Claim Stayed – Due to Unenforceable CCA Test Cases.

[Baggio]

this could turn out to be a scandalous conspiracy

 

the law is very black and white, if the banks squirrell out of this then there will be one hell of an uproar that will blow this whole thing very public

 

its better they shut up and put up and keep the whole indutry underground.

[Baggio]

nowhere in CCA74 does it allow a lender to use an affadvit instead of the actual executed agreement

 

total baloney if a judge rules on that, he should be struck off or imprisioned for failing to follow the law.

 

they can try all the tricks they want, again, the law is very very black and white.

[Baggio]

any news?

[Baggio]

Hi There, Just thaught I'd drop this in.

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/198059-unenforceability-cases-hold-until-31.html#post2395407

 

 

so much conjecture, there were cases on the 23rd aswell, no feedback from them.

 

this is a mess, the courts are a state, there is zero transparency in the entire system for unenforceables.

 

1-0 banks.

[Baggio]

B40,

It’s a numbers game with them. They work on a percentage strategy. We are the 3% of there debt portfolio that fights back, the other 97% succumb to there threats.

 

do you honestly think its only 3% that fight back?

 

i reckon at least 10% maybe more now all claims companies advertise heavy.

[Baggio]

ill, she is seriously ill in the head.

 

she won't last, there is going to be a major campaign agaisnt her 2 faced bull by a prominent CMC

[Baggio]

I think were all being taught a lesson:D, right I've learned mine, has anyone else?

 

censorship in any shape or form is not a good thing for the consumer.

[Baggio]

nope.

 

shame.

[Baggio]

Hi Baggio.

 

My case is up for a case managmen conferance on 18th Nov, the

Solicitor defending my case is actively involved with the Manchester test case’s, so will update this thread when the relevant unenforceable points eventually get to court.

 

good stuff, i am meeting quite an eminent barrister within the whole consumer credit law arena this coming week, and will be picking his brains re: mcduff and future test cases.

 

will report back here.

[Baggio]

subbing

[Baggio]

got some info this week from a top barrister in the field.

 

will post up his views soon.

[Baggio]

just as an aside before my write up

 

cartel were the claims managemnt company behind MJP soliciitors that lost the mcduff case.

[Baggio]

right, i am led to believe that one of the cases at the comm court in london is going in an extremely positve manner for "our side" i.e the consumer side

 

i have to be careful in what info i give, but the agreement in question is most definately totally flawed with 3 prescribed term breaches.

 

the bank are again trying to use the defence of reporting to cras as not enforcement, but the arguments put forward by our side are destroying them and it seems 99% certain that the ruling will confirm that mcduff case was just that... a duff

 

and that if a lender is in default and then produces a flawed agreement or just terms and conditions... reporting them to cras is enforcement as is selling the account to a 3rd party.

 

stick that in your twisted mcduff case and smoke it.

 

you, and by you... i mean the Guests looking in... have always been on a loser.

 

and you have known it.

 

let the floodgates burst open with claims.

[Baggio]

Lets hope the Judge sees it that way.

 

if you catch a murderer... with dna evidence, the weapon, video evidence of the offence.... the judges can see whatever they want

 

not even the heaviest brown paper bag can shun the law of the land.

[Baggio]

You are right. There have never been any cases of the guilty walking free have there?

 

did i say that?

 

where the guilt is totally overriding.. i doubt it

 

miscarriages of justice due to a lack of real evidence are a different matter.

 

trust me, not even the largest brown paper bag will allow this to go against the consumer, the evidence and the LAW is overwhelmingly against the lenders on this occassion.

 

the mcduff case was a totally different matter, why cartel allowed that case to go forward is beyond most in the industry.

 

they done well to cover their connection to it.

[Baggio]

will do mate

[Baggio]

Any more news about the London case?

btw you look the spitting image of Owen Hargreaves

lol

 

nothing new on the western front

 

its the end of this month that we get a number of rulings/updates

 

followed by the obvious appeals... tbf this could drag on for many many months.

[Baggio]

read, read, and read some more

 

cartelclientreview.co.uk

[Baggio]

there will be a statement on this later today, the sols leading the defence (keith turner) are hugely disgusted at the incredibily biased way the case was handled.

 

this will cause the banks more harm than good down the road, an appeal is defo being lodged.

 

hmmm, halbert himself must be very annoyed at the way his original hearing has been torn to bits by a judge who seems to have had his ear bent.

 

believe it or not, it is cases like this that will explode the brown paper bag myth.

[Baggio]

Baggio, is this the case you referred to that was going in 'our favour'.

 

defo not.

 

this case will be won on appeal though.. apparently it was totally misheard.

[Baggio]

How can it have been misheard when Walker was represented by a top QC? Test case defeats like this come as no real surprise Im afraid.

 

well, the QC delivered a fine argument that was backed up by set legal precedents as outline in Wilson.

 

The law of the land was not followed, that is the bottom line, and i go back to my earlier point, this will cause more chaos for the banks and for others judges hearing cases.... as when the appeal is won, which it will be... the judge will be made to look like he was pushed in a certain direction, and did not clearly follow law... the banks will not come out smelling of roses.

[Baggio]

This judgement however flawed will obviously have an impact as many creditors might well now proceed to court on the back of this appeal.

 

How long or how soon are the defendants [or the law firm employed by them] likely to be before appealing this decision,always assuming that with costs of £100,000 reportedly already hanging over them,they wish to take it further?

 

Or can other bodies appeal it?

 

it is 100% being appealed, you must remember there is a 100M plus industry out there willing to back this to the hilt against the banks.

 

the law IS on our side, that is the fundamental precipice of the entire claims industry.

[Baggio]

correct, but ultimately, our side could appeal this to brussels and even call upon the draftsman himself, in francis bennion, and ask his view... which he clearly states on his own website.

 

they can run, they can steer, they can brown paper bag... but they cannot and will not win the WAR.

[Baggio]

If the decisions all go against the Financial Industry,as they should do,then it is entirely conceivable that the number of claims thus generated and the billions of pounds claimed could bring down the whole industry.

 

This will never be allowed to happen.

 

Huge over reaction, it would certainly not bring them down, they have plenty of printing machines and tax payers money to bail them out at every junctre.

 

google "fractional reserve banking"

[Baggio]

I agree completely with you shadow the politicians, judiciary and banking industry are all part of the establishment and as such protect each other to sustain the status quo.

g

 

where was the protection with bank charges?

 

the law for unenforabilty is more cast iron.