Claim Stayed – Due to Unenforceable CCA Test Cases.

[paulwlton]

Do you know what slant they will be taking?

 

Yes.

[Basil Fawlty]

Can someone please explain what ATE insurance is, and who gets this insurance.... the defendant I presume?

 

BF

[B3rty]

Yes.

 

Ha Ha....do I take it, its one that we would enjoy reading about?

[nick20045]

The costs in a properly defended/counter-claimed trial, could amount to £10,000 - £20,000.

 

Not forgetting the bad press, of course!

I would have taken it that they will have their own "Inhouse" solicitors same as kind of like the Council.

 

Then again IF they have the same type of solicitors as what the Council uses then no wonder they "fold" so fast. ;)

[SkemDosser]

Whilst it is interesting to view each others arguments. Surely we should be adapting a strategy to deal with DCA`s and OC`s.

 

I thought that was the mainstay argument and I am sure Skem Dosser eluded to it in past posts.

 

Whilst argument of the facts is good. I am sure the guests will enjoy the divide and conquer situation.

 

So let us in the cool light of dawn dissect the judgement and find strategy.

 

I think we are missing something relevant. Even Jossie who I respect as an honest poster stated it was not all in the banks favour.

 

She had the actual judgement before anyone proof positive in my mind.

 

I just wish we would all pull together and form a strategy. This post is not knocking anyone but an honest request for the direction we all agree on.

Exactly right we need to devise a strategy now to deal with this judgement. Although it is true that nothing has really changed legally- lenders have essentially had their arguments that reconstituted agreements/'true copies' are adequate for s77-79 requests backed up, but there's no real change there- but the big implication to my mind is what's going to happen out there in the more fluid, murky real world of human personalities and corporate motives. The terrain has altered a bit for us ordinary consumers I think; I am sure banks/dca's will use this judgement to try it on with reconned agreements in some court situations, and we need a coherent way of dealing with that.

[nick20045]

It's a shame that some wish to shut me up, and I note your comments about the intentions of some.

 

John Story

 

www.ruinedbynatwest.com

Hope that is not an intended "jibe" at me cos by posts # 1104, 1106, 1108, 1110 I think I have helped you and Andrew quite a bit. Read the Case Laws in them and see which apply to you.

 

e.g. In Andrews case, he had another post in a different thread where, after trying to understand what he really meant I made them into a: b: and c:

 

c: was to get rid of (b) and consolidate so "c" will have second charge. That falls under:

Bank of Credit and Commerce International S A -v- Aboody [1992] 4 All ER 955; [1989] 2 WLR 759; [1990] 1 QB 923 1989

CA

Slade LJ Banking, Undue Influence Casemap

1 Cites

1 Citers

In a case where the defendant said that a mortgage had been signed from undue pressure the court may find actual undue influence as opposed to presumed undue influence. Slade LJ said: "Ever since the judgments of this court in Allcard v Skinner a clear distinction has been drawn between (1) those cases in which the court will uphold a plea of undue influence only if it is satisfied that such influence has been affirmatively proved on the evidence (commonly referred to as cases of 'actual undue influence'); (2) those cases (commonly referred to as cases of 'presumed undue influence) in which the relationship between the parties will lead the court to presume that undue influence has been exerted unless evidence is adduced proving the contrary, eg by showing that the complaining party has had independent advice."

 

and also falls under:

 

British Motor Trust Co Ltd -v- Hyams (1934) 50 TLR 230 1934

 

Branson J Contract, Banking Casemap

1 Citers

Mr Lord acquired two motor coaches under two hire-purchase agreements from the claimants and persuaded his mother-in-law to guarantee his obligations by a contract indorsed on the agreements in the following terms:- "We . . . guarantee the due and punctual payment by the . . . hirer of all . . . moneys payable by him under the within written agreement . . . and we further agree that this guarantee shall not be avoided . . . by the owners and the hirer making any variation in the terms of the said agreement . . . provided that no variation shall make us liable for a greater maximum sum under this guarantee than that for which we are at present or may become liable under the present terms of the said agreement." Mr Lord fell into arrears and the claimant, instead of resuming possession, made a new single agreement with him by which the two earlier agreements were consolidated and the vehicles were regarded as being hired together so that Mr Lord could not acquire property in any one vehicle unless he paid all instalments due on both vehicles. Held: The Court described the clause permitting variation to be:- "so wide that it was almost impossible to put any limit to the power to vary." and added:- "It might be that the position of the debtor was so altered that he would be less able to repay the guarantor, but even such a change was not beyond the very wide power of variation contained in the guarantee."

 

and falls under:

 

Woods v Martins Bank Ltd [1958] 3 All ER 166; [1958] 1 WLR 1018; [1959] 1 QB 55 1958

 

Salmon J Banking, Negligence Casemap

1 Citers

If a bank chooses to give advice to a customer, then the Bank’s obligation is to advise with ordinary skill and care. The liability is primarily on contract: “In my judgment, the limits of a banker’s business cannot be laid down as a matter of law. The nature of such a business must in each case be a matter of fact...” and “I find that it was and is within the scope of the Defendant Bank’s business to advise on all financial matters and that as they did advise him they owed a duty to the Plaintiff to advise him with reasonable care and skill.”

Salmon J discussed the duties of legal advisers: "it cannot be too clearly understood that solicitors owe a duty to the court, as officers of the court, to go through the documents disclosed by their client to make sure, as far as possible, that no relevant documents have been omitted from their client's

."

 

Hence, "b" got removed by "c" and "c" is not enforceable by the above case law. In respect of "a" I did not fully understand what he meant by "arrears". Hence effectively, I have shown him how "c" is non enforceable.

 

AND the above might actually apply to your case as well.

Edited January 6, 2010 by nick20045
Added some bold to draw attention to the important parts

[paulwlton]

Can someone please explain what ATE insurance is, and who gets this insurance.... the defendant I presume?

 

BF

 

ATE: After the event insurance

[SkemDosser]

I read Aktiv Kapital made a loss, as did Cabot. 1st Crudits accounts are too hard to find with all the foreign companies etc in the chain, like many of the others. Inhouse DCAs don't count.

 

Robinson Way's parent, London Scottish Bank went into administration back in November 2008. RW had a management buyout, they describe themselves as the "Jewel in the Crown" of LSB!

 

There is something not right if the parent company making the loans goes busto but the DCA arm is making a profit??? LOL

 

IMHO the whole area is a [problem]. The high street banks (who's own solvency is questionable) sell their bad debts to the debt collection companies. The DCAs buy these debts with loans from the very banks selling them.

 

The bank can then write off the debt and put a performing loan on their books. The DCAs loan is constantly extended to infinity and has never ending repayment dates. The currency is inflated to hell.

 

The bank never has to book in the true extent of the loss. Fred and Adam get their millions and live happily ever after. The sheeple are shafted as usual.

I think this neatly encapsulates the whole cycle of creative book keeping that, writ large, has been developed and applied by the whole banking sector these past thirty odd years. They've effectively 'created' money out of thin air- money as little more than a commodity itself, held in nothing more substantial than computer ledgers- and it's all started to fall apart the last couple of years. They've recovered a bit but it's only a honeymoon period, they're cruising for a bigger fall soon, I'm sure.

 

Personally I would take the postings of dca profit [or any company connected with the finance industry these days] with a pinch of salt. If I remember right people were still investing in Icelandic Banks who were posting profits months before they spectacularly collapsed.

 

Banks are masters of creative accountancy and their poodle dca's fall completely under their umbrella. I've had dealings with dca's for over ten years now and my abiding experience/impression of them, is that they operate on a shoestring, even in the 'good' times. Quite literally in the case of the smaller ones further down the food chain, a handful of people sat in a room with a PC and phone each, the shared use of a photocopier and a Nat West piggy bank where all the one pound postal orders go for the annual xmas party lol

 

If there's one odds on good bet for 2010, I would put my money on a few of them starting to go to the wall this year. How my heart bleeds.

[oilyrag]

removed

Edited January 27, 2010 by oilyrag
advice

[Baggio]

Hi Skemdosser,

 

I hope some of the others here take note of your post No 1155. My reading of the judgment and the summaries seems to have tightened a grip on the banks' collective position.

 

Yes they will attempt to make hay from the recon agreement scenario for a while. However many here seem to be glossing over the actual statements made by Waksman. Part 234 for instance, part 100 for instance.

 

These specific words give the banks no room for manouevre whatsoever, plus they have the added rider that should your agreement (if it ever legally existed) have been unilaterally varied (under the powers of that alleged agreement) then you should have been supplied with a copy of that original agreement at each and EVERY variation. Has your credit limit ever changed? has the interest rate ever changed? what about unilateral introduction of heinous charges? At NO time have we ever been supplied with a copy of the original agreement and I would suggest that people look at the potential consequences for lenders instead of the negative focus on the non-issues here.

 

Waksman's words also state that recon (forged IMHO) agreements and all the other old baloney will NOT suffice in a court action. It is all there in the published wording. Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

regards

oilyrag.

 

[SkemDosser]

Hi Skemdosser,

 

I hope some of the others here take note of your post No 1155. My reading of the judgment and the summaries seems to have tightened a grip on the banks' collective position.

 

Yes they will attempt to make hay from the recon agreement scenario for a while. However many here seem to be glossing over the actual statements made by Waksman. Part 234 for instance, part 100 for instance.

 

These specific words give the banks no room for manouevre whatsoever, plus they have the added rider that should your agreement (if it ever legally existed) have been unilaterally varied (under the powers of that alleged agreement) then you should have been supplied with a copy of that original agreement at each and EVERY variation. Has your credit limit ever changed? has the interest rate ever changed? what about unilateral introduction of heinous charges? At NO time have we ever been supplied with a copy of the original agreement and I would suggest that people look at the potential consequences for lenders instead of the negative focus on the non-issues here.

 

Waksman's words also state that recon (forged IMHO) agreements and all the other old baloney will NOT suffice in a court action. It is all there in the published wording. Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

regards

oilyrag.

Yes I think you are quite right in what you say here; the devil [or angel ] is in the detail of this judgement and I think there is more to it than first meets the eye; I think there is a lot of further obligations placed on the lender to provide more detailed information that they just aren't going to be able to cope with [as you've outlined]. I mean we all know most of them, in their rush to sign up new credit card accounts to meet their bonus targets, didn't even bother to keep accurate agreement records under the CCA- how the hell are they going to be able to cope with providing a coherent paper chain from account inception to the present day with all the agreement, t and c changes etc over the life of the account?

 

The fact is they won't be able to and they know it, which is why their press spin has been relatively quiet about this judgement. They WILL though, try to spin the parts of the judgement they believe they can twist to their advantage, namely that reconned agreements are acceptable now in court situations. It's them clutching at straws, but playing dirty is second nature to the banks/dca's and they certainly won't miss this opportunity to bully their way into convincing some people they are legally due monies they in fact are not.

 

I think it was DD [orBaggio? apologies if I've wrongly referenced] who described this as a very astute, political judgement. I'm beginning to agree with that now and can see now how there [cleverly] may be more in it to the advantage of the consumer than at first seemed apparent.

[panty54]

Hi Paul

 

Would it be anything along these lines?

 

Judge closes credit card loophole | Mail Online

 

Panty

[Baggio]

that is a totally horrendous and pathetically put together article.

 

it starts by tearing the whole idea of unenforceabilty apart... citing Eversheds of all people suggesting its a final nail in the "claims" industry.. but the article performs an astonishing turnaround in the final paragraph where the truth of the matter is finally stated.

 

quite remarkable... maybe the gutter press rely on the majority of the public only reading the opening gambit of an article?

[panty54]

My sentiments exactly - contradictory, ambiguous in parts and not only relying on the majority of the public only reading the opening gambit but preying on their ignorance also. Be interesting to see what the MOS has to print this weekend.

[jonoh1]

All very interesting Skem Dosser and Baggio. Thanks for all the input. The judgement spoilt my Christmas. Spent hours reading and rereading it.

 

I think the oilyrag posts are very near the mark.

 

Will sleep tonight and ready for a fight till death so to speak.

 

Just glad I found the site and the excellent contributions made by some very clever people.

 

I for one would have found the judgement very difficult to decipher without the help on here.

 

Even if you deciphered it yourself you would never be sure without so many great second opinions.

 

Lets find a decent strategy to defeat these.................................

[RoadToRecovery]

Having caught up as much as possible on this thread, it is very crafty what has taken place in court imho.

 

The dailymong article linked to above highlights the point succinctly. Publicly they can give the impression that a photocopy of an old wiring diagram from a ww2 bomb shelter means the debt is still very much valid.

[Peterbard]

There has been a view developing on here - which I can lets say understand and have sympathy for - that challenging a lender (ie for the debtor to be the claimant and to allow the banks to defend) puts the onus of proof on the debtor. So for instance, faced with a s78 application which produces nothing at all, Waksman's logic seemed to be (and I paraphrase here), "look because they cant produce it today doesnt mean they wont be able to produce it tomorrow or next week, or some time in the future. Also, s78 isnt about proof, its about giving information, so if they provide the information - even if its "one we made up earlier" - then they have satisfied the request".

It would be quite different if it were the lender bringing the case, because then the onus of proof to prove the debt and that all the requirements of the CCA1974 were fulfilled (prescribed terms etc) were in place would fall on him.

Without giving too much away, how far are the legal team taking that burden of proof problem on board.

Also procedurally, will this be about setting up an appeal, or the appearance before Waksman that he refers to in para 235 - "Following the handing down of this judgment, I will hear Counsel on the form of the various orders that will need to be made, any further directions in relation to the cases with which I have dealt and all other consequential matters."

Hi

Ok so I will break my letter down into sections

In a section 78 request all that is required is for the creditor to provide a true copy. There is no burden of truth on any party for the copy to be either presented ,or presented as correctly executed copy, It is simply stated that he should comply to the act. Which just comes down tio the fact that some kind of document must be produced

“The sections function is not to provide proof positive”

If you say it is not properly executed it does not make the agreement unenforceable it is not the function of 78 you need 127(3) and for that, you have too go to court because the sanctions in section 78 have no effect.

The burden of proof issue comes into play when the creditor is asked supply an executed agreement in court to support an enforcement.

Then as the judge says the creditor may have to come up with the original that is if he is the claimant the debtor is in the happy position of only having to show that there’s a possibility that no agreement existed. And was compliant.

The section 78 argument as regarding unenforceability claims is a dead duck its terms have been manipulated to ensure that agreements can no be made unenforceable in perpetuity by the none pronunciation of a copy, this has been the case since Rankine I do not agree that is what the drafters of the legislation envisaged but I think that will continue to be the case

best regards

peter

[seriously fed up]

Yes Peter, I can understand that, and its makes perfect sense, BUT consider this

 

1. I make a CCA request of my lender
   
2. they respond with "something they made a bit earlier" which looks totally enforceable (probably only to be expected), but satisfies Waksman's view of s78
   
3. however, because I am skint I cant make the payments they demand so they take me to court
   
4. when they seek the enforcement order in court they come up with the original - as they have to as they need a sig - which is found to be unenforceable and to bear no more than a passing resemblance to the much more advantageous document they had sent out to me as a result of my s78 request.
   

Put short, if they have the original, why not just come up with it? If its pants today, it will still be pants tomorrow or next week or next year ....

In short I dont really see how much further forward this takes the banks. OK they can come up with works of fiction, but if they try to enforce them they will come a cropper either because they really dont have the original, or this differs significantly from what they sent out for the s78 request. How long are the banks going to get away with a practice of not only telling lies, but telling them in a legal context? They dont have a very good press just now, but that's not to say they couldnt make it much worse than it already is.

I am quite sure that the banks will run "this made up bit of paper is enforceable - Judge Waksman says so" - but, as they say in the X Files- "the truth is out there". They wont get away with it for long.

Put short, you might be right that s78 is a dead duck, but I am struggling to see just how much of an advantage its death has given to the banks? To the extent other contributors are right that when they seek to enforce an account at court, they have to produce a paper chase from the T&Cs NOW to the T&Cs WHEN THE ACCOUNT WAS OPENED. Are the banks that well organized that they are going to be able to do this efficiently? How often would they want to even try.

To use an analogy with the San Andreas Fault in California, this wasnt "the big one". For one thing the banks defended it. There is a strong line of evidence on this site that if the banks THINK they MIGHT lose they withdraw (the Mitchell case is a good example of when they came to that conclusion a bit too late, and it has/will cause them difficulties in the future. Its just a pity it wasnt a High Court case). The big one is still to come. Until then its "business as usual" IMO.

[ncf355]

SFU,

 

I think the issue is that the above example is NOT the most common scenario

 

Most, upon receiving a decent looking "blue peter" for a s78 would then start paying something (albeit £1/month, etc)

 

Thus keeping the debt alive and helping the bank towards its collection of lifetime debtors

[justify]

Yes Peter, I can understand that, and its makes perfect sense, BUT consider this

 

1. I make a CCA request of my lender
   
2. they respond with "something they made a bit earlier" which looks totally enforceable (probably only to be expected), but satisfies Waksman's view of s78
   
3. however, because I am skint I cant make the payments they demand so they take me to court
   
4. when they seek the enforcement order in court they come up with the original - as they have to as they need a sig - which is found to be unenforceable and to bear no more than a passing resemblance to the much more advantageous document they had sent out to me as a result of my s78 request.
   

Put short, if they have the original, why not just come up with it? If its pants today, it will still be pants tomorrow or next week or next year ....

In short I dont really see how much further forward this takes the banks. OK they can come up with works of fiction, but if they try to enforce them they will come a cropper either because they really dont have the original, or this differs significantly from what they sent out for the s78 request. How long are the banks going to get away with a practice of not only telling lies, but telling them in a legal context? They dont have a very good press just now, but that's not to say they couldnt make it much worse than it already is.

I am quite sure that the banks will run "this made up bit of paper is enforceable - Judge Waksman says so" - but, as they say in the X Files- "the truth is out there". They wont get away with it for long.

Put short, you might be right that s78 is a dead duck, but I am struggling to see just how much of an advantage its death has given to the banks? To the extent other contributors are right that when they seek to enforce an account at court, they have to produce a paper chase from the T&Cs NOW to the T&Cs WHEN THE ACCOUNT WAS OPENED. Are the banks that well organized that they are going to be able to do this efficiently? How often would they want to even try.

To use an analogy with the San Andreas Fault in California, this wasnt "the big one". For one thing the banks defended it. There is a strong line of evidence on this site that if the banks THINK they MIGHT lose they withdraw (the Mitchell case is a good example of when they came to that conclusion a bit too late, and it has/will cause them difficulties in the future. Its just a pity it wasnt a High Court case). The big one is still to come. Until then its "business as usual" IMO.

 

I think this analysis is correct. This judgement has taken the banks and dcas one step forward and two steps back. Its taken the customer one step back and two steps forward. That puts us 2 steps ahead (LOL)

J

[B3rty]

Put short, if they have the original, why not just come up with it? If its pants today, it will still be pants tomorrow or next week or next year ....

 

Because SI 1983/1557 says they can.....this has always been the same and hopefully the penny will now drop that s.78 requests and enforceability are two separate things.

[ruinedbynatwest]

Hi Nick !

I'm not attacking you. I'm stating the truth that I have been continually threatened by the "experts" who employ various tactics to cloud the issues.

I have thanked you for your input and not because I need all the help I can get !! It's all important and it's important that I appreciate the support by acknowledging same.

 

I'm glad here for the opportunity to clear up any misunderstandings that may exist because as a former lecturer I continually "monitor" and "review" progress against my objective - feedback is crucial because I don't want to bang on just for the sake of it. My overriding objective (apart from the reopening of my case) is to pass the CCA message to those unaware of this important social law - to raise awareness of the policy behind the CCA - and to do so by working from the general to the specific; from policy to minutiae - and here eg is where the problem lies with the interpretation of the CCA; the Act itself does not carry a proper 'blurb' to enlighten the judiciary as to its policy considerations and they were consequently in the dark as to what the hell it's all about !!. I say "were" because they're now well aware thanks to the vox populi I refer to above.

 

And in the regard of eg social policy within the CCA, your recent contributions eg in the regard of case law are all highly pertinent to these CCA threads BECAUSE the legal issues the test cases you cite (in most cases before 1974 anyway, and where pertinent to the CCA) are considered by Mr Bennion and appear in his drafting. You have to ask yourself why certain sections are drafted the way they are - and to do this you need to read Crowther.

 

On Crowther - Don't forget that the CCA repealed ALL [relevant] Common contractual case Law and replaced it with a "NEW LEGAL FRAMEWORK" which is lost on the common law judges, I strongly suspect, because the CCA lacks the all important blurb to which I have referred.

 

To illustrate the point and to refer at the same time to the issue of costs that appears this morning on this thread - the costs in Story are scandalous - figures of £10,000 have been mentioned for a typical case - try £1.5 millions' plus on this common law test (scant regard was paid to Crowther). I never got the exact figure - and I hear what you say about that - (they were too embarassed I suspect) - but nearer two millions' is suggested in the hope that someone will read this and provide the exact figure - but the costs attained this figure BECAUSE the [common] lawyers (on both sides) blinded the bench with case law (and common law tests) and dear old Section 8 CCA was left to me to submit and I obtained the admission from Andrew Smith QC (for the bank - now Justice Smith [whos high court rulings include the recent bank charges fiasco]) that the section applied to one of our 'existing agreements' that were refinanced by the multiple agreement in question; The notorious and unregulated multiple agreement that Mr Bennion and I maintain is to remain regulated IF the Courts get off their high horse and acknowledge that Section 8 sees all !

 

However, as you are aware, this is the strong point in Story and for the furtherance of the social policy that is my goal - Section 8 CCA (Regulated Agreements) captures ALL of the relevant case law to which you kindly refer, and to which, I promise you, I shall acquaint myself !!! AND it encapsulates all that case law CHEAPLY !!! I have no intention of allowing the common law to distract from Section 8 CCA as it has done so successfully in the past.

 

Picture the scene in the County Court: Section 8 applies: compliance ?: Result !!! The CCA eliminates all the hot air and waffle that fattens the common lawyers. It is not 'due process' - it's exorbitantly profitable time wasting ! Our silks were on 5 grand a day, their juniors 1 grand and our solicitors on a grand - that 2 X 5 + 2 X 1 + 2 X 1 = £14 grand a day - AND THAT'S A 5 HOUR DAY !!! (it's not that simplistic - but £1.5 millions' in the 1990's still says all)

 

On the point of legislative intervention, Lord Scarman in Natwest V Morgan

(1985) [a husband/wife Undue Influence case that preceeded [Edna]O'Brien that you mention] quoted unequivocally (but it fell on deaf ears)

words to the effect "Parliament has undertaken the task of addressing the mischief in enactments like ............the CCA (he quoted a raft of statutes) because it is a legislative task" - talking of inequality of bargaining power, his words from the House of Lords were a warning to heavy handed creditors.

 

You advise me to clear my mind - I advise others to identify whether Section 8 applies to their own individual case, and to then cling to that fact when others attempt to cloud that issue - as the Common law courts have in Story. There, 3 regulated agreements were refinanced - end of Story !

 

BUT THE JUDGES REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT REGULATED AGREEMENTS ARE PRESENT. £300 Billions' hangs on a point of social law refused by the common law and you say "forget Story".

 

Have you considered the point that regulated agreements are refinanced?

 

John Story

 

www.ruinedbynatwest.com

Edited January 7, 2010 by ruinedbynatwest
typos

[jonoh1]

So if the creditor had replied to your s77/78 and a Subject Access Request earlier with a non enforceable document and then continues to tell you that this is a true copy of the original, and continues to state this in a number of letters.

 

Then for whatever reason they the creditor decides it is not. They then send you a reconstituted document and state this complies with their duty without a reason for the reconstituted document.

 

Then surely they can`t get away with covering up the original non enforceable document they have produced which they stated was a true copy of the original.

 

Serious question?

[Bigdebtor]

Jonoh1

 

I was about to post that very point!

 

Given the OFT has said (or is expected to say soon) that creditors should "own up" when they have unenforceable agreements, this is yet another example of deception and unfair trading by the Banks and DCA's. They deserve to lose their licences right now!

 

However, surely some REAL sanctions need to be put upon the PEOPLE - not just the organisations - but on their senior employees too - the actual authors (bonus earners) of these lies - so they would not DARE to continue to flout the law, regulators' instructions - or even ignore their own toothless "self-regulated" bodies' published procedures?

 

The point about infinite debts is also well made. UK Accountancy Rules state something along the lines that "losses must be declared as soon as they are recognised". This should include all non enforceable debts and loans to DCA's which will never be repaid. The big 4 auditors should get wise to this [problem] right now and expose just how much of a swindle has the Banking "industry" perpetrated on the UK public over the last 20 years or so - since unfair charges etc. became such a major revenue generator? This is probably fraudulent trading whilst insolvent.

 

But then again why would the auditors - the likes of PCW etc. kill off such high fee paying golden geese? It would be a bit like turkeys voting for Christams.

 

What this all shows is that we CANNOT rely on any vested interest to uphold the law, seek the truth or protect us - only people like us on CAG can do this by working together.

 

BD

[kel123]

hi ruinedbynatwest

 

Do you mind if I make an observation based on me!

 

I started off as a metalergist and progressed into plastics, ending up Quality Manager for a BP company dealing with American aerospace and milatery, UK and Europe (MOD) in short AQAP1. I then started lecturing in computers and finished up as short course/ evening coordinator before starting my own business in computers.

 

You can understand therefore that I am used to doting every 'i' and crossing every 'T'. Having had to cope with American MIL specs and the likes of RADA and then AS level computing I became very inflexible in my thinking i.e. there was only Back and White.

 

And then when the sh1t hit the fan, I came across legislation, WOW what a shock I had - I never know how many different shades of grey were out there?

 

I still keep slipping back into Black and White because that's my experience but I try to remember that there a multitude of greys which is sometimes very difficult

 

I hope you understand what I am saying and that it is said with the utmost respect

 

All the above has never help my spelling though

 

Kel

 

P.S. I could tell you more about plastics but I would have to find you and shoot you LOBL