Jump to content


Claim Stayed – Due to Unenforceable CCA Test Cases.


Blondie40
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4276 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Hi Shadow,

 

I spotted on another thread that there was no delay over "Manchester", the March/April date is for another issue. Could be wrong.

 

oilyrag

 

ah right ok, was sure they held it back for manchester... oh well lets just hope PW can post up a copy for all to see (the draft of course).

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Carey vs HSBC may go to full trial in March.

 

I thought it would have to be an appeal seeing as a judgment has been handed down or are there other matters to be decided in it?

 

Does anyone know what the remaining cases are about?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

According to PTs egg thread there is a test in cardif mercantile in march which amongst other things will decide the crecit limit prescribed term labelling issue on egg credit card agreements.

 

I dont know if anyone can confirm this

 

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it would have to be an appeal seeing as a judgment has been handed down or are there other matters to be decided in it?

 

Does anyone know what the remaining cases are about?

 

The decision on the agreement in Carey v HSBC was made by HHJ Waksman on assumed facts only. The actual facts re documentation is very different hence why it is going to proceed to full trial

You may receive different advice to your query as people have different experiences and opinions. Please use your own judgement in deciding whose advice to take.

 

If in doubt seek advice from a qualified insured professional. Any advice I have offered you is done so on an informal basis, without prejudice or liability.

 

If you think I have been helpful PLEASE click the scales

 

court bundles for dummies

Link to post
Share on other sites

The decision on the agreement in Carey v HSBC was made by HHJ Waksman on assumed facts only. The actual facts re documentation is very different hence why it is going to proceed to full trial

Josie, does it HAVE to go to full trial? ie could either side withdraw? Could be a fascinating episode given the background.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Josie, does it HAVE to go to full trial? ie could either side withdraw? Could be a fascinating episode given the background.

 

It doesn't have to go to full trial but I know that Careys solicitors intend to as they consider it to be important for several reasons. Not so sure HSBC are so keen.........

 

Incidentally RBS have applied for cost orders against Cartel & their solicitors CCLS personally - cartel clients lost on costs today

You may receive different advice to your query as people have different experiences and opinions. Please use your own judgement in deciding whose advice to take.

 

If in doubt seek advice from a qualified insured professional. Any advice I have offered you is done so on an informal basis, without prejudice or liability.

 

If you think I have been helpful PLEASE click the scales

 

court bundles for dummies

Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't have to go to full trial but I know that Careys solicitors intend to as they consider it to be important for several reasons. Not so sure HSBC are so keen.........

 

Incidentally RBS have applied for cost orders against Cartel & their solicitors CCLS personally - Cartal Clients lost on costs today

 

 

Clients lost on costs? Would they be covered by ATE?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Clients lost on costs? Would they be covered by ATE?

 

Don't think so so RBS is going after Cartel and CCLS personally as well - whether they will succeed is another matter

You may receive different advice to your query as people have different experiences and opinions. Please use your own judgement in deciding whose advice to take.

 

If in doubt seek advice from a qualified insured professional. Any advice I have offered you is done so on an informal basis, without prejudice or liability.

 

If you think I have been helpful PLEASE click the scales

 

court bundles for dummies

Link to post
Share on other sites

No though they did win on the reconstitution point & unfair relationships.

 

Costs were awarded per individual principle which was debated at hearing for the parties involved in each. Cartels claimants were involved in the the ones that the Banks won and not involved in the ones the banks lost so the net result was a cost order against cartel clients involved

You may receive different advice to your query as people have different experiences and opinions. Please use your own judgement in deciding whose advice to take.

 

If in doubt seek advice from a qualified insured professional. Any advice I have offered you is done so on an informal basis, without prejudice or liability.

 

If you think I have been helpful PLEASE click the scales

 

court bundles for dummies

Link to post
Share on other sites

As cartel clients didn't have ATE insurance RBS is going for a third party cost order against cartel and their solicitors to ensure they get their costs paid

You may receive different advice to your query as people have different experiences and opinions. Please use your own judgement in deciding whose advice to take.

 

If in doubt seek advice from a qualified insured professional. Any advice I have offered you is done so on an informal basis, without prejudice or liability.

 

If you think I have been helpful PLEASE click the scales

 

court bundles for dummies

Link to post
Share on other sites

Josie

 

Why did Cartal Clients lose on costs? Why do RBS think they have a case for costs?

Does this not mean we should actually interpret the cases as a win for the banks? BD

 

Remember this was not just one judgemet on one case. There were several cases and a number of issues. The banks did win on some points but lost on many others including some that they are very sore about.

 

J

Link to post
Share on other sites

As Cartal Clients didn't have ATE insurance RBS is going for a third party cost order against cartel and their solicitors to ensure they get their costs paid

 

:eek::eek: Don't have ATE OMG:eek:. That is one seriously flawed business proposition they have.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A case of reading the WHOLE judgement and not just picking out the negative bits. Already stated here by better caggers than me

 

1 forward, 2 back for banks

2 forward, 1 back for consumers (putting us 2 ahead)

 

OR

Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember this was not just one judgemet on one case. There were several cases and a number of issues. The banks did win on some points but lost on many others including some that they are very sore about.

 

J

 

 

Can someone please put an easy to read list showing which points were won by the banks, and those lost by them.

 

Cheers

 

BF

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

According to PTs egg thread there is a test in cardif mercantile in march which amongst other things will decide the crecit limit prescribed term labelling issue on egg credit card agreements.

 

I dont know if anyone can confirm this

 

Peter

Hi peter yes PT's egg issues are to be heard in Cardiff sometime in March after directions hearing the end of last year .
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi peter yes PT's egg issues are to be heard in Cardiff sometime in March after directions hearing the end of last year .

 

Hi

Be very interested to here any other information on this, is this hearing just for this issue(against egg cc) or is it for a variety of enforcement points ala the recent one in manchester.

I have not heard anything on the grapevine anyone else?

 

Regards

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not surprised activity has almost ground to a halt on this thread. Its been going round in circles for a bit now. How about gettin back on track folks, it used to be good and properly informative.

 

OR

 

I'll withdraw in the face of criticism.

It was fun while it lasted!

Good Luck

 

John Story smilie.gif

 

www.ruinedbynatwest.com

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll withdraw in the face of criticism.

It was fun while it lasted!

Good Luck

 

John Story smilie.gif

 

www.ruinedbynatwest.com

 

Me too John, I think our cases need to be kept on the CCA and Multiple agreement threads..as you say "good whilst it lasted" but we are a bit off topic...see you over there on the other threads..:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Andrew !

The thread is entitled Claim Stayed – Due to Unenforceable CCA Test Cases.

 

Others (who maintain anonymity) might care to reflect on relevance/qualification and justification.

 

John Story smilie.gif

 

www.ruinedbynatwest.com

Edited by ruinedbynatwest
typos
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...