Unenforceability Cases on hold until further notice

[seanybrand]

Everybody see this - Stay on Unenforceable Agreements

 

oh I am so confused!Only discovered this site yesterday whilst trying to work out whether I was being stitched by Tate-Lloyd/claim management.Became a cagger 2nite & found this. Can anybody tell me if ANYONE has ever had any debt eliminated at all?

[foolishgirl]

Can anybody tell me if ANYONE has ever had any debt eliminated at all?

 

Yes, yes, yes!! Look in the Sucessess.

 

It IS confusing when you first start reading on here, there are just so many issues (not to mention sub issues) but you will find that lots of reading will make it all clearer & if you have a specific problem you want advice on, just post up in the appropriate forum & someone will come along to help.

[tifo]

Can anybody tell me if ANYONE has ever had any debt eliminated at all?

 

Yes, i've had successes.

[Baggio]

100% yes yes yes yes

 

don't buy the bullshine desgined to scare newbies like you off the scent of this whole buisness.

[Tricky Dickie]

I have just spoken to Chester County Court and apparently the announcement made by Halbert last week only applies to cases WHERE THE DEBTOR IS TAKING ACTION AGAINST THE CREDITOR.

ALL ACTIONS WHERE THE CREDITOR IS TAKING ACTION AGAINST THE DEBTOR REMAIN UNAFFECTED AND WILL PROCEED AS NORMAL.

So much for justice,the intention is obviously that there will be a review and stay for people taking their lender to court but the lenders can sue our arses off as normal!

The defence I entered against MBNA action is that the agreement is in breach of the 1974 Consumer Credit Act so I asked the clerk to ask halbert to consider treating my case the same as the ones where the lenders are being taken to court by borrowers.

I will keep you posted about how things go.

 

I have now received a letter from Chester County Court informing me that I need to attend a case management conference at the court on Tuesday 19th May.

WTF is that all about at such short notice?

[paulwlton]

I have now received a letter from Chester County Court informing me that I need to attend a case management conference at the court on Tuesday 19th May.

WTF is that all about at such short notice?

 

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

[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.

[I've got no money]

Hi Guys - we urgently need a copy of Halberts recent judgment - it was posted on this thread but it got removed can anybody send either me a link or copy or send one to broken arrow

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/144119-hfo-court-claim.html

 

There's an appeal on Tuesday next week that he needs it for.

 

Cheers

[WelshMam2009]

Hi Guys - we urgently need a copy of Halberts recent judgment - it was posted on this thread but it got removed can anybody send either me a link or copy or send one to broken arrow

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/144119-hfo-court-claim.html

 

There's an appeal on Tuesday next week that he needs it for.

 

Cheers

 

I've got a copy if he pm's me his email address

[broken arrow]

I've got a copy if he pm's me his email address

 

have now got copy thanks.

[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

[car2403]

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.

 

I thought we'd agreed that wasn't a stay in place, though?

 

[Hopster]

What time is BBC Moneybox ? Please

[Mr Unenforceable]

Ok, it's good to see this thread as I was a bit suspicious when I received the following today from my Solicitors in Cheshire:

 

----

15thMay 2009

 

You may have read recently in the national press that there is a pending stay on Unenforceable Credit Agreements. Brunel Franklin

would like to assure all Clients that we are monitoring this situation very closely.

Brunel Franklin is actively involved in the proposed selection of test cases and is making representations to the Courts as to the terms

of the proposed stay. We believe that the legal merits of your potential claim have not changed and at present

- NO FUTHER ACTION IS REQUIRED BY YOU.

Had there been no merits in the Claims already submitted, the Courts would not be required to undertake assessment of test cases

and we believe this provides some comfort for Clients who are concerned at the recent developments.

It is likely to be up to 1 month before any further information is available regarding test cases and we will revert back to you with an

update as soon as we are able.

This stay is potentially good for our Clients, as this is likely to result in the creation of a protocol and process within the Court system,

which will enable claims to be dealt with in a timely and efficient manner.

Brunel Franklin, a leading financial claims management company and a market leader in this field, is happy to continue assisting you

and we assure you of our best attention at all times.

[steven4064]

Hi Mr U

 

Welcome to CAG

[yourbank]

Brunel Franklin......pmsl

 

 

CMR: Claims Management Regulation

[pt2537]

Brunel Franklin......pmsl

 

 

CMR: Claims Management Regulation

Authorisation Voluntarily Surrendered:D

[steven4064]

 

????

[Hopster]

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

[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."

[Hopster]

Well that's not what Brunel Franklin indicated here earlier today . Best listen to BBC moneybox tomorrow.

[yourbank]

They now are under the umbrella of Fairview

[Hopster]

Fairview ? I have just googled them - nothing relating to what we are discussing came up.

[yourbank]

Typo there, try flairford

[Wigeon]

Ultimatelaw, credit wise and all others are for some reason miss leading the market and general public. CMC's are throwing brick bats at each other, all in some way conning the general public out of large front end fees and large back end fees. Then along comes a very sensible judge HHJ Halbert who hears a case in Chester County Court against Southern Pacific Mortgages Limited who had in the first instance a repossession order against the borrower. The case is eventually listed before him and he finds for the borrower. The decision in the case is based on a miss statement of the amount of credit. Interest was charged by the lender on an item that was included wrongly in the AOC, a mandatory fee which should have been a cost of credit. Very good straight forward decision. Well reasoned and easy to follow.

HHJ Halbert for some reason then went of the rails and referred to Moore-Bic LJ and other Judges an idea he had to stay claims under the CCA 74 for some test cases to be heard in the commercial court in London before HHJ Andrew Smith.

The position to me seems ill thought out. This is settled law it has been through the House of Lords and in the CA in 2007 Tuckey LJ was well able to see what was and was not a case for unenforceability. He decided in Wilson v Hurstanger that the agreement was enforceable.

The courts have made it very clear.

However some CMC's are determined to ruin the chances of these cases, the real cases, being successful by bringing large numbers of these cases on very spurious grounds. Where unenforceability is alleged for coppers, or a few pounds on a loan of £15,000/£20,000. Bearing in mind there is a plus1% and minus 0.1% tolerance on the APR minor discrepancies are bound to arise. The rules where designed to prevent the lenders failing to disclose the true COST of credit to borrowers. These claims which are lodged in Chester are largely based on a very expensive computer programme which is untested non legal and suggests that minor errors result in unenforceability.

Other problems are also arising through a gross over statement of the incidence of loans that are unenforceable. Claims of 80% are a huge over statement and I have direct experience of 1000's of these loan agreements.

So yet again the lenders, courts and CMC's are muddying the waters and the losers are.............yes the poor bl........y borrowers.