Claim Stayed – Due to Unenforceable CCA Test Cases.

[ruinedbynatwest]

Many,many jobs have been lost in the banking industry in recent month's with many more due to follow. Surely there must be some disgruntled ex bank employees out there who would be happy to spill the beans on what is really going on. If so stand up and be counted.

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

Very interesting point Batman !

They're probably scared of the 'gagging' agreements they'd have signed somewhere along the line.

 

We at www.ruinedbynatwest.com remind them that any terms within any such "confidentiality" agreements must not enforce the parties to knowingly secrete what are unlawful acts and omissions. IE they must not conspire to defeat the Statute. Any such acts are essentially treason. If, as we at RBN know, employees have knowledge of these activities, then they must be assured that the common law confidentiality agreement is subservient to the Statute. They can plead (if any bank dare bring proceedings for breach of an unlawful agreement) that they were encouraged to defy or otherwise offend the Statute.

 

On a lighter note but to the same point: Watching David Jason in the ITV3 rerun of Dickens's "Micawber" this Sunday AM, a debt collector threatening Micawber, fesses up that he had been in Dartmoor prison, "But not for anything serious - and I escaped the day before my execution"

 

John Story

 

www.ruinedbynatwest.com

[angry cat]

I wonder if the 65 customers below were made aware that the "true copy" they'd received was "recreated"

 

 

 

I have seen this doc. prior PW. However, the comments made by RBS are noted.

 

Wasn't it RBS themselves who stated that they do not hold account data, going back farther than 6 years? (we know that they do of course)

 

Personally speaking, I have been trying, with the assisatnce of the ICO, to obtain copies of screen notes and log coms from RBS;

RBS have stated three times now that, they are unable to provide these, and that they can only supply limited information that has been copied and pasted from their system and on to a word document.

 

Someone, is telling porky pies...

[ruinedbynatwest]

"Someone, is telling porky pies... "

 

Hi Paul,

Natwest destroyed its main investigative file on Story when the High Court called for it in 1995, giving reasons for the destruction as "due to constraints of space" - interestingly, The Bank of England awaited their copy of that file also, because a Mr Webster at the bank's Customer Service Unit in Lothbury had assured Kevin Ryan at the BOE in August/Sept 1990 that "after conducting comprehensive investigations into Mr Story's complaint, the bank has concluded that it has done absolutely nothing wrong". Natwest applied for, and were granted, a Restraining Order against me with 2 years imprisonment if I sent that file to the BOE - I told the Judge in the Injunction hearing that I would go to prison willingly. He assured me that I would go to prison.

 

The following week the file was destroyed - I never did get to see that file, and nor did anyone else - although a part of it was shown to me, thanks to Natwest's solicitor who allowed me to read his letter dated 30 April 1990 to the bank which concluded that Mr Jackson had placed the bank in a very dangerous position and that I should be compensated...........................

 

I believe that the bank's subsequent determination to ignore Osborne Clarke's advice and to threaten me and my family and to deliberately mislead the Courts by destroying evidence is what RBS now terms (14 years later) on the bottom of the form you 'recreate' ,

 

"A classic example of thinking under pressure and adding real value to the bottom line"

 

This Cannot Be Right now as it was not right then

 

As I keep asking, where is Parliament in all this ? Why does it allow these transgressions of law ? Why is the Fraud Squad not investigating ?

 

Now we effectively have public ownership of RBS, I suppose the smarties at the bank will

write off knowing that the taxpayer will pick up the tab.

John Story

 

www.ruinedbynatwest.com

Edited December 6, 2009 by ruinedbynatwest
typos

[stapeley]

Hi Stapeley

 

Sorry to hear that they have closed that thread, are your issues still in limbo?

 

I hope you are correct with your predictions, I reckon 2 out of the three, the middle one I think could be ify on balance of probability

 

Kel

Not heard from two "creditors" for ages . One I hear from now and again .They sent a SD but never followed it through, after I pointed out that they would only be third in line. I explained as simply as possible for them that thirty percent share of nothing, would work out as £00000000000000000. Faced with the cost of a SD they wrote back telling me that it had been withdrawn. Two weeks latter their "legal team" again warned me of the consequences of legal action ! I am keeping all letters safe !

[Baggio]

craptel have really gone and done it again the cowboys.

 

they will lose a couple of cases.

 

gone VERY badly for them.

[dp77]

craptel have really gone and done it again the cowboys.

 

they will lose a couple of cases.

 

gone VERY badly for them.

 

Are you talking about these 'test cases' in Manchester - can you give any more details?

[Baggio]

Are you talking about these 'test cases' in Manchester - can you give any more details?

 

yes, have a read of the last 4 or 5 pages of this thread as this will answer your question.

[Josie8]

craptel have really gone and done it again the cowboys.

 

they will lose a couple of cases.

 

gone VERY badly for them.

 

 

What reason do you have for stating that?

[Baggio]

What reason do you have for stating that?

 

It's the exact words of somebody who was in court last week and heard their arguments.

 

No other CMC backed up the argument they pushed.

[johnerog]

It's the exact words of somebody who was in court last week and heard their arguments.

 

No other CMC backed up the argument they pushed.

 

What was the argument they pushed?

[Baggio]

What was the argument they pushed?

 

it centred around unfair relationships

[johnerog]

it centred around unfair relationships

 

Baggio it's like pulling teeth, do you know where we can get general info about these cases???????

[Baggio]

Baggio it's like pulling teeth, do you know where we can get general info about these cases???????

 

johne... you can't, yet!

 

i get snippets, but that is all.

 

have patience man, obviously if there was more meat to put on the bones it would be posted here.

 

the cases were only heard last week.

 

ok?

[johnerog]

johne... you can't, yet!

 

i get snippets, but that is all.

 

have patience man, obviously if there was more meat to put on the bones it would be posted here.

 

the cases were only heard last week.

 

ok?

 

OK My appologies. Just eager. Frustrated. Elderly. Boring. No friends....

[Baggio]

OK My appologies. Just eager. Frustrated. Elderly. Boring. No friends....

 

no problem mate, as soon as more details are released including full case notes... they will be posted up here.

[Axiom99]

Here is some info from another CMC who had cases at the Manchester Court

 

1 .12 09

A credit card balance of more than £11,000 has been completely written off

due to the lender failing in its obligations under the Consumer Credit Act.

Leading claims management company, ************ and their nominated

solicitors, ******, broke the news to their client earlier this week, confirming that

the balance of £11,038 had been totally written off. The case, which was

bought against the lender MBNA, had been scheduled for a full trial in the

Manchester Mercantile Court starting on Monday of this week. However

MBNA capitulated just hours before the commencement of the trial.

Despite several request by ********** MBNA failed to provide a true copy

of the signed credit agreement, leaving BPS no choice but to issue

proceedings against the lender.

MBNA also caved in on a second case due for hearing this week, enabling

************ to confirm to another client that their £6,217 credit card balance

had been written off.

MBNA are not alone as ********** have many thousands of clients across

a variety of lenders, many in a similar position. The trial at Manchester this

week that includes cases against a number of lenders other than MBNA

continues and will, if successful, lead to a successful resolution for thousands

of clients.

********, Legal Services Director at ************, said:

"The Consumer Credit Act makes it clear that lenders must provide a true copy of the

original credit agreement when requested, in this instance the lender failed to do so

and as a result was in breach of its’ statutory obligations. MBNA’s capitulation hours

before the start of the trial is a real indication of the seriousness of this issue. Having

brought proceedings against a number of lenders we are in court this week to seek

guidance and a successful outcome for many thousands of our other clients who find

themselves in a similar position."

 

3.12.09

 

Today the argument surround whether or not the consumer can obtain a declaration from the court, to demonstrate the Lender is in breach of Section 78 and the agreement is therefore unenforceable. This is a major concern for the banks, they have appointed a leading QC to make their submissions, this is the same QC the banks used in the defense of the bank charges cases, at this moment in time we obviously do not know what their defense on this point is. Today (Thursday) will prove to be very interesting.

It is of our opinion that matters are going well, the real debate surrounds whether or not the Lender can reconstitute exactly what they are obliged to provide and also whether the consumer can get a declaration.

I will provide an update later today on how the banks are defending he declaration point.

 

4.12.09

 

On Thursday, essentially the banks sought to argue that firstly the court didn't have the power to give the declarations as sought by the claimants. Our Barrister responded to this and the judge also appeared not to like that position. I think it is clear the courts have the necessary power to give them.

Then, the banks, on the assumption that the court does have the power to give declarations, argued that they shouldn't because it serves no useful purpose. What they were suggesting is that if there is a dispute whether or not a true copy has been provided a borrower should wait until sued, and then raise appropriate issues at that point. Neither I nor our Barrister believes that should wash with the courts.

Thereafter, there was an application by the bank to get one of Cartels claims struck out because they say it is fundamentally flawed. Another such application is being made by Barclays currently again against one of Cartels clients. The banks have not tried this against us on any of our cases!

The remainder of today, Friday, will just be mopping up some housekeeping issues and we hope the judge will provide judgment in January. Our Barrister remains confident about the outcome.

 

[haggis1984]

Here is some info from another CMC who had cases at the Manchester Court

 

1 .12 09

A credit card balance of more than £11,000 has been completely written off

due to the lender failing in its obligations under the Consumer Credit Act.

Leading claims management company, ************ and their nominated

solicitors, ******, broke the news to their client earlier this week, confirming that

the balance of £11,038 had been totally written off. The case, which was

bought against the lender MBNA, had been scheduled for a full trial in the

Manchester Mercantile Court starting on Monday of this week. However

MBNA capitulated just hours before the commencement of the trial.

Despite several request by ********** MBNA failed to provide a true copy

of the signed credit agreement, leaving BPS no choice but to issue

proceedings against the lender.

MBNA also caved in on a second case due for hearing this week, enabling

************ to confirm to another client that their £6,217 credit card balance

had been written off.

MBNA are not alone as ********** have many thousands of clients across

a variety of lenders, many in a similar position. The trial at Manchester this

week that includes cases against a number of lenders other than MBNA

continues and will, if successful, lead to a successful resolution for thousands

of clients.

********, Legal Services Director at ************, said:

"The Consumer Credit Act makes it clear that lenders must provide a true copy of the

original credit agreement when requested, in this instance the lender failed to do so

and as a result was in breach of its’ statutory obligations. MBNA’s capitulation hours

before the start of the trial is a real indication of the seriousness of this issue. Having

brought proceedings against a number of lenders we are in court this week to seek

guidance and a successful outcome for many thousands of our other clients who find

themselves in a similar position."

 

3.12.09

 

Today the argument surround whether or not the consumer can obtain a declaration from the court, to demonstrate the Lender is in breach of Section 78 and the agreement is therefore unenforceable. This is a major concern for the banks, they have appointed a leading QC to make their submissions, this is the same QC the banks used in the defense of the bank charges cases, at this moment in time we obviously do not know what their defense on this point is. Today (Thursday) will prove to be very interesting.

 

It is of our opinion that matters are going well, the real debate surrounds whether or not the Lender can reconstitute exactly what they are obliged to provide and also whether the consumer can get a declaration.

 

I will provide an update later today on how the banks are defending he declaration point.

 

4.12.09

 

On Thursday, essentially the banks sought to argue that firstly the court didn't have the power to give the declarations as sought by the claimants. Our Barrister responded to this and the judge also appeared not to like that position. I think it is clear the courts have the necessary power to give them.

 

Then, the banks, on the assumption that the court does have the power to give declarations, argued that they shouldn't because it serves no useful purpose. What they were suggesting is that if there is a dispute whether or not a true copy has been provided a borrower should wait until sued, and then raise appropriate issues at that point. Neither I nor our Barrister believes that should wash with the courts.

 

Thereafter, there was an application by the bank to get one of Cartels claims struck out because they say it is fundamentally flawed. Another such application is being made by Barclays currently again against one of Cartels clients. The banks have not tried this against us on any of our cases!

 

The remainder of today, Friday, will just be mopping up some housekeeping issues and we hope the judge will provide judgment in January. Our Barrister remains confident about the outcome.

 

 

Excellent news! Can you give a source for this info?

[Baggio]

Excellent news! Can you give a source for this info?

 

lee lipson, credit issues.

[meeza]

Does anyone know when a decision is expected for these cases?

[stapeley]

Don,t hold your breath ! Could end up like the bank charge case , off to the Supreme Court , if it does against the banks .

[RobinWayRobinme]

Been following this thread with interest and look forward to hearing judgments in due course. However, although good news to debtor in above MBNA cases, is it good news for everyone else? As MBNA capitulated, we will not have a ruling to cite. Am I correct?

[Baggio]

Been following this thread with interest and look forward to hearing judgments in due course. However, although good news to debtor in above MBNA cases, is it good news for everyone else? As MBNA capitulated, we will not have a ruling to cite. Am I correct?

 

yes, there is a postive and a negative to take form this... but lets be honest, why would any bank capitulate ahead of a hearing unless they were advised it was foolhardy to continue? they, being all the banks, know they are on shaky ground with a number of issues...

 

they have done well to evade the whole process long enough.. time is almost up.

[RobinWayRobinme]

Agree entirely with your comments Baggio. However, a ruling to cite at an early stage may help to put a stop to some of the opportunist claims made against debtors. In answering my own question, probably not, they will still try it on.

Keep up the good work Baggio and keep us posted with your snippets of info.

[Baggio]

Agree entirely with your comments Baggio. However, a ruling to cite at an early stage may help to put a stop to some of the opportunist claims made against debtors. In answering my own question, probably not, they will still try it on.

Keep up the good work Baggio and keep us posted with your snippets of info.

 

thanks mate.

 

there is a real sense of confidence within the ranks, a confidence that i have not seen since the start of UCA claims.

 

off the record quips from both sides barristers also display this confidence.

[the_shadow]

Does anyone know when a decision is expected for these cases?

 

 

(Sarcasm monitor on)

Hmm I might be going out on a limb here but:-

 

we hope the judge will provide judgment in January.

 

(sarcasm monitor off)

 

S.