Claim Stayed – Due to Unenforceable CCA Test Cases.

[Baggio]

the grand irony of CMCs being called Debt "loophole" companies always makes me laugh... considering the fact that the law is very black and white with regards to producing a copy of the original credit agreement... and it is in fact the lenders who are utilising (or trying to) "loopholes" in order they shun their legal obligations.

[johnerog]

the grand irony of CMCs being called Debt "loophole" companies always makes me laugh... considering the fact that the law is very black and white with regards to producing a copy of the original credit agreement... and it is in fact the lenders who are utilising (or trying to) "loopholes" in order they shun their legal obligations.

 

Abso..bloody...lutely.

[Axiom99]

The cases in Manchester include some brought by several CMC's and one of them has been regularly updating it introducers about events,here are some extracts.

 

1.12.09

 

A credit card balance of more than £11,000 has been completely written off

due to the lender failing in its obligations under the Consumer Credit Act.

Leading claims management company, Credit Issues and their nominated

solicitors, BPS, broke the news to their client earlier this week, confirming that

the balance of £11,038 had been totally written off. The case, which was

bought against the lender MBNA, had been scheduled for a full trial in the

Manchester Mercantile Court starting on Monday of this week. However

MBNA capitulated just hours before the commencement of the trial.

Despite several request by Credit Issues MBNA failed to provide a true copy

of the signed credit agreement, leaving BPS no choice but to issue

proceedings against the lender.

MBNA also caved in on a second case due for hearing this week, enabling

Credit Issues to confirm to another client that their £6,217 credit card balance

had been written off.

MBNA are not alone as Credit Issues have many thousands of clients across

a variety of lenders, many in a similar position. The trial at Manchester this

week that includes cases against a number of lenders other than MBNA

continues and will, if successful, lead to a successful resolution for thousands

of clients.

Lee Lipson, Legal Services Director at Credit Issues, said:

"The Consumer Credit Act makes it clear that lenders must provide a true copy of the

original credit agreement when requested, in this instance the lender failed to do so

and as a result was in breach of its’ statutory obligations. MBNA’s capitulation hours

before the start of the trial is a real indication of the seriousness of this issue. Having

brought proceedings against a number of lenders we are in court this week to seek

guidance and a successful outcome for many thousands of our other clients who find

themselves in a similar position."

 

3.12.09

Today the argument surround whether or not the consumer can obtain a declaration from the court, to demonstrate the Lender is in breach of Section 78 and the agreement is therefore unenforceable. This is a major concern for the banks, they have appointed a leading QC to make their submissions, this is the same QC the banks used in the defense of the bank charges cases, at this moment in time we obviously do not know what their defense on this point is. Today (Thursday) will prove to be very interesting.

It is of our opinion that matters are going well, the real debate surrounds whether or not the Lender can reconstitute exactly what they are obliged to provide and also whether the consumer can get a declaration.

I will provide an update later today on how the banks are defending he declaration point.

4.12.09

 

On Thursday, essentially the banks sought to argue that firstly the court didn't have the power to give the declarations as sought by the claimants. Our Barrister responded to this and the judge also appeared not to like that position. I think it is clear the courts have the necessary power to give them.

Then, the banks, on the assumption that the court does have the power to give declarations, argued that they shouldn't because it serves no useful purpose. What they were suggesting is that if there is a dispute whether or not a true copy has been provided a borrower should wait until sued, and then raise appropriate issues at that point. Neither I nor our Barrister believes that should wash with the courts.

Thereafter, there was an application by the bank to get one of Cartels claims struck out because they say it is fundamentally flawed. Another such application is being made by Barclays currently again against one of Cartels clients. The banks have not tried this against us on any of our cases!

The remainder of today, Friday, will just be mopping up some housekeeping issues and we hope the judge will provide judgment in January. Our Barrister remains confident about the outcome.

 

[MW2]

Does anybody else think it speakes volumes that nothing about theses cases has been on th news this week? The bank charges was front page and headline news!!

[the_shadow]

Does anybody else think it speakes volumes that nothing about theses cases has been on th news this week? The bank charges was front page and headline news!!

 

Hmmm take a look at your papers adverts next time you pick it up... how many of these are banks? also Itv/c4,c5 take a look at the adverts and see how many financial institutions advertise...

 

Theyre not so stupid as to bite the hand that feeds imo.

 

Only reporting at present is bbc website.

 

S.

[PaulB_Telford]

Perhaps there will be more reporting when the judgements are handed down? I would have though the MBNA capitulation would have had at least some press. Does anyone know exactly the detail of each the 12 cases? Most of the debate on here seems centred on 'reconstitution'.

[ruinedbynatwest]

Perhaps there will be more reporting when the judgements are handed down? I would have though the MBNA capitulation would have had at least some press.

--------

The press are very nervous about preempting the Courts - they've learned to report rulings and that way they don't get accused of taking a political position. Interesting though that they're very happy to take political positions on just about everything else ?

 

 

A friend of my Dad's was features Editor of the Sunday....... - John wrote to Natwest on my behalf in 1990 for their comments - he was tugged by his Editor in Chief who spoke with him very seriously because he (the boss)had just been threatened by Natwest, by telephone, with the withdrawal of its advertising budget. John apologised to me, as a family friend, and that's when my dad (as a serious crime squad copper) advised "They're frightened of something - banks don't threaten people like you, they just crush you - the answer'll be in the paperwork, or the lack of it - that's where you start looking; the paperwork". When I fessed up that there was NO Paperwork, at first he disbelieved my stupidity, "it'll be there, somewhere, ask for copies" - but when he saw that there was NO paperwork, only threats, he said

"It's so bad, there ought to be a law against it". How very right he was.

 

John Story

 

www.ruinedbynatwest.com

Edited December 5, 2009 by ruinedbynatwest
typos

[stapeley]

Forgive me if I am wrong , but , did the SUPREME COURT not tell the OFT to butt out of these matters? Is it not out of order for them to be issuing draft guidance to a Manchester High Court Judge ?

My view is that the JUDGE in question will make his own mind up , and if as a result ,it goes against the banks , leave for appeal will be granted . We will end up with a long winded appeal process,even longer than bank charges, but hopefully a clear cut ruling .

Hears my ruling

 

No produced SIGNED CCA, NO ENFORCEABLE DEBT.

Reconstructed CCA, NO ENFORCEABLE DEBT.

Signed application form only, NO ENFORCEABLE DEBT.

 

That is my understanding of the CC ACT.

Edited December 7, 2009 by stapeley

[creditman09]

Hello Stapeley, I followed your, now closed, huge thread on Moneysavingexpert with great interest.

 

With regards to the topic on here, is this the beginning of the end or the end of the beginning?

 

Far more seems to be at stake than the bank charges issue and it does seem the media is very quiet. It was the BBC Panarama programme a year ago that alerted me to the possibiliies and that came at a very critical time for me.

[stapeley]

Wish I had a penny of everyone of the viewings that thread had !

[angry cat]

Re: media coverage;

there is nothing to say at the present, other than what has already been reported.

 

We just have to be patient and wait until January 2010.

[kel123]

Hi Stapeley

 

Sorry to hear that they have closed that thread, are your issues still in limbo?

 

I hope you are correct with your predictions, I reckon 2 out of the three, the middle one I think could be ify on balance of probability

 

Kel

[jonoh1]

Surely if they allow a reconstructed c.c.a document. Then would that not mean that they would allow any reconstructed document.

 

For example if the bank states we have reconstructed the agreement for whatever reason. (The main reason one never existed in the first place.) Then it is fair for the defendant to show a reconstructed document which might state the bank had wrote off the alleged debt but unfortunately the defendant had lost the letter so here is a reconstruction. Hence it would all be back to square one and the only legal and fair way for the bank to make the agreement enforceable would be to produce the original document.

 

Otherwise they could reconstruct all types of legal documents which would make the law a travesty.

 

Why are OFT involved with giving draft directions. They have had plenty of time to sort out individual cases and yet did not show any interest. Yet they and trading standards are only intent on the moral judgements not the word of the law. That is unless the word of the law supports the banks or they can make some loophole for it to support the banks.

[letitbeme]

Just one comment. Does the OFT honestly believe that a reconstructed CCA+T&C’s would be a true reflection of the original, when we all know that the vast majority of the earlier CCA+T&C’s are unenforceable.

[kel123]

Jonoh I cannot disagree with you, but I am talking about Balance of probability - i've been in court and had the DJ say 'on the balance of probability this is a true copy of the terms and conditions and therefore complies with s78'. It contained minor error and it was a resently typed with my name and address on it and not on their standard diclosure list?

[WelshMam2009]

Jonoh I cannot disagree with you, but I am talking about Balance of probability - i've been in court and had the DJ say 'on the balance of probability this is a true copy of the terms and conditions and therefore complies with s78'. It contained minor error and it was a resently typed with my name and address on it and not on their standard diclosure list?

 

This is not the first time that I've heard "balance of probability" being used as the required burden of proof in respect of the authenticity of the documentation.

[paulwlton]

Posted on 442

Edited December 5, 2009 by paulwlton

[paulwlton]

I wonder if the 65 customers below were made aware that the "true copy" they'd received was "recreated"

 

 

[the_shadow]

Jonoh I cannot disagree with you, but I am talking about Balance of probability - i've been in court and had the DJ say 'on the balance of probability this is a true copy of the terms and conditions and therefore complies with s78'. It contained minor error and it was a resently typed with my name and address on it and not on their standard diclosure list?

 

Eek, grounds for appeal there I would have thought, as I understand it even if they seek and obtain the courts permission to introduce evidence on the day it's clearly prejudicial as you've not had time.

 

Again, its all down to this damn judge lottery, we really do need a ruling thats binding and fingers crossed these test cases will give us this.

 

S.

[kel123]

Paul

 

Fraud in anyones books - BUT? No signature, no proof of ownership (unless a hard drive can be sized) therefore anyone could have typed it! Paul I am not questioning your integrety nor that it is real but it is a ten min job with basic software.

 

Yes we know it goes on, but again it is proof - now if it was acompenied by a certificate by a employee of a high level, then that would be different but who is going to sacrifice 30K+/an to shop the system.

 

Kel

[kel123]

Shaddow

 

OK it was a SJ but I am not telling porkies. see my thread 'SJ lost but battle continues'

 

My prior learning (DJ Experianced) is that no matter what Law, legislation, presidance is put forward the DJ is god in his own 12x12 room and untill DJ's are held accountable nothing will change!

[angry cat]

Duplicate posting...

Edited December 5, 2009 by angry cat

[ruinedbynatwest]

Forgive me if I am wrong , but , did the SUPREME COURT not tell the OFT to butt out of these matters? Is it not out of order for them to be issuing draft guidance to a Manchester High Court Judge ?

May view is that the JUDGE in question will make his own mind up , and if as a result ,it goes against the banks , leave for appeal will be granted . We will end up with a long winded appeal process,even longer than bank charges, but hopefully a clear cut ruling .

Hears my ruling

 

No produced SIGNED CCA, NO ENFORCEABLE DEBT.

Reconstructed CCA, NO ENFORCEABLE DEBT.

Signed application form only, NO ENFORCEABLE DEBT.

That is my understanding of the CC ACT.

 

 

Hi Stapeley !

Following Lord Crowther's scathing criticism of the common law into consumer credit, the common law was repealed with the passing of the CCA - and along with it the Caveat Emptor ("buyer beware") emphasis placed on borrowers under the common law rule "You borrow money you pay it back" - far too much emphasis was (before the CCA) placed on title (who owned what) and banks were notorious for perfecting securities but not for documenting lending terms (as is the driving force behind my actions to get Natwest V Story & Pallister reopened). The CCA reversed the caveat emptor principle to whatever "lender beware" is in latin !

 

The CCA presumes that mischief lies behind what we see as "improperly executed" agreements - and the CCA asks "Why else would a professional moneylender not wish to document terms" ?

 

In other words, the 1974 CCA is a much needed form of "Health and Safety" for debtors, ( for all the right reasons) and it seems that the Courts are finally (after 35 years) getting the message - and especially so where the Courts are chok - a-blok full of angry consumers with "improperly executed" credit agreements where creditors

treat them as a new form of fox-hunting, or other 'blood sport' with harassment being the order of the day./

 

Mr Bennion drafted the CCA upon the recommendations of Lord Crowther, that The credit industry simply must get its act together, just like the rest of us, who run businesses, or are accountable for our actions have to (or in our case who ran businesses until Natwest took it upon themselves to teach us a lesson because we stood up to them) !

 

Why should the credit industry be allowed to run sloppy businesses just because they lend out the judges' money ?

John Story

 

www.ruinedbynatwest.com

Edited December 5, 2009 by ruinedbynatwest
typos and political correctness

[batman1956]

Many,many jobs have been lost in the banking industry in recent month's with many more due to follow. Surely there must be some disgruntled ex bank employees out there who would be happy to spill the beans on what is really going on. If so stand up and be counted.

[Gallahad]

On the basis that everything that happens in the USA eventually arrives here maybe this could be considered a glimmer of hope.

Liz Pulliam Weston - Credit card reform; new law and fees - MSN Money