Unenforceability Cases on hold until further notice

[diddydicky]

hot air

[elizabeth1]

??? is there a link to mail article?

[diddydicky]

yep any newsagent!

[car2403]

I think it's this one;

 

Government leads crackdown on debt loophole swindlers | Mail Online

[tosh1]

This Is Just For Companies That Charge You T Remove Debt

[car2403]

It does mention the stay situation too

[diddydicky]

piece of bad reporting IMO - throwing in the chester scenario to beef up the story

[Undercover-Elsa]

Ironically the Google Ad panel carries ads for....

Claims Management Companies

[Stubie]

piece of bad reporting IMO - throwing in the chester scenario to beef up the story

 

Perhaps they were short of "news" as little of this is new.

 

The bit that made me smile was

 

"And the banks are furious at having to devote expensive manpower to digging out old contracts that are the subject of dispute."

 

It must be a real chore, all this complying with the law and stuff. Are the banks trying to exercise their shareholders (the Govt) to help them out of a corner so they can focus on core business - ripping off the peasants .

 

All the usual mis reporting of the stay on cases.

 

Does this meaqn that the banks are trying to collude with the regulators, the government and all the influence that entails to put a stop to this? Christ, they even mention the police - are we acting illegally now?

 

Where were they when the accusations of harrassment and mis-processing of data we being made?

 

What it must be to have money and influence .

[tinkerbell20]

Perhaps they were short of "news" as little of this is new.

 

The bit that made me smile was

 

"And the banks are furious at having to devote expensive manpower to digging out old contracts that are the subject of dispute."

 

It must be a real chore, all this complying with the law and stuff. Are the banks trying to exercise their shareholders (the Govt) to help them out of a corner so they can focus on core business - ripping off the peasants .

 

All the usual mis reporting of the stay on cases.

 

Does this meaqn that the banks are trying to collude with the regulators, the government and all the influence that entails to put a stop to this? Christ, they even mention the police - are we acting illegally now?

 

Where were they when the accusations of harrassment and mis-processing of data we being made?

 

What it must be to have money and influence .

 

 

Yup The Mail bankers must be putting the squeeze on them with threats of reducing overdrafts etc................on the other hand it is the usual badly researched article written by a lazy journalist - after all never let the facts get in the way of a good story................

[Stubie]

after all never let the facts get in the way of a good story................

 

What would we all do for entertainment if there were no journalists.

 

If "factually based journalism" ever became fashionable, the whole industry would be "en poo sans paddle":D

 

I read a post relating to the Chester situation, I thought it was this thread but, having just skimmed through it, I can't find it.

 

"1.The judge condemned the media coverage about his letter of May 1st as being totally inaccurate.Surprisingly given the coverage afforded to the story in the media last week there were no representatives from the media in court or at least they did not declare themselves when asked to by the judge.Look out for a report about this Case Conference in the media-I don't think!

The following banks were represented;

HSBC,

MBNA,

Barclays,

NatWest,

RBS,

Lloyds

2.There is definately no stay being imposed on any case in the Chester County Court and it was emphasised that anything being considered applied to that court only although other courts may decide to follow the lead.

3.The purpose of the conference was to said to be to discuss with interested parties how the court system could benefit from having trials of cases which have specific points of law to clearly establish these points where there may be some doubt.A total of 52 cases were being considered at this time which is how many CCC had dealing with unenforceabilty at this time.

The assembled QC's Barristers etc were quite clear in agreeing that as far as they were concerned the law had already been clearly established in the House of Lords and elsewhere(even most of the representatives of the lenders agreed upon that) and did not need any further cases to clarify it.

However there were representations from one solicitor who asked that a case be selected to highlight a possible obscure point about the definition of interest rate as stated under the 1974 act so a case was selected which had the necessary point and will be allocated to Justice Smith in London as soon as possible.

What was very interesting was that Barclays were particularly keen to establish a point about banks being able to still report you to a Credit Reference Agency even though you have proved that your agreement is unenforceable.

They even had the cheek to say that it would be in the interest of consumers to know for sure whether having proved their agreement was unenforceable if they stopped paying then they could still be reported to a Credit Reference Agency.

What they really want of course is to discourage people to try and prove that their agreement is unenforceable because they will worry about having a bad credit report.

Barristers for the CMC's argued that this was just enforcement of an unenforceable agreement by another name and cited unfair relationships.

Apparently people are now applying for injunctions preventing the banks from adopting this practice however a case involving this issue was agreed upon and will be heard by Justice Smith in London asap.

A total of 4 cases were identified as being treated this way to highlight one issue or another but they were all minor points and the rest of the 52 are being dealt with at Chester in the normal way.

So,NO STAYS NO CHALLENGE TO THE EXISTING ESTABLISHED CASE LAW just one very small storm in a teacup.

Except that the original estimate given to Judge Halbert of 100,000 cases of this type being expected is more than the total number of Fast Track and Multi Track cases which were dealt with by all the courts in the UK last year.

However only about 15,000 of those came to trial and I believe this is the point -if all the contentious poits are cleared up or at least as far as possible then claimants will know when they are on a winner and so will the lenders so the vast majority of cases will be settled before trial and so will help to avoid clogging up the courts .

I think that the judiciary know which way this is going and want to avoid a debacle in the court system.

I witnessed the banter and body language of the claimants legal teams and the lenders legal teams and there is no doubt that the banks are on the run now and are just putting on a brave face whilst the CMC's are scenting blood as they are desperate for as many cases as possible to go to trial as soon as possible to achieve some victories.

The way I see it time is running out for the banks and they will not be able to hide behind the media for much longer."

 

This is Trickie Dickie's original post (link below, in next post) but I wondered if anyone knew if this situation has moved forward.

Edited June 1, 2009 by Stubie

[citizenB]

stubie, It was Tricky Dickie and that was his report from the Case management meeting he went to . The link to his thread is here

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/200110-case-management-conference-mbna.html

[Stubie]

stubie, It was Tricky Dickie and that was his report from the Case management meeting he went to . The link to his thread is here

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/200110-case-management-conference-mbna.html

 

Thanks CitizenB

 

I will amend my original message to give proper credit.

[Stubie]

Someone just clicked my scales.

 

Thanks for that whoever you are.

 

Yes it was a pity Cap 1 weren't there, perhaps they are so far off planet that they thought it didn't affect them:D.

 

A decision they may come to rue, if they aren't already

[Baggio]

ttt

[fermi]

Only repeating what we already know, but there now in black and white all the same.

 

Media Releases: Consumer Credit Act cases at Chester County Court

 

On 19th May His Honour Judge Halbert held case management conferences at Chester County Court in 52 cases, each of which raises a question of the enforceability of a consumer credit agreement under the Consumer Credit Acts 1974 and 2006.

 

It is thought that a very large number of similar claims may be started over the coming weeks, but the hearing before Judge Halbert concerned only those 52 cases and no orders have been made in relation to any other cases of a similar kind which have been, or may yet be, started.

 

An earlier case decided by Judge Halbert, which also raises a question under the Consumer Credits Acts, is currently pending before the Court of Appeal.

 

Some thought is currently being given to the most efficient way of managing existing and future claims. No general stay has been ordered, but it has been possible to identify a number of cases which raise common questions of law on which there is at present no decision of the higher courts. Consideration is therefore being given to transferring those cases to the Commercial Court in London in order to obtain a definitive ruling.

 

It is likely that the outcome of many of these cases will depend on their own particular facts and they will therefore be determined in the ordinary way as quickly as possible. Consideration is being given to grouping similar cases together for trial where that is likely to save costs and time.

[Baggio]

ttt

[WelshMam2009]

Only repeating what we already know, but there now in black and white all the same.

 

Media Releases: Consumer Credit Act cases at Chester County Court

 

I like the bit at the bottom best, Fermi...

 

Notes to Editors

This document is intended to help explain the position regarding these cases due to previous misreporting.

[Tricky Dickie]

Good old BBC, CAB says the chances of having your agreement proved to be unenforceable 'very slim' yawn, 'judge at Chester County Court estimates 100,000 cases on the way'

WTF is all that about?

How about 'Judge issues press release to correct BBC lies'

 

BBC NEWS | Business | Ministry warns on debt write-offs

[I've got no money]

It really is ridiculous - they jusk keep rehashing the old (incorrect) story...

[Tricky Dickie]

How about a real debt write off story.

On Monday 1st June Mr Mitchel v HBOS was just about to be heard in the Leeds County Court when as proceedings were about to begin HBOS withdrew their defence and conceded the case.

Counsel for Mr Mitchel made representations to the Judge that HBOS had had since November 2008 to either prepare a proper defence or concede the case and that their actions were totally unacceptable.

The agreement they were trying to enforce was in two seperate documents and the one with the terms and conditions on it had no signature.

The Judge agreed and was highly critical of HBOS actions and even though there had not been a trial and therefore no judgement could be handed down he made reference to these facts when he recorded his comments.

The result was that Mr Mitchel successfully had a balance of over £15,000 written off and has written assurances from the lender that all adverse references to this agreement placed on his credit file will be removed.

The Judge also ordered that HBOS paid costs of £15,000 there and then on the day,however the total they will have to pay is estimated at around £32,000.

Mr Mitchel said 'I am absolutely delighted with the result and can not thank *********** my CMC enough for the fantastic service they have provided.It was great to know that I was being represented in court by no less than two specialist firms of solicitors and the leading QC in the country specialising in Consumer Credit Law'

 

Bet you don't see that anywhere in the media!

When I get the copy of the Judges comments I will post here

[Fingers60]

How about a real debt write off story.

On Monday 1st June Mr Mitchel v HBOS was just about to be heard in the Leeds County Court when as proceedings were about to begin HBOS withdrew their defence and conceded the case.

Counsel for Mr Mitchel made representations to the Judge that HBOS had had since November 2008 to either prepare a proper defence or concede the case and that their actions were totally unacceptable.

The agreement they were trying to enforce was in two seperate documents and the one with the terms and conditions on it had no signature.

The Judge agreed and was highly critical of HBOS actions and even though there had not been a trial and therefore no judgement could be handed down he made reference to these facts when he recorded his comments.

The result was that Mr Mitchel successfully had a balance of over £15,000 written off and has written assurances from the lender that all adverse references to this agreement placed on his credit file will be removed.

The Judge also ordered that HBOS paid costs of £15,000 there and then on the day,however the total they will have to pay is estimated at around £32,000.

Mr Mitchel said 'I am absolutely delighted with the result and can not thank *********** my CMC enough for the fantastic service they have provided.It was great to know that I was being represented in court by no less than two specialist firms of solicitors and the leading QC in the country specialising in Consumer Credit Law'

 

Bet you don't see that anywhere in the media!

When I get the copy of the Judges comments I will post here

 

Fantastic! Where did you read that tricky ?!

 

Yes would be great if you could post the judges comments as a numbe rof us probably have the same Halifix agreements !

 

Fingers

[Tricky Dickie]

Fantastic! Where did you read that tricky ?!

 

Yes would be great if you could post the judges comments as a numbe rof us probably have the same Halifix agreements !

 

Fingers

 

I didn't read it anyhwere I was told about it by a friend of Mr Mitchel.Make no mistake you will never read about such events in the media,if it was not for the internet this whole unenforceability issue would still be a secret to all but the lenders

[car2403]

Agreed, TD, but this isn't a one-off. CAG alone has many, many successess that resound around the place like this one.

 

What is criminal is the shear misuse of process and procedure to even get you to that point where the lender HAS to fold, as they know they should have done a long time ago. It's this that is peeing the Courts off. What we need is a fast track small claims class action to set a precedent, rather than waiting years for Commercial Court Appeals to be dealt with, that'll put the woolies up them!

 

car2403 for Prime Minister! I'll make it happen, you bet! (CAG distances itself from my personal crusade to become PM, mind!)

 

[angry cat]

Agreed, TD, but this isn't a one-off. CAG alone has many, many successess that resound around the place like this one.

 

What is criminal is the shear misuse of process and procedure to even get you to that point where the lender HAS to fold, as they know they should have done a long time ago. It's this that is peeing the Courts off. What we need is a fast track small claims class action to set a precedent, rather than waiting years for Commercial Court Appeals to be dealt with, that'll put the woolies up them!"

 

Absolutely, totally agree!

 

AC