Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIafTR3tF9c   Judge ruled that the bailiff had no reasonable belief he was entering a debtor's premises and there was not even evidence of a writ.   Ruled there was no evidence of a NOE sent to the address.   Ruled there was a tort of assualt as the bailiff barged in wearing, in the Judge's words, combat gear.   Ruled there was a tort os 'misuse of private information' by the bailiff by taking photos of the homeowner's documents   More in the link. Case originally discussed here on these boards        
    • I will put some money into the coffers on this site as its well deserved. 
    • Hi all,    I have read all the threads about CLI (Credit limits international) regarding fines from minor traffic offences in Florence Italy but I wonder if anyone actually faced some serious issues by ignoring the letters? Did any bailiffs knocking on the door, any court hearings, credit scores affected etc?   In my case, it is for a traffic offence in Florence and entering a traffic limited zone in 2015. CLI claims that their client is the Firenze Municipale and they are collecting the debt on their behalf. However, I have (as many others) never received the first or any notification from the Italian traffic police itself.  I called them and as stated in many online websites - they confirmed that the final notification is sent by registered post and needs to sent within 360 days of when they received my contact details by the rental company. The most odd thing is that the Firenze Municipale also mentioned that they hold no records of old fines so that makes me really wonder how they can act on behalf of the police when they don't have any records of it? Also worth mentioning is that, there are many errors on the original fine CLI has sent me, there are slightly different amount stated on each page.    If they have bought the debt than it would be fraud by claiming that they act on behalf of a client.   I know many are saying to ignore it and they have no authority to take further legal actions, however they are a member of CSA (note I have spoken to FCA and they confirmed they do not regulate traffic offences so they do not need to be registered there) so I would think they can enforce it.    Does anyone have any experience and how far did CLI take it? I have no problem paying the original fine as I never was notified but they are claiming more than 4 times and I doubt you can negotiate.    Thanks!    
    • Fined for exceeding the free parking period.   I can’t found the form the other posters have filled out with details of fine etc but it happened on the 3rd September issue date 7th September. I received the fine on the 16th September but this is delayed, I imagine, due to my car being a car hire so was alerted to it my.    Shopped at Lidl, have proof of shopping with my Apple Pay but not a physical receipt.    Looking back with Google maps there are signs saying customer parking but no obvious terms.   Having read some posts on here, I have written to the CEO, included proof of shopping etc and am waiting for their reply.    Feeling hopeful but also anxious I will end up having to deal with Athena and they seem like hideous people to deal with.    Any advice greatfully received.    Attached fine    Email I sent to CEO (havehad no confirmation that they have received the email) christian.haertnagel@lidl.co.uk (hope this is the current ceo) below.     Dear Christian,   I hope this finds you healthy and well in this unprecedented time.   I have recently moved to SE9 from NW3 and having been a religious online grocery shopper, spending large amounts with Ocado, please see attached document. Since moving to SE9, having recently bought a car, the current financial climate & having more options for our grocery shopping, we decided to start shopping at Lidl in Eltham having heard good things.  We have gone in there a few times now and, so far, we are pleased with the produce we come home with & the customer service experience. Also this branch has a lot of house hold goods, clothing, gardening and recently DIY equipment, lots to look through.   Our visit on the 3rd September, we must have taken longer than we realised. We were there with friends and they were doing a big shop, us not so big this time and afterwards we even signed up for Lidl Plus, please see attached document, so we were really pleased.   Today I was shocked to receive a, very un, Civil Parking Charge Notice for being in the car park 21 minutes over the the 90 minute free parking, please see notices attached below. We had no idea this free parking restriction even existed and there centrally wasn’t any adequate signage to alert us in our arrival.   Please find proof of our purchase attached, please note the time of the purchase 16.38 and the notice states we departed the car park at 16.42.   We trust that this will be addressed, so that your customers can park, at least, knowing what the parking terms are before they choose to park and shop in your store.   As valued & loyal customers this is unfair and we kindly ask that you tell Athena to cancel this charge.   Thank you for your time in addressing this matter.  
  • Our picks

    • @curryspcworld @TeamKnowhowUK - Samsung 75 8K TV - completely broken by Currys. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/426151-samsung-75-8k-tv-completely-broken-by-currys/&do=findComment&comment=5069075
      • 4 replies
    • @skinnyfoodco Skinny Foods. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/426130-skinny-foods/&do=findComment&comment=5068996
      • 8 replies
    • I’m in desperate need of help
       
      I bought some clothes online in may through Evans and paid through PayPal
      returned them all seven days later
       
      I waited the 14days for my refund and no refund came
      I put in a dispute through PayPal but I didn’t get any emails to escalate the case - PayPal closed it. 
      evans said they couldn’t refund the money because PayPal have cancelled the refund because of the open dispute
       
      I contacted PayPal
      they said the dispute had been closed but Evans at no point had attempted a refund.
      fast forward to today
       
      I’ve got copies of numerous messages sent to and from twitter messages as it’s the only way I can contact them
      I’ve also contacted their customer service too
      all I get is PayPal have cancelled refund because dispute is still open.
       
      I have proved that the dispute is closed
      I have got an email saying that if Evans sent the refund they would accept it
      but up until the date I got the email they have not once attempted a refund .
       
       I have sent them a letter before court email
      I have even offered to have the full refund as a gift card just to get this sorted !
       
      I’m literally at the end of my tether and don’t know where to turn next !
       
      i suffer with mental health issues and this is affecting my health and I’d saved the money for a year to buy these clothes as I’m on a low income .
    • In desperate need of help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/425244-in-desperate-need-of-help/&do=findComment&comment=5067040
      • 29 replies

Unenforceability Cases on hold until further notice


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3982 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

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.

 

thanks baggio

 

i thought their was a section in the 2006 act that specifically stated it.

 

cab

Cab1ne-Lombard-Shoosmiths **Claim Recieved**

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?181761-Cab1ne-Lombard-Shoosmiths-**Claim-Recieved**/page25

Summary Judgement 01/02/2011 **REFUSED** set for trial "May 23rd To June 30th 2011"

DISCONTINUED 3rd MAY 2011 **WON**

 

santander" Responsible Lending!!!!!!!

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?219431-quot-santander-quot-Responsible-Lending!!!!!!!

 

Capquest "V" Cab1ne

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?262962-Capquest-quot-V-quot-Cab1ne

 

"STAYED"

 

CAB "Sittin Tight"

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

 

S.

 

"brill":D

 

just what i needed

 

cab

Cab1ne-Lombard-Shoosmiths **Claim Recieved**

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?181761-Cab1ne-Lombard-Shoosmiths-**Claim-Recieved**/page25

Summary Judgement 01/02/2011 **REFUSED** set for trial "May 23rd To June 30th 2011"

DISCONTINUED 3rd MAY 2011 **WON**

 

santander" Responsible Lending!!!!!!!

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?219431-quot-santander-quot-Responsible-Lending!!!!!!!

 

Capquest "V" Cab1ne

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?262962-Capquest-quot-V-quot-Cab1ne

 

"STAYED"

 

CAB "Sittin Tight"

Link to post
Share on other sites
"sorry" for butting in

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

 

cab

 

s127(3) repeal

 

Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14)

 

15 Enforceability of regulated agreements

In section 127 of the 1974 Act (enforcement orders in cases of infringement) subsections (3) to (5) shall cease to have effect.

 

11 The repeal by this Act of—

 

(a) the words “(subject to subsections (3) and (4))” in subsection (1) of section 127 of the 1974 Act,

 

(b) subsections (3) to (5) of that section, and

 

© the words “or 127(3)” in subsection (3) of section 185 of that Act,

 

has no effect in relation to improperly-executed agreements made before the commencement of section 15 of this Act.

 

 

The Consumer Credit Act 2006 (Commencement No. 2 and Transitional Provisions and Savings) Order 2007 No. 123 (C. 6)

 

PROVISIONS COMING INTO FORCE ON 6TH APRIL 2007

 

.............

 

Section 15 Repeal of section 127(3) to (5) of the 1974 Act (enforcement orders in cases of infringement)

Edited by fermi
  • Haha 1

[SIZE=2][COLOR=SeaGreen][FONT=Verdana][URL="http://www.nationaldebtline.co.uk/"][/URL][/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE]

Link to post
Share on other sites
Coulda, shoulda chosen a slightly more consumer friendly tag line but all the main points are there.

 

Not the ideal people to quote but hey its a free (ish) country.

 

Gez

 

Same old same old,the journo didn't bother to read the judgement just rewrote previous innacurate stories

Link to post
Share on other sites
"brill":D

 

just what i needed

 

cab

 

Also, the Couldn't be Bothered argument from Francis Bennion himself (my emphasis):

 

Consumer Credit Act 1974 s 127(3)

As the draftsman of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 I would like to thank Dr Richard Lawson for his interesting and well-argued article (30 August 2003) on Wilson v First County TrustLtd [2003] UKHL 40, [2003] 4 All ER 97.

Dr Lawson may be interested to know that I included the provision in question (section 127(3)) entirely on my own initiative. It seemed right to me that if the creditor company couldn’t be bothered to ensure that all the prescribed particulars were accurately included in the credit agreement it deserved to find it unenforceable, and that the court should not have power to relieve it from this penalty. Nobody queried this, and it went through Parliament without debate. I’m glad the House of Lords has now vindicated my reasoning and confirmed that nobody’s human rights were infringed.

© F A R Bennion Website: www.francisbennion.com

Doc. No. 2003.061 JPN008L 167 JPN (2003) 773

Anyone who is defending on the basis of Section 127(3) should also include the reference above. Don’t forget to acknowledge the author and his website as your source. I would imagine that any judge faced with this would have to accept the reasoning for the inclusion of the section into the 1974 Act.

 

Els

BANK CHARGES CAMPAIGN CONTINUES - PLEASE SIGN THIS PETITION

 

Aktiv Kapital £300.00 SETTLED IN FULL

Capital One £741.47 SETTLED IN FULL

Citi Cards £1221.00 SETTLED IN FULL

LTSB(personal) £3854.28 SETTLED IN FULL

LTSB(business) £7487.97 SETTLED IN FULL

 

What poor education I have received has been gained in the University of Life

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I guess you have to talk to yourself when no-one else will, OT :D

 

Thanks for the info.

Edited by foolishgirl
typo

Any knowledge I possess or advice I proffer is based solely on my experiences in the University of Life. Please make your own assessment of legality, risks & costs before taking any action.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
just answering my own question for anybody interested. I have been told it (spml -vs -walker) is going to be a couple of weeks before judgement is handed down

 

Do you have a link to this case or further info OT?

The REAL Axis of evil: Banks, Credit Card Companies & Credit Reference Agencies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

just heard Brunnels are appealing the RBS case it seems ? if true their barrister is one of the top in this area of consumer law and wouldnt take a case he wasnt pretty sure he had a chance of winning . One cmc cleaning up the mess another has left i like that !

Link to post
Share on other sites
just heard Brunnels are appealing the RBS case it seems ? if true their barrister is one of the top in this area of consumer law and wouldnt take a case he wasnt pretty sure he had a chance of winning . One cmc cleaning up the mess another has left i like that !

 

 

Y E S !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
just heard Brunnels are appealing the RBS case it seems ? if true their barrister is one of the top in this area of consumer law and wouldnt take a case he wasnt pretty sure he had a chance of winning . One cmc cleaning up the mess another has left i like that !

 

Are you referring to RBS v McGuff? If so Fantastic!!

 

Can you link to further info?

I have no legal qualifications whatsoever, so please check any input I have for accuracy. And please correct me if you disagree!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this case might be a waste of time being appealed, unless they can get them to admit issuing a default notice, demanding full payment etc, is enforcing the agreement.

 

What we need is a ruling on an irredeemably unenforceable agreement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re Walker v SPPL Reserved (Scheduled 8/10 reserved 14/10

 

Also in the CoA SPML v Heath also reserved.

 

These are big judgments being handed down and given that they are reserved one must only assume that there are massive ramifications from whatever decision is eventually handed down.

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
It was therefore a case where the court had a discretion as to whether to enforce. Ironically, the judge stated that even if this stage had been reached he would not have granted an enforcement order as SPPL’s approach to the agreement was "an attempt to circumvent the provisions of section 9(4)". Nothing appears to be further from the case - SPPl appear to have been trying to follow the requirements of the Wilson case in a manner which is not uncommon in the industry.

 

bunch of total winkers.

 

Agreed:mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

The Consumer credit act 1974 reads that any creditor (Your lender) is requested by the Debtor (you) For a copy of the executed credit agreement on the payment of the required Statutory fee (£1) Must provide the agreement.

 

If the creditor fails to provide the agreement in the required time.(12 business days) The agreement is unenforcable until the creditor provides the agreement. If the creditor has failed to provide the agreement for 30 days the creditor has commited an offence under the act.

 

For the most part the creditors will provide a copy of the executed credit agreement. If they do then it is down to fathoming out what is wrong with the credit agreement. For the most part it is mis-calculations culminating in an incorrect total amount for credit.

 

It is very handy to watch all cases that go to court and the result from those cases. For Example Halifax under Bank of Scotland lost a case on there credit card agreements becasue the Terms and Conditions were in a separate document with no clear links in the signature box. This means that Halifax cannot prove that the customer received a copy of the terms and conditions when sigining the credit agreement.

 

With this in mind and the fact that Halifax used this method all the time means that the success rate for making the credit agreement unenforcable is 100% the plain truth

 

If the lender does not provide an agreement it is your legal rights to cease payment and there is nothing the creditor can legally do. You do need to write to them stating this though that your agreement is now in a legal dispute.

 

If they then put anything adverse on your credit file ,,,the information would be inaccurate and would breach the Data Protection Act 1998 which reads any information held on a living person must be accurate and up to date.

 

If this does happen write to the credit reference agency informing them that the information on the file is disputed for accuracy and also write to the creditor advising they have breached the data protection act aswell stating that if the information is not removed you will sue under the DPA 1998 aswell as writing to the Information Commisioners Office you can also sue under the Defamation of Character Act 1994 i.e libel. Becasue damaging someones credit for no legitimate reason breaches that act.

 

Typical winnings are about £5,000 and an injuction form them doing it again although you can sue for up to £100,000 but its very likely that unless you are famous the court would see it as a bit of a joke. . The is a protocol for doing libel cases but for the most part when a creditor know you mean business the adverse on your credit file will be gone within 28 days.

 

Another thing that does happen is they start chasing you hard for payment and considering this its a legal dispute its against the banking code of practice and also the Administration of Justice Act 1970.

 

I am currently suing Halifax for blocking my wifes debit card on the 23rd Ocotober in Wolverhampton County Court. If I succeed it will be a case presidence and anyone who's card gets blocked will be able to sue there bank and win. It is highly likely that Halifax will settle out of court in the next few days. but who knows keep an eye on the posts to see if we have good news

Edited by SteEqWar
spelling errors
Link to post
Share on other sites
The Consumer credit act 1974 reads that any creditor (Your lender) is requested by the Debtor (you) For a copy of the executed credit agreement on the payment of the required Statutory fee (£1) Must provide the agreement.

 

If the creditor fails to provide the agreement in the required time.(12 business days) The agreement is unenforcable until the creditor provides the agreement. If the creditor has failed to provide the agreement for 30 days the creditor has commited an offence under the act.

 

For the most part the creditors will provide a copy of the executed credit agreement. If they do then it is down to fathoming out what is wrong with the credit agreement. For the most part it is mis-calculations culminating in an incorrect total amount for credit.

 

It is very handy to watch all cases that go to court and the result from those cases. For Example Halifax under Bank of Scotland lost a case on there credit card agreements becasue the Terms and Conditions were in a separate document with no clear links in the signature box. This means that Halifax cannot prove that the customer received a copy of the terms and conditions when sigining the credit agreement.

 

With this in mind and the fact that Halifax used this method all the time means that the success rate for making the credit agreement unenforcable is 100% the plain truth

 

If the lender does not provide an agreement it is your legal rights to cease payment and there is nothing the creditor can legally do. You do need to write to them stating this though that your agreement is now in a legal dispute.

 

If they then put anything adverse on your credit file ,,,the information would be inaccurate and would breach the Data Protection Act 1998 which reads any information held on a living person must be accurate and up to date.

 

If this does happen write to the credit reference agency informing them that the information on the file is disputed for accuracy and also write to the creditor advising they have breached the data protection act aswell stating that if the information is not removed you will sue under the DPA 1998 aswell as writing to the Information Commisioners Office you can also sue under the Defamation of Character Act 1994 i.e libel. Becasue damaging someones credit for no legitimate reason breaches that act.

 

Typical winnings are about £5,000 and an injuction form them doing it again although you can sue for up to £100,000 but its very likely that unless you are famous the court would see it as a bit of a joke. . The is a protocol for doing libel cases but for the most part when a creditor know you mean business the adverse on your credit file will be gone within 28 days.

 

Another thing that does happen is they start chasing you hard for payment and considering this its a legal dispute its against the banking code of practice and also the Administration of Justice Act 1970.

 

I am currently suing Halifax for blocking my wifes debit card on the 23rd Ocotober in Wolverhampton County Court. If I succeed it will be a case presidence and anyone who's card gets blocked will be able to sue there bank and win. It is highly likely that Halifax will settle out of court in the next few days. but who knows keep an eye on the posts to see if we have good news

 

fantastic post, well done sir.

 

one of the best, most informative posts i have read in a long while.

 

can i ask, how do you know all this? are you using a CMC?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3982 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...