Claim Stayed – Due to Unenforceable CCA Test Cases.

[Baggio]

Have you actually read the judgment?

 

not personally, but i have been briefed by one of the top consumer law QC's on planet earth.

 

he probably has a better grasp than you or i

[Baggio]

Baggio to the rescue:D:D, and to think you thought I was one of them;)

 

naah not you.

[postggj]

Now You Have My Atention

 

I Though My Source Had Lost It

 

Lets Get The Full Judgement Before Anything Else

[Josie8]

ABc

Edited December 30, 2009 by Josie8

[Josie8]

Abc

Edited December 30, 2009 by Josie8

[gyos]

Anyone know where it will appear?

 

Checked the 'usual' places, but nothing yet. Are the solicitors/CMC for this one going to post it?

[Josie8]

Abc

Edited December 30, 2009 by Josie8

[Josie8]

Anyone know where it will appear?

 

Checked the 'usual' places, but nothing yet. Are the solicitors/CMC for this one going to post it?

 

Abc

Edited December 30, 2009 by Josie8

[paulwlton]

Just going back to the OFT points they also said they would want a creditor to state whether they have a copy or not when reconstructing so I really don't think the OFT position is as cut and dry and as this is about a test case we should wait until the judgement is accessible to read before making assumptions

 

Good point.

 

My argument is that a creditor should NOT be allowed to "recreate" if they no longer hold the original SIGNED agreement.

 

The creditor will not admit that they have lost the original, they'll claim they're having problems locating it so, here's a "recreation" . The borrower will therefore be in limbo, not knowing if the creditor holds the original for enforcement.

[Mistermind]

Have you read it?

 

BBC News - Lenders warned not to mislead customers over debts (contents below)

 

Lenders must not mislead borrowers that their debts are enforceable, when in fact they are not, the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) says.

 

The regulator also says many debtors have, in turn, been misled about their ability to escape their debts. The OFT's comments are part of an intervention in a series of High Court test cases about the enforceability of debts under the Consumer Credit Act. The outcome could affect thousands of potential courts cases.

 

The OFT has supplied its draft guidance on part of the Consumer Credit Act (CCA) to Judge Waksman, who is hearing the cases in Manchester. "The OFT's decision to prepare guidance at this time has primarily resulted from our concern that debtors are being misled as to the meaning and interpretation of sections 77-79 [of the Act] in particular," the OFT said in a letter to the judge. "And on the other hand concern that some creditors appear not to understand the nature and extent of their obligations under these sections," it added.

 

Numerous disputes

 

The 12 test cases at the High Court in Manchester are aimed at settling a number of contentious issues about the interpretation of the law.

 

It is important to remember that the purpose of these sections is to provide information to consumers, not to provide a method for consumers to avoid paying their debts

 

Draft OFT guidance

 

The general position is that lenders who wish to chase defaulting borrowers for the repayment of their loans have to comply with a number of obligations. One of them is that under sections 77-79 of the Act they should supply a "true copy" of the original signed loan agreement within 12 days of the borrower asking for it. If they do not then the debt is unenforceable until such time as the copy can be provided.

 

"Unfortunately, consumers have often been given an exaggerated expectation of what the creditor or owner must do in order to comply with an information request, as a result of misleading claims by claims management companies and inaccurate information on the internet," the OFT's draft guidance says. "As a result, numerous disputes have been generated over whether a request has properly been made, whether the duties have been complied with and whether as a consequence the agreement can be enforced," the OFT adds.

 

Unfair business practices

The OFT's guidance clearly disagrees with some of the arguments that have been put forward by some claims management companies on behalf of their clients. In particular, the regulator points out that it is perfectly legal and proper for a bank that has lost the original loan agreement, or whose copy is illegible, to supply an accurate "reconstituted" version instead, to show that the agreement did in fact include the information specified by the Act.

 

"It is important to remember that the purpose of these sections is to provide information to consumers, not to provide a method for consumers to avoid paying their debts," the OFT says. But the OFT goes on to advise that lenders would be acting unfairly, and potentially in breach of their consumer credit licenses, if they misled borrowers by:

 

• hiding or disguising the fact that there was never a proper signed agreement in the first place

 

• providing only a copy of the current terms and conditions, not the original ones

 

• confusing the borrower as to who they should send an information request after selling the debt to a debt collection company

 

• failing to preserve data so the borrower cannot be given an up to date statement of account.

.......

[jonoh1]

Lets not panic. I believe in Baggio..........

[Baggio]

Oh thats right - the judgment hasn't been handed down yet has it according to Baggio - so the above must be a mirage.

 

you sound like a real consumer champion here, i like this attitude.

 

let it continue... show us all the true colours.

 

and who you might really represent.

[Baggio]

Oh thats right - the judgment hasn't been handed down yet has it according to Baggio - so the above must be a mirage.

 

josie, are you a QC?

 

Unnaceptable remark removed

Edited December 30, 2009 by slick132
swearing (even in abbreviated form) at others will not be tolerated

[postggj]

message For All

 

Lets Not Let This Degrade To Political Infighting Between Caggers

 

This Goes For Every One

 

This Is All Guess Work Until The Final Judgement Is Published

 

This Is Far To Important For Scoring Brownie Points

 

 

Lets Wait For The Judgement To Be Published Before Unsubstantiated Comments Are Posted

 

Lets Keep It Civil

 

Its Christmas

[gyos]

Lets not panic. I believe in Baggio..........

 

With respect, I don't believe anyone until we see this damn thing.

[tinkerbell20]

Baggio leave Josie 8 alone. Why does this forum always try to rubbish anyone who offers a different view?

 

From what I have just read Josie8 appears to have read the judgment and you haven't. Miffing her off might explain why she hasn't posted it.

 

Can you get a copy from your barrister and post it up? It would seem that the judge issued it yesterday not today

[postggj]

Ive Known Josie For A Long Time And Is A Valued Member Of The Forum

 

Just Like Every One Of Us

[ruinedbynatwest]

Criminal courts require beyond a reasonable doubt, civil courts require balance of probabilities hence the different slant.

S.

 

No. Sorry, S. The CCA is very clear on the point - the documentation is to be provided, in due form, BEFORE the credit is advanced - ie it foresaw this nonsense.

 

With respect, there is no different slant on that point of evidence - it is strict - it requires that the credit trader provides the criminal burden and let's face it, it's readily determined. Crowther recognised the impact of a miscarriage against the individual consumer - whereas the trader could absorb the loss (of an individual case) and learn to not do it again.

 

Here, the 1974 CCA carries criminal sanctions against the trader who operates a policy or practice of non-compliance.

John Story

 

www.ruinedbynatwest.com

Edited December 24, 2009 by ruinedbynatwest
typos

[Baggio]

ok guys simple choice here

 

take the view of josei8

 

or take the view of a QC

 

i have made my choice.

[supasnooper]

Please do not let this thread degenerate into trading insults.

 

There is obviously more to the Judgments than we know about.

 

Until the full ramifications have been understood, we are only guessing.

 

Thank you.

Edited December 24, 2009 by supasnooper
addition

[haggis1984]

Please do not let this thread degenerate

 

Agreed! This threads too important to screw up with fightin

[postggj]

Well Done Site Team

 

Lets Move On

 

And Will Some One

 

post That Dam Judgement To End This Specultaion

[Gallahad]

I see no mileage in debating a document that we have not had sight of.

[postggj]

See You On Line Curly

Long Time No See

 

Any Imput As A Valued Cagger

[haggis1984]

ok guys simple choice here

 

take the view of josei8

 

or take the view of a QC

 

i have made my choice.

 

Remember when the Mcguff judgement was handed down? Days of discussion on here and people still couldnt agree on the main points. This is gonna be the same.