

The lenders argue that they are the agent of the insurance company at the point of sale and therefore owe no duty. I have now argued around this, quite simple in the end.

 

Lenders selling direct earn the most commission of all.

[Wigeon]

Before the new changes the argument you use was run in Liverpool, manchester, Romford and Richmond CC. The lenders sent senior council to the hearings and the awards went from £275 to £600 against the applicant. 55 cases in three days.

 

We now have this asspect insured.

[I've got no money]

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.

 

I'd be quite interested to know where you get your figures from - I didn't realise that the court service produced those sorts of figures at such speed...

[Wigeon]

Based on my panel solicitors issuing proceedings and the results from those proccedings.

[I've got no money]

The courts are awarding disclousure and Black v Sumitomo tells you what not to do if you want to make a sensible application for 31.16. Some do not even understand send all letters to lenders and their lawyers recorded delivery simple but still ignored to often.

 

In my day we'd send the original to Sols by DX and the chaser, including a copy of the original by fax - much cheaper than Recorded. Solicitors don't use recorded delivery that often on a costs issue - it adds 70p (that is not recoverable) to the cost of a letter, tho I'm not sure how much tracked DX costs - fax on the other hand is much more effective - I've never had a firm of Solicitors claim not to have received a fax

[I've got no money]

Based on my panel solicitors issuing proceedings and the results from those proccedings.

 

So on that analysis - are you a claims management company then?

 

Are you saying that you've issued 2000 CPR 31.16 applications and that you've succeeded in 70% but lost on costs in 80% - if you are I'd be thinking about changing my panel firms

[Wigeon]

I run and work for a training firm but also advise 150 firms about FR cases as well as having an interest in a CMC which does not charge upfront or backend nor does it make money from lending money to firms nor from selling or brokering insurance.

[citizenB]

Next Miss selling is an over sold irrelevant term in respect of the arguments over PPI. The term allows an easy 'get out' for lenders, FOS system, CMC's running the FOS system, and brokers. The money recovered on this method is 30/40% to what they should recover.

 

[I've got no money]

I run and work for a training firm but also advise 150 firms about FR cases as well as having an interest in a CMC which does not charge upfront or backend nor does it make money from lending money to firms nor from selling or brokering insurance.

 

As you clearly have expertise in FR perhaps you could do what PT, and I to a lesser extent, has done and share that expertise on CAG.

 

A few precedent documents would be helpful - presumably you have a pro forma checklist that you use to help verify enforceability etc - it would be really useful if you could share those sorts of things with us

[cadencealex]

subscribing. although i was just about to see if it was worth issuing a claim about the enforceabilty of an agreement.. but I am in Cheshire!

[I've got no money]

subscribing. although i was just about to see if it was worth issuing a claim about the enforceabilty of an agreement.. but I am in Cheshire! [/quote

 

I think that whether or not it would get stayed depends on why its' unenforceable...

[angry cat]

OOH!

I wonder if anyone has noticed the other path that some CMC's might be following?

 

Apparently, one sells ones agreement to them for a fixed amount plus a transfer fee...I guess this must mean that some sort of consortium has been set up.

 

Sounds double dodgy to me.

 

AC

[cadencealex]

subscribing. although i was just about to see if it was worth issuing a claim about the enforceabilty of an agreement.. but I am in Cheshire! [/quote

 

I think that whether or not it would get stayed depends on why its' unenforceable...

 

 

That's interesting. They don't have a CCA to enforce. That is my case.

[WelshMam2009]

 

 

That's interesting. They don't have a CCA to enforce. That is my case.

 

Have they supplied you with a document containing prescribed terms and a signature instead??

[cadencealex]

Have they supplied you with a document containing prescribed terms and a signature instead??

 

 

Yes a lovely generic set of Terms and Conditions relating to a different year.. the Terms and Conditions now I think

 

 

Nothing with a signature!

[pt2537]

Yes a lovely generic set of Terms and Conditions relating to a different year.. the Terms and Conditions now I think

 

 

Nothing with a signature!

This is simple to over come,

 

did you ever sign an agreement with Next? if no then section 61(1) was never complied with and the agreement by virtue of s127(3) becomes unenforceable as long as you opened the account before 6th Apr 2007

 

I have issued many claims against Next, they are so easy opponents to deal with

[cadencealex]

This is simple to over come,

 

did you ever sign an agreement with Next? if no then section 61(1) was never complied with and the agreement by virtue of s127(3) becomes unenforceable as long as you opened the account before 6th Apr 2007

 

I have issued many claims against Next, they are so easy opponents to deal with

 

 

No never signed anything. They have passed my debt onto three different companies now, the last one said they would take me to Court and they never have.

 

I did mention this on my own thread - should I take them to court myself now?

 

And does anyone have some good POC examples? Sorry if that is cheeky.

[pt2537]

No never signed anything. They have passed my debt onto three different companies now, the last one said they would take me to Court and they never have.

 

I did mention this on my own thread - should I take them to court myself now?

 

And does anyone have some good POC examples? Sorry if that is cheeky.

yes i do, but none that i can post on the forum as they are in use in litigation at this moment in time

 

Its quite easy to plead un-enforceability of a credit agreement under these conditions

[cadencealex]

yes i do, but none that i can post on the forum as they are in use in litigation at this moment in time

 

Its quite easy to plead un-enforceability of a credit agreement under these conditions

 

 

OK thanks PT - and I can get the ball rolling myself, without it being seen badly on me in court?

[Peterbard]

Hi

I have not read through the whole of this thread so forgive me if i am going over told ground.

Re the Chester court case (Watson vs. Southern Finance). This was a fairly straightforward case of a breach of section 9 of the act as far as I can see; the figure for credit included the fee.

I cannot see that a stay on proceedings would affect the workings of section 127(3) as we know the court has no jurisdiction on the enforceability of an agreement that is in breach of this particular section.

Also a stay would be, i would think a handicap for the creditor more so that the debtor as they would not be able to receive an order to enforce from the court whilst it was in effect.

Peter