Claim Stayed – Due to Unenforceable CCA Test Cases.

[angry cat]

IMHO, I believe that the majority of posters on CAG are above board and genuine; they just want to sort out their problems...

 

However, there clearly are some deep trolls on CAG, not much that can be done about that, apart from avoiding them

 

Just be cautious with regards to receiving PM's from unknown or, untrusted members.

 

Common sense really!

 

Carry on fighting Guys.

 

AC

[MandM]

Drat you’ve caught me out…..yes I admit I was recruited straight from Cambridge to the MI8, a banking based secret policing unit aimed at consumer oppression and misguidance. I spent 25 years in a normal career just to allow me the chance to appear as an ordinary person and build a credit history and credit file. I even managed to build a successful business and part of me wanted this to continue however I knew deep down that my true vocation was debtor persecution so I did a poor deal and allowed my business to collapse. This gave me the opportunity to preset my self as a debtor with over £80k in debt and I even allowed one DCA to get a default judgement just to make it look convincing.

 

It wasn't easy I went from a new BMW to a 10 year old ford even took my children out of private education but the cause was worth this pain to my family. then,2 years ago I was able to infiltrate CAG and even managed to even fool some of the site team including pt who entered into private correspondence to help me with my court case against 1st credit , obviously being a Cambridge undergraduate I was able to learn about consumer credit law very easily however I would post the most basic questions in the early days just to make it look like I didn’t really know…lol……I even helped others with letters, defences and companies I supposedly had “dealings” with such as Marlin and Cabot this gained build a good level of reputation points and my deception was complete until now…

 

Damn you B3rty - just submitted my defence based wholly on your threads..........if only i'd known sooner

 

M

[B3rty]

Weren't we at Cambridge together?

[Baggio]

IMHO, I believe that the majority of posters on CAG are above board and genuine; they just want to sort out their problems...

 

However, there clearly are some deep trolls on CAG, not much that can be done about that, apart from avoiding them

 

Just be cautious with regards to receiving PM's from unknown or, untrusted members.

 

Common sense really!

 

Carry on fighting Guys.

 

AC

 

agreed.

[MandM]

Weren't we at Cambridge together?

 

Highly likely lol.

 

But on a serious note.........

On a serious note debate is healthy and just because someone has a differing view or asks questions doesn't mean they are not all genuine....all it takes is a little look at early posts to get a feel for that person and its quite interesting how most of us come here pretty ignorant then over time build a knowledge base and a mind set that's a million miles away from those early days.

This is soooooooo true. I make a strong point of checking out the threads (and advice and help given) of all that help and advise me. I read my own early posts with horror about how little i knew even though i'd been reading threads as a 'visitor' for some months. And some of the best advice i've found on this forum is by reading 'debates' on other threads as it usually gives you a wider view than single source advice. Everyones experience on here is personal to them and them only - then you join CAG and you realise the benefit in sharing that experience and before you know it you're the one giving advice lol. So i'm also for debate and it's up to the individual reading that debate as to whether or not they use the information.

 

M

Edited November 21, 2009 by MandM
typo

[letitbeme]

Hi,

Just one more point. For those of you that are new to CAG always post unsolicited PM advice on your thread, hopefully you will get confirmation from one of the site team that the advice is sound.

LIBM

DCA’S will try and hoodwink you left, right and centre. Always remember slowly slowly catch the monkey!

Edited November 21, 2009 by letitbeme

[Baggio]

Hi,

Just one more point. For those of you that are new to CAG always post unsolicited PM advice on your thread, hopefully you will get confirmation from one of the site team that the advice is sound.

LIBM

 

DCA’S will try and hoodwink you left, right and centre. Always remember slowly slowly catch the monkey!

 

Well said mate.

[angry cat]

Softly, Softly Catchee Monkey...

 

AC

[ruinedbynatwest]

Hi,

Just one more point. For those of you that are new to CAG always post unsolicited PM advice on your thread, hopefully you will get confirmation from one of the site team that the advice is sound.

LIBM

 

DCA’S will try and hoodwink you left, right and centre. Always remember slowly slowly catch the monkey!

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

Having fought Natwest now for 20 years, I'm pleased to see that there's now so much more informed debate into Consumer Credit Law these days, thanks to sites like CAG - whereas when I set out I was treated as a trouble maker by many, and not just by those who worked in the credit industry. However, where I did benefit from my own research - where I was guided by the (then) fantastically "open and helpful" team at the OFT - (they're very guarded, defensive these days) and which benefit I believe would assist others who are keen to understand (and to even further) this important are of the law is to read Lord Crowther's white paper from 1971 "Consumer Credit - Lord Crowther - Report of the Committee [Command 4596])" that preceeded the Consumer Credit Act and from which report Francis Bennion drafted the Act, replete with all its areas that cause bafflement IF one hasn't read the white paper !

He particularly criticizes the Common Law for the very same reasons that appear on this site every day !

Unbelievably, it's "out of print" (that'll give the conspiracy theorists something to eat for breakfast !) and any search I've tried only comes up with references to my own site www.ruinedbynatwest.com. Why is it not referred to by the bench in the (otherwise) very difficult cases they appear to grapple with - the Report makes it all quite plain - where the benefit of the doubt should go.

I say that because at the moment the benefit ends up with the trader in the majority of cases - where the non-application of the Consumer Credit Act serves as "An enactment for the protection of Creditors" (in eg Story) instead of the CCA's stated claim that it is "An Enactment for the protection of Debtors".

 

I'm waiting for the chance to ask the Courts why is works (or doesn't work) like this where the white paper is very clear ?

 

So, how do we go about getting this highly relevant white paper back where it belongs - in the thick of the fight ! It's as pertinent and crisp as it ever was.

 

HELP !!!!!!!!!! IS THERE ANYONE OUT THERE !!!

 

John Story

 

First Defendant Natwest V Story & Pallister (CA May 7 1999)

Edited November 22, 2009 by ruinedbynatwest

[angry cat]

CONSUMER CREDIT: THE CROWTHER REPORT (Hansard, 28 June 1972)

[ruinedbynatwest]

CONSUMER CREDIT: THE CROWTHER REPORT (Hansard, 28 June 1972)

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

" A.C." ? "Angry Cat" ???

More like "T.C." !!!

 

Thanks Top Cat !

 

This Hansard Report from 1972 really is a MUST READ ! Lengthy, but still spot-on.

 

Just goes to show, dunnit ?

20 years and I never found that little "chat".

I ask one question on CAG and Voila !

 

On Crowther - he was quite a character, a heavyweight economist who was committed to (here, Consumer) education. Here's a quote from the man himself,

 

"It has been said that there are two aspects of education, both necessary. One regards the individual human mind more as a vessel, of varying capacity, into which is to be poured as much as it will hold of the knowledge and experience by which human society lives and moves. This is the Martha of education and we shall have plenty of these tasks to perform. But the Mary regards the human mind more as a fire that has to be set alight and blown with the divine afflatus. That also we take as our ambition."

 

 

John Story

 

www.ruinedbynatwest.com

Edited November 22, 2009 by ruinedbynatwest
typos

[Baggio]

CONSUMER CREDIT: THE CROWTHER REPORT (Hansard, 28 June 1972)

 

Thanks for this.

[angry cat]

My Pleasure:)

 

AC

[dp77]

Have read through this thread with great interest.

 

I absolutely endorse the view, posted above, that the onus should be on the claimant (who starts proceedings) to prove what he is claiming, not for the defendant to disprove it. In this case by claimant I mean creditor / bank / credit card company and by defendant I mean debtor / consumer.

 

Somehow this onus has shifted, it now seems that the debtor is the one who carries the burden of proof, that in many cases it is now the debtor who is forced to disprove what the creditor is claiming - even where the creditor does not have the legally required paperwork.

 

That is wrong on so many levels, not least legally. There is a fundamental human rights issue here, an abuse of rights granted to the individual. I've read some posts about the Francovich ruling, which I must admit I don't fully understand, but hopefully others can.

[ruinedbynatwest]

Have read through this thread with great interest.

 

I absolutely endorse the view, posted above, that the onus should be on the claimant (who starts proceedings) to prove what he is claiming, not for the defendant to disprove it. In this case by claimant I mean creditor / bank / credit card company and by defendant I mean debtor / consumer.

End Quote

 

-----------------Thanks for that, dp77 !

When fighting Natwest V Story & Pallister ("Story") back in the mid 1990's we saw the burden of proof shift from the plaintiff (Natwest) to us (defendants) - the early papers included one issued from the Court which read "Did the CCA apply to the borrowings at any time and if so, when? - was somehow changed (at some point) to us needing to prove to the criminal burden of proof (100%) in the common law, that a strict refinancing term existed ! In other words, in Story, Natwest, to the judge's knowledge, documented nothing with the result that our pleadings in our witness statements of "Oh yes we did", were disregarded to the Judge's satisfaction when Natwest simply countered "Oh No you didn't" - even where existing agreements were regulated and where the bank had not written anything in relation to those regulated agreements. The bank's silk, Andrew Smith QC admitted that the Act applied but that was ignored by the Court !

 

The bank had destroyed its main investigative files, (which included its own analysis of the CCA -item 151 in the discovery list) at a time when the Court asked for it, reasons given for the destruction "due to constraints of space" !!!

 

HHJ Jack QC shook his head, but he allowed the bank the benefit of that destruction, when he knew that the Bank of England and the OFT were waiting to see it under their own regulatory powers.

 

 

As I'm saying here, the bank found it easy to deny what had been agreed verbally, and it's denial to the Court was REINFORCED by the lack of written evidence. Because much was not documented and then because much was destroyed, the Judge found very little reliable evidenece where he presumed that we were "won't pays", itself offensive to the very mainstay of the CCA which presumes correctly that the bank was up to mischief, where the CCA provides that (most) regulated agreements must be evidenced in writing to be legally enforceable to protect the consumer by default and not the other way round when the form of the agreement is faulty.

 

The CCA is entitled "An enactment for the protection of Debtors" but we increasingly see it has become "an enactment for the protection of creditors" for the very eason you raise dp77 where the burden of proof is unfairly shifted onto the consumer - the Act presumes that unwritten or "improperly executed" agreements are mischievous - but it does so in the knowledge that the creditor, with his superior resources, will learn from the odd refusal, and will take the loss in the knowledge that he can spread it over his business.

John Story

 

www.ruinedbynatwest.com

Edited November 30, 2009 by ruinedbynatwest
typos

[Baggio]

subbing, big few days ahead !!

[kel123]

What days and have we any details on what?

[Ruprecht]

What days and have we any details on what?

 

Stuff is supposed to be going on for 5 days around about now in Manchester.

 

Administrative/Commercial/High Court* I think.

 

 

 

 

 

* Delete as appropriate.

[letitbeme]

Hi there, the preliminary hearing in Manchester is to determine several legal principals. 13 cases have been chosen and all other cases are stayed pending the hearing. The Trial window is scheduled for March 2010.

 

HHJ Waksman has said that he does not consider himself bound by the McGutherick case as he is sitting in the Mercantile court.

 

Will try and update later on in the week

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8365018.stm

Edited November 30, 2009 by letitbeme

[Ruprecht]

Hi there, the preliminary hearing in Manchester is to determine several legal principals. 13 cases have been chosen and all other cases are stayed pending the hearing. The Trial window is scheduled for March 2010.

 

HHJ Waksman has said that he does not consider himself bound by the McGutherick case as he is sitting in the Mercantile court.

 

Will try and update later on in the week

 

BBC News - Credit card debt cases face showdown

 

Do you know if any of the cases were looking into when no original agreement is available i.e. lost, destroyed etc.?

 

I read somewhere that nobody was disputing that it could not be enforced (pre April 2007) in such a case but I am sure someone mentioned they might look into if it was an Unfair Relationship as per the new CCA 2006 terms.

 

An agreement being unenforceable is one thing, doesn't g'tee getting them off your back but an unfair relationship ruling should.

[Axiom99]

Do you know if any of the cases were looking into when no original agreement is available i.e. lost, destroyed etc.?

 

I read somewhere that nobody was disputing that it could not be enforced (pre April 2007) in such a case but I am sure someone mentioned they might look into if it was an Unfair Relationship as per the new CCA 2006 terms.

 

An agreement being unenforceable is one thing, doesn't g'tee getting them off your back but an unfair relationship ruling should.

 

I believe MBNA lost a test case in Manchester today where they could not produce the original agreement.

They also threw in the towel on two cases yesterday in the same court

MBNA settled both cases and agreed to pay costs, one balance was 11038 pounds and the other was 6200 pounds :grin:

[angry cat]

Dec

01Success over MBNA

Written by Andrew | Filed under In the News | No Comments

 

MBNA capitulates just hours before the trial begins!

 

Two clients, two credit cards with balances totalling £17,256 and one claims management company determined to champion for the consumer.

 

Credit Issues had brought legal proceedings against major credit card lender MBNA for what they believed to be significant failings in their obligations under the Consumer Credit Act. However just hours before the trial was due to commence at the Manchester Mercantile Court Credit Issues’ nominated solicitors for the case, BPS, were contacted by a representative from MBNA asking what it would take for these cases to ‘go away’.

 

The answer was simple, ‘what is right for the client’ and in this instance that resulted in a full write off of the outstanding balances, a total of £17,256.

 

Credit Issues are at the leading edge of the claims management industry with what is believed to be the most advanced legal argument of any CMC. Legal Services Director, Lee Lipson, comments ‘Today’s result is a signification move towards forcing lenders to accept responsibility for what we believe to be serious failings. In this instance it was clear that the lender, MBNA, had failed to comply with the regulations and has resulted in the clients having a substantial sum written off. We would have liked to have met them in court today however the right outcome for our clients has been achieved and we are celebrating.’

[Gallahad]

I believe MBNA lost a test case in Manchester today where they could not produce the original agreement.

They also threw in the towel on two cases yesterday in the same court

MBNA settled both cases and agreed to pay costs, one balance was 11038 pounds and the other was 6200 pounds :grin:

Thanks for info Axiom may I ask where info came from and do you have case ref numbers?

G

[exchange]

Dec

01Success over MBNA

Written by Andrew | Filed under In the News | No Comments

 

MBNA capitulates just hours before the trial begins!

 

Two clients, two credit cards with balances totalling £17,256 and one claims management company determined to champion for the consumer.

 

Credit Issues had brought legal proceedings against major credit card lender MBNA for what they believed to be significant failings in their obligations under the Consumer Credit Act. However just hours before the trial was due to commence at the Manchester Mercantile Court Credit Issues’ nominated solicitors for the case, BPS, were contacted by a representative from MBNA asking what it would take for these cases to ‘go away’.

 

The answer was simple, ‘what is right for the client’ and in this instance that resulted in a full write off of the outstanding balances, a total of £17,256.

 

Credit Issues are at the leading edge of the claims management industry with what is believed to be the most advanced legal argument of any CMC. Legal Services Director, Lee Lipson, comments ‘Today’s result is a signification move towards forcing lenders to accept responsibility for what we believe to be serious failings. In this instance it was clear that the lender, MBNA, had failed to comply with the regulations and has resulted in the clients having a substantial sum written off. We would have liked to have met them in court today however the right outcome for our clients has been achieved and we are celebrating.’

 

Interesting result but doesn't this defeat the object of having test cases?

How can any precedents be set if the creditors run away?

Great result for the debtor but this isn't what was supposed to happen, surely!

[angry cat]

Agree, this should not have happened!

 

Clearly, MBNA did not want these cases to be scrutinised by the Judge...