Unenforceability Cases on hold until further notice

[enoughisenough]

To scare off those with little or no resolution. In addition to which castigate the whole CMC industry as "irredeemably" flauxed. Quite a nice little result that plays on people's ignorance of the true legal position.

[Baggio]

To scare off those with little or no resolution. In addition to which castigate the whole CMC industry as "irredeemably" flauxed. Quite a nice little result that plays on people's ignorance of the true legal position.

 

no, because certain CMCs have very deep pockets and correctly advertised, this whole issue sheds more bad light on the banks than the side fighting them....

 

it also casts a huge shadow on the press... if what i am led to believe is done, it will open many many more cases against the banks, the tactic is too highlight the lies and media manipulation doen to scare joe public

 

plenty of evidence to show they have been caught telling porkies and not reporting the actual facts.... almost as if they have had their pockets lined by a banks

 

this is going to be oh so much fun, i love to see the banks suffer... and for all you dumb sols looking in as guest on this thread, trying to get points to help your flimsy cases against CMCs clients...i got one thing to say

 

LMFAO @ you :D:D

[letitbeme]

So what was the point then?

The financial machine (RBS) needed to hoodwink the Civil Judiciary into making a cloudy ruling, knowing that the media would publish conjecture and speculation, thus it would buy them more time to find a solution (Hi Gordon, we need 27 Billion pounds to prop up the banking sector or we are going to fall into a deeper recession, or you could rush through a couple of amendments to the Consumer Credit Act) to rectify the large volume of unenforceable contract’s that they hold.

LIBM

[Tricky Dickie]

So what was the point then?

 

 

RBS just wanted to win something,anything really so the media machine would then spin it into a 'you have to pay back all your debts and more regardless of whether its legal or not' headline.

There will be plenty more of these and most people will buy it like all the other crap the media put out.

[F_DCAs]

Sorry about that, car2403. I thought he had - looking again back over what was said, you're right and I'm wrong. My fault for being presumptuous.

 

See, it IS a bit of a hard subject to interpret.

[angry cat]

The financial machine (RBS) needed to hoodwink the Civil Judiciary into making a cloudy ruling, knowing that the media would publish conjecture and speculation, thus it would buy them more time to find a solution (Hi Gordon, we need 27 Billion pounds to prop up the banking sector or we are going to fall into a deeper recession, or you could rush through a couple of amendments to the Consumer Credit Act) to rectify the large volume of unenforceable contract’s that they hold.

LIBM

 

And, no doubt they intend to amend it again...CCD.

 

Hopefully, we will all be able to wave; bye, bye to Geordie in the Spring?

 

A 'Winter' of Discontent' will be upon us soon!

 

AC

[Tricky Dickie]

The financial machine (RBS) needed to hoodwink the Civil Judiciary into making a cloudy ruling, knowing that the media would publish conjecture and speculation, thus it would buy them more time to find a solution (Hi Gordon, we need 27 Billion pounds to prop up the banking sector or we are going to fall into a deeper recession, or you could rush through a couple of amendments to the Consumer Credit Act) to rectify the large volume of unenforceable contract’s that they hold.

LIBM

 

Spot on ,the banks and the government know the score and that if everyone challenged their agreements the banks would be in big trouble.

If the banks ever admitted what we all know that millions of credit agreements are unenforceable they would have to write off billions of pounds on their balance sheets at a stroke and most of them would have to go bust.

So they will drag their feet,pretend its not happening and spread lies and confusion so the general public who mostly believe the crap they are fed will think that unenforceability is an urban myth and so will carry on toing the line.

This will go on for years and the cost of legal bills etc will pale into insignificance compared to the the implications of facing the problem directly.

The banks are betting on keeping a lid on things until the economy comes out of recession and they can start the whole process again.

The government is in on the act via the MoJ and FSA who have a vested interest in not controling the proliferation of CMC's who basically [problem] people by promising to eliminate their debts but have neither the resources or even the intention of delivering the service.

There are literally thousands of these now and the numbers expand every day,you need no training or qualifications to register and in many cases when asked about regulation of them the MoJ and FSA both claim they are the responsibility of the other party.

The result is many unhappy people and the perpetuation of the publics general perception that the possibility of having your debts wiped out is an invitation to be scammed by criminals.

By the governments inaction this is now often the case which suits them and the banks just fine.

It is just a great shame that other information which could prevent many people being scammed can not be posted here due to site rules.

[diddydicky]

RBS just wanted to win something,anything really so the media machine would then spin it into a 'you have to pay back all your debts and more regardless of whether its legal or not' headline.

There will be plenty more of these and most people will buy it like all the other crap the media put out.

 

to be (a little) fair to RBS- it was the other guy and the CMC who dropped the Bollock- they should NEVER have allowed THIS case to go to appeal

[Tricky Dickie]

The financial machine (RBS) needed to hoodwink the Civil Judiciary into making a cloudy ruling, knowing that the media would publish conjecture and speculation, thus it would buy them more time to find a solution (Hi Gordon, we need 27 Billion pounds to prop up the banking sector or we are going to fall into a deeper recession, or you could rush through a couple of amendments to the Consumer Credit Act) to rectify the large volume of unenforceable contract’s that they hold.

LIBM

 

Just on the point made above would it be possible for the government to retrospectively amend the Consumer Credit Act or introduce some other legislation to prevent people from challenging their agreements?

[Tricky Dickie]

to be (a little) fair to RBS- it was the other guy and the CMC who dropped the Bollock- they should NEVER have allowed THIS case to go to appeal

 

You are of course correct however the banks still maintain that they have the right to report non payers with unenforceable agreements to CRA's so lets see how things go in a test case in such a situation

[diddydicky]

well they didnt do it with the 2006 reforms, why should they do it now?

 

very little legislation is retrospective

[Baggio]

Just on the point made above would it be possible for the government to retrospectively amend the Consumer Credit Act or introduce some other legislation to prevent people from challenging their agreements?

 

they, hazel blears as sec of trade and industry, tried that after losing the wilson case in 2003

 

they were told in no uncertain terms... NO

 

you passed the law through parliment on the 31st july 1974 in order to protect the consumer... and now you have clear cases of consumers being ripped off and you wish to take the protection away?

 

bugger off and pass a new act if you want, but the old one stays in place

hence CCA 06 passed in april 07.

[Tricky Dickie]

they, hazel blears as sec of trade and industry, tried that after losing the wilson case in 2003

 

they were told in no uncertain terms... NO

 

you passed the law through parliment on the 31st july 1974 in order to protect the consumer... and now you have clear cases of consumers being ripped off and you wish to take the protection away?

 

bugger off and pass a new act if you want, but the old one stays in place

hence CCA 06 passed in april 07.

 

I hope you are right but if you subscribe to the view that the whole political system is no more than a sham put in place by our real masters to keep the masses from finding out the truth then the possibilities are very different

[enoughisenough]

Originally posted by Baggio

 

no, because certain CMCs have very deep pockets and correctly advertised, this whole issue sheds more bad light on the banks than the side fighting them....

 

it also casts a huge shadow on the press... if what i am led to believe is done, it will open many many more cases against the banks, the tactic is too highlight the lies and media manipulation doen to scare joe public

 

plenty of evidence to show they have been caught telling porkies and not reporting the actual facts.... almost as if they have had their pockets lined by a banks

 

this is going to be oh so much fun, i love to see the banks suffer... and for all you dumb sols looking in as guest on this thread, trying to get points to help your flimsy cases against CMCs clients...i got one thing to say

LMFAO @ you :D:D

 

Nice. It is possible that you misunderstood my post and my motives for writing the post or I that I just can't decide whether you are being passive/aggressive or just aggressive.

 

I have good standing on this site and have given my opinion in good faith.

 

Let's go through this.

 

This is what I said:

 

To scare off those with little or no resolution. In addition to which castigate the whole CMC industry as "irredeemably" flauxed. Quite a nice little result that plays on people's ignorance of the true legal position.

 

This was in response to this.

 

Originally posted by sunray001

 

So what was the point then?

 

This referred to the McGuffick decision, to wit why did anyone on McGuff's side even bother. Who even knows the answer to this one?

 

I believe my point to be a valid one. This sham of a test case has been wheeled out and widely trumpeted in the media. It has the potential to be a spike in the wheels of anyone not as well versed as we might be. It comes on the back of a well publicised FSA clampdown on the CMC industry.

 

Is anyone missing a trick here, coz I'm not.

 

You also say:

 

the tactic is too highlight the lies and media manipulation doen to scare joe public

 

More or less what I was saying I believe

 

In addition:

 

and for all you dumb sols looking in as guest on this thread,

 

Please withdraw...I am a consumer not a "dumb sol". Unless you intended differently this is how your comments come across.

 

Finally to close. You quote me and then state LMFAO @ you? Do you read the threads much?

[enoughisenough]

Just on the point made above would it be possible for the government to retrospectively amend the Consumer Credit Act or introduce some other legislation to prevent people from challenging their agreements?

 

Roughly 25-30 Acts make it through Parliament each year. The average number of Statutory Instruments laid before parliament each year is a staggering 3,700. These are legislative changes which have the full force of law made by ministers and for which there is minimal parliamentary scrutiny of the details contained within

 

The ability to challenge the provisions of statutory instruments are limited and must be brought forth in a judicial review. Many SIs are not retrospective but they have the effect of removing or creating rights obligations and so forth without any real publicity.

[Baggio]

enoughisenough

 

take a big, deep breath pal

 

was not having a pop at you in any way whatsoever...

 

i was merley stating more or less what you were saying but adding to it with news on CMCs going against the banks.

 

and when i say sols looking in as guest.... why do you think that has owt to do with you? are you a sol? the LMFAO was aimed at stupid sols.. who i know look in and read these threads.

 

mate... stay off the drugs, they make you paranoid

[letitbeme]

I hope you are right but if you subscribe to the view that the whole political system is no more than a sham put in place by our real masters to keep the masses from finding out the truth then the possibilities are very different

Oh, Yes! Where there’s a will there’s a way. Especially where you’re un governed.

LIBM

[enoughisenough]

I suspect the only 'reality altering' addiction I have is this site in general and this thread in particular.

 

Bonhomie to all. LOL.

[Baggio]

I hope you are right but if you subscribe to the view that the whole political system is no more than a sham put in place by our real masters to keep the masses from finding out the truth then the possibilities are very different

 

would be far too obvious now, back in 03 they could have easily have gotten away with blue murder on this whole issue... not now

 

far too many CMCs, barristers, solicitors, ATE insurance providers involved against the banks/government

 

they have had it, its all a matter of deffering the issue due to cash flow/balance sheet reasons

 

they cannot and will not get away with this... and they do know this

 

i have spoken with a prominent barrister who defends the banks... and his chambers have worked for a high st bank for decades, but he told me in no uncertain terms that he would rather be on the other side of the fence.

 

make of that what you want.

[enoughisenough]

Well that is very interesting and maybe I am on drugs but since the barristers are thinking the same...

 

Maybe the big money is with us (try not to laugh at the back there). Not individually of course but collectively. I'd happpily give over 30% th an SH barrister who took these barstewards to the cleaners in a class action. Group litigation actions I believe they are called this side if the pond. Multiply that for a good barrister in the newly formed supreme court. But then of course there's the costs. I reckon there's a big boy or girl out there who is just itching to take this on and win pro Bono. Come on you know who you are.

[carryonregardless]

Hi Guys

I am quite new here and far be it for me to interrupt your disagreement

However I came across this which reading between the lines you are discussing.

 

Debt-free loophole closed off by High Court | This is Money

 

Does this now mean that unenforceable agreements will leave the debt still outstanding and the default will remain?

I would like an answer in laymans terms, clear and simple

 

I am paying one of my credit cards off to CapQuest because I recieved a signed copy of agreement that looked enforceable. However I have not recieved a signed agreement from another, just an unsigned one with my name and old address on.

I was going to dispute this but is it really worth it now?

This one, Marbles was done on line, does that make a difference?

 

I would dearly love to have my debts written off but I kind of see the point regarding if you have borrowed it in the first place and are trying to get off on a technicality then this could be construed as finding a loop hole in the system couldn't it? This judge seemed to think so and more may follow.

 

I am still going to dispute the agreement but don't expect the default to be removed. But I will see what happens as disputing charges and interest too

 

So where do we stand now? Just cos they won their case would other courts/judges agree?

 

Confused.com

[MARTIN3030]

There are lots of discussions already going on about this ncf355-and have been for some time.

Heres one of them;

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/198059-unenforceability-cases-hold-until-19.html

[Undercover-Elsa]

Hi Carryonregardless.

The article referenced above, is, quite frankly, inaccurate and shows the writer has not fully read or understood even the basics of the case.

In a nutshell, RBS initially failed to produce the agreement or a statement of account in response to a CCA request. The CMC took it to court, and it was picked as a test case to establish whether a default could be placed during the period of temporary inability to comply with the CCA request, because RBS subsequently FOUND the agreement. The agreement, when found, was enforceable. The judge, in his wisdom, also made pronouncements about what constituted "enforcement" concluding that only actual court action was "enforcement". However much this has been jumped on by the press, banks and DCA's, it only refers to the circumstances of this case, is bad law in that he hasn't taken all aspects of the Act into account, and doesn't alter the fact that they have to abide by OFT debt collecting guidelines etc if they want to avoid complaints which could affect their ability to renew their credit licences.

 

I hope this sums it up simply and correctly, no doubt others will correct if I'm wrong

 

So, unless your case mirrors the one above, and you don't mind your credit reference being trashed, I would just

carry on regardless

Elsa x

[steven45]

Interestingly though, some of the court case detail emerges towards the end of the "thisismoney" article. It is the leading paragraph and the headline together with much of the first part of the article which serve to frighten the general public away from wanting to challenge their agreements.

Edited October 13, 2009 by steven45

[Undercover-Elsa]

Even then, the material facts of the case are wrongly stated.

Not to mention the scathing moralistic comments!

I've sent a comment but doubt they'll publish it. If they do I'll be accused of sympathising with the "whining cretins"! Dear me, I so hope some of those commentors end up in deep debt to teach them a lesson in humility and human kindness!