Claim Stayed – Due to Unenforceable CCA Test Cases.

[paulwlton]

Just read the judgment....shocking

 

Among other things. Seems an unsigned agreement may be enforced through the courts as long as the creditor can prove "on the balance of probabilities" that a document was signed by the debtor or hirer

Edited December 24, 2009 by paulwlton

[gyos]

Doesn't give you much hope for the remaining cases does it?

 

This judge seems determined to twist the law and regulations in the favour of the creditors, regardless of any evidence to the contrary.

[lilly white]

· The parties in Carey have helpfully agreed the following principles. The fourth one was added by Mr Uff, with their agreement. No other party takes issue with them. The OFT has formulated the matter in a slightly different way but accepts these principles are close to its position.

 

 

(1) It is not sufficient for the piece of paper signed by the debtor merely to cross-refer to the Prescribed Terms without a copy of those terms being supplied to the debtor at the point of signature;

 

 

(2) A document need not be a single piece of paper;

 

 

(3) Whether several pieces of paper constitute one document is a question of substance not form. In particular a physical connection between several pieces of paper is not necessary in order for them to constitute one document;

 

 

(4) Additionally, a physical connection (or one or more physical connections) between several pieces of paper does not necessarily constitute them as one document;

 

 

(5) Accordingly, where the debtor's signature and the Prescribed Terms appear on separate pieces of paper

 

, the questions of whether those pieces of paper together constitute one document is a question of substance and not form.

[MW2]

Does anybody know what effect this will have on enforcability claims REALLY or is everyone second guessing at the mo? as there seems to be lots of different opinions.

[lilly white]

That which has mass and occupies space;

 

substance

 

i am starting to see it game on

[kel123]

Questions i'm asking

 

County Court - Balance of probability bias

High Court - fact Bias

 

does seem that the judge was sitting in the county court?

 

Why did this judge question McGuffick and then totally agree with it? - sorry forgot the old school bit

 

Why claim that the judicary was independand and then quote oft and follow it?

 

Well the pernod and lime is going down a treat (70's boy) so sod um and to all

 

A Merry christmas (even them LOBL)

[lilly white]

so if i am reading this correct

 

the terms must be in a documnet that contains your sig and the document must occopied the the same mass /space

[Baggio]

right people... i am meeting with our solicitors and QC next Tuesday afternoon.

 

they are totally convinced they have a lovely angle to issue proceedings as a door has been more than left open in this judgement.

 

yes, the lenders can send crap under a sec 78 request, but that does not mean game over by any means whatsoever.

 

i think this angle will be all over the net from many other solicitors as it apparently does not take much getting.

 

enojy xmas, and look forward to a year full to the brim with bank bashing.

 

always remember... we know the banks are stuffed, they know they are stuffed... it all comes down to an opening that pushes the banks to a breaking point in order the concede large volumes of cases.

 

and this judgement has definately given us that opening.

[kel123]

· The parties in Carey have helpfully agreed the following principles. The fourth one was added by Mr Uff, with their agreement. No other party takes issue with them. The OFT has formulated the matter in a slightly different way but accepts these principles are close to its position.

 

 

(1) It is not sufficient for the piece of paper signed by the debtor merely to cross-refer to the Prescribed Terms without a copy of those terms being supplied to the debtor at the point of signature;

 

 

(2) A document need not be a single piece of paper;

 

 

(3) Whether several pieces of paper constitute one document is a question of substance not form. In particular a physical connection between several pieces of paper is not necessary in order for them to constitute one document;

 

 

(4) Additionally, a physical connection (or one or more physical connections) between several pieces of paper does not necessarily constitute them as one document;

 

 

(5) Accordingly, where the debtor's signature and the Prescribed Terms appear on separate pieces of paper

 

, the questions of whether those pieces of paper together constitute one document is a question of substance and not form.

 

Number (5) cancels out the others! (3) backs it up! The burden of proof is on the consumer to poove that they did not receive at point of sale, they can type any sh*t and say it is one document!

 

It would not pass a quality control inspection, not even bs5750 and we are talking some 30+ years ago here, talk about outdated document control. Yesterdays men controlling today - no wonder this countries still in the sh*t

[Basil Fawlty]

After reading it, it looks bad to me, but I'm not a QC, so we

are in your hands Baggio... you've certainly given me hope!

 

I'm going to make sure it doesnt ruin my Christmas, and I wish

you all a very Merry one, and a bank-bashing Happy New Year!

 

BF

[lilly white]

bs 5750 good god what ever happen to that.

 

 

br lilly

[paulwlton]

Had I not found my original carbon copy the bank could have eventually enforced judgment by way of a charging order on the production of incorrect banking records.

 

Judges seem to think that banks conduct their behaviour with integrity and good faith.

 

RBS have admitted secretly changing the nature of their customers agreements including terms and conditions

 

 

How trustworthy is your bank? | Money | The Guardian

[gaz2006]

Seems an unsigned agreement may be enforced through the courts as long as the creditor can prove "on the balance of probabilities" that a document was signed by the debtor or hirer

 

This is the main crux in my view if there is a reconstrued agreement with a letter from some big wig in law firm or the bank stating it was usual practice to do things such a way etc any bank any credit card company can "enforce " an agreement without actually producing a signed one in court that is a major major problem for everyone Comments please

regards Gaz

[middenmess]

As the judiciary obviously consider the banking fraternity still to be paragons of virtue, any court decision riding on the 'on the balance of probabilities' is never going to be decided in favour of the debtor.

 

The banks will say 'yes we did' and the debtor will say 'no you didn't' and the Judge will have to go with the banks every time because a respected financial institution would never, ever tell a porky.

[paulwlton]

Seems an unsigned agreement may be enforced through the courts as long as the creditor can prove "on the balance of probabilities" that a document was signed by the debtor or hirer

 

This is the main crux in my view if there is a reconstrued agreement with a letter from some big wig in law firm or the bank stating it was usual practice to do things such a way etc any bank any credit card company can "enforce " an agreement without actually producing a signed one in court that is a major major problem for everyone Comments please

regards Gaz

 

Exactly....major major concern.

[MW2]

Getting the feeling the banks dont even need a solicitor to fight their corner as all the judges seem hell bent on defending them as much as they can,little people shafted again as usual are we going to do something about it? As i keep reading on here the law is black and white and yet it keeps getting twisted to benefit the banks.:mad:

[michellej]

Yeah never tell a porky ,.. well ask John Story

[Baggio]

guys, relax.

 

the judgement cleary states the lender needs to produce an original in court to enforce the loan.

 

its just to respond to a sec 78 ( not a 77 or a 79 ) that they can put together a blue peter job, but so what?

 

that does not get them out of facing a hearing for unenforceabilty where the original is still needed.

 

stop stressing.

[worldtour81]

I was wanting to put in a cca request.....

 

Is it worth doing it now or am I better to wait to see what the outcome is with these test cases?

 

 

with regards to Paul Walton/RBS story....shocking!!! was the Guardian the only paper to cover it, Paul?

[Basil Fawlty]

guys, relax.

 

the judgement cleary states the lender needs to produce an original in court to enforce the loan.

 

its just to respond to a sec 78 ( not a 77 or a 79 ) that they can put together a blue peter job, but so what?

 

that does not get them out of facing a hearing for unenforceabilty where the original is still needed.

 

stop stressing.

 

 

Baggio, am I reading this wrong from the judgement, but it seems as though all they have to do in court is provide a blue peter job and even if its unsigned, all they have to say is ''well the original must have been signed because we wouldnt have sent out a credit card without that signature''.

 

BF

[Baggio]

Baggio, am I reading this wrong from the judgement, but it seems as though all they have to do in court is provide a blue peter job and even if its unsigned, all they have to say is ''well the original must have been signed because we wouldnt have sent out a credit card without that signature''.

 

BF

 

what part of the judgement are you gleening this from?

[gaz2006]

guys, relax.

 

the judgement cleary states the lender needs to produce an original in court to enforce the loan.

 

its just to respond to a sec 78 ( not a 77 or a 79 ) that they can put together a blue peter job, but so what?

 

that does not get them out of facing a hearing for unenforceabilty where the original is still needed.

 

stop stressing.

 

In my view Baggio your wrong you read the wording " Seems an unsigned agreement may be enforced through the courts as long as the creditor can prove "on the balance of probabilities" that a document was signed by the debtor or hirer

 

This is the main crux in my view if there is a reconstrued agreement with a letter from some big wig in law firm or the bank stating it was usual practice to do things such a way etc any bank any credit card company can "enforce " an agreement without actually producing a signed one in court that is a major major problem for everyone Comments please

regards Gaz

 

this can be used to be enforced its just not for S78 request read it all the transcript you will find they were asking for statement on "unforceability of agreement as there wasnt one with signature but this means a reconstrued can be used and on according to courts "balance of probability " it was signed so no signature here but its still valid sorry your wrong and putting faith in these people may not be warranted at court as they have cocked up for a lot of people unless Im mistaken regards Gaz

Edited December 24, 2009 by gaz2954
typing

[Baggio]

In my view Baggio your wrong you read the wording " Seems an unsigned agreement may be enforced through the courts as long as the creditor can prove "on the balance of probabilities" that a document was signed by the debtor or hirer

 

This is the main crux in my view if there is a reconstrued agreement with a letter from some big wig in law firm or the bank stating it was usual practice to do things such a way etc any bank any credit card company can "enforce " an agreement without actually producing a signed one in court that is a major major problem for everyone Comments please

regards Gaz

 

this can be used to be enforced its just not for S78 request read it all the transcript you will find they were asking for statement on "unforceability of agreement as there wasnt one with signature but this means a reconstrued can be used and on according to courts "balance of probability " it was signed so no signature here but its still valid sorry your wrong and putting faith in these people may not be warranted at court as they have cocked up for a lot of people unless Im mistaken regards Gaz

 

lets wait to get the full sp from the professionals.

[patrickq1]

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

 

then i take it that it is quite legal for us also to re construct our own agreement,seeing as the law has now made provision for this to be legal......

patrickq1

[Basil Fawlty]

lets wait to get the full sp from the professionals.

 

 

Yeah, I think thats the best idea.

 

I'm not sure I can stomach reading through that judgement again to find what I thought was about unsigned documents being enforceable. I'm sure (and I hope!) I was wrong anyway.

 

BF