Unenforceability Cases on hold until further notice

[the_shadow]

I will make a comment that most likely will not be popular.

 

Unless one is extremely knowledgable and/or, one has saught Counsels opinion, it would be foolish to go rushing into litigation, requesting a declaration of unenforceability.

 

One should only follow that route if one has a high percentage chance of winning.

Furthermore, all other avenues must be followed prior to such action.

 

The consequence of failure would seriously impact on so many members who are patiently following protocols.

 

"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread"

 

AC

 

Maybe not popular but very valid, the system is automatically weighted against a LiP, shouldnt be but it clearly is........ and just look at what the rankines have managed to do, muddy the waters on what was a clear(ish) issue

 

S.

[the_shadow]

The test cases i9f properly argued are to be welcomed as it should result in assisting many LIP's by obviating the need to go to court

 

Perhaps I'm being deeply suspicious or just negative but I've seen what the bank stay has done... people still get defaulted, credit records still get wrecked.

 

I'd like to see a lot more information on what this stay means to people using unenforceability as a defence as opposed to going in as a claimant as surely the two will be linked.

 

S.

[the_shadow]

• Where is the counter arguments to point out how dull, greedy and manipulative the banks have been?
  

 

I didnt want to be the one to break it to you but you weren't at the meeting, Mr Brown decided all the banks are nice and fluffy now and his mate Mandelson said we should stop blaming the banks for everything....

 

:D:D:D:D

[the_shadow]

Not wanting to sound a killjoy but I joined this thread for the informative discussion of the press reporting after the county court ruling in Chester... I didnt join to discuss the validity of claims companies and what they bring to the table or rather dont!

 

If its just me that feels this way then I apologies and will unsubscribe.......

 

S.

[the_shadow]

IMHO, this has to be a good thing, as those numpty judges that have enforced unenforceable debts are going to be made to sit up and take notice of the litigant in person claimants in front of them pleading for them to apply the law correctly cannot simply dismiss it out of hand as trying to avoid the debt.

 

Without the number of appeals showing a certain level of concern, we wouldn't have even gotten this far, it's obvious.

 

If only this had happened 18-24 months ago, then litigants like me wouldn't have had such unjust decisions levied against them because of blinkered Judges.

 

This can only be a good thing, even if it will likely drag things out a lot longer.

 

Providing that there is a stay applied, that is...

 

As long as the Stay is for both sides unlike the banks charges one I'd be happy.

 

S.

[the_shadow]

Maybe the Claim is to be assessed for a test case?

 

and if it isnt... then its possibly a chance for you to put the case forward for it to be included in the stay perhaps?

 

S.

[the_shadow]

Anyway, back to unenforceable cases being stayed...

 

 

Ah the subtle approach.. I like it

 

S.

[the_shadow]

Not really the people who own the media all **** in the same pot with those who own the banks and all other big business.Its in all their interests to keep the peasants in their place

 

Quite right TD... plus these papers are mostly living on borrowed time as in advertising funding and falling readership... they'd want to keep the bankers happy just in case they require capital in the near future

 

S.

[the_shadow]

Interesting that they are saying, this is not a presidance?

 

Because it isnt.

 

S.

[the_shadow]

In County Courts judgements may vary a great deal between one judge and another and may be taken into account in another case, but they are not precedents.

 

Only High Courts judgements (and above) become precedents.

 

I think I got that right?

 

Yep thats how I understand it also... if however the ruling gets appealed then as it gets taken to the court of appeal, that also sets a precedent.

 

S.

[the_shadow]

I can't see why that case went that far when the agreement was clearly enforceable???

 

Oh god not another Rankine moment I've just read through most of the proceedings and dont like what I see.

 

Setting out of what the court considers enforcement and backing this up with Rankine

 

S.

[the_shadow]

 

I appreciate my comments may not be popular but i do think some people have unrealistic expectations

Of course

 

I find nothing in your comments that I can object to TD, I agree with most if not all of what you've stated there

 

S.

[the_shadow]

:rolleyes:

 

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

 

 

Nice to see that rather than reading the actual judgement the journo has just printed whatever RBS' solicitors told him.

 

Oh yes...

 

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

 

S.

[the_shadow]

Apparently Lord Denning was wrong an elephant is NOT an elephant

 

This judgement MUST be challenged

 

Everyone says the same re: Rankine but it hasnt yet has it

 

Banks have deep pockets ;-)

 

S.

[the_shadow]

None of the above are technically 'enforcement' though?!

 

Though you have to say if by default of s78/77 the lender is unable to enforce... and yet take you to court and obtain a judgment against you (which this ruling seems to indicate isnt enforcement actions) isnt that the very enforcement that they were barred from taking by the act in the first place?

 

Or am I just confused

 

S.

[the_shadow]

Couldn't it be covered by both?

 

Dont forget the Data protection Act is just that.... its concerned with data not actual forms so even if they were to say to a lender you must give the information!

 

All the lender would have to do is to copy/transpose the information onto a blank sheet of paper and give it to the asker.

 

Citicard have done just so for my app form.

 

S.

[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.

[the_shadow]

MBNA are trying to enforce an agreement and I have just found out the trial date is just over a month away.

The "agreement" they have sent in response to pre action disclosure is an application forms with my signature on and a completely seperate set of terms and conditions which comply with the CCA( not surprising as they were probably produced last week).

MBNA have actually confirmed in writing that they do not have the original agreement as it was copied electronically and destroyed some years ago.

They maintain however that the original document did contain these terms and conditions on the back and have produced a witness statement from one of their employees confirming their contention is correct.

Surely that can not stand up in court or do I need to get a witness statement from my girlfriend saying the terms and conditions were not on the back?

 

TD, they can claim what they like but a) They should have stated the evidence they will provide is hearsay evidence and b) You can question it..

 

Read this thread.. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/162535-documents-court-civil-evidence.html

 

S.

[the_shadow]

Manc

 

Is this what you are referring to?

 

Judge closes 'cynical' debt loophole knock-backing 100,000 borrowers | Mail Online

 

 

haha the title... "Not paying Unenforceable agreements that can me made enforceable will still destroy your credit rating for 6 years" isnt quite as catchy as theirs is it.

 

S.

[the_shadow]

So does this mean Nationwide will now put a charge on my property?

 

The only way a charge can be entered against your property is if they have taken you to court previously and gotten a CCJ against you.

 

This case is all about reporting to the CRA's for non payment of a debt, that debt WAS uneneforceable when the court case started but only due to an account statement being provided. As soon as that was supplied the debt would have become enforceable.

 

A Debt with a pre april 2007 agreement that does not have the prescribed terms and is therefore irredeemably unenforceable was not looked at.

 

S.

[the_shadow]

It's because you made reference to another consumer website, any reference to it and up comes something very childish.....

 

haha I've not seen that before, thats tickled me for some unknown reason

 

Childish yes but funny nevertheless

 

S.

[the_shadow]

apparently they have now got together and are deciding on using a witness to state they did have a proper signed agreement but has been misplaced.

 

just as they got together a year ago and decided on non-disclosure as a route to stick 2 fingers up at the public.

 

they won't get away with it, all this will do is bring more publicty to the whole unenforceable arena and get more cliams against them

 

thick feckers.

 

Hmm, given the judges lottery, that could possibly work depending on level of court obviously.

 

S.

Edited October 15, 2009 by the_shadow

[the_shadow]

"sorry" for butting in

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

 

cab

 

If you want specifics, I've nabbed this from a defence by Citizenb, hope she doesnt mind me posting it up.

 

. Firstly I will address the issue of which Act is relevant in this case, in case it is suggested that the claim falls under the Consumer Credit Act 2006, it is drawn to the courts attention that schedule 3, s11 of the Consumer Credit Act 2006 prevents s15 repealing s127 (3) of the 1974 Act for agreements made before s15 came into effect. Since the agreement would have commenced prior to the inception of the Consumer Credit Act 2006, section 15 of the 2006 Act has no effect and the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is the relevant act in this case.

S.

[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.

[the_shadow]

Utterly spiffing letter DD

 

S.