Unenforceability Cases on hold until further notice

[fermi]

The BBC have finally noticed.

 

BBC NEWS | Business | Judges seek hold on debt claims

 

CAG gets a mention.

[fermi]

As per response in the pm-repost with some edits is fine.

 

Edited version then.....

Walker vs SPPl-e.pdf

[fermi]

No idea what being CAGbotted means, but neither do I care.

 

I would rather this stays on topic, so I assume a good thing?

 

Sorry to sound thick but what is a cag bot? I love the term but don't think it's sounds too healthy

 

Been here (lurkin...) a long time and I'm none the wiser.

[fermi]

I was actually Cagbotted myself twice during the process !!

 

Good. Still no idea what it means, but if it happens to the mods as well then that is fair play.;-)

 

CAGbot is an automated notification from the forum system to tell you that your posts have been edited/moved/moderated - they are sent out to let you know what has happened to your posts, etc.

 

EDIT: There we go then.

[fermi]

Latest pearls of wisdom from the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8037983.stm

 

Not exactly latest. And not exactly wisdom either.

 

The BBC have finally noticed.

 

BBC NEWS | Business | Judges seek hold on debt claims

 

CAG gets a mention.

 

Sorry. I am a pedant and know it.

[fermi]

the BBC couldnt be further from the mark on this subject

 

Just reading through that report and this thread, proves that point.

 

Hopefully this should (in the end) help consumers.

[fermi]

Going to be a "report" on BBC moneybox tomorrow.

 

BBC NEWS | Programmes | Moneybox

 

Consumer action

 

Not so long ago the county courts were being swamped with bank charges cases.

 

This year, they are increasingly hearing cases brought by consumers trying to get their loan and credit cards debts cancelled.

 

The claims companies acting on their behalf are using the Consumer Credit Act to look for irregularities in credit agreements which could make them unenforceable.

 

Now preparations are underway for a test case to determine whether these claims are legitimate.

 

Bob Howard reports.

If its on a par with recent BBC "reports" then I don't expect much (if any) insight though. Edited May 15, 2009 by fermi

[fermi]

What does that mean ? Authorisation surrendered ?? pmsl ??

 

"Authorisation voluntarily surrendered – Businesses that have been authorised by the Regulator but who have surrendered their authorisation. These businesses are not authorised to provide regulated services."

[fermi]

hi

 

is this to be decided today

 

'Decided' is probably too strong a word, but there was this yesterday....

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/200110-case-management-conference-mbna.html#post2179083

[fermi]

So "storm inna teacup" then.

 

If people are handing out the drinks, pass this way.

[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.

[fermi]

:rolleyes:

 

http://www.credittoday.co.uk/news/news-item.cfm?news=1359

 

Screw tightens on claims management firms - 08/10/2009

 

Royal Bank of Scotland has secured a victory in a consumer credit case that a law firm said will "tighten the screw" on claims management companies’ practices.

 

Mr Justice Flaux found in favour of RBS in its case against Phillip McGuffick who sought to declare that a £17,000 loan from the bank was irredeemably unenforceable under sections 61 and 127 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

But in the Commercial Court, at the Royal Courts of Justice, it was concluded that claimants seeking to prove their credit agreements are unenforceable under the Act are still liable for monies owed.

 

During the case it emerged that only two repayments were made to RBS between August 2006 and May 2007, when 10 monthly payments of £346 were due. Since June 2007, the total amount owed has been £15,066.

 

The account was referred to Callcredit, Experian and Equifax and the debt recovery process was referred to Apex Credit Management, but to no effect. It was then referred to Capquest but again no repayments were made.

 

The claimant’s solicitors, MJP Justice, then wrote to the bank in February this year to dispute the credit agreement on the grounds that no reference was made to credit reference agencies in the original agreement.

 

MJP asked for documents relating to the original loan agreement and argued that while the debt was in dispute, no enforcement action could be taken. RBS has received hundreds of similar requests from solicitors and claims management firms for the same purpose.

 

But Mr Justice Flaux ruled that the claimant could not prevent RBS from making reports of the claimant’s non-payment to the credit reference agencies (CRAs). The court was asked whether the passing of information to the CRAs breached data protection law, but the court found the sharing of information to be lawful and legitimate.

 

The case was referred to the Commercial Court with a view to define and clarify the meaning of enforcement in the context of the Consumer Credit Act.

 

Law firm Eversheds said the case succeeded in doing so and it will be "invaluable" to all lenders now dealing with challenges to the enforceability of agreements.

 

The court decided that bringing legal proceeding is only a step taken with a view to enforcement and not actually enforcement. Consequently, steps taken before proceedings start, including demanding payment and threatening legal action, cannot be enforcement.

 

The court also found that demanding payment, issuing a default notice, threatening legal action and bringing legal proceedings did not constitute enforcement either.

 

Chris Busby, partner at Eversheds, said: "The decision undermines the practice of panel solicitors at claims management companies selling their services based on identifying unenforceable credit agreements. CMCs should now be warning customers that running these arguments and ceasing repayment of loans will have an adverse impact on credit ratings."

 

Claims management firm Cartal Client Review, which was not involved in the RBS case, called on the Ministry of Justice to review how claims management companies are regulated.

 

Carl Wright, chief executive of Cartel, said: "I believe the MoJ should hold a joint consultation with leading financial claims management companies to agree a set of standards that can be implemented across the industry to protect and better inform consumers."

[fermi]

Oh yes...

 

Spin... Spin... Spin... and more Spin

 

S.

 

That's a lot more polite than I would have put it.

[fermi]

"sorry" for butting in

can anybody tell me what section in the 2006 regs, states that agreements pre april 2007 are not effected

 

cab

 

s127(3) repeal

 

Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14)

 

15 Enforceability of regulated agreements

In section 127 of the 1974 Act (enforcement orders in cases of infringement) subsections (3) to (5) shall cease to have effect.

 

11 The repeal by this Act of—

 

(a) the words “(subject to subsections (3) and (4))” in subsection (1) of section 127 of the 1974 Act,

 

(b) subsections (3) to (5) of that section, and

 

© the words “or 127(3)” in subsection (3) of section 185 of that Act,

 

has no effect in relation to improperly-executed agreements made before the commencement of section 15 of this Act.

 

 

The Consumer Credit Act 2006 (Commencement No. 2 and Transitional Provisions and Savings) Order 2007 No. 123 (C. 6)

 

PROVISIONS COMING INTO FORCE ON 6TH APRIL 2007

 

.............

 

Section 15 Repeal of section 127(3) to (5) of the 1974 Act (enforcement orders in cases of infringement)

Edited October 15, 2009 by fermi