Unenforceability Cases on hold until further notice

[Baggio]

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 .

 

only a matter of time before the blue peter jobs become a massive scandal that brings mass public attention on UCA's

[egg-sterminator]

only a matter of time before the blue peter jobs become a massive scandal that brings mass public attention on UCA's

Thats what we really need will find out more early next week and hopefully find where i got me lines crossed if you want more it will have to be PM . As case mentioned was enforcable anyway not that important exept for milage they get out of the spin . PIZZA ARRIVED have a good night guys .

[saddler68]

There is a very interesting blog on a well known CMCs web-site about a lender doctoring consumer credit agreements.

[car2403]

Thats what we really need will find out more early next week and hopefully find where i got me lines crossed if you want more it will have to be PM . As case mentioned was enforcable anyway not that important exept for milage they get out of the spin . PIZZA ARRIVED have a good night guys .

 

Er, why PM anything to anyone? Surely if you're sure of your information, you can share it PUBLICLY, for all to see. If not, then maybe it shouldn't be shared AT ALL.

 

Note to everyone: take any PM from any member that requires information to be shared ONLY by PM with a pinch of salt. If that member truly believes what they are saying by PM, a LEGITIMATE member wouldn't have an issue posting it in a public forum - that way, if it's wrong, it can be challenges and/or corrected.

[Baggio]

There is a very interesting blog on a well known CMCs web-site about a lender doctoring consumer credit agreements.

 

which lender?

[egg-sterminator]

Er, why PM anything to anyone? Surely if you're sure of your information, you can share it PUBLICLY, for all to see. If not, then maybe it shouldn't be shared AT ALL.

 

Note to everyone: take any PM from any member that requires information to be shared ONLY by PM with a pinch of salt. If that member truly believes what they are saying by PM, a LEGITIMATE member wouldn't have an issue posting it in a public forum - that way, if it's wrong, it can be challenges and/or corrected.

Fair point Car and see the point .But they read this stuff to . How do we get a balance of common good v helping them when they seem to have all the help they need from judges and reg bodies that only ever seem to find in their favour in public . As for legitimate have they got us so spooked by trolls we eat ourselves at the first oportunity or mistake ? However car is most certainly right the collective wisdom is the strenth and as walt disney said we will come up with ideas faster than anyone can steal them .

[Baggio]

we got the halbert (walker) decision in our favour... surprise surprise it was never documented in the press

 

the conpsiracy against UCA's by the press, who coincidentally are being propped up with business loans/overdrafts, is so bloody transparent its unreal.

 

they fool nobody, the truth is always always outed.

 

in the end, they know the majority of the public will get wind of this and put in millions of claims.

[Docman]

we got the halbert (walker) decision in our favour... surprise surprise it was never documented in the press

 

the conpsiracy against UCA's by the press, who coincidentally are being propped up with business loans/overdrafts, is so bloody transparent its unreal.

 

they fool nobody, the truth is always always outed.

 

in the end, they know the majority of the public will get wind of this and put in millions of claims.

 

baggio

 

do you have a reference for the case?

[diddydicky]

who "trumpted" and stuck his head under the blankets:eek:

 

cab

 

who indeed!

[Baggio]

baggio

 

do you have a reference for the case?

 

Walker v SPPL heard at chester county court this year

 

claim number 7pa89134

[Kraken1]

I don't think SteEqWar does really know what he is talking about. A few material inaccuracies in his post. S40 aja, the offence under s77 for eg.

 

mcguffic won't be appealed on the important stuff as he admitted it. can't be done.

[Baggio]

I don't think SteEqWar does really know what he is talking about. A few material inaccuracies in his post. S40 aja, the offence under s77 for eg.

 

mcguffic won't be appealed on the important stuff as he admitted it. can't be done.

 

mcguffick is not being appealed, there was a misunderstanding on that front.

 

we all need to forget that case, total non starter as there was a good agreement.

 

has no effect on cases involving an unenforceable agreement... or it should not.

[egg-sterminator]

we got the halbert (walker) decision in our favour... surprise surprise it was never documented in the press

 

the conpsiracy against UCA's by the press, who coincidentally are being propped up with business loans/overdrafts, is so bloody transparent its unreal.

 

they fool nobody, the truth is always always outed.

 

in the end, they know the majority of the public will get wind of this and put in millions of claims.

the press is a double edged sword of course driven by the bottom line ie sell papers . They will be with you while it suits then flip more readily than a politition with a mortgage and turn on you to sell more . With luck it maybe banks turn next . Sorry about the mcduff thing really thought it was right . Lesson to new caggers look before leaping . Will talk to them next week again . O great just opened morning mail default notice from mercers, are they barcley bots? must be paid by 22nd ? i thought it was 14 working days and this is a account being challenged by a solicitor hope their not becoming braver because of a rubbish ruling ! Any advice on thread to go to for help would be much appreciated guys . Edited October 17, 2009 by egg-sterminator

[the_shadow]

the press is a double edged sword of course driven by the bottom line ie sell papers . They will be with you while it suits then flip more readily than a politition with a mortgage and turn on you to sell more . With luck it maybe banks turn next . Sorry about the mcduff thing really thought it was right . Lesson to new caggers look before leaping . Will talk to them next week again . O great just opened morning mail default notice from mercers, are they barcley bots? must be paid by 22nd ? i thought it was 14 working days and this is a account being challenged by a solicitor hope their not becoming braver because of a rubbish ruling ! Any advice on thread to go to for help would be much appreciated guys .

 

Do you have your own thread Egg? as to the DN, tell your solicitor to look up the default and enforcement notices regulations for details of what should be on a default notice, a creditors name and address would be a nice start

 

S.

[egg-sterminator]

just an observation it states on DN " FURTHER ENFORCMENT ACTION WILL BE TAKEN" is this not implying that the DN notice in itself is a form of enforcment and thus rubbish the judges ruling ?

[Baggio]

just an observation it states on DN " FURTHER ENFORCMENT ACTION WILL BE TAKEN" is this not implying that the DN notice in itself is a form of enforcment and thus rubbish the judges ruling ?

the judges ruling in the mcduff case was not a precedent

 

the judge said as much

 

each case will be viewd on its own merits

 

and as that was an enforceable agreements etc etc etc

[Docman]

just an observation it states on DN " FURTHER ENFORCMENT ACTION WILL BE TAKEN" is this not implying that the DN notice in itself is a form of enforcment and thus rubbish the judges ruling ?

 

I agree entirely. S88 of the CCA 1974 requires that a notice be sent BEFORE certain actions stated in the Act may happen. That includes termination or demanding repayment. Since the wording in the Notice is mandatory and stated in the Regulations, the reference to 'FURTHER Enforcement' must mean that Parliament intended that issuing a Notice itself WOULD be enforcment action. The judge never gave any reasons for his opinion. He just accepted that BOTH sides in the case accepted that the step of issuing a DN was NOT enforcment action. What I cannot understand is why the claimant's QC accepted it, which is why I question whether there was some side deal with the bank going on?

[gezwee]

the judges ruling in the mcduff case was not a precedent

 

the judge said as much

 

each case will be viewd on its own merits

 

and as that was an enforceable agreements etc etc etc

 

Yup, agreed - i think we're getting far too wrapped up in this one.

 

The ruling was primarily in response to the question of whether DN's, CRA reporting etc was lawful enforcement activity in a given set of circumstance.

 

At the outset of hearing all parties agreed that the debt was unenforceable during a set period that the agreement could not be evidenced but............ and its a big but, all parties including the Hon gentleman were aware that an enforceable agreement had been evidenced at a later date. Human nature alone would bias even the most reasonable of judge.

 

It was made more than clear that this was an individual judgement and any/all other cases should be heard on their own merits.

 

If anyone were to believe that this in itself sets a precedent one would also have to believe a financial institution could 'lawfully' employ enforcement activity on the basis of no contractual evidence at all.

 

Oh and whats going on over at Natwest Visa, just called me to advise they'll accept my 1 great British pound per month for another year, no charges, no interest, no grumbling, no nothing really (and yep, this one is enforceable )

 

Gez

Edited October 17, 2009 by gezwee
must get this spellchecker working 1 day !!

[AA99]

Oh and whats going on over at Natwest Visa, just called me to advise they'll accept my 1 great British pound per month for another year, no charges, no interest, no grumbling, no nothing really (and yep, this one is enforceable )

 

Gez

 

:eek:Me too with M&S Money, no arguing, no probs, fine

[Jules55]

Sorry to hi-jack the thread but as there are some very knowledgable people on here I would appreciate very much some help.

 

I am disputing a default on my credit file which I partially settled with a DCA last year, I asked Equifax to contact them as I disputed the default as I don't remember ever receiving it and also I asked them to confirm the DCA actually have a deed of assignment from the original lender, its an old goldfish card which has since been taken over by Barclays but I'm sure it was taken over by the DCA before that take over took place.

 

 

Appreciate any comments/guidance as to how I should reply, do I have a case to get this default removed?

 

 

Response (Administrator)14/10/2009 04.21 PM This debt has been admitted via settlement being paid on 4 November 2008. As the debt is admitted it must remain recorded as a satisfied defaulted account with a balance of £2,245.56 which has not been paid. This reflects an accurate history of the financial behaviour of the account holder and we are obliged to record factual data in this way as it has occurred. As such we are unable to amend our entry accordingly.

[Readalot]

I am disputing a default on my credit file which I partially settled with a DCA last year, I asked Equifax to contact them as I disputed the default as I don't remember ever receiving it and also I asked them to confirm the DCA actually have a deed of assignment from the original lender, its an old goldfish card which has since been taken over by Barclays but I'm sure it was taken over by the DCA before that take over took place.

 

 

'partially settled' is the same as "paid off some debt but still owe loads" i.e. the keyword here is not settled but partial. You are in no position to dispute anything just based on 'partial settlement'. Consider opening your own thread and going traditional route i.e. CCA/charges and so on...

[Readalot]

here we go, HSBC paper pushers apparently already have changed their tactics based on mcguffic case. see example here

 

Perhaps, it might make sense to review if CCA request templates shall be changed a bit.

[egg-sterminator]

Do you have your own thread Egg? as to the DN, tell your solicitor to look up the default and enforcement notices regulations for details of what should be on a default notice, a creditors name and address would be a nice start

 

S.

Er not great on tech stuff Shadow, will get my friend and fellow cagger to show me how to photobucket stuff from a quick look at some threads seems DN may be a duffer . awaill link back for advice if ok .

[foolishgirl]

here we go, HSBC paper pushers apparently already have changed their tactics based on mcguffic case. see example here

 

 

HSBC (& others) have been sending this & similar for a while now, Readalot, in the hope that it may persuade the reader into paying up but it's nothing to do with McG. Mark 'file in bin'.

[sunray001]

Do they still not have to supply a Credit Agreement as per usual timelines.

The only difference is that thay can keep demanding payment and keep reporting to the CRAs.

 

regards