Case Management Conference MBNA vTricky Dickie

[Tricky Dickie]

How could all of the parties present agree that the law regarding the enforcing of credit agreements is already clear from the High Courts, when judges are enforcing them when presented with a cut up card rather than the agreement?

 

Maybe the law is clear but there seems a problem with this being communicated correctly to judges and / or with the judges enforcing the laws correctly.

 

Please read my post,I did not say that 'all parties' (etc) I said that the Barristers,QC's agreed that the main points of the law were already established.

With regard to the judiciary there is no doubt that many of them do not have a sufficient understanding of the Consumer Credit Laws to deal properly with cases.

Indeed at the Case Conference Judge Halbert frequently consulted the QC's present to clarify detailed points of law which was one of the reasons why they had been invited and he readily admitted that they had a better understanding of many of the issues than he did himself.

One of the main reasons for the Conference was to identify issues which may have been interpreted differently by different judges,to have trials take place soon and them directions handed so that consistent rulings will be made upon the same points of law by different judges.

What needs to be appreciated is that the judges hearing these claims trials are not specialists in this area of law and hear all types of claims so the idea of the trials is to help them overcome their lack of knowledge .

Also checked my notes again today and whilst only 4 cases were identified yesterday to be fast tracked for early trials Judge Halbert had originally selecting 17 cases for this treatment so presumably he will pick the other 13 unless representations are made to him about others.

[underdog13]

Thanks for such an illuminating and encouraging report, TD.

 

If the test cases find in favour of unenforceable agreements not being registered with the CRAs, will they be obliged to remove defaults already registered against unenforceable agreements?

 

The only other area that concerns me is the mortgage companies 'calling in' their loans in retaliation for debtors avoiding credit cards balances or unsecured loans taken out with the same company. With a myriad of defaults on your record, who will give you another mortgage, especially at short notice?

[SkemDosser]

Thanks for taking the time to give us a detailed account of your experience TD. This is probably one of the most crucial threads on the forum at the moment and although I was at first dubious about the whole process- immediate default to 'Establishment vs. Us' lol I'm beginning to feel now it that it is going to benefit the consumer more than the banks.

 

Of course the establishment/government have their own agenda which is increasingly in line with the ordinary consumer at the moment which is making it happen, but hey lets not complain and make the most of it while it lasts

[SkemDosser]

Thanks for such an illuminating and encouraging report, TD.

 

If the test cases find in favour of unenforceable agreements not being registered with the CRAs, will they be obliged to remove defaults already registered against unenforceable agreements?

 

The only other area that concerns me is the mortgage companies 'calling in' their loans in retaliation for debtors avoiding credit cards balances or unsecured loans taken out with the same company. With a myriad of defaults on your record, who will give you another mortgage, especially at short notice?

I don't think any one is under any illusion that the banks will try every dirty trick in the book to fight this- they've done that whilst having a clear field [witness the turning unsecured debt into property charges] so they will go very dirty.

 

I also think this threat of issuing defaults/applying for CCJ's will run out of steam- as I said in another post, the more that are issued, the less value they hold and there's going to be a lot before the end of this slump.

Credit scorings are going to have to be adjusted.

 

Also, quick mortgage/ credit deals? This is a recent phenomenon really and one we've got used to very quickly but it hasn't been around long and in the great scheme of things, is it particularly necessary? In the old days it may have been a slow, sometimes frustrating process, but the loans were safer, if more boring lol

 

The banks have made money disposable. No one else. THEM. They've made it nothing more than a commodity in itself. It served them well for a long time as they trousered the dividends of that process, but when the consumer treats the money [and them] the same way? They don't like it. they've wanted their cake and to eat it and have actually got away with it for quite awhile. They're going to scream like hell now it's all being taken away, but they're on a hiding and know it:)

[Tricky Dickie]

Thanks for taking the time to give us a detailed account of your experience TD. This is probably one of the most crucial threads on the forum at the moment and although I was at first dubious about the whole process- immediate default to 'Establishment vs. Us' lol I'm beginning to feel now it that it is going to benefit the consumer more than the banks.

 

Of course the establishment/government have their own agenda which is increasingly in line with the ordinary consumer at the moment which is making it happen, but hey lets not complain and make the most of it while it lasts

 

 

The way I am looking at this is thats its the first skirmishes in what will prove to be a very long and bloody war of attrition but at least the consumer now has the weapons.

Even more importantly the consumer now has the initiative and at the risk of being vilified on here the real driving force behind the changing face of the battle is the resources employed by the CMCs who as a collective industry are now throwing in literally billions.

This may or may not be an altruistic investment however it has always been feared that the consumer would ultimately be defeated by the sheer financial power of the banks.What is changing is that they are facing a challenge from an equally ruthless and profit driven industry but one which has the law behind their argument.

Regardless of money the best lawyers always first and foremost take on the cases they will win and the money will follow.

The best lawyers are now lining up with the CMC,s because they know they have the best chance of winning-and given the success fees available they are probably going to make a lot more money anyway.

It may not be welcome to many on here but for the vast majority of consumers the CMCs present their best opportunity to have access to justice.

There is no doubt that in the court room yesterday the QC,s with the best knowledge and indeed the ones most frequently consulted by Judge Halbert were those retained by the CMC,s

[WelshMam2009]

There is no doubt that in the court room yesterday the QC,s with the best knowledge and indeed the ones most frequently consulted by Judge Halbert were those retained by the CMC,s

 

That's reassuring to know!!

 

Let's hope all of the chosen cases have similar resources behind them...

[underdog13]

That's reassuring to know!!

 

Let's hope all of the chosen cases have similar resources behind them...

 

Amen to that;)

[BlueSquirrel]

Just another thanks to TD for the report. All very interesting...

[Stubie]

Subbing

 

Great thread everyone

 

Cheers

 

Stubie

[basa48]

Subbing

 

Great thread everyone

 

Cheers

 

Stubie

 

Also subbing

[UK26]

subs

[Rhia]

Can you tell us who any of the barristers were - on both sides?

 

I cannot believe that Judge Halbert is interpreting the CCA as it should be - to protect the consumer.

 

I must tell you that this is a complete turn around from my own experience just two years ago when I was in court when a CAGer took on MBNA in court along with Cabot. This particular HH just sided completely with both sets of barristers against a LiP (who was very ill too) and would not give an inch.

 

I think you are quite correct in that defaults are becoming increasingly devalued as people everywhere are sick of a) being in debt and b)sick of the banks acting like the Bourbon Kings and have decided under the mattress like they used to do is the best place. Credit cards will die a death for ordinary folks.

 

As to those CRA defaults? Well there is a consultation out at the moment from the Ministry of Justice which is proposing changing the Limitations Act to three years instead of six to harmonise with Europe (and to help get us all spending again I've no doubt).

 

It's gone to the DCA's body (what a bunch of jokers) the CSA and they are squealing like stuck pigs and threatening to flood the courts with 50,000 claims overnight if it comes in.

 

Now this is making me wonder if the courts have been told to get the banks to sort out their own messes and keep these things out of the courts.

 

If it is shown that most of these agreements are unenforceable within the spirit of the CCA (which they seem to be) the banks will just have to stop playing silly buggers and actually help people out by writing off or repaying penalties or whatever, stop screwing up credit reports and not sell to DCAs.

 

The assignment to DCAs is [problem] in itself. They are assigned (offshore via Ireland as we discovered in the case of MBNA and Cabot) after being sold for 10p in the £ and the rest written off to tax.

 

I could go on...well I have but this is getting very exciting.

[Tricky Dickie]

Can you tell us who any of the barristers were - on both sides?

 

I cannot believe that Judge Halbert is interpreting the CCA as it should be - to protect the consumer.

 

I must tell you that this is a complete turn around from my own experience just two years ago when I was in court when a CAGer took on MBNA in court along with Cabot. This particular HH just sided completely with both sets of barristers against a LiP (who was very ill too) and would not give an inch.

 

I think you are quite correct in that defaults are becoming increasingly devalued as people everywhere are sick of a) being in debt and b)sick of the banks acting like the Bourbon Kings and have decided under the mattress like they used to do is the best place. Credit cards will die a death for ordinary folks.

 

As to those CRA defaults? Well there is a consultation out at the moment from the Ministry of Justice which is proposing changing the Limitations Act to three years instead of six to harmonise with Europe (and to help get us all spending again I've no doubt).

 

It's gone to the DCA's body (what a bunch of jokers) the CSA and they are squealing like stuck pigs and threatening to flood the courts with 50,000 claims overnight if it comes in.

 

Now this is making me wonder if the courts have been told to get the banks to sort out their own messes and keep these things out of the courts.

 

If it is shown that most of these agreements are unenforceable within the spirit of the CCA (which they seem to be) the banks will just have to stop playing silly buggers and actually help people out by writing off or repaying penalties or whatever, stop screwing up credit reports and not sell to DCAs.

 

The assignment to DCAs is [problem] in itself. They are assigned (offshore via Ireland as we discovered in the case of MBNA and Cabot) after being sold for 10p in the £ and the rest written off to tax.

 

I could go on...well I have but this is getting very exciting.

 

The only name I know is David Berkley who was representing a CMC.

[Tricky Dickie]

Can you tell us who any of the barristers were - on both sides?

 

I cannot believe that Judge Halbert is interpreting the CCA as it should be - to protect the consumer.

 

I must tell you that this is a complete turn around from my own experience just two years ago when I was in court when a CAGer took on MBNA in court along with Cabot. This particular HH just sided completely with both sets of barristers against a LiP (who was very ill too) and would not give an inch.

 

I think you are quite correct in that defaults are becoming increasingly devalued as people everywhere are sick of a) being in debt and b)sick of the banks acting like the Bourbon Kings and have decided under the mattress like they used to do is the best place. Credit cards will die a death for ordinary folks.

 

As to those CRA defaults? Well there is a consultation out at the moment from the Ministry of Justice which is proposing changing the Limitations Act to three years instead of six to harmonise with Europe (and to help get us all spending again I've no doubt).

 

It's gone to the DCA's body (what a bunch of jokers) the CSA and they are squealing like stuck pigs and threatening to flood the courts with 50,000 claims overnight if it comes in.

 

Now this is making me wonder if the courts have been told to get the banks to sort out their own messes and keep these things out of the courts.

 

If it is shown that most of these agreements are unenforceable within the spirit of the CCA (which they seem to be) the banks will just have to stop playing silly buggers and actually help people out by writing off or repaying penalties or whatever, stop screwing up credit reports and not sell to DCAs.

 

The assignment to DCAs is [problem] in itself. They are assigned (offshore via Ireland as we discovered in the case of MBNA and Cabot) after being sold for 10p in the £ and the rest written off to tax.

 

I could go on...well I have but this is getting very exciting.

 

 

Your experience in court is one which seems to be commonplace and one of the problems is that County Court Judges do not know the CCA.

So when a couple of barristers facing an LiP tell the Judge something he just believes the barristers and the argument is lost which is why you should be represented in court.

It was very interesting in the case conference referred to earlier in the thread that there were numerous occasions when HH Halbert requested that barristers such as David Berkley assist in clarifying the law for him and at the end gave his thanks for their assistance