Jump to content


Unenforceability Cases on hold until further notice


sequest
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4357 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Attachment from previous post, and no, my source is not Ultimate Law, but I will withold that information, as was sent it in confidence, however, as I know this information will helpful in the public domain, I will post it here.Edited

Edited by MARTIN3030
personal info
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Seems like Judge Halbert likes to play by the book...just ask North Wales Police:D

 

icNorthWales - Brunstrom speeding u-turn

 

 

I particularly like these two sentences..

 

Judge Derek Halbert said computerised reports were unacceptable

 

and

 

The forms apparently showed police officers had signed a legal declaration their statements were true.

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

 

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

 

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

 

 

BCOBS

 

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

 

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Attachment from previous post, and no, my source is not Ultimate Law, but I will withold that information, as was sent it in confidence, however, as I know this information will helpful in the public domain,

 

 

Thanks for posting that up bobby.

 

All I can say is WoW ... Look at paragraph #23.

 

"That makes it unnecessary to decide the "second row" argument about the alleged breach of the terms required by schedule 1 but for the sake of completeness..." "... Therefore the breach is established. The question remains should the court make an enforcement order?. In my view it should not ..."

OMFG

 

EDIT: for example; - if a loan agreement contains the prescribed terms [as per s61], but mis-states (or does not state it at all) the total charge for credit. - The court (in this case) would have refused to make an order to enforce.

Edited by MARTIN3030
Link to post
Share on other sites

Trying to sort the wheat, from the Chaff!

here is another input:

 

"PRESS RELEASE

Dear All,

I would like to bring some remnants of sanity to the subject of the alleged

“100,000 Frozen Unenforceable Credit Agreement claims.”

There is a lot of nonsense being published in the media about a "stay" or "freeze"

of all Consumer Credit Act claims.

Categorically, this is completely untrue.

There is NO STAY, and NO CASES

have been frozen.

This has been confirmed with the Court in Chester this very morning (8th May

2009) by our Legal team, who won the Walker case that is referred to.

This is a malicious rumour being put about by those with a very different agenda.

The only thing the Judge is suggesting is that the Court wants to consider what

would be the effect if such a stay was brought in.

Our legal team have a meeting booked to discuss this matter in detail on 18th

May in Chester, with His Honour Judge Derek R Halbert.

Attached to this email is a copy of the correspondence that has been published by

Judge Derek R Halbert of the Chester County Court. Please read this carefully. It

is important that you understand the inference of the correspondence.

Reports have appeared in the media over the last couple of days stating that

Chester County Court has issued a stay on all proceedings relating to

unenforceable credit agreements. These reports are incorrect, yet they have

appeared in newspapers, websites and various editorials.

The TRUE FACTS are that as a result of a case in the name of Walker at Chester

County Court which was appealed to Judge Derek R Halbert and which the lender,

Southern Pacific Personal Loans Ltd, lost due to their non-compliance with the

prescribed requirements of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

The issue of the appeal related to a specific technical point about what constitutes

the “total amount for credit”.

In relation to many of the reports we have seen, the law has been incorrectly

stated and language suggests that there is a “legal loophole”. This could not be

further from the truth; in fact the case that was won in the Chester County Court

underpinned the very essence of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

The Act, as it has stood since 1974, was amended in 2006, and the amendments

came into force in April 2007. The change affects NEW credit agreements and the

‘old law’ still applies to agreements taken out before the change was made. The

change itself, involves primarily the introduction of a new regime of unfair

relationships, and the introduction of a new discretion for the court to determine

unenforceability.

Under the ‘old law’ the court has NO DISCRETION and the law is established

and has been tested up to the House of Lords and is regularly stated in case Law.

Because of the tactics and strategies of lenders, who are now actively meeting to

collectively address their past non-compliance, we believe that part of their

strategy involves negative marketing in relation to the industry, including

disseminating regular mis-information, for example recent reports on the BBC

and in The Times which are simply inaccurate and which do not reflect the true

facts. We are in the process of developing a full response to as many of the

inaccurate reports as we identify.

In the meantime, in relation to the Chester County Court issue, a proposal has

been submitted to the senior judiciary because County Court judges require

‘directions’ in relation to the unenforceable claims they are dealing with.

The ‘direction’ process is a formal way of the judiciary giving guidance to lower

courts on how to process, examine, determine and conclude cases. This is a

normal and common practice within the courts. In relation to the specific case

and the implications of the proposed stay being converted into an actual stay of

proceedings, we continue to work closely with the leading experts, including the

lawyers and barristers who conducted the case and continue to have utmost

confidence in the law and the decision that was made on appeal.

Should a stay in proceedings occur, this will not prevent us from continuing to

seek new business as any and all claims will still be based on the established

proven ‘old law’ (i.e. the Act from 1974). Because of the nature and importance

of the issues in the case relating to legal definitions as well as the significance of

ensuring consumer rights are protected and consumers are given the opportunity

to exercise those rights, we will be closely involved with all the proceedings and

the senior judicial, legal and academic experts with whom the claims process has

been developed over the last couple of years.

We understand that the ‘headline’ of this incident may be of some considerable

concern to our customers and introducers, however you should always remember

that our audit process is proven and based on sound, reliable, tested and

accurate processes developed by leading experts with the approval of counsel and

various QCs.

The banks are acutely aware of the nature of their non-compliance, and are

attempting to avoid their legal responsibilities by adopting tactics such as

applying unscrupulous PR and marketing campaigns (directed at uninformed and

legally unskilled consumers).

The banks know that they have lost the legal and moral arguments in relation to

their failures over the past few years and the most important thing to remember

is that a lender CANNOT enforce ANY consumer credit agreement unless THEY

go to court and get an order.

HERE’S THE RUB FOR THE

LENDERS…

In the event that proceedings are in fact stayed in the future, the banks will not

be able to take any action WHATSOEVER against any client or customer of My

Claims Supermarket due to the nature of actions being “stayed”.

Please bear in mind that lenders will be unlikely to accept the impact stayed

proceedings will have on their cash flow - as there will be none – since ANY

AND ALL consumer agreements found to be challengeable will be suspended as

they will be deemed to be in dispute (as per Consumer Credit Act 1974 s65(1),

66(1)A, 127(3), Regulation 6(1) and Schedule 6 of the Consumer Credit

Agreement regulations 1983 – to name just a few…) including any payments

made.

Should this in fact become the situation that we find ourselves in, this inevitably

will make the claims market more attractive to consumers at a time of deep

recession and we are confident that the banks will revert to their previous

strategy of defending individual actions.

We will keep you fully advised of all developments, in particular the meeting next

week with the judge and the legal teams representing both parties.

---

Regards

Duncan Pearson

Legal Sevices Director

My Claims Supermarket Ltd"

 

AC

Link to post
Share on other sites

The publicity for this issue is almost all pro-bank and pro-Debt Industry:

 

 

  • Every banking group is jumping on the band wagon to have a toot, and you'll note that images of the Debt Industry's favourite rogue debtors the Rankines are being dragged out again and plastered all over the BBC Web Site (again).

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

  • Where is the counter arguments to ridicule the banks for failing to get their Agreements right despite having several armies of lawyers to ensure they got it right, not to mention The Consumer Credit Act 1974 that gave them a few hints from 1974 onwards.

  • Where is the counter arguments to lampoon the 35% interest rates, the rate ramping and credit limit manipulation that has led people into debt who really did not know what was actually happening to them? People with amazingly little to show for all the money the banks say they have borrowed and say they have spent!

  • Where is the counter arguments to question why so many banks have destroyed so many Agreements, and yet without, apparently, bothering to keep any logical records to verify that copies they are producing are actual copies of the documents they have conveniently destroyed?

  • Why is there no mention of the dreadful, systematic and abusive harassment that all banks are deliberately engaging in? Harassment that is now, apparently, not regarded as serious even when over 700 calls were pointed at a dying man (Mr Leather).

  • Why is there no mention of the Debt Sale business, where banks can balloon a debt by over 40% towards the end, just so they can write that off against tax, and then sell it for hard cash to grubby DCAs for maybe 5%, who then unleash their own unique form of Harassment to chase the whole ballooned debt all over again?

The real truth is nowhere near as simple as the British Bonehead Banking Association would like people to believe...you Spent it, so you must Pay it back. The reality is: they fell over themselves to lend, made a pooch screw of the agreement, manipulated the balance into orbit out of thin air, and invariably now want far more back than they ever lent or ever had in the first place! Now they are squealing like Vampires caught out in the sun.

 

So far, this is just good publicity for the banks and bad for Consumers. The Courts are highly unlikely to find in favour of the Consumer, the deal has been done. The Government owns a chunk of most of the banks, so the Judicial fix has gone in to start supporting them. Now it will be Government policy to help the banks, because the Government is the banks in many cases.

 

This will not go well unless we can make a big noise to state there is another side to this. Otherwise, anyone challenging a bank, will be called a Rankine and will lose.

 

Cheers,

BRW

 

No mention either of the way that the banks create the debt out of nothing and the money doesn't actually exist until it is borrowed. (sorry if someone else has said this but I haven't read the whole thread).

This e-book is what got me started http://www.freedomfiles.org/mary-book.pdf

 

This short film opened my eyes

http://www.flixya.com/video/1164060/Money_As_Debt_-_Forex

 

In truth we can find peace and in unity we can cause change

http://www.tpuc.org/

Link to post
Share on other sites

This sounds like C**p

 

Cant see the need for a test case, Wilson pretty much took care of that

 

Do you have claims in via one of these firms that sort it for you?

 

If not, it sounds like the craftiest move yet by a lender to get you to pay

 

I can't see how they can repeal another element of the CCA 1974 with this... it goes beyond the pale. Thousands of consumers were duped because of banks not following the guidelines laid down in law. This is not about people not wanting to pay debt necessarily (though it is a motivation I am sure) but for some sort of decency and transparency to be introduced into the system. Companies only ever seem to learn when they are slapped on the wrists.

 

Seeing this notification has made me feel slightly ill to be honest; the public screwed over again is the though that comes to mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for that bobby. Looks like a judge who knows the law! if i end up in court i hope i can get a judge like judge halbern:)

Advice & opinions given by spartathisis are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trying to sort the wheat, from the Chaff!

here is another input:

 

"PRESS RELEASE the ‘old law’ still applies to agreements taken out before the change was made.

 

Under the ‘old law’ the court has NO DISCRETION and the law is established and has been tested up to the House of Lords and is regularly stated in case Law.

 

In the meantime, in relation to the Chester County Court issue, a proposal has been submitted to the senior judiciary because County Court judges require ‘directions’ in relation to the unenforceable claims they are dealing with. The ‘direction’ process is a formal way of the judiciary giving guidance to lower courts on how to process, examine, determine and conclude cases. This is a normal and common practice within the courts.

 

 

This seems to me the sensible riposte to the Times press report to be honest... I don't trust newspapers at the best of times and here it seems is another example.

 

Case law just doesn't get squashed just like that. I think the directions could well be a positive step for people who are attempting to wipe their debts; this should stop rogue judges finding in favour of the lenders due to a lack of understanding over the CCA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Case law just doesn't get squashed just like that. I think the directions could well be a positive step for people who are attempting to wipe their debts; this should stop rogue judges finding in favour of the lenders due to a lack of understanding over the CCA.

 

 

 

But moreso should stop lenders and Dcas trying to manipulate the Consumer Credit Act when it suits them in evading their responsibilities to comply.

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Case law just doesn't get squashed just like that. I think the directions could well be a positive step for people who are attempting to wipe their debts; this should stop rogue judges finding in favour of the lenders due to a lack of understanding over the CCA.

 

 

 

But moreso should stop lenders and Dcas trying to manipulate the Consumer Credit Act when it suits them in evading their responsibilities to comply.

 

Agreed. It's strange how the dodgy acts of the companies involved are reported in a more favourable light than that of the people who have been screwed over. Money makes people/businesses do strange things.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Attachment from previous post, and no, my source is not Ultimate Law, but I will withold that information, as was sent it in confidence, however, as I know this information will helpful in the public domain,

 

 

I think it's a bit naff that you should post this guys address up here for all the world to see.

I'm sure he wouldn't want all his neighbours to know he had a repossession on his house. Very unthoughtful and I hope the mods have a bit more respect for this guy and take this off.

 

**EDITED**

Edited by car2403
Moderation is a 2 way street - personal attacks against ANY member are against site rules...

Odio los bancos con una venganza

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets say I have an interest in the financial services industry. I have had my eye on the financial claims management industry since it started about 12 months ago. The quote above is from a company I deal with. I thought their take on it may be helpful to the discussion. I have removed names to protect the innocent (?!) as it were. Didn't take long to change your mind did it?

Odio los bancos con una venganza

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's a bit naff that you should post this guys address up here for all the world to see.

I'm sure he wouldn't want all his neighbours to know he had a repossession on his house. Very unthoughtful and I hope the mods have a bit more respect for this guy and take this off.

 

**EDITED**

 

Perhaps you should have been more careful before you posted the message regarding the judge "freezing credit claims"? I think it's clear the actual judgement showed you up a little personally ;-)

Edited by car2403
quoting edited post above
Link to post
Share on other sites

Case law just doesn't get squashed just like that. I think the directions could well be a positive step for people who are attempting to wipe their debts; this should stop rogue judges finding in favour of the lenders due to a lack of understanding over the CCA.

 

But moreso should stop lenders and Dcas trying to manipulate the Consumer Credit Act when it suits them in evading their responsibilities to comply.

 

 

**EDITED** in respect of Ms Lipszyc, I have to question her motives in slanting her article/press release in the way she did. All of this hype as emanated predominantly from one source and has necessitated subsequent clarification from others.

 

In the interest of fairness, Ms Lipszyc is quoted below, although I'm confident you will have already read it...make your own mind up!!

 

Daniella Lipszyc, a solicitor at Ultimate Law, a law firm, said: "The ruling by His Honour Judge Halbert is a landmark decision that will have massive implications on cases involving the enforceability of credit agreements.

“After a number of early wins, many claims management companies have jumped on the band wagon, promising desperate consumers that they can write off credit card balances.

"In reality, cases have simply ground to a halt as banks and lenders up their game and become more clued up on the Consumer Credit Act and subsidiary legislation. It’s now extremely inappropriate and misleading for any company to promise to write off balances in light of this judicial move.”

Edited by car2403
Contravenes site rules, referring to moderation previous

If you feel I've helped then by all means click my star to the left...a simple "thank you" costs nothing! ;)

 

Restons MBNA -v- WelshMam

 

MBNA Cards

 

CitiCard

M&S and More

Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I see it, if Parliament wanted the issue of unenforceability to disappear, then the CCA 2006 wouldn't have left the carve out for s.127(3-5) claims to continue under agreements made under the 1974 Act. This was quite specific, so was obviously debated when the Bill was being put through the HL and Parliament. As a result, I would summarise that the Judges felt that case law should prevail and that consumers that entered into technically incorrect agreements should be protected. The lenders would have tried to insist on the repeal applying to agreements retrospectively, so in the consultation period, this definitely would have been debated.

 

As such, the result was that the Bill was passed without the repeal applying to pre-2006 agreements. Therefore, the case law stands and I doubt that any judge hearing a case would rule against the previous case law, which appears to be fair to the consumer and lender - assuming the lenders bothered to draft the CCA's correctly!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst I'm conscious of Tricky's censorship in respect of Ms Lipszyc, I have to question her motives in slanting her article/press release in the way she did. All of this hype as emanated predominantly from one source and has necessitated subsequent clarification from others.

 

In the interest of fairness, Ms Lipszyc is quoted below, although I'm confident you will have already read it...make your own mind up!!

 

I noticed that quote from her... but there is a difference between promising customers that their balances can be written off and actually finding holes in the credit agreement.

 

A number of companies are obviously jumping on the bandwagon and I think the courts are aware of this. I think, if anything, that the courts wish to stop people being duped rather than actually quashing the right for agreements that are genuinely unenforceable in court as per s.127.

 

I think some clarification is needed on this entire issue because it seems to have created a bit of a stir... site team?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Attachment from previous post, and no, my source is not Ultimate Law, but I will withold that information, as was sent it in confidence, however, as I know this information will helpful in the public domain,

 

 

I think it's a bit naff that you should post this guys address up here for all the world to see.

I'm sure he wouldn't want all his neighbours to know he had a repossession on his house. Very unthoughtful and I hope the mods have a bit more respect for this guy and take this off.

 

It was sent to you confidentially, and you post it here ! Says a lot about your integrity. Typical ambulance chaser- has no respect for anyone!!!!

 

 

This is a good point,and we will probably never know if indeed the person would have been happy about his details on CAG-but its extremely unlikely that he would.

Aside from this it is against guidelines on posting in that it has personal identifiers or associated information to that person which is inappropriate to be posting.

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I noticed that quote from her... but there is a difference between promising customers that their balances can be written off and actually finding holes in the credit agreement.

 

A number of companies are obviously jumping on the bandwagon and I think the courts are aware of this. I think, if anything, that the courts wish to stop people being duped rather than actually quashing the right for agreements that are genuinely unenforceable in court as per s.127.

 

I think some clarification is needed on this entire issue because it seems to have created a bit of a stir... site team?

 

 

Theres many differences of opinion and trains of thought.

Its no secret that there are those who have jumped on the bandwagon-but many are under investigation and the FSA and MOJ have tried to make it more difficult for those seeking to make a fast buck with false promises.

 

Insofar as the questions of determining who is right when it comes to clarification on the CCA-we are just going to have to wait and see what comes out of the proposed test case run of selected cases-but this thread shows that many have a good understanding...the good thing is probably knowing that there appears to be a determined effort to get this cleared up sooner rather than later-so hopefully it will not be another 3 year test case.

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps you should have been more careful before you posted the message regarding the judge "freezing credit claims"? I think it's clear the actual judgement showed you up a little personally ;-)

 

Want to elaborate?

Odio los bancos con una venganza

Link to post
Share on other sites

His Honour got it spot on...this is a major major blow to the finance industry. There are lots of agreements who have sneakily applied interest to their £50 arangement fees....this will cost them big time.

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

Theres many differences of opinion and trains of thought.

Its no secret that there are those who have jumped on the bandwagon-but many are under investigation and the FSA and MOJ have tried to make it more difficult for those seeking to make a fast buck with false promises.

 

Insofar as the questions of determining who is right when it comes to clarification on the CCA-we are just going to have to wait and see what comes out of the proposed test case run of selected cases-but this thread shows that many have a good understanding...the good thing is probably knowing that there appears to be a determined effort to get this cleared up sooner rather than later-so hopefully it will not be another 3 year test case.

 

Which is entirely correct; people should not be duped on any level even if the intentions are honourable. It's a can of worms for sure... but the law is the law and it would need a radical change of policy to repeal s.127 of the CCA 1974 IMHO.

 

Regarding the "test cases" - I thought the only thing happening was a direction from the higher courts to give some sort of widespread precedent/policy for dealing with these contractual disputes? Let's not forget the Walker ruling was actually an appeal hearing... I think the judge was unhappy at this being plonked on his desk when it could have been dealt with in the original hearing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

This is a good point,and we will probably never know if indeed the person would have been happy about his details on CAG-but its extremely unlikely that he would.

Aside from this it is against guidelines on posting in that it has personal identifiers or associated information to that person which is inappropriate to be posting.

 

 

Hi guys, yes I must admit sorry about that. I didn't post it initially, and then someone asked me to, I posted it without reading it. Blame the person who sent it to me then. They had a distribution list of thousands that it went out to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Want to elaborate?

 

You posted the original post on the judge freezing claims... but the actual ruling was nothing of the sort. In fact the appeal was upheld. Therefore the publishing of the documents contravened your post.

 

If I am wrong I am happy to admit it... but it seems strange to have a go at the poster of what seems to be information that stops the conjecture and actually tells the story of the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Hi guys, yes I must admit sorry about that. I didn't post it initially, and then someone asked me to, I posted it without reading it. Blame the person who sent it to me then. They had a distribution list of thousands that it went out to.

 

I would only be sorry that it contained personal information mate... the publishing of it showed that there is nothing to be worried about really. The appeal was upheld... this is a success!

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4357 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...