Unenforceability Cases on hold until further notice

[sunray001]

Hi,

 

The thing is, I didn't make any reference to any web site.

 

I used the term NAUGHTY NAUGHTY. (mispelt here to stop it being caught again)

 

regards

Edited October 15, 2009 by car2403
It does that for a reason...

[the_shadow]

It's because you made reference to another consumer website, any reference to it and up comes something very childish.....

 

haha I've not seen that before, thats tickled me for some unknown reason

 

Childish yes but funny nevertheless

 

S.

[Mistermind]

The Judge HAS NOT said that they can Default you under an unenforceable agreement

 

But in the latter position would the same judge have said the creditor may not DN and blacken the debtor's credit rating?

 

Could it be there are 3 scenarios, not 2?

 

(1) The creditor does not present sufficient documents. The judge does not enforce or rule out repayment, but as last week he does not forbid DN and CRA blackening.

 

(2) The creditor presents flawed documents. The judge declines to enforce payment - a negative, passive conclusion resulting in the lack of legal action. However if the obiter dicta last week were to be interpreted as the judge continuing to hold the view that a technically flawed agreement continues in existence outside a law court, then the inference could be that particular judge would still not have prohibited DN and blackening? In the first two situations the judge's stance was passive, refusing to side with either creditor or debtor.

 

(3) The creditor comes to court seeking repayment enforcement. Because of gross PPI mis-selling a judge last week proactively quashed the entire debt outstanding and in addition compelled repayment of PPI instalments (not passively drew back from enforcing repayment). If the judge actively expunged the very existence of the debt as unlawful and unfair, little chance he would have permitted even a suggestion of DN and blackening.

[tosh1]

subbing

[Alphageek]

Well, we might find out pretty soon if my Sainsbury's case actually gets to a hearing.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/152932-alphageek-sainsburys-cc.html

[diddydicky]

Wasn't Rankine using this argument so he could 'buy' peoples debts before the MoJ cancelled his registration.

 

no, rankine wasnt using this - he was simply trying to rip people off who might not know better!- just like many CMC's

[diddydicky]

More Conjecture

 

Could the debt write-off industry become a write-off? - MoneySavingExpert News

 

1/ quotes only part of the reason for the 8000 win by the woman "oop north"- the fact that the agreement was flawed was conveniently downplayed

 

2/ quote " Judge Flaux said while "the absence of the statement may be a technical non-compliance, the claimant has suffered no prejudice as a consequence".

 

this is the whole crux of the decision and he made it clear that in another case (ie if the agreement had NOT been found) the decision might well have been different

 

the claimant was bound to lose because his argument that his reported bad credit rating had prejudiced him was clearly not correct

 

once he had knowledge that they found the agreement and it was valid the report which he sought to be undone- would have been done again - thus he suffered no prejudice

 

the Piers Morgan should have withdrawn

[NitrousOxide]

Hi,

So in a nutshell can they now come after us even if no agreement is produced?

[SteEqWar]

Who dropped the clanger then? Why was it ever taken to court? You would think something this important would be deeply scrutinised by the legal seagulls before it got that far. RBS must have thought it was xmas.

 

regards

 

Well to be honest no-one in the industry seems to know or reveal .Cartel commented on the case but it says they were not involved ,so your guess is as good as mine unfortunatly

[Baggio]

Hi,

So in a nutshell can they now come after us even if no agreement is produced?

 

no no no

 

just read the last 20 pages, will take you an hour but will educate you.

 

not mis-inform you like the wider press who are in coherts with the banks in order to scare joe public

 

CCA 74 was a protective pieces of legislation for the consumer, it is still law in this country.

[foolishgirl]

Hi,

So in a nutshell can they now come after us even if no agreement is produced?

 

no no no

 

 

 

Sorry to disagree Baggio but yes, yes, yes, they can come after you & probably will! I think what Baggio means is that the court will not be able to enforce an agreement if one doesn't exist - you can't call a pig a pig if no pigs ever existed can you? However that won't stop DCAs making demands of you & even trying to take you to court - it will be up to you to fight it off

[Baggio]

Sorry to disagree Baggio but yes, yes, yes, they can come after you & probably will! I think what Baggio means is that the court will not be able to enforce an agreement if one doesn't exist - you can't call a pig a pig if no pigs ever existed can you? However that won't stop DCAs making demands of you & even trying to take you to court - it will be up to you to fight it off

 

lets wait for the other test cases

 

the last thing the judicary want is thousands upon thousands of these cases clogging up the legal system as they now are...

 

hence them calling for test cases, which will then lead to more cases being settled out of court.

 

the mcguffick case has fooled the thickos in society.... i imagine most do not even understand the true background to the case.

 

in a nutshell, there was an enforceable agreement, so of course the bank can pursue and report non payment to CRA's

 

lets wait for a case when there is no agreement or a flawed agreement

 

then we can chat.

[B3rty]

If you read the judgement the Judge pulled quite a lot out of Wilson to back up the enforcement definition so this will rumble on and DCA's will use this to threaten and fight back however if they can't enforce and you aren't going to pay how are they going to make you?

 

Looking at this positively it gives another option

 

They have a debt they can't collect you have a credit file entry you don't want...could be a good time to trade off for a F&F...

[Baggio]

If you read the judgement the Judge pulled quite a lot out of Wilson to back up the enforcement definition so this will rumble on and DCA's will use this to threaten and fight back however if they can't enforce and you aren't going to pay how are they going to make you?

 

Looking at this positively it gives another option

 

They have a debt they can't collect you have a credit file entry you don't want...could be a good time to trade off for a F&F...

 

good post, spot on.

[Docman]

Who dropped a clanger? Well, IMO, the claimants solicitor. They should never have agreed to this case being a test case. I can understand RBS asking for it in desperation for something they thought they could win and must have thought it was Xmas or something.

 

I have commented before as to whether there was some side deal. You only have to look at the parties and who they instructed as their respective barristers. Both were good QCs but in different areas of the law. Taking the Bar's 'taxi rank' approach to instruction, it's like the claimant hired a gondola to get to court whilst RBS turned up at the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand in a chauffeur driven Daimler limo. The nearest the gondola would have got you is the Embankment, so you would have had a walk up the hill to court. On the other hand, a limo wouldn't be much good in Venice...

[diddydicky]

very profound!!

[Baggio]

apparently they have now got together and are deciding on using a witness to state they did have a proper signed agreement but has been misplaced.

 

just as they got together a year ago and decided on non-disclosure as a route to stick 2 fingers up at the public.

 

they won't get away with it, all this will do is bring more publicty to the whole unenforceable arena and get more cliams against them

 

thick feckers.

[the_shadow]

apparently they have now got together and are deciding on using a witness to state they did have a proper signed agreement but has been misplaced.

 

just as they got together a year ago and decided on non-disclosure as a route to stick 2 fingers up at the public.

 

they won't get away with it, all this will do is bring more publicty to the whole unenforceable arena and get more cliams against them

 

thick feckers.

 

Hmm, given the judges lottery, that could possibly work depending on level of court obviously.

 

S.

Edited October 15, 2009 by the_shadow

[Baggio]

Hmm, given the judges lottery, that could possibly work

 

S.

 

that would be a real scandal, and precendents could then be set for other cases in law that have contract disputes, where one party could use the defence of pulling a nobody out and getting them to swear such and such was on a contract but has now been misplaced.

 

would be farcical, would open up the biggest can of worms in legal history.

 

keep trying lenders.... you will get there in the end... with the realisation that you cannot and will not win this war.

[Docman]

apparently they have now got together and are deciding on using a witness to state they did have a proper signed agreement but has been misplaced.

 

just as they got together a year ago and decided on non-disclosure as a route to stick 2 fingers up at the public.

 

they won't get away with it, all this will do is bring more publicty to the whole unenforceable arena and get more cliams against them

 

thick feckers.

 

 

No surprise there then!

 

What really got me on this test case was that both sides apparently agreed beforehand that issuing a default notice was not an enforcement action. Hence the judge agreeing that issuing a DN did not amount to enforcement.

 

Now since the staute requires that a DN be served before certain specified actions can be taken and that the wording in the Default Notice stipulated in the Regulations refers to 'No Further Enforcement Action', I cannot see how a DN can be anything other than part of the enforcement process.

[Baggio]

No surprise there then!

 

What really got me on this test case was that both sides apparently agreed beforehand that issuing a default notice was not an enforcement action. Hence the judge agreeing that issuing a DN did not amount to enforcement.

 

Now since the staute requires that a DN be served before certain specified actions can be taken and that the wording in the Default Notice stipulated in the Regulations refers to 'No Further Enforcement Action', I cannot see how a DN can be anything other than part of the enforcement process.

 

the point here is, a proper case needs to be submitted and handled.

 

you can bet your bottom dollar that cartel with all there cash will make sure the 8 cases they are having heard wont be bought off by a bank looking to spin the public a yarn.

[johnerog]

Hello all.

 

1. When did British Law become concerned with the 'moralality' of the law in question. If an insurance company can find a loophole in a contract it will refuse to pay out. No moral questions raised, contract law.

2. In the Wilson case one of the Judges stated that the finance company were responsible for the setting up of the agreement and could only blame themselves if the agreement was not legaly binding. The law is there to protect the average citizen, not a company holding all the cards. Remember if we want the money we have to agree to the conditions laid down by the lender. But the prescribed conditions are layed down in law!!

3. If the company cannot supply a signed contract then what contract are they trying to enforce and who gave them permission to pass on 'alleged' details of a contract that does not exist?

[cab1ne]

"sorry" for butting in

can anybody tell me what section in the 2006 regs, states that agreements pre april 2007 are not effected

 

cab

[Baggio]

"sorry" for butting in

can anybody tell me what section in the 2006 regs, states that agreements pre april 2007 are not effected

 

cab

 

CCA 2006 was passed by parliment and become law on the 6th April 2007, so any agreement signed from that date onwards was regualted by this new act.

 

The old CCA 1974 was still in place to govern all pre 6th-april 2007 agreements.

 

Hope this makes sense.

[the_shadow]

"sorry" for butting in

can anybody tell me what section in the 2006 regs, states that agreements pre april 2007 are not effected

 

cab

 

If you want specifics, I've nabbed this from a defence by Citizenb, hope she doesnt mind me posting it up.

 

. Firstly I will address the issue of which Act is relevant in this case, in case it is suggested that the claim falls under the Consumer Credit Act 2006, it is drawn to the courts attention that schedule 3, s11 of the Consumer Credit Act 2006 prevents s15 repealing s127 (3) of the 1974 Act for agreements made before s15 came into effect. Since the agreement would have commenced prior to the inception of the Consumer Credit Act 2006, section 15 of the 2006 Act has no effect and the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is the relevant act in this case.

S.