Claim Stayed – Due to Unenforceable CCA Test Cases.

[Baggio]

OFT are also involved in UCA cases now..... this is off the record

 

but will be in the press soon!

[Baggio]

and btw

 

these are not strictly "test cases"

[Basil Fawlty]

OFT are also involved in UCA cases now..... this is off the record

 

but will be in the press soon!

 

 

Is that good or bad?

 

BF

[Docman]

Sounds like the same as with the bank charges court cases where the banks paid up rather than allow a court to test the case.

[angry cat]

Well, I hope that they abide by the CCA and do not start going off at a tangent!?

 

Many cases are waiting in the background...particularly cases involving MBNA...

[Bigdebtor]

Is that good or bad?

 

BF

 

Basil

 

I think this is bad. The OFT did us no favours in delaying (and then losing) the bank charge issue for over 2 years. I know we have another route possible - but that's no thanks to OFT.

 

Why doesn't the OFT just butt out if it can't simply impose a common sense ruling? I am going to get all my credit card charge claims in now before theOFT spoils this situation too.

 

BD

[B3rty]

I think these case's will go in our favour because the law and case law is so strong around s.61 and 127(3) if only one of these could be heard......however I thought the McGuffick Judgement seemed like a set up for a compromise...i.e you wont be able to get the judgement but you can still pester for payment type of thing...

[Baggio]

my personal view is that the OFT getting involved is good for postive publicty for UCAs at last, there IS actual law and case law backing up UCA claims, bank charges never had either.

 

there are millions out there, struggling in a heap of debt, contemplating suicide as they see no way out.... but there is a way out, a legal way out.

 

which ever moral view you take on UCA claims... surely the banks messing up and being bailed out by the taxpayer is a lot worse than joe bloggs messing up his finances and getting bailed out by legal precedent.

[Gallahad]

my personal view is that the OFT getting involved is good for postive publicty for UCAs at last, there IS actual law and case law backing up UCA claims, bank charges never had either.

 

there are millions out there, struggling in a heap of debt, contemplating suicide as they see no way out.... but there is a way out, a legal way out.

 

which ever moral view you take on UCA claims... surely the banks messing up and being bailed out by the taxpayer is a lot worse than joe bloggs messing up his finances and getting bailed out by legal precedent.

 

Baggio I agree completely

G

[Josie8]

Baggio I agree completely

G

 

Regrettably it is not neccessarily good news for the borrower that the OFT has intervened in proceedings.

[MW2]

my personal view is that the OFT getting involved is good for postive publicty for UCAs at last, there IS actual law and case law backing up UCA claims, bank charges never had either.

 

there are millions out there, struggling in a heap of debt, contemplating suicide as they see no way out.... but there is a way out, a legal way out.

 

which ever moral view you take on UCA claims... surely the banks messing up and being bailed out by the taxpayer is a lot worse than joe bloggs messing up his finances and getting bailed out by legal precedent.

 

 

Hi to everyone on here,im very new to this and would like to ask the following question,as Baggiop states there is Law and Case Law backing these claims on UCA,so why do some people keep losing depending on the Judge they end up with surely the Law is the Law?

[Axiom99]

Regrettably it is not neccessarily good news for the borrower that the OFT has intervened in proceedings.

 

 

Absoluely the OFT have never done the consumer any favours and will just muddy the waters.Let the legal system resolve what are legal issues alone

[ruinedbynatwest]

Hi to everyone on here,im very new to this and would like to ask the following question,as Baggiop states there is Law and Case Law backing these claims on UCA,so why do some people keep losing depending on the Judge they end up with surely the Law is the Law?

 

Hi MW2 !

"Surely the law is the law ?" -

Excellent question that needs looking at properly, especially in these CCA cases because the CCA illuminates the problem that there exists a highly combative 'tribalism' within our legal fraternity - and it exists because there are 2 systems of law in the UK - the Common Law (or the Judges' own law, case law, which is enuniciated on a particular "test" case and is then handed down Judge to Judge, it's easily identifiable because nobody understands it apart from, er, Common Law practitioners [it's the stuff that's in latin !]) and then there's Statute Law, primary legislation (eg the Consumer Credit Act "CCA") which emanates from our Parliament and is supposedly superior to the Common Law (leave Europe outta this for a mo) and Judges swear to uphold the principle that "The Common Law must not defeat the Statute". Statutes are the result, usually, (and it certainly is with the CCA), of Parliament's identifying what it calls "mischiefs" or 'wrongs', in the Common Law and it sets about correcting them !!

 

That's alright then ?

 

Easy, innit ? 'cept that (here's the crunch) most judges take the view that when Parliament undertakes to interfere in the law, it usually does for the worse ! And the Judges, miffed at being 'dissed' set about defeating the Statute to get their own back. Not all Judges play this game - it's mainly the Common Law Courts (that's the High Court and above) ie those judges who are predominantly responsible for creating case law, or Common Law - and they don't like being made redundant where eg the CCA repealed the 'common law' into Consumer Credit, but not so's you'd notice..................

See www.ruinedbynatwest.com

 

for a classic example of just how clever the Judges can be in defeating the Statute, and.......................in maintaining the defeat regardless of the evidence that demonstrates that the Judges are very capable of defying Parliament.

John Story

 

First Defendant Natwest V Story & Pallister (Court of Appeal 14 May 1999)

Edited December 2, 2009 by ruinedbynatwest
typos

[Axiom99]

Thanks for info Axiom may I ask where info came from and do you have case ref numbers?

G

 

 

Info came from a CMC involved in the cases but claimants details and claim numbers were not provided.

seems pretty nailed on to me now that MBNA are screwed

[Bigdebtor]

my personal view is that the OFT getting involved is good for postive publicty for UCAs at last, there IS actual law and case law backing up UCA claims, bank charges never had either.

 

there are millions out there, struggling in a heap of debt, contemplating suicide as they see no way out.... but there is a way out, a legal way out.

 

which ever moral view you take on UCA claims... surely the banks messing up and being bailed out by the taxpayer is a lot worse than joe bloggs messing up his finances and getting bailed out by legal precedent.

 

My concern is that before OFT got involved, the banks paid out the unfair charges - then came the OFT involvement and a 2 plus year delay! Now unenforceable cca's are just that - and the creditors crumble at the last minute. If a judge takes the view that "you got the money - so pay it back" - no matter whether the cca is actually enforceable or not - then that's another victory for the finance industry. Remember these guys have all earned high salaries all their life and don't understand or sympathise with people whose circumstances change and then get into a spiral of debt fuelled by high interest and unfair charges.

[Josie8]

Let's just say that the Banks positively welcomed the OFTs draft guidance in court yesterday

[Bigdebtor]

Josie

 

What was that?

 

BD

[angry cat]

Let's just say that the Banks positively welcomed the OFTs draft guidance in court yesterday

 

I bet they did Josie!

 

However, surely the OFTs draft guidance is simply just an opinion/interpretation;

it will be interesting to learn, how the Barrister's various argue against that opinion?

 

Previously the OFT has followed Goode's interpretation;

whereas, many Barrister's normally follow Francis Bennion...

[Axiom99]

I bet they did Josie!

 

However, surely the OFTs draft guidance is simply just an opinion/interpretation;

it will be interesting to learn, how the Barrister's various argue against that opinion?

 

Previously the OFT has followed Goode's interpretation;

whereas, many Barrister's normally follow Francis Bennion...

 

 

What worries me is why the OFT do not follow Bennion he drafted the Act after all?

[Bigdebtor]

Have I missed something vital yesterday? What happened re OFT?

[Baggio]

i have quick glanced this draft guidance, its about 30 pages in length... and my information tells me the banks were NOT overly enthused by some of its content.

[Bigdebtor]

PPLLEEAASSEE SOMEONE - tell me what OFT guidance yesterday. I have been back through this thread and can find nothing about it.

 

BD

[paulwlton]

OFT are also involved in UCA cases now..... this is off the record

 

but will be in the press soon!

 

Could you expand on this statement please?

[Baggio]

there is not much more to add aside from the fact that the OFT have drafted a guide as to how claims should be handled by the juidicary.

 

we will all have more info when they go live to the press... very soon !!

 

watch this space.

[ruinedbynatwest]

What worries me is why the OFT do not follow Bennion he drafted the Act after all?

And Angry Cat, "Previously the OFT has followed Goode's interpretation;

whereas, many Barrister's normally follow Francis Bennion..."

 

Hi Angry Cat and Axion99 !

 

Problem here is that Prof Roy Goode served on the Crowther Committee and he contributed to the White Paper (Crowther Report)

"Consumer Credit - Report of the Committee" Command 4596.

which I heartily recommend as a must read for anyone interested in and/or who contributes to these various threads. It explains so much......

 

For example, Lord Crowther, addressing the exemption the banks had 'enjoyed' from the old Moneylending Acts (at 6.2.32)

 

"We do not consider that exemptions of this kind are in principle desirable. No doubt the standard of business ethics adopted by, say, the clearing banks in the making of consumer loans is high and may be thought to warrant a minimum of interference ....... We do not think it can be assumed that the mere fact that a lender is entitled to call itself a bank is ipso facto justification for removing legislative protection from the borrower. From his point of view, if problems arise of the kind envisaged by protective legislation, it is little solace to know that the other party is a bank"

 

Brilliant stuff !!!

John Story

 

www.ruinedbynatwest.com

Edited December 2, 2009 by ruinedbynatwest
typos