Claim Stayed – Due to Unenforceable CCA Test Cases.

[SkemDosser]

my personal view is that the OFT getting involved is good for postive publicty for UCAs at last, there IS actual law and case law backing up UCA claims, bank charges never had either.

 

there are millions out there, struggling in a heap of debt, contemplating suicide as they see no way out.... but there is a way out, a legal way out.

 

which ever moral view you take on UCA claims... surely the banks messing up and being bailed out by the taxpayer is a lot worse than joe bloggs messing up his finances and getting bailed out by legal precedent.

Absolutely. there is NO moral issue here, as much as the banks would want us to believe, and the courts would like to impose on us.

 

Consumers must think like businesses; no business [particularly a bank itself] would continue in a dodgy [often non-existent] contract with another body if it could challenge and release itself from it to save money, so neither should the consumer.

 

As for the issues around defaulting look at Dubai right now; they've effectively put two fingers up at the banks and told them they can bay for their money back, but they ain't getting it. This in the end, may well be for over 100 billion GBP, and our clever, so-business-like banks may well not see a penny of it again.

 

Are the banks and legal systems of the west crying 'immoral' and 'irresponsible?' [for both Dubai borrowing beyond its means and the banks lending on dubious grounds]. No. Are the ordinary people in the west crying on their sleeves for our poor banking system. Most certainly NO.

[SkemDosser]

Johah 1: Very interesting that their is no media coverage. If it was a big bank victory the bank PR machine would have been in full flow by now.

 

The Christmas break may have something to do with that but yes, I too have noticed with interest the lack of any media coverage/spin so far on this, which is as good an indicator as any that the banks haven't been cracking open the champagne [although of course they are all still on holiday in St.Moritz lol]

 

I think this whole judgement is a fudge; we have to keep a steady tack and remember that the CCA is still in existence with all of it's provisions with case law backing it up all the way to the Lords.

 

I suspect the judiciary have found themselves in an awkward situation on a number of fronts; a 'boys together in the establishment' position whereby they are bound to try and not to kick a dog [financiers] when it's down, an age long antagonism to statute law over common law as so well outlined by John Story, and a basic grumbly reaction to so many lay people taking actions in the courts over the issue, which is both peeving AND disturbing them.

 

They are in a fix and their response has been so far [and will continue to be]? Provide opaque judgements that both camps can pick away at and claim points over for years to come with nothing much being achieved either way.

 

I think the bottom line for the ordinary consumer remains pretty much the same. If you have got into problems and find out you didn't have a legally binding contract in the first place, you are within your rights to challenge its enforceability and stop paying without redress. If you are trying to get the debt written off, or interest returned, or your credit file wiped clean, then you are going to have much bigger problems, cos the establishment ain't gonna play ball on that one.

 

Someone on this thread made the excellent point that English Law is particularly concerned about preventing anybody...and I mean ANYBODY...from making money out of breaking it. This, with the allowance of reconstituted agreements to satisfy requests short of a court case, lays the banks wide open to being caught out acting fraudulently [and they already have]. As these opaque judgements keep coming down, I think it's a fact of the banks being given enough rope to hang themselves, not the other way round.

 

It's to that I'll raise a New Year glass of vino!

[SkemDosser]

I do not have the knowledge or experience of some fellow caggers so may I ask, have the rules of evidence changed? Surely if a contract is in dispute the ORIGINAL contract with signatures must be produced in court. Has this changed?

I think it's important for us not to lose sight of the fact that this judgement doesn't repeal the CCA in any way or change any rules of evidence etc when it comes to the crunch of court proceedings.

 

The judgement seems intent on being narrowly focussed on s78 and pre-court conditions and even, I think, gives a shot across the bows to the banks that it will be however a whole different ball game if they decide to take their enforceability cases to court.

 

This may explain why they haven't been crowing about the judgement from the roof tops; they have clearly achieved another short para to put in their bullying letters to struggling debtors, but what else can they spin to the media? The fact that they can pretty much make up what they want to satisfy a legal request from a debtor about their position?

 

Hardly helps to negate the strong, general public feeling that banks are nothing more than crooks, does it, so I'm sure they'll stay quiet about this one.

[SkemDosser]

Do you think the bank is folding though because they think they cannot legally win or is it that they just don't want all the legal expense and hassle?

 

i.e. having Margret from the application's department spend all her time travelling the country in attempts to prove hearsay evidence at hearings, endless directions hearings, legal fees, etc...

 

If the debtor has no property and is intent on not paying them in any situation then the only commercial sense is for the creditor to walk away isn't it? I mean when faced with any litigation.

I don't know what the figures are, but I strongly suspect historically the number of errant accounts that actually get taken to court as a percentage of the whole is quite low. A lot of posturing happens in bullying letters and phone calls happens, but I wouldn't be surprised if less than 1 in 10 accounts end up in court [prob a lot less].

 

Unless you are identified as having a reasonable income and other assets- particularly property- legal action hasn't really come into the equation for a lot of defaulted accounts, precisely because of the lender cost issues you've outlined above. These costs are bound to only increase now, and leaving aside the fact that banks/dca's shy away from anything that needs too much effort, their operational margins are already a whisker away from collapsing.

 

After the dust has settled over these test cases, I think that number of legal actions on errant accounts will reduce even further. Unfortunately, if they know you are still in a job with an average/above average income and more critically find out you have reasonable equity in your property, you will be their favoured type of target So it's of paramount importance to know your rights to nip any such actions in the bud.

[SkemDosser]

Whilst it is interesting to view each others arguments. Surely we should be adapting a strategy to deal with DCA`s and OC`s.

 

I thought that was the mainstay argument and I am sure Skem Dosser eluded to it in past posts.

 

Whilst argument of the facts is good. I am sure the guests will enjoy the divide and conquer situation.

 

So let us in the cool light of dawn dissect the judgement and find strategy.

 

I think we are missing something relevant. Even Jossie who I respect as an honest poster stated it was not all in the banks favour.

 

She had the actual judgement before anyone proof positive in my mind.

 

I just wish we would all pull together and form a strategy. This post is not knocking anyone but an honest request for the direction we all agree on.

Exactly right we need to devise a strategy now to deal with this judgement. Although it is true that nothing has really changed legally- lenders have essentially had their arguments that reconstituted agreements/'true copies' are adequate for s77-79 requests backed up, but there's no real change there- but the big implication to my mind is what's going to happen out there in the more fluid, murky real world of human personalities and corporate motives. The terrain has altered a bit for us ordinary consumers I think; I am sure banks/dca's will use this judgement to try it on with reconned agreements in some court situations, and we need a coherent way of dealing with that.

[SkemDosser]

I read Aktiv Kapital made a loss, as did Cabot. 1st Crudits accounts are too hard to find with all the foreign companies etc in the chain, like many of the others. Inhouse DCAs don't count.

 

Robinson Way's parent, London Scottish Bank went into administration back in November 2008. RW had a management buyout, they describe themselves as the "Jewel in the Crown" of LSB!

 

There is something not right if the parent company making the loans goes busto but the DCA arm is making a profit??? LOL

 

IMHO the whole area is a [problem]. The high street banks (who's own solvency is questionable) sell their bad debts to the debt collection companies. The DCAs buy these debts with loans from the very banks selling them.

 

The bank can then write off the debt and put a performing loan on their books. The DCAs loan is constantly extended to infinity and has never ending repayment dates. The currency is inflated to hell.

 

The bank never has to book in the true extent of the loss. Fred and Adam get their millions and live happily ever after. The sheeple are shafted as usual.

I think this neatly encapsulates the whole cycle of creative book keeping that, writ large, has been developed and applied by the whole banking sector these past thirty odd years. They've effectively 'created' money out of thin air- money as little more than a commodity itself, held in nothing more substantial than computer ledgers- and it's all started to fall apart the last couple of years. They've recovered a bit but it's only a honeymoon period, they're cruising for a bigger fall soon, I'm sure.

 

Personally I would take the postings of dca profit [or any company connected with the finance industry these days] with a pinch of salt. If I remember right people were still investing in Icelandic Banks who were posting profits months before they spectacularly collapsed.

 

Banks are masters of creative accountancy and their poodle dca's fall completely under their umbrella. I've had dealings with dca's for over ten years now and my abiding experience/impression of them, is that they operate on a shoestring, even in the 'good' times. Quite literally in the case of the smaller ones further down the food chain, a handful of people sat in a room with a PC and phone each, the shared use of a photocopier and a Nat West piggy bank where all the one pound postal orders go for the annual xmas party lol

 

If there's one odds on good bet for 2010, I would put my money on a few of them starting to go to the wall this year. How my heart bleeds.

[SkemDosser]

Hi Skemdosser,

 

I hope some of the others here take note of your post No 1155. My reading of the judgment and the summaries seems to have tightened a grip on the banks' collective position.

 

Yes they will attempt to make hay from the recon agreement scenario for a while. However many here seem to be glossing over the actual statements made by Waksman. Part 234 for instance, part 100 for instance.

 

These specific words give the banks no room for manouevre whatsoever, plus they have the added rider that should your agreement (if it ever legally existed) have been unilaterally varied (under the powers of that alleged agreement) then you should have been supplied with a copy of that original agreement at each and EVERY variation. Has your credit limit ever changed? has the interest rate ever changed? what about unilateral introduction of heinous charges? At NO time have we ever been supplied with a copy of the original agreement and I would suggest that people look at the potential consequences for lenders instead of the negative focus on the non-issues here.

 

Waksman's words also state that recon (forged IMHO) agreements and all the other old baloney will NOT suffice in a court action. It is all there in the published wording. Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

regards

oilyrag.

Yes I think you are quite right in what you say here; the devil [or angel ] is in the detail of this judgement and I think there is more to it than first meets the eye; I think there is a lot of further obligations placed on the lender to provide more detailed information that they just aren't going to be able to cope with [as you've outlined]. I mean we all know most of them, in their rush to sign up new credit card accounts to meet their bonus targets, didn't even bother to keep accurate agreement records under the CCA- how the hell are they going to be able to cope with providing a coherent paper chain from account inception to the present day with all the agreement, t and c changes etc over the life of the account?

 

The fact is they won't be able to and they know it, which is why their press spin has been relatively quiet about this judgement. They WILL though, try to spin the parts of the judgement they believe they can twist to their advantage, namely that reconned agreements are acceptable now in court situations. It's them clutching at straws, but playing dirty is second nature to the banks/dca's and they certainly won't miss this opportunity to bully their way into convincing some people they are legally due monies they in fact are not.

 

I think it was DD [orBaggio? apologies if I've wrongly referenced] who described this as a very astute, political judgement. I'm beginning to agree with that now and can see now how there [cleverly] may be more in it to the advantage of the consumer than at first seemed apparent.