Claim Stayed – Due to Unenforceable CCA Test Cases.

[angry cat]

did they phone you at home?

 

LOL, PW!

 

AC

X

[seriously fed up]

I've just had a phone call from the Sunday press who want to do a big story on the test case.

 

 

Paul

 

I am very glad to hear this Paul, as there is a need to nail this one at an early stage. We have already heard from Johoh about M&S suggesting that this decision meaning that his agreement with them is enforceable, full stop, when what the judgement actually means is that if they do a recon its enforceable in the sense only that it satisfies s78 in light of this judgement. Its important imo that people learn the truth or they will just roll over and give in. The advice that Saddler has been given by his solicitor, as well as the arguments marshalled on this thread, show that is not the case at all. To be fair, the news about the judgement only seems to be spreading out now. I have checked the Guardian, the Times and the Independent in the last five minutes, going back to the 23rd (using their search facility) and there was nothing about the judgement came up. So perhaps the papers are only going to take an interest once the holiday is over. Therefore we need to put the message about that this really only concerned s78 and nothing about the enforceability of disputed accounts in the wider sense.

However, I am quite sure that if they phoned you Paul, in the interests of fairness, balance and neutrality (those qualities that we couldnt imagine the British media being without) they will have been on to the banks and they will be working on their five second soundbite already.

We might know the truth of the matter, but its all getting a bit like the X Files - the truth is out there. Fine, but where?

[ruinedbynatwest]

BBC News - Banks win partial High Court victory on credit cards

Just found above, why do the press assume this is a victory for the creditors, ITS ALL JUST A BIG MESS!

 

-------------------------------

What is the High Court doing interferring in this matter ?

It has no Jurisdiction.

Section 141 CCA grants Sole Jurisdiction to the County Court.

 

Mr Francis Bennion, 'drafter' of the 1974 CCA has just posted a remarkable article to his website on December 16 that is particulraly relevent as it clarifies Parliament's intentions with regard to (inter alia) the Manchester cases:-

 

http://www.francisbennion.com/pdfs/fb/2009/2009-043-cca-aborted-foreword.pdf

 

I, (Story), have posted this article several times recently to various threads but it appears from this current thread that nobody appears to have read it - it is highly topical where Mr Bennion is at pains to reiterate eg (in the regard of one particular case),

quote,

"Litigation nearly arose over s. 141(1), but I believe was settled. I intended this (S141) to be a helpful provision. Omitting paragraphing, it reads: ‗In England and Wales the county court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any action by the creditor or owner to enforce a regulated agreement or any security relating to it [and] any action to enforce any linked transaction against the debtor or hirer or his relative, and such an action shall not be brought in any other court.‘ "

unquote.....

 

 

 

Mr Bennion also again raises the continually overlooked (by the common law courts) point that Section 173 forbids (the Courts' system) and everyone else from "Contracting-Out" of the CCA - and again he reminds us that the CCA includes evidential provisions that the onus of proof falls onto the creditor to establish that any of the various forms of "credit tokens" were requested by the debtor.

 

 

So, adding these clarifying remarks from the CCA's drafter together, it is absurd for the High Court to intervene in the first place, where it has no authority to do so under S 141, and it is thereinafter placed in contempt of the Statute (itself forbidden under the 1689 Bill of Rights' Act) where it is seen to continually attempt (with varying degrees of success) to overrule the CCA's provisions, - bearing in mind particularly where S 173 forbids it to do so.........

The Bill of Rights Act provides,

 

"The Common Law Must Not defeat the Statute"

- so why are the common law courts' breaching the terms of the judicial oath ???

AND, WHY is Parliament not standing up to the activists ?

 

 

("Credit tokens" include the vast majority of lines of credit but most certainly includes credit cards).

 

For the common law Courts to again attempt to restore the principle of caveat emptor as the overriding principle here, where the CCA clearly provides that documentation MUST preceed the provision of the credit, is an absolute nonsense that is again caught on CCATV !!!

 

 

John Story

 

www.ruinedbynatwest.com

Edited December 31, 2009 by ruinedbynatwest

[angry cat]

reg 3 of the consumer credit cancellation notices & copies of documents regulations 1983 states that signatures and names may be omitted.

 

However;

 

In respect of regulation 7 which states;

 

7(1) Where an agreement has been varied in accordance with section 82(1) of the Act, every copy of the executed agreement given to a debtor, hirer or surety under any provision of the Act other than section 85(1) shall include either -

 

a) an easily legible copy of the latest notice of variation given in accordance with section 82(1) of the Act relating to each discrete term of the agreement which has been varied;

 

or

 

b) an easily legible statement of the terms of the agreement as varied in accordance with section 82(1) of the Act.

 

reg 7 refers to a copy of the executed agreement and that sub sections a) or b) are in addition to this AND NOT ANY ALTERNATIVE to sending the "actual ***EXECUTED AGREEMENT".

[caro]

blimey, the sunday press tracked you down at home.

 

interesting.

 

Paul has had a lot of press attention Baggio so hardly surprising. In fact I'd say he has probably done as much as anyone to raise awareness of such issues.

 

Let us know when and where to look out for you Paul.

Edited December 31, 2009 by caro
bad English

[Baggio]

Paul has had a lot of press attention Baggio so hardly surprising. In fact I'd say he has probably done as much as anyone to raise awareness of such issues as anyone.

 

Let us know when and where to look out for you Paul.

 

I see, good man.

[angry cat]

I see, good man.

 

A, Good Man Indeed!!!

 

AC

[ruinedbynatwest]

reg 3 of the consumer credit cancellation notices & copies of documents regulations 1983 states that signatures and names may be omitted.

End Quote.............

 

Hi AC,

Have you read Mr Bennion's latest input (his usual impeccable self, he stays above the scrap, but points at the relevant),

 

http://www.francisbennion.com/pdfs/fb/2009/2009-043-cca-aborted-foreword.pdf

 

In this MUST-READ Mr Bennion refers to the judicial interpretation of the 1983 (agreements) regulations thus :-

 

 

"I can confirm that an incorrect result would have ensued if the Court of Appeal had accepted counsel‘s argument and construed the CCA by reference to the 1983 regulations. This is because the drafter of the regulations misunderstood the Act".

 

Back to the drawing board, ladies and gentlemen - the answers ALL lie in the CCA itself.

 

 

Happy New Year !!!

 

John Story

www.ruinedbynatwest.com

[seriously fed up]

Noticed this a couple of times, but thought someone else might take it up. However as no one else has ....

First of all, John, can I say that I too am a great admirer of Mr Bennion and his work on producing the CCA 1974 can only be admired. HOwever, it does seem to me that there are problems with this statement

 

1. while acknowledging the existence and content of s141 (and that this went through due process in Commons and Lords) the fact remains that the courts are in hierarchical relation to each other - County Courts below High Court below Court of Appeal and so on - and it seems to me to be difficult to stop a case heard at, for instance County Court, moving on up to the next level (eg for the resolution of difficult issues, for appeal on points of law). Perhaps you might like to comment on that
   
2. more seriously, it has happened, and what would/should/ could the response be? In other words, what is the remedy and who is going to apply for it?
   

Re your most recent post about Mr B, I struggle a wee bit to see how the CCA could stand without the Regs (albeit that if Mr B says that the whoever drafted out the regs didnt understand the Act). For instance s60 says

"60.—(1) The Secretary of State shall make regulations as to the form and content of documents embodying regulated agreements, and the regulations shall contain such provisions as appear to him appropriate with a view to ensuring that the debtor or hirer is made aware of—

(a) the rights and duties conferred or imposed on him by the agreement,

(b) the amount and rate of the total charge for credit (in the case of a consumer credit agreement),

© the protection and remedies available to him under this Act, and

(d) any other matters which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, it is desirable for him to know about in connection with the agreement.

How can we make specific sense of that (and that is only one example) without the Regs being place. Besides, going back to my own point 2 above, its where we are.

Edited December 31, 2009 by seriously fed up

[ruinedbynatwest]

Noticed this a couple of times, but thought someone else might take it up. However as no one else has ....

First of all, John, can I say that I too am a great admirer of Mr Bennion and his work on producing the CCA 1974 can only be admired. HOwever, it does seem to me that there are problems with this statement

 

1. while acknowledging the existence and content of s141 (and that this went through due process in Commons and Lords) the fact remains that the courts are in hierarchical relation to each other - County Courts below High Court below Court of Appeal and so on - and it seems to me to be difficult to stop a case heard at, for instance County Court, moving on up to the next level (eg for the resolution of difficult issues, for appeal on points of law). Perhaps you might like to comment on that
   
2. more seriously, it has happened, and what would/should/ could the response be? In other words, what is the remedy and who is going to apply for it?
   

 

Exactly, SFU,

I have argued this point and am left high and dry - it's as though the Courts (which simply refuse to address my questions) are saying

 

"catch us if you can".

 

I'm no Wat Tyler, but this matter of moneylending law is bound to only escalate where there is clear activism on the part of the common law courts where eg HHJ Waksman has commented that his decision (words to the effect of) will inhibit many a challenge, and of course, where the Court of Appeal in eg Story refuses to determine that 3 regulated agreements are refinanced by an agreement the court ruled is unregulated.

 

Simply because £300 billions' rests on the decision in a single case is no reason for the judiciary to abandon the rule of law - and to breach their sworn oath to uphold the law - this breach of judicial oath is unacceptably evident where the common law, plainly open to lobbying (from the fiasco we're currently witnessing), is now changing the rules of evidence to suit the credit industry in these discovery cases where we are asked to accept that licensed credit traders may acceptably breach the terms of their CCA licences under the common law rule that "you borrow money you pay it back", in the situation where the overriding principle of their CCA licence is that they will COMPLY with this NEW LAW.

 

Licensees have sworn to abide by the CCA - IS THE Common Law saying that it is very OK for, eg the OFT to not keep original copies of the licencees' licences ??

 

That is the test - can the OFT lose CCA licences ?

 

It is overlooked, in the courts and on these threads, that the CCA was put into place to address the arrogant disregard of the credit industry to document terms - before the CCA, individual consumers who fell out with their lender over undocumented terms had to face an almighty and influential and appallingly ruthless opponent - here we see that arrogance still there where it is exhibited in an open defiance of the CCA by the credit industry who simply wish to restore "Inequality of bargaining power".

 

The real disgrace is that the common law Courts bend over backwards to assist the non-compliant trader who breaches the terms of his Consumer Credit licence. He cannot say that he is unaware that his licence requires him to keep copies of properly- executed consumer credit agreements should a court ever wish to see these documents if eg problems arise in the relevent creditor/debtor relationship ............

 

Here, we are not far away from seeing a fraudster's charter being formulated by the Courts.

 

For a Court to say that a miscreant trader may create these agreements on demand is the very stuff that motivated Wat Tyler and his followers all those years ago..

 

For God's sake, Where is Parliament ?

 

I thereby agree completely with your reasonable premise,

 

WHO is to address the level of judicial activism we see bubbling away in the field of Consumer Credit ?

 

John Story

 

www.ruinedbynatwest.com

Edited December 31, 2009 by ruinedbynatwest
typos

[JonCris]

I think the point is that various courts, including this one, have made what was/is an unambiguous agreement into an ambiguous one

 

The CCA is/was one of the few Acts that did what it said on the box ........ not anymore

 

Also it's a bit ironic that the court found there was no unfair relationship when the finding has had the precise effect of creating one:rolleyes:

[JonCris]

There are some on here who have 'agreements' which no court dare enforce & it's these who we need to get into court.

 

I also suggest that the next hearing should be attended by some CAG supporters just to show the powers that be that the individual in question is not alone;)

[JonCris]

Almost forgot the next time you complete a claim form tick 'yes' where it asks if the HRA will be involved quoting article 6 'right to a fair trial'

Edited December 31, 2009 by JonCris

[Gallahad]

There are some on here who have 'agreements' which no court dare enforce & it's these who we need to get into court.

 

I also suggest that the next hearing should be attended by some CAG supporters just to show the powers that be that the individual in question is not alone;)

 

JC I have to agree that wherever possible a show of strength in numbers at all court hearings should be an aim

G

[chris5664]

Hi,

 

I am sorry but I am concerned with the news. :-|

 

With this recent ruling -- in lay terms will this have any impact on such as myself, will this give credit card company’s more clout? :idea::idea::idea:

Edited January 1, 2010 by chris5664

[ruinedbynatwest]

There are some on here who have 'agreements' which no court dare enforce & it's these who we need to get into court.

 

I also suggest that the next hearing should be attended by some CAG supporters just to show the powers that be that the individual in question is not alone;)

 

Right !! JonCris !!!!!

 

You're on !!

 

I spend a lot of time in France these days , when not in Glastonbury, but I am fully prepared to attend to give support to anyone with a real grievance in the situation where it is reasonable for me to attend. This is a non-political gesture - I have no desire to be self serving other than to have my family's case properly reopened within the rule of law that we are denied by Lord Justice Robin Auld's decision to defy Section 8 CCA 1974.

That's my New Years resolution !!!!!

 

John Story

www.ruinedbynatwest.com

[angry cat]

There are some on here who have 'agreements' which no court dare enforce & it's these who we need to get into court.

 

I also suggest that the next hearing should be attended by some CAG supporters just to show the powers that be that the individual in question is not alone;)

 

Agree!

 

: Almost forgot the next time you complete a claim form tick 'yes' where it asks if the HRA will be involved quoting article 6 'right to a fair trial'"

 

Always Have.

 

Happy New Year Guys!!!

[cymruambyth]

I left numerous msgs for my solicitor who is handling a couple of cases for me. To his credit he came bck to me today. In his opinion the outcome of these cases will have no impact at all on my personal claims. 'Its just confirmed what we already know' and ' the banks have to link any recon' agreement to the original and that will cause them major problems'. I will sleep easier tonight:cool:

 

Shouldn't this mean that everyone must check any statements made and then quote Civil Evidence Act and hearsay laws to ensure that these are all complied with?

[paulwlton]

You'll see below there's an agreement/Invoice but doesn't contain the borrowers signature, You'll also see the judgment obtained for monies owed on an agreement/ Invoice is in excess of 150k

 

There are no terms or conditions contained or embodied.

 

....the customer's account was sent to RBS/Natwest CMS Telford for collection....this is where the account was hammered with quarterly Interest. (allegedly)

 

Scarey!

 

 

 

Edited January 1, 2010 by paulwlton

[seriously fed up]

I think the only thing that can be said in any kind of defence of that is that the 12th June was a Friday, so presumably a "Friday afternoon" judgement (same as a "Friday afternoon car").

I assume this was appealed for a set aside and the "learned" judge who made the order reported for the most utter incompetence?

It does though seem to point to the dangers of not replying to court papers.

[paulwlton]

I think the only thing that can be said in any kind of defence of that is that the 12th June was a Friday, so presumably a "Friday afternoon" judgement (same as a "Friday afternoon car").

I assume this was appealed for a set aside and the "learned" judge who made the order reported for the most utter incompetence?

It does though seem to point to the dangers of not replying to court papers.

 

That's if the Defendant is in a fit mental state to reply or seek help.

[kel123]

Paul the address of the branch is visable - too much info, Just glad I live over the boarder and not in Dudalay, but still a B/C Chap!

 

Whats a segregation of Borrowing?

 

Kel

[seriously fed up]

That's if the Defendant is in a fit mental state to reply or seek help.

 

I really dont know the answer to this, Paul, but in such circumstances is there no one to represent or assist the defendant? I can see the practical problems for the courts if they had to go out and find out why no defence was posted every time this happened, but in the circumstances that you described would there be no one who would be appointed to act to protect the interests of the defendant?

Certainly a clear case of judicial incompetence.

[uptoeyeballs]

That's if the Defendant is in a fit mental state to reply or seek help.

 

Very true. Been there.

 

 

With the phone ringing every 30 minutes on auto dialers from OC's/DCA's/Solicitors; Several letters a day from OC's/DCA's/Solicitors all quoting different amounts with DCA's/Solicitors being changed weekly.

 

 

To add to the fun they lie about your rights, what they will do and what will happen to you.

 

Within no time, you don't know who to deal with or what you supposedly owe and court papers are thrown on the pile with the rest of the stuff.

 

 

By the time you've got yourself together the amounts have gone sky high with charges and interest, you have CCJ's, Charging orders and can't really remember how you got there.

[paulwlton]

I'm informed that lawyers are reasonably happy with the judgment.

 

Baggio seems to be spot on.