Unenforceability Cases on hold until further notice

[Dotty50]

Magic mushrooms more like!

 

Head is spinning from reading so much on here, have some knowledge but not legalities and it's becoming addictive, helpful, but still addictive!

[diddydicky]

Consumer Credit Act 1974

17. The Consumer Credit Act 1974 F23 is amended as follows.

Annotations:

F23

1974 c.39.

18. Section 46 (false or misleading advertisements) shall cease to have effect.

19. In section 77 (duty to give information to debtor under fixed-sum credit agreement), in subsection (4), omit paragraph (b) and the “and” preceding it.

20. In section 78 (duty to give information to debtor under running-account credit agreement), in subsection (6), omit paragraph (b) and the “and” preceding it.

21. In section 79 (duty to give hirer information), in subsection (3), omit paragraph (b) and the “and” preceding it.

22. In section 85 (duty on issue of new credit tokens), in subsection (2), omit paragraph (b) and the “and” preceding it.

23. In section 97 (duty to give information), in subsection (3), omit paragraph (b) and the “and” preceding it.

24. In section 103 (termination statements)—

(a)

omit subsection (5), and

(b)

at the end insert—

"(6) A breach of the duty imposed by subsection (1) is actionable as a breach of statutory duty.".

25. In section 107 (duty to give information to surety under fixed-sum credit agreement), in subsection (4), omit paragraph (b) and the “and” preceding it.

26. In section 108 (duty to give information to surety under running-account credit agreement), in subsection (4), omit paragraph (b) and the “and” preceding it.

27. In section 109 (duty to give information to surety under consumer hire agreement), in subsection (3), omit paragraph (b) and the “and” preceding it.

28. In section 110 (duty to give information to debtor or hirer), in subsection (3), omit paragraph (b) and the “and” preceding it.

[B3rty]

Wow what lot of hot air so late at night don't you guys go to bed...lol ...a little more reading I would suggest for some of these posters and maybe start with this...

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/154013-not-offence-after-12-a.html

 

and maybe understand the link between the Act and Statatory Instruments (SI)

 

Consumer Credit Act Statutory Instrument

S 61,62,63,64,65 --- Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 S.I 1983/1553 Schedule 1 & Schedule 6

 

s.77 &78 ----- Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 or S.I 1983/1553 General requirements as to form and content of copy documents SI 1983/1557

 

s.87, 98-100 ---- Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) and Amendment regulations. Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices)

(Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/3237)

 

s.127 -------- Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 S.I 1983/1553

[kel123]

After all that huffing and puffing, drawing of battle lines and general positioning - I am now somewhat confussed?

 

It is/was my understanding that the 1 month rule had been totally removed, even for pre 6th April 2007 agreements.

 

Ste I am not disputing what you have said (although the likely hood is that you are a dingle LOL) But this goes against my percieved knowledge.

 

I think clarication of this point is important

[egg-sterminator]

have you got a link for this story?

No this is first hand from their legal dep . Not the bods on the phone much higher up . It seems a very large and a lender well known to this site have been very naughty when supplying info under pre action no more can be said as they need just a little more rope to hang themselves . Failed cases may be scutanized a little closer and brought to the attention of reg bodies and courts, its not RBS ? They bend the law to suit themselves believing they are above it and that conditions only apply to their customers . Edited October 16, 2009 by egg-sterminator

[B3rty]

Kel...it has...read the link

[sequenci]

It is/was my understanding that the 1 month rule had been totally removed, even for pre 6th April 2007 agreements.

 

It certainly has.

 

Guys, try and keep this thread on topic Thank you!

[Baggio]

No this is first hand from their legal dep . Not the bods on the phone much higher up . It seems a very large and a lender well known to this site have been very naughty when supplying info under pre action no more can be said as they need just a little more rope to hang themselves . Failed cases may be scutanized a little closer and brought to the attention of reg bodies and courts, its not RBS ? They bend the law to suit themselves believing they are above it and that conditions only apply to their customers .

 

excellent news, what we really need is a high profile case of the banks fudging paperwork

 

we all know on here they do it, we just need to wider public to be made aware of it aswell.

[diddydicky]

excellent news, what we really need is a high profile case of the banks fudging paperwork

 

we all know on here they do it, we just need to wider public to be made aware of it aswell.

 

non taken!!!!! apology accepted

[Baggio]

non taken!!!!! apology accepted

 

you what?

 

get off it, before you fall off it

[Baggio]

any industry news today on these test cases?

 

also, i mentioned many times on these forums that yes most of the CMCs out there are robbbing so and so's but overall the good ones will do a lot of the legal fighting via their barristers etc to help fight our cause.

 

brunels in the case of appealing the mcguffick case with a top notch consumer law barrister is a case in point.

 

we are actually all on the same side against the real mighty evil.

[pt2537]

any industry news today on these test cases?

 

also, i mentioned many times on these forums that yes most of the CMCs out there are robbbing so and so's but overall the good ones will do a lot of the legal fighting via their barristers etc to help fight our cause.

 

brunels in the case of appealing the mcguffick case with a top notch consumer law barrister is a case in point.

 

we are actually all on the same side against the real mighty evil.

McGuffick is not being appealed , this is direct from the junior counsel who did the case, there is no funding nor is the case strong enough to appeal

[Baggio]

No this is first hand from their legal dep . Not the bods on the phone much higher up . It seems a very large and a lender well known to this site have been very naughty when supplying info under pre action no more can be said as they need just a little more rope to hang themselves . Failed cases may be scutanized a little closer and brought to the attention of reg bodies and courts, its not RBS ? They bend the law to suit themselves believing they are above it and that conditions only apply to their customers .

 

what's this all about then?

[pedross]

Are you real Baggio

 

Check your post on the previous page No.1335

 

You acknowledge a post and comment on it and then later you ask what its about.

Edited October 16, 2009 by pedross

[kel123]

Baggio me thinks there is alot of playing about by the other side.

 

Spotting them is another thing? it may not be the person who bought the information here, they may just be repeating it?

 

Lets see if ste comes back to me about what I said earlier?

[Baggio]

Are you real Baggio

 

Check your post 1335

 

what post @1335?

[noomill060]

pedross- baggio was asking a rhetorical question.

 

pt has confirmed that there is no appeal going on, and baggio is expressing their disquiet at the apparrent disinformation from egg-sterminator.

 

(I think)

 

Hi pt,

[Baggio]

pedross- baggio was asking a rhetorical question.

 

pt has confirmed that there is no appeal going on, and baggio is expressing their disquiet at the apparrent disinformation from egg-sterminator.

 

(I think)

 

Hi pt,

 

correct.

 

i hope egg-sterminator can come back on and update us... he did seem to know what he was talking about.

[noomill060]

pt knows what he is talking about

 

(of that, you can have no doubt)

[Baggio]

pt knows what he is talking about

 

(of that, you can have no doubt)

 

fair enough.

[pedross]

correct.

 

i hope egg-sterminator can come back on and update us... he did seem to know what he was talking about.

 

Well I can only apologise then.

 

I seem to have got drawn into the off topic 'banter' that we have had on this thread over the past 24 hours.

 

I will keep my thoughts to myself until the thread returns to normal

[Baggio]

Well I can only apologise then.

 

I seem to have got drawn into the off topic 'banter' that we have had on this thread over the past 24 hours.

 

I will keep my thoughts to myself until the thread returns to normal

 

no need to apologise whatsoever, we are all on the same side here.

[Hopster]

exactly

[Baggio]

no news guys?

[egg-sterminator]

correct.

 

i hope egg-sterminator can come back on and update us... he did seem to know what he was talking about.

I'm not going to second guess PT its his field . I was onto Bs legal team and in conversation mentioned appealling a case wether i got my lines crossed we were talking about recent events RBS related apologies if so . We are of topic so will pm the rest of the story to somone and share with your trusted caggers if you wish . A friend and fellow cagger professorgbr i think has lots of cases with mentioned company and solicitor he has though out of field a little seems ok . Due in no small part to actions of dca.s he is now being treated for deppression and unable to cope so just accepts CCC rubbish . The ccc's as we know are great at [alledgedly] giving documents under reasonable legal requests that could win the cut and paste olympics . The CMC were having very good succes against this company when all of a sudden agrements started "to come out of the woodwork" to quote solicitor . Having seen on this site lots of info about how they misled so many . Nothing new about them lying only this time it seems more exstensive and under afidafit . So we have their alledged agreement with all the referance and conditions nicely compliant . References on agreement to important conditions which just dont corraspond and the original agreement [card carrier]and it seems not an isolated condition do we post and possibly alert them ? Willing to PM a well known cagger with stuff but right now promised my 5 yr old we could watch a film together . PS wouldnt want to upset PT to much he was having a ball with a barclay card troll,on a DN thread i think .