Claim Stayed – Due to Unenforceable CCA Test Cases.

[The GodMother]

well this has just confirmed what i said.

[Blondie40]

well this has just confirmed what i said.

 

Sorry, not sure which post you refer to.

 

B40

[Stubie]

Stubie

 

If the cases are going to determine whether defaults registered with CRAs are allowed, surely that is a Data Protection issue. Is the Information Commissioner being called or taking part?

 

Hi Docman,

 

I don't know the details of the cases, sorry.

 

I posted a query about the commercial court cases on another thread and a helpful cagger supplied this info.

 

I can't remember who supplied it or which thread although it is mentioned in the TD post I linked to earlier in this thread.

 

Sorry, can't be any more help

[The GodMother]

dont worry blondie.

 

What did the courts say?

[middenmess]

have a look at this

 

MoneySavingExpert.com Forums - View Single Post - Credit-card written off at Leeds County Court June 2009

 

posted by Andreamour on thread at

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/royal-bank-scotland/188948-not-sure-if-1s.html

[The GodMother]

interesting link there.

[Blondie40]

Advice from Court:

 

If object to the stay should make an application for stay to be set aside or varied.

 

Didn't feel I was going to get anywhere so just thanked them for their help.

 

Not really sure what to do next. Very confused

Edited August 27, 2009 by Blondie40

[Blondie40]

have a look at this

 

MoneySavingExpert.com Forums - View Single Post - Credit-card written off at Leeds County Court June 2009

 

Have seen this judgment before, in particular like:

 

9. …But this does not prevent me from drawing what is in my judgment the only inference which can possibly be drawn from what has happened, which is that the bank realises that if the issue were to be contested it would either lose on the issue or be at serious risk of losing. There may be hundreds of similar cases and the bank would plainly not wish other defaulting customers to get wind of an adverse decision on the fundamental point which is embodied in the quotation from Mr Berkley's written argument, which I have already set out.

[Docman]

Blondie

 

I think the response from the court is really 'we haven't a clue what the DJ is going on about but we aren't going to ask him.'

[Blondie40]

Blondie

 

I think the response from the court is really 'we haven't a clue what the DJ is going on about but we aren't going to ask him.'

 

Think your right on that. I wonder how may more he's stayed or is going to stay.

[letitbeme]

Have just returned home after my court apearence for my N244 ordering Link to supply the outstanding documents.

What a waist of time, the Judge informed me and the claimant that due to the current court case being heard in Manchester by District Judge Blacksmith on the 8th Oct relating to this type of claim ( I think he was referring to the members of this Forum) and apparently his ruling is going to affect the majority of the cases on this forum . He has stayed the case and my N244 to 21 days after the court case on the 8th oct 09. Are you aware of this case.

[letitbeme]

Have just returned home after my court apearence for my N244 ordering Link to supply the outstanding documents.

What a waist of time, the Judge informed me and the claimant that due to the current court case being heard in Manchester by District Judge Blacksmith on the 8th Oct relating to this type of claim ( I think he was referring to the members of this Forum) and apparently his ruling is going to affect the majority of the cases on this forum . He has stayed the case and my N244 to 21 days after the court case on the 8th oct 09. Are you aware of this case.

[letitbeme]

Thanks for the link citizinB, It appears I’m not the only one.

Further to my post above.

The Judge also indicated there where a number of cases before the courts being stayed until the out come of the Manchester case .

[letitbeme]

Last January I received a telephone call from my bank asking me if I wanted to upgrade my credit card (Opened in Aug 1997) to a more flexible account. (Me thinks my old cca is defective) Just sign this new cca. (“I’ll think about it ”)

 

Thanks for the update TD.

 

I think the banks and credit companies know they have a BIG issue here and I suspect the amounts involved will have more impact than the bank charges fiasco.

 

With bank charges, the amounts involved arose just from the charges levied on overdrawn accounts. The banks only agreed to the test case the day before they started to announce their financial results. Collectively, the accounts showed that the banks had paid back or provided for over a billion pounds and thus their argument that it was not worth defending an individual claim on commercial grounds would have been shot to pieces. The FSA would have been the only organisation with prior knowledge of the accounts of ALL the banks and I suspect that when someone did the sums, the truth dawned on the FSA and the government, hence the test case. At the time, many thought the delay caused by the test case (2 to 3 years) would provide enough time for the banks to recover the billion or so.

 

Well, it has taken over two years to date for the test case but, as we all know, the world has changed (although with the bonus levels clearly bankers haven't). The billion or so set aside to cover bank charges two years ago seems small beer now.

 

Unenforceable credit agreements are more of a problem though. First, it means the banks cash flow will be affected. They may not have to fund repayments of credit accounts as with bank charges but they will no longer have an income stream from people repaying the credit card accounts and the extortionate interest. Second, I doubt they will be able to count the balances under the agreements as assets in their balance sheets, thus requiring a further injection of capital.

 

As for the immediate future, I think it’s almost anyone’s guess. The government have removed the cause of the problem for the banks (by which I mean S 127(3) of the CCA) for post Oct 2007 agreements but that is rather like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. But that still leaves many pre Oct 2007 agreements unenforceable and remember these agreements were made during the explosion of credit facilities offered from 1997 onwards.

[Docman]

Have just returned home after my court apearence for my N244 ordering Link to supply the outstanding documents.

What a waist of time, the Judge informed me and the claimant that due to the current court case being heard in Manchester by District Judge Blacksmith on the 8th Oct relating to this type of claim ( I think he was referring to the members of this Forum) and apparently his ruling is going to affect the majority of the cases on this forum . He has stayed the case and my N244 to 21 days after the court case on the 8th oct 09. Are you aware of this case.

 

Do you mind stating which couty court you went to this morning? Did the judge provide any more details of the Manchester case?

[Docman]

Is this the same case as the ones from Chester County Court? In the Chester cases, I thought the judge and barristers had identified over 50 claims that were to be referred to the Commercial Court which sits in London.

 

However, it is possible that these cases are viewed as adminisrative matters, since the law itself is settled. In that case, the cases could have been referred to one of the new Administrative Courts that have been set up since April in regional centres including Manchester. Does anyone have any further information?

[letitbeme]

Liverpool CC,

I did ask the Judge if the case in Manchester was based around the claimant not supplying the relevant documents that the claimant’s case was reliant on

He affirmed that it was. He also indicated that the claimant Might want to withdraw the case after the trial. ( I’m not going to try and read between the lines on that last statement ) Hope this Helps

 

Do you mind stating which couty court you went to this morning? Did the judge provide any more details of the Manchester case?

[letitbeme]

Is there any way of obtaining a Listing of cases that Judge Blacksmith is hearing on the 8th Oct.

[angry cat]

can anyone provide any further details regarding Judge Blacksmith's Test Case(s) in Manchester.

 

Thanks

 

AC

[Docman]

letitbe

 

The Court Service do publish the list of cases before individual judges but usually only on the day or the day before the hearings.

 

You could always contact the Manchester court and explain you case has been stayed pending the outcome of a case on 8 October due to be heard by Judge Blcksmith and ask for more information. I believe the contact details for Manchester are as follows:

 

Hearings:

[email protected]

Specialist hearngs

[email protected]

Administrative Court enquiries

Administrativecourtoffice.manchester@hmcourts-service.x.gsi.gov.uk

Switchboard

0161 240 5000

New Issue and Case Management

0161 240 5329

District Judge listing

0161 240 5207

Chancery / Mercantile / TCC Listing

0161 240 5307

High / County Court Civil Listing /Diary Managers

0161 240 5300

Customer Service

0161 240 5340

[letitbeme]

Have just spoken to the case manager at Manchester High Court. He informed me that the case has been passed to a Judge Holman. He is dealing with a Batch of cases dealing with the subject matter “unenforceability of credit card agreements with no documentary evidence supporting the claim”

Any thoughts?

[Ruprecht]

I am not sure what is going on in the Manchester case.

 

I was under the impression the Judge in Chester that has sent some test cases to London did not even get involved in the enforceability issue as none of the bank's barristers contested that they were not enforceable and the issue was only if they can record a default on a credit file if it was not enforceable and APR calculations.

 

Are they trying to say if there is no agreement at all that nobody knows if they had the prescribed conditions/signature etc? Surely this is madness to try and argue something about a contract which nobody has a true copy of?

 

Maybe it would be fun to get a transcript of the Chester hearing, if there were 50+ cases being heard at it I am sure the tape recorder would have been running. It would nice to see in transcript the banker's barristers agreeing no agreement = unenforceable (agreements before April 2007 of course).

Anyone involved in the Chester case fancy pm-ing me a claim number so I can try get it?

[GamekeeperToPoacher]

Ok, these are the notes I made at the trial of DJ's comments:

 

 

This case raises a number of issue common to huge number of cases doing the rounds.

 

One CMC with over 400 claims ongoing in one court - Not a sensible use of court's time.

 

Surprised cases got as far as being listed far trial, as staying claims such as this - more practical.

 

Test cases on unenforceable agreements needed to resolve issues.

 

Civil Judges suggest stay pending test cases.

 

Rankine v Various Banks

 

Case to be heard late September which may resolve some issues.

 

Stay case until issues sorted.

 

Counsel – advise client if any more cases similar in this Court they contact Court Manager as this will affect those (also mentioned other courts in the County).

 

So, either something new is going on or he's not up to date.

 

Take it I'll get a better idea when claimant objects to stay.

 

I was advised that the CMC in point had issued a couple of thousand cases at a cost in excess of £1M despite there being a number of cases in from of a senior commercial judge.

 

This means that the jusge is most up to date

 

GK

[GamekeeperToPoacher]

Have just spoken to the case manager at Manchester High Court. He informed me that the case has been passed to a Judge Holman. He is dealing with a Batch of cases dealing with the subject matter “unenforceability of credit card agreements with no documentary evidence supporting the claim”

Any thoughts?

 

 

My understanding is that these are 'no true copy cases' so very relevant to most of us I think

 

GK

[Ruprecht]

My understanding is that these are 'no true copy cases' so very relevant to most of us I think

 

GK

 

What can they do if there is no evidence of any agreement though I wonder?

 

Accept the bank's claim at face value that is was enforceable and contained the prescribed terms and conditions and was signed by the debtor?

 

Yes the banks are trustworthy, they would't do immoral things like pay the directors millions in bonuses after making huge losses, whilst sponging off the taxpayer for losing their gambling bets, etc. The only argument is do they come before or after arms dealers for being the most immoral people on earth.

 

Isn't there already evidence that a large proportion of the banks agreements that do exist don't comply with the CCA 1974 for them to be enforceable? Isn't this enough evidence to throw out accepting no evidence of an agreement on it's own?

 

I can't believe we are even discussing such a thing!

 

Edit:

 

What's to stop the bank just saying "nope, no agreement here, but it was enforceable" for every case if this gets anywhere? Why would they bother producing it ever for any claim. If the banks succeed in this it would be like declaring them God!

Edited August 28, 2009 by Ruprecht