Unenforceability Cases on hold until further notice

[foolishgirl]

Under those circumstances you would find yourself sectioned under the Mental Health Act

LIBM

:D

 

As you all have such vivd imaginations, maybe you should all get together & write a whodunit!

 

This thread is not about criminal law i.e.murder, it is civil law i.e. unenforceability issues. Can we please get back to those?

[letitbeme]

Absolutely; I have come come to realise that moral or rightful claims do not mean a thing without a good legal argument...and often when I see "Is this CCA enforceable" in the thread title I feel the right answer should be it depends on how good your legal argument is.

 

The law has to be proven in court and out of it we are all pretty good interpreters however inside its not so easy, especially with the wrong judge

 

That’s why you need a good Barrister in your corner.

LIBM

[angry cat]

:D

 

As you all have such vivd imaginations, maybe you should all get together & write a whodunit!

 

This thread is not about criminal law i.e.murder, it is civil law i.e. unenforceability issues. Can we please get back to those?

 

LOL!

 

AC

[letitbeme]

Hi There Foolishgirl,

Do you by any chance have any news regarding the test cases that where in the Manchester Court on the 8th Oct?

[paulwlton]

Any news on SPPL V Walker - I understand the case has recently been heard in the court of appeal.

[F_DCAs]

If the agreement is ruled to be unenforceable, then that's irresponsible lending on the bank's part. So, why should the debtor be penalised for the bank not doing its job properly?

 

The judge's assertion that such adverse defaults can be logged in order to 'promote responsible lending decisions' makes no sense when he bases the facts on an UNenforceable credit agreement. Seems to me he's not so much interpreted the law, as is his job, than to be seen as doing his interpretation of a public service in giving the struggling banks a favour.

[car2403]

The Judge HAS NOT said that they can Default you under an unenforceable agreement

[enoughisenough]

SPPL Vs Walker

 

Haven't heard...

 

SPML Vs HEATH tomorrow in the Court of Appeal.

[enoughisenough]

Correction

 

Earlier material sorry...

[gezwee]

Any news on SPPL V Walker - I understand the case has recently been heard in the court of appeal.

 

Nope, not seen bugger all yet, was waiting for Eversheds to stay up late and post the details .......pasted link below for original order in case anyone looking in is still playing catch-up

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/Walker%20vs%20SPPL-1.pdf

Bugger, bl**dy things not working ?

Try again in a mo......lol

[gezwee]

Walker%20vs%20SPPL-1.pdf

 

Thats a pain in the b*tt, having to download it, upload it, attach it....

[the_shadow]

[attach]13258[/attach]

 

Thats a pain in the b*tt, having to download it, upload it, attach it....

 

Thanks Gezwee, that looks a juicy case

 

S.

[letitbeme]

More conjecture and speculation

https://www.eversheds.com/uk/home/articles/index1.page?ArticleID=templatedata\Eversheds\articles\data\en\Financial_institutions\consumer_credit_agreements_07Oct09&SIDpassed=templatedataEvershedsSectorlistdataenFinancial_institutions

They’re certainly milking this one.

[gezwee]

More conjecture and speculation

https://www.eversheds.com/uk/home/articles/index1.page?ArticleID=templatedata\Eversheds\articles\data\en\Financial_institutions\consumer_credit_agreements_07Oct09&SIDpassed=templatedataEvershedsSectorlistdataenFinancial_institutions

They’re certainly milking this one.

 

Me thinks Chris forgot to read the full decision

 

Hopefully some of the other numpties in the DCA game will believe everything he puts into the public domaine

[car2403]

Me thinks Chris forgot to read the full decision

 

Or he's only read the Newspaper articles

[gezwee]

Or he's only read the Newspaper articles

 

Perhaps he helped draft 'em ..lol

[sunray001]

Hi,

 

Can someone tell us non legal eagles what this decision actually means,along with its implications.

I have read so many interpretations by different people.

Am not really sure. The only thing I am sure about is that the

banks and DCAs will twist things to suit themselves, but can somebody

tell me what the actual legal position is now with regard to CCAs and court proceedings.

 

regards

[Demonbarb]

Thanks for clarifying Demonbarb. Please accept my apologies for implying otherwise and well done for playing no small part in keeping this aspect of the industry cleaner than it would be otherwise.

Accepted and thanks for the comments.

[gezwee]

Hi,

 

Can someone tell us non legal eagles what this decision actually means,along with its implications.

I have read so many interpretations by different people.

Am not really sure. The only thing I am sure about is that the

banks and DCAs will twist things to suit themselves, but can somebody

tell me what the actual legal position is now with regard to CCAs and court proceedings.

 

regards

 

The reality is it means nothing and didnt particularly serve any purpose.

 

The decision was effectively moot as the creditor RBS held an enforceable agreement which they held back (lis) in order to effect test case.

 

If you read the final decision you'll note many references to this point which is IMHO why it should not be considered indicative of a decision worthy of mention in future case law.

 

Still trying to understand why this was considered a suitable test?

 

Its done nothing to enforce the banks position and nor has it undermined a consumers position.

 

Unenforceable remains unenforceable remains unenforceable........ the machine will still try to convince you otherwise but this decision just enforced it (consumer rights that is).

 

 

Gez

[diddydicky]

Hi,

 

Can someone tell us non legal eagles what this decision actually means,along with its implications.

I have read so many interpretations by different people.

Am not really sure. The only thing I am sure about is that the

banks and DCAs will twist things to suit themselves, but can somebody

tell me what the actual legal position is now with regard to CCAs and court proceedings.

 

regards

 

in a a nutshell- if the creditor has an enforceable agreement- you will not be able to stop them registering adverse info at CRA's- even, it seems when they have not yet found the enforceable agreement (in default of s78)

 

thats it as far as i can see

[sunray001]

So in other words, same old same, only a court can decide if an agreement is properly executed? and as for the DCAs, defaults, CRA, threats etc, no change there either?

[ncf355]

Dont get this at all, what exactly IS enforcement then?

 

To my mind, the judgment did NOT clarify what enforcement IS

[gezwee]

So in other words, same old same, only a court can decide if an agreement is properly executed? and as for the DCAs, defaults, CRA, threats etc, no change there either?

 

In a nutshell.......yup, carry on as before

[sunray001]

So what was the point then?

[gezwee]

So what was the point then?

 

Gawd knows..... maybe the bank were trying to enforce their position re: Injunctive relief but it appears to have backfired on them .....Flaux would not be drawn on precedent and insisted each case should be heard on its on merits.

 

The reality is if a creditor wants to test you in court with an unenforceable agreement they will as they always have.....same with the reporting to CRA's and DCA antics.

Edited October 12, 2009 by gezwee
Spelling.......again!!!!!!!!