Claim Stayed – Due to Unenforceable CCA Test Cases.

[dizzyblonde1966]

Sorry guys,im still a little confused,hence the name (Dizzy Blonde)

 

What does a stay actually mean in simple terms, does it suit Cohens more than me, ? or does it just simply mean no progress can be made until the stay is lifted ?or could cohens sneakily go for judgement without me being able to have a trial?

 

Any help much appreciated

 

DB

[paulwlton]

judgement passed down 10 am Xmas Eve

 

and a big F*** you to the banks who thought they would get away with blagging "reconstituted" agreements

 

the law is black and white and thank the lord it has been applied correctly.

 

Hope this puts an end to their "creative" Blue Peter antics.

[texanbar]

Hi docman,

 

I'm humbled you took the time to read my lengthy thread and really appreciate your comments. Yes, I've often felt NW's sols have dragged this out for as long as possible. I shall continue with this (along with my other Marbles case) as soon as I possibly can. Thanks again.

x:)x

 

 

 

texanbar & dizzyblonde, I've just read both your threads in full. IMO it appears the other sides solicitors are trying to pull the wool over the court's eyes in texanbar's case and the judge in dizzyblonde's case was looking for a quick way out of court today!

 

The Manchester cases (and please someone correct me if I am wrong here) are to determine whether the bank's etc can get away with 'reconstructing' documents in order to meet requests for documents under Ss77/78 of the Act. If they fail to do so, the claims management companies [CMCs] that are behind the cases in Manchester, and then proceed to get the credit card debt/loan quashed on the grounds that the credit agreement is unenforceable/does not exist. In short, the CMCs are trying to use the Act as a sword to fight the banks who are running scared.

 

Both texanbar and dizzyblonde are defending claims brought by the creditor banks. They have asked for copy agreements as part of the litigation and are using the Act as the shield that it was always intended to be by Parliament to defend themselves.

 

If the judgment in the Manchester cases wasn't expected tomorrow, I would suggest fighting the 'adjournments'. As it is, if the decision is as we have been led to expect, (and with the holiday season) I don't think there is a great deal lost. But if the case in Manchester does go against the banks, then IMO both these cases should be pursued with all vigour. Use the existing sections of the Act (Ss61, 65 & 127(3) if possible) together with the existing case law.

[pedross]

Sorry guys,im still a little confused,hence the name (Dizzy Blonde)

 

What does a stay actually mean in simple terms, does it suit Cohens more than me, ? or does it just simply mean no progress can be made until the stay is lifted ?or could cohens sneakily go for judgement without me being able to have a trial?

 

Any help much appreciated

 

DB

 

A stay is a suspension of a case or a suspension of a particular proceeding within a case by order of the court. In your case the reason the Judge would have ordered the 'stay' would probably be becaiuse they felt that a similar case was underway in a higher court.

 

Nobody can do anything sneaky and you will probably know before the stay is lifted who it benefits the most.

 

It would appear that it will be to your benefit at the moment so just keep following the threads.

 

Regards

 

Pedross

[Docman]

Sorry guys,im still a little confused,hence the name (Dizzy Blonde)

 

What does a stay actually mean in simple terms, does it suit Cohens more than me, ? or does it just simply mean no progress can be made until the stay is lifted ?or could cohens sneakily go for judgement without me being able to have a trial?

 

Any help much appreciated

 

DB

 

 

DB

 

A stay means that the action is frozen until such a date that the court sets. If there is no date (like here) it is up to one of the parties to make an application to the court to have the stay liftd or unfrozen.

[dizzyblonde1966]

Thanks guys,

DB

[Josie8]

Hope this puts an end to their "creative" Blue Peter antics.

 

Jud

Edited December 30, 2009 by Josie8

[middenmess]

Judgment was formmally handed down this afternoon. Regrettably the creditors are to be allowed to reconstitute agreements

 

Oh what a joyful time Christmas really is!

[middenmess]

By the way that things appear to be going we should be looking forward to an announcement to start the New Year off with a bang on January 2nd stating that the entire 1974 CCA and later amendments is being scrapped with immediate effect.

[michellej]

not sure if I would be looking forward to an announcement ,... so in reality the consumer is Sr*wed??????/ so does that mean its pointless even starting legal proceedings ,.. and who as the power to scrape the entire 1974 CCA ,..its a complete set up and same we could not group together and get One test case in Europen Court of Human Rights ,.. so if agreement is wrong with brokers fee added to balance and subject to interest over 7 years is fine and I can do nothing , and a secret commission in place , which is classed as a type of bride, I can do nothing ,..then putting restricted and unrestricted credit together as one agreement no terms in place ,..and after paying 25k back over the years ,is it still ok to owe £44k,..loan was only £31k ,... and is it ok to add restricted credit to unrestricted credit to put loan over regulation limit ,.. how can the court expect respect when their are putting 2 fingers up to the consumer and bending the rules to suit ,.. and then remove the whole act which provides that protection ,.. The amount of people who will be stuck for challenging the agreements should protest and highlight what is going on and maybe a good time to put this across as the banks are always in the news lately ,.. and surely their dont expect the consumer to sit back and take it ,... or is this just wishful thinking and we have to take it? well look forward to other peoples views

[MW2]

Judgment was formmally handed down this afternoon. Regrettably the creditors are to be allowed to reconstitute agreements

 

So in stark contrast to what Baggio was telling us? Who do we believe,i seem to remember you giving out the opposite advise to Baggio when the cases started aswell,im preety new to all this but have to question whos side you are on?

[MW2]

i have not got a copy of the judgement, but i have spoken directly to a chambers that have got a copy... and the banks did not succeed in their attempts to get away with simply providing updated T&Cs in response to a sec 77/78.

 

the judgement will state they need to disclose a direct link to these T&Cs and the original agreement.... which we all know they will struggle to provide.

 

happy xmas

 

So 2 different outcomes to the same case,or am i missreading it?

[MW2]

not sure if I would be looking forward to an announcement ,... so in reality the consumer is Sr*wed??????/ so does that mean its pointless even starting legal proceedings ,.. and who as the power to scrape the entire 1974 CCA ,..its a complete set up and same we could not group together and get One test case in Europen Court of Human Rights ,.. so if agreement is wrong with brokers fee added to balance and subject to interest over 7 years is fine and I can do nothing , and a secret commission in place , which is classed as a type of bride, I can do nothing ,..then putting restricted and unrestricted credit together as one agreement no terms in place ,..and after paying 25k back over the years ,is it still ok to owe £44k,..loan was only £31k ,... and is it ok to add restricted credit to unrestricted credit to put loan over regulation limit ,.. how can the court expect respect when their are putting 2 fingers up to the consumer and bending the rules to suit ,.. and then remove the whole act which provides that protection ,.. The amount of people who will be stuck for challenging the agreements should protest and highlight what is going on and maybe a good time to put this across as the banks are always in the news lately ,.. and surely their dont expect the consumer to sit back and take it ,... or is this just wishful thinking and we have to take it? well look forward to other peoples views

 

Unfortunately the british way seems to be to lie down and take anything thrown at us without the balls to do anything about it.

[michellej]

morning all , so which is correct??????? had a terrible sleep after reading above , and can honestly say do not look forward to announcement in anyway shape or form if against consumers ,.. again who would have the power to do this , scrape entire 1974 CCA , would it not be for parliment to decide? and would it not be in news , as this is a big announcement involving £££billion's ,.. a sad day if true ,... hopefully Baggio is correct and wecan continue to enjoy xmas ,..

[Josie8]

The case Carey v Hsbc was mainly over what a creditor needs to do in order to comply with s. 78 request. They are to be allowed to reconstitute agreements. This is also in accordance with the OFT draft guidance which was introduced into evidence. They do not have to provide a photocopy of the application at all.

 

In addition prescribed terms can be overleaf or referred to as attached for agreements pre 2005. This will be a matter of evidence individual to each case

 

I am sorry if this is not what you want to hear. I would confirm that I am not linked to any CMC company

[michellej]

Unfortunately the british way seems to be to lie down and take anything thrown at us without the balls to do anything about it.

 

Then a group action should take place , I for one would donate if anyone was to challenge this in Human rights courts , as we sure still have some rights ,... xmas lights are off

[intree]

What a Joke - The law is a ass!

 

The Judges are a Joke

The creditors are all going to give us all a dreadful time now,The Banks all get big bonuses then to top it all they can reconstitute what they like by faking agreements and whatever else they would feel they can.

 

HOW DISGRACEFUL AND UNLAWFUL.

 

YEP - WELCOME 2010.

[batman1956]

Only in Britain. Lots of guests on at the moment.

[the_shadow]

The case Carey v Hsbc was mainly over what a creditor needs to do in order to comply with s. 78 request. They are to be allowed to reconstitute agreements. This is also in accordance with the OFT draft guidance which was introduced into evidence. They do not have to provide a photocopy of the application at all.

In addition prescribed terms can be overleaf or referred to as attached for agreements pre 2005. This will be a matter of evidence individual to each case

 

I am sorry if this is not what you want to hear. I would confirm that I am not linked to any CMC company

 

Its always been the case that the prescribed terms need to be in the signature document which would cover both "overleaf" and "attached" in my opinion. But it does mean that any agreements that dont have the prescribed terms and just state refer to t&c supplied separately etc wont now comply in court so the quick reply applications should all now be deemed unenforceable?

 

Oh and just to say I'd be amazed if any of the test cases being heard at present go the consumers way... the tide has well and truly turned towards the bank, they may have been complicit in the irresponsible lending but they are to big to fail, the consumers can fall by the way side it appears

 

S.

[texanbar]

I'm hovering... really really need to go and do some food shopping (yes I know!!)

 

Should I stay or should I go

x:)x

[postggj]

interesting

 

has the actual judgement been released

or is this just here say

 

i have different info

[meeza]

Looking on with interest.

 

I attended the hearing on one of the days and the consensus of most people present was that the arguments put forward by the bank were poor. So i'm suprised to read that the judge is ruling in their favour.

 

If judgment has already been passed down is it possible for anyone to put it up on here?

[postggj]

ditto

[oilyrag]

removed

Edited January 27, 2010 by oilyrag
advice

[Josie8]

Abc

Edited December 30, 2009 by Josie8