Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Sorry to hear about the "playground insults".    The fact you didn't write "without prejudice" means the letter could be produced in court, not that the PPCs ever seem to do so.  Well, so what?  Minister Baywatch HAVE made up fictitious charges.  Courts HAVE told the PPCs off for this numerous times.  DDJ Harvey DID go ballistic about this.  I don't' see what's wrong in refuting a claim and referring to a persuasive court case to back up your position. 
    • Thanks Dx. I have tidied the defence up with your suggestions amended. Does it look right now? Thanks!   1.    Monies due under current account facility xxxxxxxxxxxx. The claimants claim is for the balance outstanding under the facility provided by Halifax to the defendant. It was a term of the bank account that any debit balance would be repayable by the defendant in full on demand.   2.    The defendant has failed to repay the amount due following the service of a demand.   3.    The debt was assigned to the claimant.   4.    The claimant therefore claims 1. 5k 2. costs   Defence   1. The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.     2. The Claimants statement of case fails to give adequate information to enable me to properly assess my position with regards the claim.    3. The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim fail to state when the agreement was entered into.   4. Paragraph 1, Whilst I accept that I have in the past held a current account with Halifax Bank Plc. I have not serviced this account since 08/07/2016 due to the punitive charges and interest being applied which made the account untenable and impossible to facilitate. The amount claimed is far in excess of any agreed overdraft limit with Halifax Bank. I deny that the account exceeded an agreed overdraft limit due to overdrawing of funds and claim that this is a result of unfair and extortionate bank charges/penalties being applied to the account. It is therefore denied that I am indebted for any alleged outstanding residue.    5. Paragraph 2 is denied as the original creditor has failed to serve a Notice served under 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974 Demand / Recall Notice and the Claimant is put to strict proof to evidence any breach.    6. Paragraph 2 is further denied as i am unaware of Halifax Bank ever providing me with a copy of the Notice served under 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974 Demand / Recall Notice and Notice of Assignment.   7. Paragraph 3 is denied. I am not aware or ever receiving any Notice of Assignment pursuant to the Law of Property Act 1925. It is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. The Claimant has yet to provide a copy of the Notice of Assignment its claim relies upon.   8. Paragraph 4 is denied. I refute the claimants claim is owed or payable. The amount claimed is comprised of amongst others default penalties/charges levied on the account for alleged late, missed or over limit payments. The court will be aware that these charge types and the recoverability thereof have been judicially declared to be susceptible to assessments of fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 The Office of Fair Trading v Abbeyicon National PLC and others (2009). I will contend at trial that such charges are unfair in their entirety.   9. As per Civil Procedure icon Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. The claimant is also put to strict proof to:-.     a. Provide a copy agreement/facility arrangement along with the Terms and conditions at inception, which this claim is based on. b. Provide a breakdown of their excessive charging/fees levied to the account with justification. c. Show how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed. d. Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim. (f) Show how they have complied with sections III & IV of Practice Direction - Pre-action Conduct.   e. Provide a copy of the Notice served under 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974 Demand /Recall Notice and Notice of Assignment.   10. On receipt of this claim I immediately requested documentation by way of a CPR 31.14 request, which was received by the Claimant on the *******. The Claimant has failed to comply with this request. Therefore the claimant in their non compliance to my requests have frustrated my attempts to clarify their claim and against pre action protocol should be considered when the question of costs arise.     11. By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.    
    • MPs are pushing authorities to respond to allegations of potential fraud at certain banks, whereby it’s claimed home repossession documents weren’t actually signed by the authorised signatory View the full article
    • Thanks Dx. Amended defence set out below. Does it look right now?   1. By agreement between the defendant and Halifax on or around the 3/3/2015 (the agreement) Halifax agreed to loan the defendant monies.     2.The defendant did not pay instalments as they fell due.     3.The agreement was terminated following a service of a default notice.     4.The agreement was assigned to the claimant.     5.The claimant therefore claims 1. 4.5k 2. Costs    Defence   1. The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.     2. The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017. It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.     3. Paragraph 1 is denied. It is accepted that I have had financial dealings with Halifax in the past. However I do not recall entering into any financial agreement with Halifax on or around 03/03/2015 and have sought verification from the claimant who has not complied with my request for further information.     4. Paragraph 2 is denied. I am not aware of any payment terms for the stated agreement.     5. Paragraph 3 is denied. It is denied that Cabot Financial served any Default notice on the Defendant pursuant to s87 Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Claimant is required to prove that a compliant Default Notice was served upon the Defendant. The Claimant is required to prove that the any Default notice relied upon complied with the requirements of s88(4A) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and that the notice was in the prescribed form as required by The Consumer Credit Enforcement Default and Termination Notice Regulations 1983.   6. Paragraph 4 is denied as I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served by either the claimant or the original creditor.     7. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant; the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of credit agreement / assignment / balance / breach requested by CPR 31.14, and remains in default of my section 77 request, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:   a. Show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and   b. Show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and   c. Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim     8. On receipt of this claim I requested by way of Royal Mail on 13/10/20 a CPR 31.14 request from the claimant’s solicitors and a section 77 requests to the Claimant, for copies of the documents referred to within the Claimant’s particulars to establish what the claim is for. To date the Claimant has failed to comply with my section 77 request and their solicitors, Mortimer Clarke, have refused my CPR 31.14 request.     9. As per Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.     10. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82 A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974     11. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.  
    • I'm generally convinced that there is at least 2 users on MSE that's in my thread that has friends or family or even themselves that have similar line of work to MB or Gladstone.   I don't mind different opinions but they're just throwing out playground insults to me for using that letter saying I'm stupid, prat, idiot etc etc for doing it and not including in the letter without prejudice so it can't be used against me in court. I think I'll leave MSE and just stick with CAG and in this case.    
  • Our picks

    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies
    • Oven repair. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/427690-oven-repair/&do=findComment&comment=5073391
      • 49 replies
    • I came across this discussion recently and just wanted to give my experience of A Shade Greener that may help others regarding their boiler finance agreement.
       
      We had a 10yr  finance contract for a boiler fitted July 2015.
       
      After a summer of discontent with ASG I discovered that if you have paid HALF the agreement or more you can legally return the boiler to them at no cost to yourself. I've just returned mine the feeling is liberating.
       
      It all started mid summer during lockdown when they refused to service our boiler because we didn't have a loft ladder or flooring installed despite the fact AS installed the boiler. and had previosuly serviced it without issue for 4yrs. After consulting with an independent installer I was informed that if this was the case then ASG had breached building regulations,  this was duly reported to Gas Safe to investigate and even then ASG refused to accept blame and repeatedly said it was my problem. Anyway Gas Safe found them in breach of building regs and a compromise was reached.
       
      A month later and ASG attended to service our boiler but in the process left the boiler unusuable as it kept losing pressure not to mention they had damaged the filling loop in the process which they said was my responsibilty not theres and would charge me to repair, so generous of them! Soon after reporting the fault I got a letter stating it was time we arranged a powerflush on our heating system which they make you do after 5 years even though there's nothing in the contract that states this. Coincidence?
       
      After a few heated exchanges with ASG (pardon the pun) I decided to pull the plug and cancel our agreement.
       
      The boiler was removed and replaced by a reputable installer,  and the old boiler was returned to ASG thus ending our contract with them. What's mad is I saved in excess of £1000 in the long run and got a new boiler with a brand new 12yr warranty. 
       
      You only have to look at TrustPilot to get an idea of what this company is like.
       
      • 3 replies
    • Dazza a few months ago I discovered a good friend of mine who had ten debts with cards and catalogues which he was slavishly paying off at detriment to his own family quality of life, and I mean hardship, not just absence of second holidays or flat screen TV's.
       
      I wrote to all his creditors asking for supporting documents and not one could provide any material that would allow them to enforce the debt.
       
      As a result he stopped paying and they have been unable to do anything, one even admitted it was unenforceable.
       
      If circumstances have got to the point where you are finding it unmanageable you must ask yourself why you feel the need to pay.  I guarantee you that these companies have built bad debt into their business model and no one over there is losing any sleep over your debt to them!  They will see you as a victim and cash cow and they will be reluctant to discuss final offers, only ways to keep you paying with threats of court action or seizing your assets if you have any.
       
      They are not your friends and you owe them no loyalty or moral duty, that must remain only for yourself and your family.
       
      If it was me I would send them all a CCA request.   I would bet that not one will provide the correct response and you can quite legally stop paying them until such time as they do provide a response.   Even when they do you should check back here as they mostly send dodgy photo copies or generic rubbish that has no connection with your supposed debt.
       
      The money you are paying them should, as far as you are able, be put to a savings account for yourself and as a means of paying of one of these fleecers should they ever manage to get to to the point of a successful court judgement.  After six years they will not be able to start court action and that money will then become yours.
       
      They will of course pursue you for the funds and pass your file around various departments of their business and out to third parties.
       
      Your response is that you should treat it as a hobby.  I have numerous files of correspondence each faithfully organised showing the various letters from different DCA;s , solicitors etc with a mix of threats, inducements and offers.   It is like my stamp collection and I show it to anyone who is interested!
        • Thanks
        • Like

Unenforceability Cases on hold until further notice


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4016 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ok so here it is in full:

 

Let's isolate the spin from the facts, and then maybe invite the esteemed Times for correction (small print bottom of page 76 below the Court circular no doubt) i

I agrees with some of your comments, but I find some of your comments about CMCs quite offensive. I am involved in a CMC and have commented on here before that not all CMCs are bad. I do not exploit anyone I help people in need and we do not charge any fees to enable them to get the same results that people on here have done for themselves. What is so bad in that? I use this website as I find it fascinating and inspiring to read what others have done and continue to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I agrees with some of your comments, but I find some of your comments about CMCs quite offensive. I am involved in a CMC and have commented on here before that not all CMCs are bad.

 

Hello Demonbarb and welcome to the forum.

 

I am sorry you find my comments offensive.

 

For clarification I would point out that I am referring to the ambulance chasers who have been censured and fined for their outlandish claims by the FSA/OFT rather than the genuine CMCs out there doing good work on behalf of people who simply do not have the time or the savvy to manage their own claims.

 

Your company must be one of those who takes a slice of the settlement figure since you do not charge any fees. You surely do not work on these cases for free???

 

If you do please post your number.

Keep the faith. EiE.

 

Capstone Mortgage 'Services' - Sub-prime garbage - unlawful behaviour/MULTIPLE consumer abuse, TOTALLY in Defiance of REGULATIONS and the law

 

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/gmac_rfc.pdf

 

CONTACT CIB Here

 

http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/Complaintformcib.Htm

 

Kevin Hughes(Compliance Manager-main) @ 02920 380 633

 

Lee Jenkins(prosecuting Amany Attia) 02920 380 643

 

Mark Youde(accounts compliance) 02920 380 955

 

Charlotte Allan @ 0207 596 6108 investigating all the Lehman lenders

 

Jeremy Pilcher 0207 637 6231

 

NO KAGGA LEFT BEHIND...

 

"We would not seek a battle, as we are; Nor, as we are, we say we will not shun it"

Link to post
Share on other sites

...if not then at least the name of your reputable firm?

Keep the faith. EiE.

 

Capstone Mortgage 'Services' - Sub-prime garbage - unlawful behaviour/MULTIPLE consumer abuse, TOTALLY in Defiance of REGULATIONS and the law

 

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/gmac_rfc.pdf

 

CONTACT CIB Here

 

http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/Complaintformcib.Htm

 

Kevin Hughes(Compliance Manager-main) @ 02920 380 633

 

Lee Jenkins(prosecuting Amany Attia) 02920 380 643

 

Mark Youde(accounts compliance) 02920 380 955

 

Charlotte Allan @ 0207 596 6108 investigating all the Lehman lenders

 

Jeremy Pilcher 0207 637 6231

 

NO KAGGA LEFT BEHIND...

 

"We would not seek a battle, as we are; Nor, as we are, we say we will not shun it"

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

AC where did you get this article please?

 

I take it this was not MG commenting?

 

As for the reporting of 'the' historical judgement :rolleyes:, wish they'd asked if they didnt understand!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just look at who owns the Times and the kind of people who getto write these stories. Anybody care to hazard a guess as to why newspaper articles are called stories ?

Keep the faith. EiE.

 

Capstone Mortgage 'Services' - Sub-prime garbage - unlawful behaviour/MULTIPLE consumer abuse, TOTALLY in Defiance of REGULATIONS and the law

 

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/gmac_rfc.pdf

 

CONTACT CIB Here

 

http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/Complaintformcib.Htm

 

Kevin Hughes(Compliance Manager-main) @ 02920 380 633

 

Lee Jenkins(prosecuting Amany Attia) 02920 380 643

 

Mark Youde(accounts compliance) 02920 380 955

 

Charlotte Allan @ 0207 596 6108 investigating all the Lehman lenders

 

Jeremy Pilcher 0207 637 6231

 

NO KAGGA LEFT BEHIND...

 

"We would not seek a battle, as we are; Nor, as we are, we say we will not shun it"

Link to post
Share on other sites
However goods is given wide meaning in law to include money.

 

Is there anything an LIP can use in Court to back up the above assertion ? Is there a definition or a case ref ? It would be really useful to have. Or is it just common knowledge ? ...

Edited by shakespeare62

Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law and litigation privilege

 

Please see the following copyright statement

Link to post
Share on other sites
Is there anything an LIP can use in Court to back up the above assertion ? Is there a definition or a case ref ? It would be really useful to have. Or is it just common knowledge ? ...

 

Shakespeare makes a good point (I think), one of us at some time is going to come up against a DJ not particularly savvy where it counts and will need a quick response to a direct question if he/she has misinterpreted the recent ruling.

 

Anyone have a suitable para of case law to direct toward?

 

Gez

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think most of the comments where made by RBS shareholders....;)

LIBM

 

 

Marc Gander wrote:

This article completely misstates the effect of the judgment.

The effect of the judgment is that the agreement is unenforceable so that the money is not recoverable at law. However the legal unenforceablity does not prejudice the rights of the lender to continue non-judical methods of attempting the recover the money, of entering defaults onto the credit register etc. Furthermore, the customer would not normally be entitled to complain of harassment in respect of normal debt collection practices or make complaints under the Consumer (Protection from Unfair Trading) Regs 2008 etc.

In other words, the lender can still pile on the pressure but can't take any formal action to get their money back.

To say that customers will now be obliged to repay is entirely wrong."

 

AC

 

Hi AC, I was referring to:

 

Yes, they do have to pay. The gist of the argument would appear to be that since they took the money, the agreement IS enforceable; if they want it not to be they will have to return what they borrowed.

 

A reasonable decision for once. These were just immoral people looking for permission to steal.

.

Seems to be the right decision, particularly if there was nothing at all underhand, or unscrupulous behaviour by the lender at the time the original contract was made. The borrower would surely have understood from the outset what were the obligations, including payment of interest?

To later start grubbing around for some technicality to avoid legitimate and freely entered into obligations is entirely immoral.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Enforcement is given a rather limited defintion, of land and goods. However goods is given wide meaning in law to include money.

 

Well I guess arguably money is "goods" - for example debts can be sold as property under s136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 - which applies to Notices of Assignment

 

Comments anyone ?

Edited by shakespeare62

Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law and litigation privilege

 

Please see the following copyright statement

Link to post
Share on other sites

i wonder what francis benyon makes of this?

hes the guy who wrote the 1974 consumer credit act incidentally he also writes in the times on occasion

heres his website

Francis Bennion - Home Page

i think hes contactable through his website too, but dont quote me on that

just a thought

Link to post
Share on other sites

He is contactable

 

Though at 86 it would be better if we could all put a form of words together so that one person and one person alone contacts him.

 

On the matter of money as goods I'm onto this and will post soon.

Keep the faith. EiE.

 

Capstone Mortgage 'Services' - Sub-prime garbage - unlawful behaviour/MULTIPLE consumer abuse, TOTALLY in Defiance of REGULATIONS and the law

 

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/gmac_rfc.pdf

 

CONTACT CIB Here

 

http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/Complaintformcib.Htm

 

Kevin Hughes(Compliance Manager-main) @ 02920 380 633

 

Lee Jenkins(prosecuting Amany Attia) 02920 380 643

 

Mark Youde(accounts compliance) 02920 380 955

 

Charlotte Allan @ 0207 596 6108 investigating all the Lehman lenders

 

Jeremy Pilcher 0207 637 6231

 

NO KAGGA LEFT BEHIND...

 

"We would not seek a battle, as we are; Nor, as we are, we say we will not shun it"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well unfortunately I've found the precise opposite but there may be some case law in which the meaning of goods has been settled by a superior court. The CCA uses the term and my thinking is that Bennion must have meant money to be included in goods.

 

You can be damn sure that if the banks wanted goods to mean money it wouldn't be long before Flaux ruled that it does.

 

Here's the depressing authority:

 

HC Black Black's Lav Dictionary 6th ed West Publishing Co, Minnesota 1990 Also see BA Garnerl Díctionary of Modern Legal Usage Oxford University Press, New York 1987 p258: Goods has a variety of senses

 

- "in the legal sense goods refers to chattels or personalty". HAJ Ford GrW Hinde MS Hinde Australian Business Dictionary Butterworth's, Sydney 1985 p87: Goods is defined as moveable propely. The Sale of Goods Acts defure goods as all chattels personal other than money or things in action

 

Further:

 

“goods” [F2includes all personal chattels, other than things in action and money, and as regards Scotland all corporeal moveables; and in particular “goods” includes] emblements, industrial growing crops, and things attached to or forming part of the land which are agreed to be severed before the transfer [F2bailment or hire]concerned or under the contract concerned F3. . .;

 

Looks like I might have to revisit my earlier expressed opinion that goods excludes money. Why would Bennion use the term in a clause on unenforcability?

 

Section 189 of the CCA 1974 States that

 

“goods” has the meaning given by section 61(1) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 ;

 

The definition is that given above. Sorry to build people's hopes up and then dash them. Goods does not include money. At least we know that now rather then when it really matters.

Keep the faith. EiE.

 

Capstone Mortgage 'Services' - Sub-prime garbage - unlawful behaviour/MULTIPLE consumer abuse, TOTALLY in Defiance of REGULATIONS and the law

 

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/gmac_rfc.pdf

 

CONTACT CIB Here

 

http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/Complaintformcib.Htm

 

Kevin Hughes(Compliance Manager-main) @ 02920 380 633

 

Lee Jenkins(prosecuting Amany Attia) 02920 380 643

 

Mark Youde(accounts compliance) 02920 380 955

 

Charlotte Allan @ 0207 596 6108 investigating all the Lehman lenders

 

Jeremy Pilcher 0207 637 6231

 

NO KAGGA LEFT BEHIND...

 

"We would not seek a battle, as we are; Nor, as we are, we say we will not shun it"

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello Demonbarb and welcome to the forum.

 

I am sorry you find my comments offensive.

 

For clarification I would point out that I am referring to the ambulance chasers who have been censured and fined for their outlandish claims by the FSA/OFT rather than the genuine CMCs out there doing good work on behalf of people who simply do not have the time or the savvy to manage their own claims.

 

Your company must be one of those who takes a slice of the settlement figure since you do not charge any fees. You surely do not work on these cases for free???

 

If you do please post your number.

 

 

It is not correct to state that a company who does not charge any up front fees must necessarily take a slice of the settlement figure.

CMC's typically work with solicitors who work on a conditional fee agreement basis (no win no fee) and when a solicitor wins a case under such an arrangement he is allowed to claim a success fee of up to 100% of his costs from the lender.

The CMC usually has an arrangement with the solicitor that a proportion of this success fee is then paid by the solicitor to the CMC and this is where the CMC generates an income.

In many cases the solicitor also has to pay a fee to the CMC for the privelidge of taking on the case.

IMHO the CMC's charging the client up to 30% of whatever they manage to clear as a debt are completely immoral as they are still leaving the borrower with a substantial debt and there is no need to do that as if they are successful like they claim to be they will be raking in the success fees.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Times article mentions Ultimate Law and its my guess the Times journo just wrote what they told him. It was Ultimate Law who started all the 'false stay' reports back in May after Judge Halbert called the case management conference in Chester.They really do have a knack for getting everything wrong

 

Maybe Ultimate Law should read Ultimate Flaux (Flaw, Faux...):D

Keep the faith. EiE.

 

Capstone Mortgage 'Services' - Sub-prime garbage - unlawful behaviour/MULTIPLE consumer abuse, TOTALLY in Defiance of REGULATIONS and the law

 

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/gmac_rfc.pdf

 

CONTACT CIB Here

 

http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/Complaintformcib.Htm

 

Kevin Hughes(Compliance Manager-main) @ 02920 380 633

 

Lee Jenkins(prosecuting Amany Attia) 02920 380 643

 

Mark Youde(accounts compliance) 02920 380 955

 

Charlotte Allan @ 0207 596 6108 investigating all the Lehman lenders

 

Jeremy Pilcher 0207 637 6231

 

NO KAGGA LEFT BEHIND...

 

"We would not seek a battle, as we are; Nor, as we are, we say we will not shun it"

Link to post
Share on other sites
CMC's typically work with solicitors who work on a conditional fee agreement basis (no win no fee) and when a solicitor wins a case under such an arrangement he is allowed to claim a success fee of up to 100% of his costs from the lender. The CMC usually has an arrangement with the solicitor that a proportion of this success fee is then paid by the solicitor to the CMC and this is where the CMC generates an income.

 

Fair point well made. But I do have an animus against those that are taking a slice out of any settlement.

Keep the faith. EiE.

 

Capstone Mortgage 'Services' - Sub-prime garbage - unlawful behaviour/MULTIPLE consumer abuse, TOTALLY in Defiance of REGULATIONS and the law

 

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/gmac_rfc.pdf

 

CONTACT CIB Here

 

http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/Complaintformcib.Htm

 

Kevin Hughes(Compliance Manager-main) @ 02920 380 633

 

Lee Jenkins(prosecuting Amany Attia) 02920 380 643

 

Mark Youde(accounts compliance) 02920 380 955

 

Charlotte Allan @ 0207 596 6108 investigating all the Lehman lenders

 

Jeremy Pilcher 0207 637 6231

 

NO KAGGA LEFT BEHIND...

 

"We would not seek a battle, as we are; Nor, as we are, we say we will not shun it"

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi AC, I was referring to:

 

 

I always disregard any and all narrow minded, brain dead commemts, letitbeme!

 

Having read the McGuffick case judgement five times now, I was surprised that the Times journalist misreported the case.

Clearly, he/she had not read it or, did not understand it; CCA matters as we know are complex...

 

AC

Link to post
Share on other sites
He is contactable

 

Though at 86 it would be better if we could all put a form of words together so that one person and one person alone contacts him.

 

 

Yes! I totally agree, the only person that could interpret Flaux's ruling should be Francis Bennion the master has written extensively on the following:

 

Section 1. To ‘construe’ or ‘interpret’?

Section 2. Interpreter’s duty to arrive at legal meaning

Section 3. Real doubt as to legal meaning

Section 8. Duty to obey legislation

Section 9. Ignorantia juris neminem excusat

Section 10. Mandatory and directory requirements

LIBM

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been working under the impresion that unlawful penalties are recoverable even if there is an apparantly outstanding (though unenforceable and written off) debt on the account.

 

Could someone please enlighten me if this is indeed the case?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The court also found that demanding payment, issuing a default notice, threatening legal action and bringing legal proceedings did not constitute enforcement either. ..................

 

 

What the hell?

 

What exactly DO they consider enforcement to be then?

 

Are we all completely screwed due to this ruling?

 

(though the point they argued on seems VERY, VERY, weak)

 

This needs some serious discussion!

omnia praesumuntur legitime facta donec probetur in contrarium

 

 

Please note: I am not a member of the legal profession, all advice given is purely my opinion, if in doubt consult a professional

Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on the above piece about CRA's, the DPA might as well not exist

omnia praesumuntur legitime facta donec probetur in contrarium

 

 

Please note: I am not a member of the legal profession, all advice given is purely my opinion, if in doubt consult a professional

Link to post
Share on other sites
Credit Management & Debt Collection Business Industry News

 

The above view appears to show the view held by the financial industry!

 

 

2. the following activities will not be regarded as "enforcement" for the purposes of the CCA:

 

· reporting the status of any account to a credit reference agency (CRA);

· demanding payment from the debtor;

· issuing a default notice to the debtor;

· threatening legal action;

· instructing a third party to demand payment or otherwise seek to procure payment;

· bringing proceedings against the debtor.

 

 

· bringing proceedings against the debtor.

Not enforcement, OK what is enforcement?

 

Legal Dictionary

 

Main Entry: en·force·ment

Function: noun

: the act or process of enforcing

 

Legal Dictionary

 

Main Entry: pro·ceed·ing

Function: noun

1 : a particular step or series of steps in the enforcement, adjudication, or administration of rights, remedies, laws, or regulations: as a : an action, hearing, trial, or application before the court

 

LIBM

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4016 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...