Jump to content



Unenforceability Cases on hold until further notice


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4055 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

MBNA are adamant that section 189 is valid for the prescibed terms to be included in a document other than the signature document?

 

 

I will have to check that one out. Thanks paul :)

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
I have just been told about this apparently they are one of the "duff" variety of claims management companies that have sprung up and I am told it only applies to their claims for their clients, I have been given the impression that the solicitors in question are perhaps not as good as some at making claims.....

 

This comes to me from one of the big claims management firms who are rubbing their hands at another copycat company going out of business, or certainly out of their business arena.

 

 

I agree I stupidily paid £300 to a firm acting as if they would get written off my credit card through an uneforceable agreement. After six months they wrote to me to say that they would now not be taking it any further and they have done there job, which was to find out that the agreement is actually unenforceable.

They now say i have to take the creditor to court my self if I should wish to continue.

They also said that the courts were starting to take a different view now about debt, so it is too risky to take it to court. They did admity they they are not legal experts and just mortgage consultants by profession.

 

So basically I got ripped off! At least I found out early and thanks to this site I am now doing it myself!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
MBNA are adamant that section 189 is valid for the prescibed terms to be included in a document other than the signature document?

 

If that became case law, i guess a lot of us would be stuffed, all those application forms without prescribed terms would become valid,

 

You can see how they could push for this couldnt you,it would really suit them.

If they have your signature on an application form and have used the card ,Weve already seen judges asking people "have you had the goods" etc etc" and finding in favour of creditor, maybe this is the next step,

 

lets hope faulty DN"s will be unchallenged, i have quiet a few of them:grin:

Link to post
Share on other sites
MBNA are adamant that section 189 is valid for the prescibed terms to be included in a document other than the signature document?

 

 

They would like to think that but unfortunately it doesn't exempt them from the requirements of s.61(a)

Link to post
Share on other sites
MBNA are adamant that section 189 is valid for the prescibed terms to be included in a document other than the signature document?

 

MBNA can think what they like.

However unfortunately for them, multiple opinions from Bradley Say show that he does not agree!

 

AC

Link to post
Share on other sites
MBNA can think what they like.

However unfortunately for them, multiple opinions from Bradley Say show that he does not agree!

 

AC

 

 

Hopefully this is one that will go all the way to the House of Lords - as did Wilson

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Paul!

 

MBNA are adamant that section 189 is valid for the prescibed terms to be included in a document other than the signature document?
Answering generally here, not to see you off, but to see MBNA off...

 

Well, they would say that, as they have so many Agreements where they have shot themselves in both feet because of the way they have omitted Prescribed Terms or referred to them in other documents.

 

Sadly for the MBNA, this issue has been taken all the way, and the following, which I know many of us are aware of, but it is worth stating again nevertheless for the benefit of others, will give MBNA something of a problem:

 

I refer to the judgment of TUCKEY LJ in the case of Wilson and another v Hurstanger Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 299"[11] Schedule 1 to the 1983 Regulations sets out the "information to be contained in documents embodying regulated consumer Credit Agreements". Some of this information mirrors the terms prescribed by Schedule 6, but some does not. Contrasting the provisions of the two schedules the Judge said:

 

“33 In my judgment the objective of Schedule 6 is to ensure that, as an inflexible condition of enforceability, certain basic minimum terms are included which the parties (with the benefit of legal advice if necessary) and/or the Court can identify within the four corners of the Agreement. Those minimum provisions combined with the requirement under s61 that all the terms should be in a single document, and backed up by the provisions of s127(3), ensure that these core terms are expressly set out in the Agreement itself: they cannot be orally agreed; they cannot be found in another document; they cannot be implied; and above all they cannot be in the slightest mis- stated. As a matter of policy, the lender is denied any room for manoeuvre in respect of them. On the other hand, they are basic provisions, and the only question for the Court is whether they are, on a true construction, included in the Agreement. More detailed requirements, which are designed to ensure that the Debtor is made aware, so far as possible, of specified information (including information contained in the minimum terms) are to be found in Schedule 1."

MBNA can chant and mutter s189 as much as it likes, but it won't help them.

 

Unless, that is, the Judiciary are trying to find a way around this. Money buys quite a lot. But are number money IOUs from an American Bank who their own Government has just told them that they are short of a few dozen billion dollars actually worth anything?

 

The real issue is probably all the jobs for Chester hoodies, as the MBNA will have a lot of clout if they start saying they will have no option but to exit Chester and land the Town with a huge Dole Queue problem, and matching revenue slump in the local economy for Alcopops, toys, taxis, comics and fast food.

 

Cheers,

BRW

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello Paul!

 

Answering generally here, not to see you off, but to see MBNA off...

 

Well, they would say that, as they have so many Agreements where they have shot themselves in both feet because of the way they have omitted Prescribed Terms or referred to them in other documents.

 

Sadly for the MBNA, this issue has been taken all the way, and the following, which I know many of us are aware of, but it is worth stating again nevertheless for the benefit of others, will give MBNA something of a problem:

 

MBNA can chant and mutter s189 as much as it likes, but it won't help them.

 

Unless, that is, the Judiciary are trying to find a way around this. Money buys quite a lot. But are number money IOUs from an American Bank who their own Government has just told them that they are short of a few dozen billion dollars actually worth anything?

 

The real issue is probably all the jobs for Chester hoodies, as the MBNA will have a lot of clout if they start saying they will have no option but to exit Chester and land the Town with a huge Dole Queue problem, and matching revenue slump in the local economy for Alcopops, toys, taxis, comics and fast food.

 

Cheers,

BRW

 

The judge also said: "... that these core terms are expressly set out in the Agreement itself":.....confusing and contradictory.

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

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites
The judge also said: "... that these core terms are expressly set out in the Agreement itself":.....confusing and contradictory.

 

 

s.61 (a) is applicable here - not confusing at all ...............

Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul we had enough with case law, Bennion and Goode to argue that the prescribed terms have to be part of the signature doc....I don't have the reference's to hand right now but I have them on my other PC as I have used this myself.

 

My personal thoughts are that this is more about the flood of claims about to hit under the 2006 unfair relationships reg rather than prescribed terms

Live Life-Debt Free

Link to post
Share on other sites

It really shouldn't effect this as they have to supply within the time limit set out in the Act

Live Life-Debt Free

Link to post
Share on other sites
Paul we had enough with case law, Bennion and Goode to argue that the prescribed terms have to be part of the signature doc....I don't have the reference's to hand right now but I have them on my other PC as I have used this myself.

 

Agreed, should be within the sig doc, however, creditors continue to cite sec 189.

 

My personal thoughts are that this is more about the flood of claims about to hit under the 2006 unfair relationships reg rather than prescribed terms

 

It appears to be the case.

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

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites
MBNA can think what they like.

However unfortunately for them, multiple opinions from Bradley Say show that he does not agree!

 

AC

 

I wasn't attempting to see PW off. He knows that...PW is aware of my view.

 

The above was posted to assist!

 

AC

Link to post
Share on other sites
Debt escape court cases put on hold | This is Money

 

 

link to article this is money

 

 

My personal thoughts are that this is more about the flood of claims about to hit under the 2006 unfair relationships reg rather than prescribed terms

 

 

This is my thoughts as well. This looks to be more about the consumer taking the CCCs to court via these claim companies. I imagine the courts will still entertain the cases brought by the Creditors.

 

If it does get tied up in the courts until 2011 then there are going to be an awful lot of statute barred accounts which kind of defeats the object doesnt it ?

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

Quote:

 

Agreed, should be within the sig doc, however, creditors continue to cite sec 189."

 

Well, of course they will!

 

At the end of the day that is simply their opinion.

Barristers hold a different opinion.

 

If MBNA are so certain, why don't they take me and others concerned to court then?

Why don't they issue?

 

AC

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote from This is Money;

"As the move has the backing of Lord Justice Moore-Bick, the deputy dead of Civil Justice, it is likely to be copied by county courts nationwide."

 

OMG, this explains everything; the decisions are being made by zombies;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
This is my thoughts as well. This looks to be more about the consumer taking the CCCs to court via these claim companies. I imagine the courts will still entertain the cases brought by the Creditors.

 

If it does get tied up in the courts until 2011 then there are going to be an awful lot of statute barred accounts which kind of defeats the object doesnt it ?

 

Agreed!

 

Many are only to well aware of the 'Unfair Relationship Test", fully implemented October 2008 and restrospective.

 

Better look out MBNA, you certainly levied contractual interest on my default/overlimit penalty charges;

breached the alleged contract;

mis-sold PPI etc...

 

Oh My!!!

 

Lastly, both Citi and MBNA/Bank of America are in deep doo doo with the US Gov.

 

AC

Link to post
Share on other sites
Agreed!

 

Many are only to well aware of the 'Unfair Relationship Test", fully implemented October 2008 and restrospective.

 

Better look out MBNA, you certainly levied contractual interest on my default/overlimit penalty charges;

breached the alleged contract;

mis-sold PPI etc...

 

Oh My!!!

 

Lastly, both Citi and MBNA/Bank of America are in deep doo doo with the US Gov.

 

AC

so if the test cases are given a genuine fair hearing, (big if), it could be good news.... it's just the 'carefully selected cases' phrase that unsettles me.:|

Link to post
Share on other sites
so if the test cases are given a genuine fair hearing, (big if), it could be good news.... it's just the 'carefully selected cases' phrase that unsettles me.:|

 

Definately

Let us all hope that this is not a case of the Judiciary trying to move the goal post!

 

My particular claim is valid and above board;

I personally, would find it insulting to have my case bundled in with that of 'The Rankines', or how the Judge viewed these individuals.

 

The Judiciary must been seen by the general consumer as fair and unbiased, they should be above such.

 

AC

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4055 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...