Claim Stayed – Due to Unenforceable CCA Test Cases.

[B3rty]

Well contained is fine because Goodes and case law clarifies what that means and it ain't in another document

[postggj]

when is the full judgement being made public

 

any ideas

[gyos]

The ruling on prescribed terms being contained was agreed by the parties involved

 

Well, that will screw over any creditor or DCA that thinks an 'application form' without the prescribed terms is acceptable.

 

.

[postggj]

i realy would like to know the explanation the judge gave ref reconstructed agreement

[Basil Fawlty]

The ruling has gone against the banks in most of the preliminary issues but they suceeded on the reconstitution point.

 

The ruling on prescribed terms being contained was agreed by the parties involved

 

 

Does this mean that a reconstituted agreement can be used in court, or does it mean it can only be used for a CCA request? In other words, do they still have to provide the original in court?

 

BF

[oilyrag]

removed

Edited January 27, 2010 by oilyrag
advice

[Josie8]

Abc

Edited December 30, 2009 by Josie8

[Josie8]

Does this mean that a reconstituted agreement can be used in court, or does it mean it can only be used for a CCA request? In other words, do they still have to provide the original in court?

 

BF

 

It w

Edited December 30, 2009 by Josie8

[the_shadow]

Ruling generally relates to s.78 requests. OFT position seemed to be that it was acceptable for creditor to provide reconstituted agreement in court under all circumstances so guess creditors will try this avenue

 

Crikey, the OFT strikes again.. so back of a fag packet agreements will do then in the eyes of the OFT provided its a sophisticated financial institution that provides a sworn statement to the validity of it I presume

 

S.

[B3rty]

Josie8

 

Not sure if you are in the know or making up your own interpretations

 

There's always been a difference between s.78 request copies and what has to be produced to enforce agreements....most folk get confused by s.78 requests and the reconstituted agreement thing as its a grey area...however to enforce the copy has always had to be of the original and this is backed by by good case law so the OFT interpretation isn't important.

 

If you are informed has this ruling stated that a reconstituted agreement is acceptable for enforcement?

[postggj]

oft test case

now this

 

smells bad

[postggj]

Josie8

 

Not sure if you are in the know or making up your own interpretations

 

There's always been a difference between s.78 request copies and what has to be produced to enforce agreements....most folk get confused by s.78 requests and the reconstituted agreement thing as its a grey area...however to enforce the copy has always had to be of the original and this is backed by by good case law so the OFT interpretation isn't important.

 

If you are informed has this ruling stated that a reconstituted agreement is acceptable for enforcement?

 

 

totally agree b3rty

 

wilson for a start

[Basil Fawlty]

Does anyone understand what Baggio meant by this a couple of days ago?

 

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.

 

BF

[ruinedbynatwest]

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

 

It's simply unbelievable that the (Civil) Courts allow any discourse whatever on the point of "recreating evidence" in the first place - and this raises serious questions in my mind, where the criminal courts eg, would simply not allow any discourse on the point whatsoever, because tampering is already evident from elements of the credit industry - and was most certainly evident in Story where Natwest denied but then admitted that the CCA applies to agreements that qualify for the protection - the Courts ignored the admission in order to set precedent for the banks.

 

The rules of evidence are The rules of evidence and the CCA is clear on the point - there's nothing new in it, the CCA follows evidential burdens (or is supposed to) - ie the CCA requires that it is so provided,documentation is to be provided, in due form, and it's provided (where it's needed) BEFORE any credit is advanced, IF the agreement is to be legally enforceable against the debtor.

 

And it is done that way round (documents provided before the credit is available) because Parliament recognised that documentation provided the key - the divining point between the scrupulous and the unscrupulous credit trader - the CCA presumes that mischief lay behind a trader's non-compliance. As a professional moneylender - he is to get his act together ! Document ! (And keep proper records of those documents !)

 

Stayed CCA cases - appears to me the court's are simply buying time - hoping that the parties will achieve settlement before the particular Judge has to make a decision - and get egg on his face - let's face it, the whole CCA scenario is unsatisfactorily explosive.

 

I'm sorry to say that it is a real pity that the Courts have allowed this 'head of steam' to develop in the unacceptable way it has - with the law being in a bigger mess now than ever before.

 

There is only one reasonable solution in my mind and that MUST start with, and be dictated by, the rule of law - ie why did parliament repeal the common law into consumer credit ? Why is Mr Francis Bennion, draftsman of the 1974 Consumer Credit Act, not properly consulted ?

 

I believe that it's a national disgrace that he is rudely ignored by our common law judges where he is ready, willing, and very much able to fully explain his drafting and he is able to do so, to all levels of society.

 

WHY DO THEY IGNORE HIM ? THAT IS THE overriding QUESTION here -

 

Just What does he have to say that they don't want to hear ?

 

WHY is MR Francis Bennion refused a hearing where the Courts otherwise pride themselves on their quest for objectivity, clarity and certainty ?

 

He does have the answers.

 

Merry Xmas !!

 

John Story

 

www.ruinedbynatwest.com

Edited December 24, 2009 by ruinedbynatwest
typos

[the_shadow]

It's simply unbelievable that the (Civil) Courts allow any discourse whatever on the point of "recreating evidence" . The criminal courts would

simply not allow any discourse on the point - evidence is evidence andf the CCA is clear on the point - the documentation is provided in due form and it is so, BEFORE any credit is advanced.

 

Criminal courts require beyond a reasonable doubt, civil courts require balance of probabilities hence the different slant.

 

S.

[Josie8]

Does anyone understand what Baggio meant by this a couple of days ago?

 

 

 

BF

 

it

Edited December 30, 2009 by Josie8

[justify]

Baggio??!

[B3rty]

Just going back to the OFT points they also said they would want a creditor to state whether they have a copy or not when reconstructing so I really don't think the OFT position is as cut and dry and as this is about a test case we should wait until the judgement is accessible to read before making assumptions

[B3rty]

Josie8

 

Have you read it?

[Josie8]

Josie8

 

Have you read it?

 

Yes

[postggj]

i agree

 

its ok for a creditor to reconstrct an agreement but in court the original must be produced, its your signature that executes the contract

 

what about pre action protocol

 

a creditor must suply on demand a true copy to avoid any litigation

 

what planet is this judge on

[Baggio]

hold up guys, a lot of stirring taking place here.

 

the true judgements and its actual ramifications are not being represented on here, as per the norm.

 

relax, i am waiting for full clarification.... but things have not gone the way of the creditors as some are stating on here.

[Josie8]

hold up guys, a lot of stirring taking place here.

 

the true judgements and its actual ramifications are not being represented on here, as per the norm.

 

relax, i am waiting for full clarification.... but things have not gone the way of the creditors as some are stating on here.

 

Have you actually read the judgment?

[Docman]

WAIT A FEW MINUTES and draw breath before acting.

Let’s see what the judge actually said AND also look at the OFT submission. There are a few days of holidays now, so no action is going to be taken by anybody for at least a week, if not two weeks. STOP PANICING.

[saddler68]

hold up guys, a lot of stirring taking place here.

 

the true judgements and its actual ramifications are not being represented on here, as per the norm.

 

relax, i am waiting for full clarification.... but things have not gone the way of the creditors as some are stating on here.

 

Baggio to the rescue:D:D, and to think you thought I was one of them;)