Claim Stayed – Due to Unenforceable CCA Test Cases.

[the_shadow]

John i really wished i understood just 10% of that post

 

 

S.

[humbleman]

John i really wished i understood just 10% of that post

 

 

S.

 

Me about 7.5%

[Mistermind]

 

The first T v L application requested a determination of the "undoubted existing debt of about £12000" (Auld LJ) that was refinanced by THE infamously contraversail Multiple agreement that caused Mr Bennion (the CCA's draftsman) to speak out. That application, including Mr Bennion's opinion/evidence was rejected without comment by the very same Auld LJ who Bennion described in his evidence as "revealing" "an uncertain judicial grasp" of the intended working of the CCA - where Mr bennion went as far as to say that the decision of Auld LJ was "wholly mistaken" and "incorrect" - Auld had effectively refused to determine the primacy of the Section 8 point re the existing debt, and he had rudely (I say)refused to hear Mr Bennion.

 

Have not followed this subject in detail. Is it the case that Mr Bennion who crafted the law now criticises the judiciary on what they do with it? The legislative branch instructing the judiciary branch?

 

Are the judges on their part saying the legislators could not do their job?

[Mistermind]

Yes the idea of the Data Base is good but as I have already said why help the banks!

 

1. it should not be an open Data Base

2. controlled by a member of the site team

3. access is permted only after relevant checks on the individual

4. more knowledgable than I should say why it is unenforceable

 

This all equates to a lot of work for someone (not a LIP)

 

Kel

The Supreme Court has dismissed the OFT's attempt to regulate the amount of bank charges, and the OFT has thrown in the towel As for MoneySavingExpert's proposed alternative legal challenge headed by 1 QC against the banks' 9, have not heard what has come of it. If reclaim of bank charges becomes kaput, donations to this site will continue to be impacted.

 

This has got to be an expensive site to maintain, what with the volume of postings traffic. Perhaps a database controlled by CAG management could charge a fee for anyone who wants to keep up with events, to continue funding the threatened survival of this site. Solicitors and clerks also need to be paid so they can eat. A fee to make use of reliable research looks ok to me, even though this site's management has always shied away from giving official advice on options in particular cases, which is also very reasonable.

[pedross]

John i really wished i understood just 10% of that post

 

 

S.

 

You are dim sometimes shadow - he broke his leg, its not that difficult to understand.

 

Pedross

[ruinedbynatwest]

Hi Mistermind ! You write,

 

"Have not followed this subject in detail. Is it the case that Mr Bennion who crafted the law now criticises the judiciary on what they do with it? The legislative branch instructing the judiciary branch?

 

Are the judges on their part saying the legislators could not do their job?"

 

Sorry if I appeared to go off thread ! I mustn't do that ! I was replying to a question put by BigDebtor who enquired as to state of play with Story.

 

I'm not conspiratorial - I must set out thye facts of my experiences in this matter as objectively but as concisely as possible ! Objectivity to the fore, I reassure everyone that I am fully accountable for the content of any posts I make - and that I only make these posts because all parties, Natwest, Counsel, Judges, regulators, MP's etc know that the CCA applies to Story and that it does so for the reasons expounded by Mr Bennion.

 

Of course, more questions are raised than are answered by the Courts who refuse, point blank to determine whether Section 8 CCA (1974) applies to that which Auld LJ termed "an undoubted existing debt of about £12000" (AUld LJ). The section plainly does apply and in reality we see Natwest placing the Courts in an invidious position because the OFT and Bank of England awaited the ruling of the Court before deciding what licencing action was necessary to regularise the situation.

 

By finding that the CCA did not apply, the bank was off the hook, but Section 8 was offended, as was Parliament and as was the rule of law which forbids the Court to override Parliament in this way. The fact that £300 Billions plus of so-called debt consolidation agreements across the UK relies on this single ruling may also shed light on the issue.

 

Finally, to those who follow the CCA, ask yourselves why in all of the multiple agreement refinancing cases, Story is referred to as binding precedent but the existing agreements in all of those cases are not analysed against Section 8 - WHY ? IE why is existing regulation concealed or otherwise disregarded where Mr Bennion rightly identifies it as determinative ?

 

John Story

 

www.ruinedbynatwest.com

Edited February 4, 2010 by ruinedbynatwest
typos

[Bigdebtor]

You are dim sometimes shadow - he broke his leg, its not that difficult to understand.

 

Pedross

 

Pedross.

 

I am sure what Shadow meant was that news of John's broken leg was only a fraction of the desired information. :rolleyes:Was it his tibia, fibia or femur? Was it a greenstick, simple or complex fracture?

 

Nothing is as simple as it seems (unless its name begins with "P").

 

BD

[Bigdebtor]

John

 

Thanks for the update. You have clearly missed your vocation. You should have been a QC (but then you wouldn't have got into debt and would have had no sympathy with those who do!).

 

Your case clearly spells out the bias of the establishment against "feckless debtors". I thought we had a right to be tried by "peers" - don't make me laugh! These bewigged, berobed bigots haven't a clue about real life pressures!

 

Good luck and keep up the good fight on behalf of all of us!

 

BD

[Bigdebtor]

Big D

 

Would you take a look at my thread:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/244809-final-settlement-offers-any-2.html#post2746115

 

I notice you've negotiated several f & f's. I'm a bit bothered about whether Crap 1 are trying to pull one.

 

Appreciate your help.

 

Brooooooce

 

I'll be happy to have a look and get back to you with any help I may be able to provide.

 

BD

[brooooooooooce]

Cheers BigD. I appreciate that.

[ruinedbynatwest]

'BigDebtor !

Thanks for that ! I've another posh one here - sorry to get ideas above my station, but I have (it says here) Diagnosis:-

"An open communited fracture right distal tibia fibula"

Impressed ? (Don't be - it's b****y painful)

AND it goes on, "Procedures"

"I/M nail tibia and wound debridement right ankle"

 

In other words "Serves the silly demented delusional old sod right for showing off!" (Dancing with a bunch of 20 somethings, I was er, "demonstrating" my 60's London Mod 360 degree spins at the time).

Impressed ?

Don't be - it's .......... painful !!!

 

Sorry to be off thread !

 

John Story

 

www.ruinedbynatwest.com

Edited February 4, 2010 by ruinedbynatwest
typos

[Bigdebtor]

John

 

We all need a bit of light relief on CAG! Laughing at others misfortunes? Does that make as as bad as the bankers - or would we nheed to jump on your leg to qualify for that accolade?

 

BD

[brooooooooooce]

Hi need a bit of help. I wrote to the Co-op in July 2009 with a section 78 request. They responded with some barely legible t & c, that did not contain the rate of interest (just a reference to them charging it, changing it etc but no amount). They confirmed in the same letter that they did not have the original agreement or even a copy of it.

 

They also did not provide the statement of account information. I believe this puts them in default of s.78 (if the Waksman & new OFT take on s.78 compliance is applied).

 

I continued to write to them but they refused to accept my dispute. On the 23rd October they issued a default notice. This gave me until the 6th November to remedy my breach. On the 4th November they issued a termination notice. I was gonna pay up before the 6th honest!!

 

On the 14th January I wrote to them making an f & f of 15%. No reply. 1st February I got a phone call from Fredericksons chasing the debt. I told them about the non compliance with s.78, IEA (if relying on the t & c provided) and lack of even a copy of the original agreement. He said he refer it to someone or other.

 

Today got letters from both the Co-op and Fredericksons. Co-op says in respect me f & f the debt is no longer theirs so I need to discuss it with Fredericksons. I spoke on the phone they say lowest f & f they'll accept is 60%. I laugh and hang up.

 

I want, ideally, to settle my CC's with low f & f's. I am thinking about writing to Fredericksons along the following lines:

 

1. Please provide a copy of the deed of assignment.

2. Co-op still not complied with s.78 so debt redeemably unenforceable.

3. Co-op t & c's provided don't show APR - so this would be an IEA. They are also illegible. So irredeemably unenforceable.

4. Co-op confirms that don't have the original or even a copy agreement.

5. Default notice & termination notice are defective. Can somone explain what the consequences of this are?

 

Any thoughts? Am I giving too much information (particularly about the DN/TN)? Do you think Fredericksons will pass the debt back to the Co-op? Should I write to them at all?

 

Any advise greatly appreciated!

[Gallahad]

Hi need a bit of help. I wrote to the Co-op in July 2009 with a section 78 request. They responded with some barely legible t & c, that did not contain the rate of interest (just a reference to them charging it, changing it etc but no amount). They confirmed in the same letter that they did not have the original agreement or even a copy of it.

 

They also did not provide the statement of account information. I believe this puts them in default of s.78 (if the Waksman & new OFT take on s.78 compliance is applied).

 

I continued to write to them but they refused to accept my dispute. On the 23rd October they issued a default notice. This gave me until the 6th November to remedy my breach. On the 4th November they issued a termination notice. I was gonna pay up before the 6th honest!!

 

On the 14th January I wrote to them making an f & f of 15%. No reply. 1st February I got a phone call from Fredericksons chasing the debt. I told them about the non compliance with s.78, IEA (if relying on the t & c provided) and lack of even a copy of the original agreement. He said he refer it to someone or other.

 

Today got letters from both the Co-op and Fredericksons. Co-op says in respect me f & f the debt is no longer theirs so I need to discuss it with Fredericksons. I spoke on the phone they say lowest f & f they'll accept is 60%. I laugh and hang up.

 

I want, ideally, to settle my CC's with low f & f's. I am thinking about writing to Fredericksons along the following lines:

 

1. Please provide a copy of the deed of assignment.

2. Co-op still not complied with s.78 so debt redeemably unenforceable.

3. Co-op t & c's provided don't show APR - so this would be an IEA. They are also illegible. So irredeemably unenforceable.

4. Co-op confirms that don't have the original or even a copy agreement.

5. Default notice & termination notice are defective. Can somone explain what the consequences of this are?

 

Any thoughts? Am I giving too much information (particularly about the DN/TN)? Do you think Fredericksons will pass the debt back to the Co-op? Should I write to them at all?

 

Any advise greatly appreciated!

 

In regard to your note (5) it is my understanding that once a faulty DN issued and followed by termination the only legal claim the creditor can make is the amount of arrears at the time the DN was issued.

G

[RobinWayRobinme]

Been following this thread for some time now and occassionally have posted (but rarely have I had a reply). However, just to throw something on the table for debate.

 

Could s.63 be a useful weapon to get a copy of the original credit agreement as if you state that you have never been supplied with a copy of the executed agreement bearing the signature of both creditor and debtor, its improperly executed and according to s.127(4) "The Court shall not make an enforcement order...."

 

As I see it, this thread was started because of the test cases relating to requests for copy credit agreements for information purposes and not proof of enforceabilty. Why can't we go back a step and write to the creditor and say dear mr creditor, you have not provided a copy of the executed credit agreement, inter alia, s.63. Please send me a copy of the executed agreement now to fulfil your obligations set by statute that, to date, you have not complied with. I would point out to you that until this is done, the agreement is improperly executed etc etc...

 

Just a thought. Any views (and this wont cost £1)

R

[Bigdebtor]

Hi need a bit of help. I wrote to the Co-op in July 2009 with a section 78 request. They responded with some barely legible t & c, that did not contain the rate of interest (just a reference to them charging it, changing it etc but no amount).

 

1. They confirmed in the same letter that they did not have the original agreement or even a copy of it.

 

BD REPLY - I really don't see how any debt could be enforced in this case - missing PT and no signed agreement - but Humbleman judgement might confuse matters pending appeal.

 

2. They also did not provide the statement of account information. I believe this puts them in default of s.78 (if the Waksman & new OFT take on s.78 compliance is applied).

 

BD REPLY - agreed - but more minor than 1. above.

 

3. I continued to write to them but they refused to accept my dispute. On the 23rd October they issued a default notice. This gave me until the 6th November to remedy my breach. On the 4th November they issued a termination notice. I was gonna pay up before the 6th honest!!

 

BD REPLY - unlawful rescission - not 14 clear days - only lawful arrears due from then on - minus unfair charges and compensation - so probably zero debt. I think you've forgotten you wrote accepting te TN and claimning unlawful rescision;) See Diddydicky's posts in Pinky69's dodgy DN thread.

 

4. On the 14th January I wrote to them making an f & f of 15%. No reply. 1st February I got a phone call from Fredericksons chasing the debt. I told them about the non compliance with s.78, IEA (if relying on the t & c provided) and lack of even a copy of the original agreement. He said he refer it to someone or other.

 

BD REPLY - you were too generous - unles sthat equated to arrears due at date of TN?

 

5. Today got letters from both the Co-op and Fredericksons. Co-op says in respect me f & f the debt is no longer theirs so I need to discuss it with Fredericksons. I spoke on the phone they say lowest f & f they'll accept is 60%. I laugh and hang up.

 

BD REPLY - Comedians!

 

6. I want, ideally, to settle my CC's with low f & f's. I am thinking about writing to Fredericksons along the following lines:

 

1. Please provide a copy of the deed of assignment.

2. Co-op still not complied with s.78 so debt redeemably unenforceable.

3. Co-op t & c's provided don't show APR - so this would be an IEA. They are also illegible. So irredeemably unenforceable.

4. Co-op confirms that don't have the original or even a copy agreement.

5. Default notice & termination notice are defective. Can somone explain what the consequences of this are?

 

BD REPLY - see above. You probably now owe nothing once arrears and unfair charges/compensation taken into account.

 

7. Any thoughts? Am I giving too much information (particularly about the DN/TN)? Do you think Fredericksons will pass the debt back to the Co-op? Should I write to them at all?

 

BD REPLY - I would send a copy of your "TN acceptance" letter (which you will probably remember sending once you have seen diddydicky's draft of what you wrote;) suggesting a full write off and account marked as settle din full with all cra's.

 

Any advise greatly appreciated!

 

BD REPLY - Read the above Dodgy DN thread for more ammo. I think this issue coupled with the lost/non-existent agreement means they will hand this back to Co-op so fast you'll hear the sonic boom! The DCA will only get paid on results!

 

Broooooooooooce

 

Diddydicky and Pinky69 are gurus in the dodgy DN areana (but DD will be at school just now;)).

 

I have put my 2p worth in above.

[Bigdebtor]

Brooooooooooce

 

I see Kid Gallahad concurs with my view. However it is important that you did accept the TN. You don't have to prove this letter was received by Co-op. Big organisations are always losing paperwork (e.g. agreements?).

 

BD

[brooooooooooce]

Many, many thanks for that,it's excellent! This TN acceptance letter is there a template for it?

[brooooooooooce]

Do I tell Fredericksons it's a dodgy termination?

[Bigdebtor]

Many, many thanks for that,it's excellent! This TN acceptance letter is there a template for it?

 

Diddydicky did an excellent one (funnily enough very similar to one I had just remembered I had done myself a few months earlier;)). If I remember correctly it is in on eof DD's posts in Pinky69's "dodgy DN" thread towards the end (can't remember its full title)

 

You would have sent this to Co-op a few days after their TN (which was sent out to you less than 14 clear days after the DN - so unlawful rescission).

 

Have you worked out if default charges and interest outweigh the lawful arrears at date of TN? If so I would write to Co-op claiming the difference and just copy Fred on this - enclosing a further copy of the TN unlawful rescsiion letter with each. IF not then suggest the arrears equal due compensation and see what happens. Either way the CCA seems unenforceable so I would offer to pay NOTHING.

 

BD

[pedross]

Hi Brooooooooooce

 

I have seen a letter from the Co-op re no agreement and I have seen a defective DN from the Co-op. I would have been very happy if they were mine.

 

My opinion is that the DN alone prevents them from enforcing the debt, except for the arrears, because they have not complied with S 87/88 CCA 1974 / 1983 amendments.

 

If they try and enforce the arrears you would demand that they produce an original agreement or a copy in court. You have a letter stating clearly that they do not have either.

 

You should have been clearly notified of the assignment by Co-op or Fredericksons and if not it is a breach (Law of property act)

 

I personally would tell them that you do not acknowledge the debt, you accept the unlawful termination and unless they stop harassing you then you will put the matter in the hands of solicitors.

 

I can tell you now that the tactics of the Co-op & Fredericksons is to hound you into feeling intimidated & making an offer. The reason it has gone up to 60% is that you feel intimidated and they know it. Had you been firmer with the Co-op then I think it would be a different story.

 

Thats all I have time for now but I will watch your progess and have more info. If you want a longer and more technical explanation (in Rhyme) then you will have to wait for Diddykipling to come along later.

 

Pedross

[diddydicky]

'BigDebtor !

Thanks for that ! I've another posh one here - sorry to get ideas above my station, but I have (it says here) Diagnosis:-

"An open communited fracture right distal tibia fibula"

Impressed ? (Don't be - it's b****y painful)

AND it goes on, "Procedures"

"I/M nail tibia and wound debridement right ankle"

 

In other words "Serves the silly demented delusional old sod right for showing off!" (Dancing with a bunch of 20 somethings, I was er, "demonstrating" my 60's London Mod 360 degree spins at the time).

Impressed ?

Don't be - it's .......... painful !!!

 

Sorry to be off thread !

 

John Story

 

www.ruinedbynatwest.com

 

not a good idea to go to court without a leg to stand on then!

[diddydicky]

Hi need a bit of help. I wrote to the Co-op in July 2009 with a section 78 request. They responded with some barely legible t & c, that did not contain the rate of interest (just a reference to them charging it, changing it etc but no amount). They confirmed in the same letter that they did not have the original agreement or even a copy of it.

 

They also did not provide the statement of account information. I believe this puts them in default of s.78 (if the Waksman & new OFT take on s.78 compliance is applied).

 

I continued to write to them but they refused to accept my dispute. On the 23rd October they issued a default notice. This gave me until the 6th November to remedy my breach. On the 4th November they issued a termination notice. I was gonna pay up before the 6th honest!!

 

On the 14th January I wrote to them making an f & f of 15%. No reply. 1st February I got a phone call from Fredericksons chasing the debt. I told them about the non compliance with s.78, IEA (if relying on the t & c provided) and lack of even a copy of the original agreement. He said he refer it to someone or other.

 

Today got letters from both the Co-op and Fredericksons. Co-op says in respect me f & f the debt is no longer theirs so I need to discuss it with Fredericksons. I spoke on the phone they say lowest f & f they'll accept is 60%. I laugh and hang up.

 

I want, ideally, to settle my CC's with low f & f's. I am thinking about writing to Fredericksons along the following lines:

 

1. Please provide a copy of the deed of assignment.

2. Co-op still not complied with s.78 so debt redeemably unenforceable.

3. Co-op t & c's provided don't show APR - so this would be an IEA. They are also illegible. So irredeemably unenforceable.

4. Co-op confirms that don't have the original or even a copy agreement.

5. Default notice & termination notice are defective. Can somone explain what the consequences of this are?

 

Any thoughts? Am I giving too much information (particularly about the DN/TN)? Do you think Fredericksons will pass the debt back to the Co-op? Should I write to them at all?

 

Any advise greatly appreciated!

 

tish tish- there were you- busily seeking advice with a view to possibly organising funds to pay them and lo and behold, they come along two days before their own incorrect deadline for compliance and unlawfully repudiate their obligations under the agreement.

 

naturally i assume you immediately wrote and accepted that they had unlawfully repudiated the agreement and in view of their clear intent not to perform you accepted their unlawful repudiation and you were therefore relieved of any further obligation under the agreement, Did you ask them to advise you of the genuine arrears that were due at the time of the unlawful rescission?

 

they probably didn't respond so if i were you i would write to them referring to your letter of XXXXX accepting their unlawful repudiation and pointing out that you are still waiting for the figure for the arrears that were due at the time of the termination

 

 

 

anyone seen my satchel- it was here a few minutes ago!!

[Peterbard]

Hi just caught this thread,

 

Is this a credit card account ?

 

Why do you say the agreement was unlawfuly terminated>

 

Peter

[brooooooooooce]

Hi DD & Pedross

 

Sorry for not replying sooner to thank you for your joint input. The BP's a bit high so I've been having a rest from it all. So many thanks for your joint input!

 

Done the things you suggested - think I shall be telling the Coooooooooooperative & Fredericksons to do one!

 

Cheers