Unenforceability Cases on hold until further notice

[AA99]

Hello Jackpotind Just checking:cool:

 

Welcome to CAG

 

If you need specific advice with any particular bank/creditor, open your own thread and your responses will be there:)

 

In the meantime, read as many threads as you can...... most of your questions will be many times answered

[angry cat]

Hi!.All. I am not a debt collector. I run a cafe here in Southampton. I have in total 11 cards and owe £110,000 which I have put in dispute last September. So far only 1 has pursued me to court.

 

Welcome jackpotind!

 

Good grief Guys, getting rather paranoid aren't we!?

 

AC

[Desperate Daniella]

Hi JPI,

 

As the others have said, start a separate thread for each card, and name the bank/card company in the thread title. This will mean that others dealing with the same companies will subscribe.

 

DDx

[Hopster]

So what happened at court ?

[pedross]

Talking about court.

 

Good luck against the Halifax tomorrow Ste (P64)

[Hopster]

Who is battling with Halifax tomorrow - please. I am about to battle with them

[gezwee]

Who is battling with Halifax tomorrow - please. I am about to battle with them

 

See post #1274

[bullyuk]

morning all......can anyone advise the legal requirements to a loan agreement.

does it have to be word perfect......i have my own threads running concerning the dreaded logbook loans but quickly wanted to know if anyone knew the legality of a loan agremeent with the wrong companies name on.......cheers

[citizenB]

 

Posted by AA99

 

Hello Jackpotind Just checking:cool:

 

Welcome to CAG

 

If you need specific advice with any particular bank/creditor, open your own thread and your responses will be there:-)

 

In the meantime, read as many threads as you can...... most of your questions will be many times answered

 

 

 

jackpotind has his own thread now the link is here. To keep the continuity of the thread, I have unapproved or moved the appropriate posts.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/227596-jackpotind-help-required-please.html#post2519486

 

HTH

Edited October 22, 2009 by citizenB

[Desperate Daniella]

Hello Guests!!

 

This is the most wonderful forum, so do sign up soon.

 

DD

[Baggio]

Hello Guests!!

 

This is the most wonderful forum, so do sign up soon.

 

DD

 

hope you aint miss lipshutz

 

or whatever her name is

[cab1ne]

Hello Guests!!

 

This is the most wonderful forum, so do sign up soon.

 

DD

 

now now DD dont forget your "manners" "DONATE" as well

 

cab

[Desperate Daniella]

Think most guests have gone to bed now, and I'm going too.

[Armidillo]

I have also diligently read through the 71 pages and have lost my way somewhat. I hope a few pedantic queries may get me on the right path.

 

The Wilson v. SSTI [H 2003] set the precedent that if a Credit agreement does not contain all the prescribed terms then the agreement is unenforceable

 

In SPPL and Walker the Judge found in favour of the defendant that the Credit agreement was irredeemably unenforceable.

 

If there were only a handful of cases pending (not 100 000) could the pending cases just rely on this two judgements as authority?

 

Stating the question in another way what briefly then is the aim of the test cases.

In the only test case that I am aware McGuffick v RBS does not concern the fundamental issue of whether a breach of terms in the consumer credit agreement renders the debt irredeemably unenforceable but whether or not a claimant can stop the lender passing on adverse information to credit reference agencies if he/she stops making repayments while in dispute.

 

My (rather naive ) take on the test cases is to select different types of breach of terms in the consumer credit agreements to cover as many of the types of cases making up the 100 000 so as to give direction to lower courts in dealing with this huge case load. Once the test cases have been completed how many of the 100 000 cases would still need to go to court?

 

As you can see these 71 pages have really confused me , I think it all started when one of the posts stated that in McGuffick the judge felt that he was not bound by Wilson v. SSTI HL as this was a referal on the Human Rights Act

[haggis1984]

I have also diligently read through the 71 pages and have lost my way somewhat. I hope a few pedantic queries may get me on the right path.

 

The Wilson v. SSTI [H 2003] set the precedent that if a Credit agreement does not contain all the prescribed terms then the agreement is unenforceable

 

In SPPL and Walker the Judge found in favour of the defendant that the Credit agreement was irredeemably unenforceable.

 

If there were only a handful of cases pending (not 100 000) could the pending cases just rely on this two judgements as authority?

 

Stating the question in another way what briefly then is the aim of the test cases.

In the only test case that I am aware McGuffick v RBS does not concern the fundamental issue of whether a breach of terms in the consumer credit agreement renders the debt irredeemably unenforceable but whether or not a claimant can stop the lender passing on adverse information to credit reference agencies if he/she stops making repayments while in dispute.

 

My (rather naive ) take on the test cases is to select different types of breach of terms in the consumer credit agreements to cover as many of the types of cases making up the 100 000 so as to give direction to lower courts in dealing with this huge case load. Once the test cases have been completed how many of the 100 000 cases would still need to go to court?

 

As you can see these 71 pages have really confused me , I think it all started when one of the posts stated that in McGuffick the judge felt that he was not bound by Wilson v. SSTI HL as this was a referal on the Human Rights Act

 

A cynic might argue that the Mcguff case was selected as a test case precisely because the issues being disputed were so narrow (as you mentioned reporting to CRAs whilst in dispute). The banks have a hollow PR victory. The same cynic might then go on to state that the remaining test cases will be exactly the same - small issues surrounding the consumer credit act which really change little as a point of law but give the banks some PR points, scare of most consumers and cause some silly decisions in the lower courts.

 

Im not a cynic though

[enoughisenough]

Hi All (and a warm welcome to all our guests...)

 

Looks like the Treasury Select Committee are investigating the credit referencing agencies. When they report which should be any time soon, there will be the usual BBA whitewash. However there may also be submissions from the likes of Which?

 

here's the link for future reference.

 

UK Parliament - tc0809pn220909

[humbleman]

perhaps CAG should make some representation

[the_shadow]

Hi All (and a warm welcome to all our guests...)

 

Looks like the Treasury Select Committee are investigating the credit referencing agencies. When they report which should be any time soon, there will be the usual BBA whitewash. However there may also be submissions from the likes of Which?

 

here's the link for future reference.

 

UK Parliament - tc0809pn220909

 

Hmm very narrow investigation points there, looks like will possibly only benefit people who use comparison sites to do searches.

 

S.

[Baggio]

A cynic might argue that the Mcguff case was selected as a test case precisely because the issues being disputed were so narrow (as you mentioned reporting to CRAs whilst in dispute). The banks have a hollow PR victory. The same cynic might then go on to state that the remaining test cases will be exactly the same - small issues surrounding the consumer credit act which really change little as a point of law but give the banks some PR points, scare of most consumers and cause some silly decisions in the lower courts.

 

Im not a cynic though

 

No.

 

Some of the cases chosen by the CMCs leading the test cases i know for a fact are bullet proof.

 

The mcduff case was clearly a backhander job.

 

Brown paper bags etc

 

Why else would the numpty CMC pursue such a case?

 

They only fool the uneducated, and there are far too many CMCs out there looking to make a buck by spending much money on getting to the consumer and actually educating with the real facts.

 

PR stunt worked for about a week, back to square one for the gangsters.

 

Make no mistake about it, banks/lenders are the biggest gangsters on planet earth.

 

FACT

[angry cat]

Its coming up to the Christmas Hamper season et al

[Undercover-Elsa]

Well as I see it I've already prepaid their Christmas bonuses from my tax bill so they ain't getting any aftershave from me this year!

[the_shadow]

Well as I see it I've already prepaid their Christmas bonuses from my tax bill so they ain't getting any aftershave from me this year!

 

I dont know I'd quite like to get them some "Hai Karate" and give them the chop :-D

 

S.

[Undercover-Elsa]

The "How to make friends and influence people" book I got them last year didn't do much good..

[Mickiestar]

Hello

 

 

SPPL v Walker was heard on the 14th October @ the Court of Appeal

 

Judgement has been reserved to be given at a later date.

 

No further information will be decided this month and I would expect a Final Decision at some point in November maybe later.

 

McGuiffick ruling effectively concerned whether or not the Banks failure to provide a CCA pursuant to S77/78 prevent them from pursuing for the debt and reporting to credit reference agencies.

 

The answer as we all know was yes they can which effectively means in my view that they can still pursue you for that debt even if the court decides that your agreement is irredeemably unenforceable.

 

The reason for me saying that is on the basis that whilst the CCA 1974 and the Regulations thereunder are there to effectively protect the consumer and if the lender has not complied with their obligations then they don't have a right to enforce which is quite correct.

 

However in the background the debt is still there and the contractual obligation remains. It will in my view never be declared void. It will alsways remain owing and due.

 

The ramifications of this are that if the court declared your agreement irredeemably unenforceable potentially the lender still could pursue you for the debt, make adverse refernces to credit reference agencies and issue proceedings in respect of that debt. The McGuiffick case confirmed that issuing of proceedings was not classed as enforcement

 

I understand the reasoning as to why in that if that had been classed as enforcement then the judge would have been restricting a persons right to justice.

 

However it does beg the question as to what is enforcement?

 

How far is the lender permitted to go before it constitutes enforcement of the debt

 

Will the lender be able to get a money judgement against the consumer but not be able to enforce to recover that money

 

In respect of credit referencing the Mcguiffick ruling leaves it wide open for Banks to continue issueing adverse reference even after an agreement has been declared unenforceable.

 

In future a court may give further guidance as to what references the lender is permitted to make. Whether after an agreement is declared unenforceable the court may specify what wording is to be used in those references

 

Currently in any event even when you do have an unenforceable agreement the contractual obligation remains and the debt remains owing and due.

 

Whilst the court may have determined an agreement unenforceable the next step will be that the consumer will stop paying and the lender will then make a reference to the CRA's.

 

There is no doubt in my mind that if the court finds in the consumers favour the consumers credit rating will be affected potentially resulting in refusal for credit in cases where previously the consumer had a 100% clear credit rating.

 

Whilst I think McGuiffick is unlikely to be appealed I am positive that there will be further guidance from the courts as to how the lender is to treat the consumer following an agreement being declared unenforceable especially with regard to adverse references and the cra's

 

All that on a Friday afternoon

 

Mickie xx

[Mickiestar]

Finally on the point of SPPL v Walker

 

What are your views? Which way do you think the Court is going to decide?