Unenforceability Cases on hold until further notice

[letitbeme]

Admiralty and Commercial Court List of Judges

 

Mr Justice Andrew Smith, His clerk is Joe McGarrity, Tel:020 7947 7519

[letitbeme]

Any updates?

[angry cat]

Waiting to hear, with crained neck!

[enoughisenough]

Mr Justice Andrew Smith!

[Artie44]

The 'Bank Charges' Judge

[Hopster]

Me too !

[WelshMam2009]

Mr Justice Andrew Smith!

 

The 'Bank Charges' Judge

 

Sounds promising!!

 

Saw nothing listed for him today. This is for tomorrow and does not appear consumer credit related but is to do with bribery and contract rescission from what I can gather from the Times archives...

 

FIRST AVENUE HOUSE

COURT 80

Before MR JUSTICE ANDREW SMITH

Thursday 01 October 2009

At 10:30

For Trial

Part Heard

2005-534 Fiona Trust & Holding Corporation & 20 Ors v Yuri Privalov & 17 Ors

Part Heard

Same v Same

[letitbeme]

The only case listed for Mr Justice Andrew Smith!

 

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/list_commercial.htm

 

FIRST AVENUE HOUSE

COURT 80

Before MR JUSTICE ANDREW SMITH

Thursday 01 October 2009

At 10:30

For Trial

Part Heard

2005-534 Fiona Trust & Holding Corporation & 20 Ors v Yuri Privalov & 17 Ors

Part Heard

Same v Same

 

and there was nothing listed for him today.

 

I have a feeling that the case that Paul referred to may have been withdrawn.

 

It looks like the Manchester case is next.

 

I have a meeting this Friday with the legal council for the cases due to be heard at Manchester on the 8th, will try and update Friday evening.

LIBM

[Hopster]

Yes please !

[stebiz]

I really can't see what there is 'test' in these trials. The case law is there from Wilson etc. I won my appeal today against Cabot. Unenforceable Agreement.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/179069-lost-court-today-cca.html

 

Stebiz

[car2403]

The issue in question is whether Defaulting someone on their credit file amounts to enforcement of the agreement, AFAIK. That issue hasn't been tested, although Wilson et al are clearly persusavive precendent, IMHO.

[angry cat]

The issue in question is whether Defaulting someone on their credit file amounts to enforcement of the agreement, AFAIK. That issue hasn't been tested, although Wilson et al are clearly persusavive precendent, IMHO.

 

Enforcement it is!

 

And there is sufficient legislation/DPA technical guidance, however, we must all be patient and just wait and see how the learned judges view the matter...?

 

One can only hope, that the judiciary will defend individuals 'Rights' under the DPA about the processing of incorrect subject data regarding: Unresolved Disputes.

 

An optimist, as ever.

 

AC

[stebiz]

Enforcement it is!

 

And there is sufficient legislation/DPA technical guidance, however, we must all be patient and just wait and see how the learned judges view the matter...?

 

One can only hope, that the judiciary will defend individuals 'Rights' under the DPA about the processing of incorrect subject data regarding: Unresolved Disputes.

 

An optimist, as ever.

 

AC

 

I'm missing the point somewhere. I thought it was about enforceability of agreements. Ignore me. I've obviously got some catching up to do.

 

Stebiz

[Hopster]

You won your case against Cabot ? Why was your agreement found to be unenforceable ? Can you explain please ? Please.

[stebiz]

You won your case against Cabot ? Why was your agreement found to be unenforceable ? Can you explain please ? Please.

 

In a nutshell there were no prescribed T&C'S embodied in the agreement/application form.

 

Stebiz

[Hopster]

None ? Can you give an example ? And whose application form was it ? Cabots ? Who was the original "alleged" creditor ? Do you know if Cabot bought the debt or were they just the DCA ?

[stebiz]

None ? Can you give an example ? And whose application form was it ? Cabots ? Who was the original "alleged" creditor ? Do you know if Cabot bought the debt or were they just the DCA ?

 

Check out

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/179069-lost-court-today-cca.html

[orangetrader]

Reported this morning on BBC

Court lets woman off £8,000 loan

By Ian Pollock

Personal finance reporter, BBC News

 

 

The obligation to repay many consumer loans may be undermined

A decision by a county court Judge could mean thousands of borrowers being able to renege on their debts.

Judge Jacqueline Smart at South Shields county court has decided that the MBNA credit card company cannot demand the repayment of a customer's debt.

It tried to force Lynne Thorius to repay the £8,000 she owed on her card.

But the Judge decided there had been an unfair relationship between Ms Thorius and MBNA because of the way she had been sold payment protection insurance.

'Massive ramifications'

Ms Thorius' case was pursued on her behalf by a claims management firm Cartel Client Review, based in Manchester, and the law firm Consumer Credit Litigation Solicitors.

Carl Wright of Cartel Client Review, claimed the court decision was a landmark judgement.

"This will have massive ramifications for consumers up and down the country," he said.

But MBNA downplayed the importance of the court decision.

"The judgement went against MBNA for a number of reasons," a spokeswoman said.

"In principle, because the deputy district judge felt that MBNA had not on this occasion provided the appropriate documents to the customer and as such was not able to rely on the clauses MBNA would ordinarily seek to rely on in these cases," she explained.

"The case is a county court case and each case is decided on its own merits and on the factual circumstances of each case. This does not set any legal precedent," said MBNA.

'Secret commission'

The credit card in question was branded with the logo of Sunderland football club and was sold to Ms Thorius in the club's shop in 2002.

The PPI policy was sold to her at the same time, to pay off her account if she fell ill or was made redundant.

But, critically, she had not been told that MBNA would be receiving regular commission payments from the insurance provider ITT London & Edinburgh, a subsidiary of the Aviva insurance group.

Judge Smart agreed with the argument of Ms Thorius's barrister, Paul Brant, that this "secret" commission meant the credit card deal was unfair and therefore in breach the Consumer Credit Act.

This point could potentially undermine many other agreements where PPI has been sold by the lender alongside a loan.

These include car finance deals, other personal loans and even mortgages.

"This practice is believed to be widespread and formed part of the Competition Commission's decision to prohibit the co-sale of PPI with credit in its report published on 29/1/09," Mr Brant noted.

"This point is likely to affect many thousands of individuals within England and Wales," he added.

Repayments

Judge Smart also agreed that the debt on Ms Thorius's credit card was unenforceable because the card company could not provide a copy of the original loan agreement, which is also required by the Consumer Credit Act.

MBNA's claim for the repayment of the outstanding money on the card was rejected.

And the Judge ordered the company either to repay Ms Thorius's PPI premiums and interest, or the value of the commissions it had received which so far has been undisclosed.

The PPI premiums, which rose each month as the credit card debts increased, amounted to £2,500 over the time the card had been in use.

Controversial

The claims management industry which has emerged in the past few years has been highly controversial.

Many firms advertise in newspapers and on television, encouraging people to come forward to write off their debts.

This year the authorities, such as the Office of Fair Trading (OFT), Ministry of Justice (which regulates claims management firms) and the Solicitors Regulation Authority, have warned firms not to make exaggerated claims about their ability to get debts written off because of apparent technical errors in the lenders' paperwork.

Since April 2007 more than 100 such firms, or those advertising for people to pursue personal injury claims, have been shut down by the OFT.

But the South Shields ruling appears to open up a new and genuine line of attack for claims firms.

"We have been using this argument for some time but lenders have been settling outside the courts to avoid publicity," said Mr Wright.

MBNA applied for leave to appeal, which was rejected, but it may now apply directly to a higher court for permission to appeal.

Only when higher courts have decided the issue will the legal ramifications, and the effects on lender and borrowers, be clear.

[Tricky Dickie]

Reported this morning on BBC

 

Court lets woman off £8,000 loan

By Ian Pollock

Personal finance reporter, BBC News

 

 

The obligation to repay many consumer loans may be undermined

A decision by a county court Judge could mean thousands of borrowers being able to renege on their debts.

Judge Jacqueline Smart at South Shields county court has decided that the MBNA credit card company cannot demand the repayment of a customer's debt.

It tried to force Lynne Thorius to repay the £8,000 she owed on her card.

But the Judge decided there had been an unfair relationship between Ms Thorius and MBNA because of the way she had been sold payment protection insurance.

'Massive ramifications'

Ms Thorius' case was pursued on her behalf by a claims management firm Cartal Client Review, based in Manchester, and the law firm Consumer Credit Litigation Solicitors.

Carl Wright of Cartal Client Review, claimed the court decision was a landmark judgement.

"This will have massive ramifications for consumers up and down the country," he said.

But MBNA downplayed the importance of the court decision.

"The judgement went against MBNA for a number of reasons," a spokeswoman said.

"In principle, because the deputy district judge felt that MBNA had not on this occasion provided the appropriate documents to the customer and as such was not able to rely on the clauses MBNA would ordinarily seek to rely on in these cases," she explained.

"The case is a county court case and each case is decided on its own merits and on the factual circumstances of each case. This does not set any legal precedent," said MBNA.

'Secret commission'

The credit card in question was branded with the logo of Sunderland football club and was sold to Ms Thorius in the club's shop in 2002.

The PPI policy was sold to her at the same time, to pay off her account if she fell ill or was made redundant.

But, critically, she had not been told that MBNA would be receiving regular commission payments from the insurance provider ITT London & Edinburgh, a subsidiary of the Aviva insurance group.

Judge Smart agreed with the argument of Ms Thorius's barrister, Paul Brant, that this "secret" commission meant the credit card deal was unfair and therefore in breach the Consumer Credit Act.

This point could potentially undermine many other agreements where PPI has been sold by the lender alongside a loan.

These include car finance deals, other personal loans and even mortgages.

"This practice is believed to be widespread and formed part of the Competition Commission's decision to prohibit the co-sale of PPI with credit in its report published on 29/1/09," Mr Brant noted.

"This point is likely to affect many thousands of individuals within England and Wales," he added.

Repayments

Judge Smart also agreed that the debt on Ms Thorius's credit card was unenforceable because the card company could not provide a copy of the original loan agreement, which is also required by the Consumer Credit Act.

MBNA's claim for the repayment of the outstanding money on the card was rejected.

And the Judge ordered the company either to repay Ms Thorius's PPI premiums and interest, or the value of the commissions it had received which so far has been undisclosed.

The PPI premiums, which rose each month as the credit card debts increased, amounted to £2,500 over the time the card had been in use.

Controversial

The claims management industry which has emerged in the past few years has been highly controversial.

Many firms advertise in newspapers and on television, encouraging people to come forward to write off their debts.

This year the authorities, such as the Office of Fair Trading (OFT), Ministry of Justice (which regulates claims management firms) and the Solicitors Regulation Authority, have warned firms not to make exaggerated claims about their ability to get debts written off because of apparent technical errors in the lenders' paperwork.

Since April 2007 more than 100 such firms, or those advertising for people to pursue personal injury claims, have been shut down by the OFT.

But the South Shields ruling appears to open up a new and genuine line of attack for claims firms.

"We have been using this argument for some time but lenders have been settling outside the courts to avoid publicity," said Mr Wright.

MBNA applied for leave to appeal, which was rejected, but it may now apply directly to a higher court for permission to appeal.

Only when higher courts have decided the issue will the legal ramifications, and the effects on lender and borrowers, be clear.

 

 

Very interesting information and well worth looking into.

 

As discussed elsewhere and recommended by the Ministry of Justice everyone should take advice before paying a CMC to take on their case

 

http://[problem].com/showthread.php?t=35395

[diddydicky]

amazing however the slant papers keep putting on these wins

 

always seeking to give the impression that the consumer is "getting off" with something as though they have done something wrong and are getting away with it

[Tricky Dickie]

amazing however the slant papers keep putting on these wins

 

always seeking to give the impression that the consumer is "getting off" with something as though they have done something wrong and are getting away with it

 

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

[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.

[saddler68]

All credit to CCR, given the stick they have had. Perhaps I should have used them instead, still penny wise....

[Tricky Dickie]

All credit to CCR, given the stick they have had. Perhaps I should have used them instead, still penny wise....

 

Check out this link I posted first then tell me whether you still think that way

[Tricky Dickie]

Sorry

 

*EDIT*

Edited October 2, 2009 by car2403
Commercial link