Unenforceability Cases on hold until further notice

[steven4064]

Whats the significance of Cheshire-and in particular Chester......MBNA live there ?

Yes they do Edited May 7, 2009 by citizenB
title amended on merged post

[steven4064]

THis will be a nightmare for the courts because, as we know, you cannot lump all credit agreements together. THose that are unenforceable are so for a variety of reasons, some obvious, some not.

 

If it is to be a general test case on enforceabilty, we already have some - Wilson v First County Trust to name but one and that is fairly recent.

[steven4064]

can anyone tell me if prescribed terms are allowed to refer to clauses that are not contained within the four corners??

It is quite clear from case law that they can refer to other clauses that are not within the four corners, but all the requiements of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) REgulations regarding the prescribed terms themselves must be within the four corners. To be properly executed, that means the requirements of schedule 1 and to be enforceable under s127(3), that means the requirements of schedule 6.

[steven4064]

I'm having difficulty trying to work out what specifically the test case is intended to determine especialy that there's allready relevant case law that would prove most cases in the debtor's favour.

I agree entirely and made the same point back in post 129 - I don't know what they're at, unless you've put your finger on the problem - existing case law is in the debtor's favour

[steven4064]

What it should mean is that, if you get taken to court by a finance company or DCA and challenge the enforceabiilty of the agreement, the case should be stayed until the outcome of the 'test case'. We should certainly be asking for that in Defences, AQs, etc.

[steven4064]

CAG gets a mention

 

BBC NEWS | Business | Judges seek hold on debt claims

Unfortunately, so do the Rankines

[steven4064]

The price of pedantry is eternal vigilance

[steven4064]

How refreshing to come across an enlightened judge though

[steven4064]

That is interesting TD - thanks for finding out.

[steven4064]

Hi Mr U

 

Welcome to CAG

[steven4064]

 

????

[steven4064]

The cases haven't been stayed yet. It may not be the "end of the line for unenforceability claims" but it may well be the end of the line for law firms "who specialises in Claims Management"

[steven4064]

I was assuming the test case would find for the banks, I guess.

Indeed the whole reason that Judge Halbert acted the way he did was brought about by the number of claims submitted by CMC,s and the number which are possibly going to be submitted in the future

and to try and put a stop to it probably

[steven4064]

That's not the way it works. The whole point of precedent in general and test cases in particular with regard to statute is to interpret the requirements of Acts of Parliament. And in the case of Common LAw, it is courts not Parliament that make the law. Often, Acts of Parliament just bring together and codify principles of the Common Law.

[steven4064]

The House of Lords has already proved the case for unenforceability the further cases will serve only to clarify some peripheral issues and provide clear directions for judges where they find similar cases.

Have a look at this thread

 

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

I know, I was being ironic