Claim Stayed – Due to Unenforceable CCA Test Cases.

[ruinedbynatwest]

That is more than fair enough, CitizenB, my apologies for my role in the proceedings.

 

Right, on to some breaking news.....

 

The Walker appeal will be appealed by the Barristers fighting on our side of the fence, it will go to the newly formed supreme court at a further cost of £60-80K.

 

A press release will be released next week, they believe the judge did not take to them as they had a sharp meeting about costs prior to the hearing and they feel this got his back up and he totally disregarded clear precendent (wilson)

 

They are mighty confident of a victory at the new supreme court and are also considering raising a formal compaint with regards to the appeal hearing and the way in which there arguments were muted.

 

A clear case of a judge who no matter what argument was put to him... had made his mind up already.

 

The battle was lost, the War certainly won't be

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

Well, we'll certainly not be giving up on our efforts to reopen Natwest V Story & Pallister, either, after 10 years. Currently "in discourse with" the Court of Appeal over exactly who's abusing process ! We're without the £60-80K, (at mo) to approach Supreme Court, and without barrister prepared to risk his/her career where Court is seen defeating Parliamentary Supremacy - but with, better still, a criminal burden of proof (hence barrister's reluctance to break ranks) that proves that Court of Appeal deliberately defeats Parliament to favour a bank - a burden of proof that will eventuallly be heard - when the Court will (regretably) be seen, historically, as experiencing an unacceptably bureaucratic and right wing 'phase'.

 

John Story

First defendant Natwest V Story & Pallister (Re Section 18 CCA (1974)[Multiple Agreements])

 

www.ruinedbynatwest.com

Edited November 17, 2009 by ruinedbynatwest
typos

[ruinedbynatwest]

Thanks Pedross !

You see, what Auld LJ termed "the undoubted existing debt of about £12000" in the Natwest V Story & Pallister Judgment, was also evaluated by him in the same Judgment as: 1) a £10,000 joint loan from Feb 1986, 2) a £1500 Joint Home Improvement Loan from May 1985, and a £5000 business overdraft facility from OCt 1986 - giving 3 separate agreements of which "about £12000" had been drawn when we refinanced and "topped-up" to £35,000 in November 1986 - over 3 new facilities that replaced the 3 existing facilities (well, in reality they were only renamed). IE there were 3 renamed facilities that kept the old ratio of 2 Joint loans and 1 sole business overdraft (to me alone). So, we have 3 regulated agreements that were already in existance before they were refinanced by 3 new 'regulated' agreements - I say "3 new regulated agreements" because the regulation remains to stop lenders from doing exactly what Natwest did here !!!!! AND S 18 serves to ensure that the existing regulated "terms" are identified as such!

 

The problem is that there's £300 Billions hanging on this single ruling across the UK because after our ruling the lenders said "Whooppeee!!! All we've gotta do is lend 'em more money on a secured basis [take the house as security] and the unsecured lending is secured and we can sell 'em on as triple A rated securitised lendings"

 

IE the Court of Appeal allowed the current (UK) credit nightmare to happen ! How's that for "impartiality" ?

 

Thanks for your support.

We won't give up - we've a criminal burden of proof supplied by Section 8 CCA - ie there's no way they can argue that the existing loans were not regulated .

 

Warm Regards

 

John Story

 

www.ruinedbynatwest.com

Edited November 17, 2009 by ruinedbynatwest

[ruinedbynatwest]

Quote LIBM:-

Just in case you haven’t read the following Court Ruling, see post 1

 

A Ray of Sun Light for you!

 

At least some Judges do understand the Consumer Credit Act and the implications of unenforceability.

LIBM"

End Quote.

 

Many thanks LIBM - for the reasons I say on that thread, I shall refer to this ruling in my amended N244 to reopen Natwest V Story & Pallister which lies at the root of this thread on Multiple Agreements under the 1974 CCA.

 

There was no disagreement in Story as to the essential statutory facts - it's just that Auld LJ failed to find (and has now, tellingly REFUSED to determine) that what he termed "an undoubted existing debt of about £12000" that was refinanced in Story was in fact provided by 3 separate common law agreements which are also Regulated Agreements under Section 8. Point being that they were in existence at a much earlier time, ie they were PRIOR to the later multiple agreement in question that has caused so much trouble to my family and to countless other families to whom the Judgment is applied.

The case must be reopened where the credit industry relies upon the (unlawfully flawed) Judgment in Story to the tune of at least £300 Billions of (secured) debt consolidation agreements.

People are losing their homes as a result of an unlawful Judgment (The Judges do not have Jurisdiction to override Primary Legislation - here those 3 existing regulated agreements).

 

John Story

 

www.ruinedbynatwest.com

Edited November 19, 2009 by ruinedbynatwest
typos

[ruinedbynatwest]

Hi ruinedbynatwest.

 

See Link,

 

http://www.bw.libertycredit.co.uk/BOS.pdf

 

LIBM

 

Many thanks, LIBM !

Not much is made of the fact that (S 141) CCA 1974 grants to the County Court Sole Jurisdiction for ALL Consumer Credit Act matters - ALL CCA matters - in fact Parliament was so anti- the Common law Courts that Section 141(2) deems an action started in the High Court as "improperly brought" if it is not transferred immediately to the County Court, as the designated Court of Competence.

So, why the Common Law Courts (High Court and above) overturning many County Court Judgments ? Picqued are we ? Let's see if BOS V Mitchell is appealed - doesn't look like it will be, does it ?, thanks to a very competent District Judge, His Honour Judge Langhan QC, who has tied up all the loose ends that would otherwise delight a common law Judge. HHJ Langhan QC is evidently a master of his craft.

 

Let's hope the County Court Judges 'get together' to quietly live up to Parliament's expectations, as Judge Langhan undoubtedly has in Mitchell - I'm gonna enjoy reading it again and again !

 

It just so happens that Natwest V Story & Pallister started out in the High Court (Natwest very cleverly dressed it up as a common law claim - but we entered a CCA defence). My complaint that it was "improperly brought" under S 141(2) similarly fell on deaf ears at the Senior Appellate Court which also happens to be the Senior Common Law Court, next to the old House of Lords.

 

John Story

 

www.ruinedbynatwest.com

Edited November 19, 2009 by ruinedbynatwest
Typos

[ruinedbynatwest]

Hi,

Just one more point. For those of you that are new to CAG always post unsolicited PM advice on your thread, hopefully you will get confirmation from one of the site team that the advice is sound.

LIBM

 

DCA’S will try and hoodwink you left, right and centre. Always remember slowly slowly catch the monkey!

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

Having fought Natwest now for 20 years, I'm pleased to see that there's now so much more informed debate into Consumer Credit Law these days, thanks to sites like CAG - whereas when I set out I was treated as a trouble maker by many, and not just by those who worked in the credit industry. However, where I did benefit from my own research - where I was guided by the (then) fantastically "open and helpful" team at the OFT - (they're very guarded, defensive these days) and which benefit I believe would assist others who are keen to understand (and to even further) this important are of the law is to read Lord Crowther's white paper from 1971 "Consumer Credit - Lord Crowther - Report of the Committee [Command 4596])" that preceeded the Consumer Credit Act and from which report Francis Bennion drafted the Act, replete with all its areas that cause bafflement IF one hasn't read the white paper !

He particularly criticizes the Common Law for the very same reasons that appear on this site every day !

Unbelievably, it's "out of print" (that'll give the conspiracy theorists something to eat for breakfast !) and any search I've tried only comes up with references to my own site www.ruinedbynatwest.com. Why is it not referred to by the bench in the (otherwise) very difficult cases they appear to grapple with - the Report makes it all quite plain - where the benefit of the doubt should go.

I say that because at the moment the benefit ends up with the trader in the majority of cases - where the non-application of the Consumer Credit Act serves as "An enactment for the protection of Creditors" (in eg Story) instead of the CCA's stated claim that it is "An Enactment for the protection of Debtors".

 

I'm waiting for the chance to ask the Courts why is works (or doesn't work) like this where the white paper is very clear ?

 

So, how do we go about getting this highly relevant white paper back where it belongs - in the thick of the fight ! It's as pertinent and crisp as it ever was.

 

HELP !!!!!!!!!! IS THERE ANYONE OUT THERE !!!

 

John Story

 

First Defendant Natwest V Story & Pallister (CA May 7 1999)

Edited November 22, 2009 by ruinedbynatwest

[ruinedbynatwest]

CONSUMER CREDIT: THE CROWTHER REPORT (Hansard, 28 June 1972)

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

" A.C." ? "Angry Cat" ???

More like "T.C." !!!

 

Thanks Top Cat !

 

This Hansard Report from 1972 really is a MUST READ ! Lengthy, but still spot-on.

 

Just goes to show, dunnit ?

20 years and I never found that little "chat".

I ask one question on CAG and Voila !

 

On Crowther - he was quite a character, a heavyweight economist who was committed to (here, Consumer) education. Here's a quote from the man himself,

 

"It has been said that there are two aspects of education, both necessary. One regards the individual human mind more as a vessel, of varying capacity, into which is to be poured as much as it will hold of the knowledge and experience by which human society lives and moves. This is the Martha of education and we shall have plenty of these tasks to perform. But the Mary regards the human mind more as a fire that has to be set alight and blown with the divine afflatus. That also we take as our ambition."

 

 

John Story

 

www.ruinedbynatwest.com

Edited November 22, 2009 by ruinedbynatwest
typos

[ruinedbynatwest]

Have read through this thread with great interest.

 

I absolutely endorse the view, posted above, that the onus should be on the claimant (who starts proceedings) to prove what he is claiming, not for the defendant to disprove it. In this case by claimant I mean creditor / bank / credit card company and by defendant I mean debtor / consumer.

End Quote

 

-----------------Thanks for that, dp77 !

When fighting Natwest V Story & Pallister ("Story") back in the mid 1990's we saw the burden of proof shift from the plaintiff (Natwest) to us (defendants) - the early papers included one issued from the Court which read "Did the CCA apply to the borrowings at any time and if so, when? - was somehow changed (at some point) to us needing to prove to the criminal burden of proof (100%) in the common law, that a strict refinancing term existed ! In other words, in Story, Natwest, to the judge's knowledge, documented nothing with the result that our pleadings in our witness statements of "Oh yes we did", were disregarded to the Judge's satisfaction when Natwest simply countered "Oh No you didn't" - even where existing agreements were regulated and where the bank had not written anything in relation to those regulated agreements. The bank's silk, Andrew Smith QC admitted that the Act applied but that was ignored by the Court !

 

The bank had destroyed its main investigative files, (which included its own analysis of the CCA -item 151 in the discovery list) at a time when the Court asked for it, reasons given for the destruction "due to constraints of space" !!!

 

HHJ Jack QC shook his head, but he allowed the bank the benefit of that destruction, when he knew that the Bank of England and the OFT were waiting to see it under their own regulatory powers.

 

 

As I'm saying here, the bank found it easy to deny what had been agreed verbally, and it's denial to the Court was REINFORCED by the lack of written evidence. Because much was not documented and then because much was destroyed, the Judge found very little reliable evidenece where he presumed that we were "won't pays", itself offensive to the very mainstay of the CCA which presumes correctly that the bank was up to mischief, where the CCA provides that (most) regulated agreements must be evidenced in writing to be legally enforceable to protect the consumer by default and not the other way round when the form of the agreement is faulty.

 

The CCA is entitled "An enactment for the protection of Debtors" but we increasingly see it has become "an enactment for the protection of creditors" for the very eason you raise dp77 where the burden of proof is unfairly shifted onto the consumer - the Act presumes that unwritten or "improperly executed" agreements are mischievous - but it does so in the knowledge that the creditor, with his superior resources, will learn from the odd refusal, and will take the loss in the knowledge that he can spread it over his business.

John Story

 

www.ruinedbynatwest.com

Edited November 30, 2009 by ruinedbynatwest
typos

[ruinedbynatwest]

Hi to everyone on here,im very new to this and would like to ask the following question,as Baggiop states there is Law and Case Law backing these claims on UCA,so why do some people keep losing depending on the Judge they end up with surely the Law is the Law?

 

Hi MW2 !

"Surely the law is the law ?" -

Excellent question that needs looking at properly, especially in these CCA cases because the CCA illuminates the problem that there exists a highly combative 'tribalism' within our legal fraternity - and it exists because there are 2 systems of law in the UK - the Common Law (or the Judges' own law, case law, which is enuniciated on a particular "test" case and is then handed down Judge to Judge, it's easily identifiable because nobody understands it apart from, er, Common Law practitioners [it's the stuff that's in latin !]) and then there's Statute Law, primary legislation (eg the Consumer Credit Act "CCA") which emanates from our Parliament and is supposedly superior to the Common Law (leave Europe outta this for a mo) and Judges swear to uphold the principle that "The Common Law must not defeat the Statute". Statutes are the result, usually, (and it certainly is with the CCA), of Parliament's identifying what it calls "mischiefs" or 'wrongs', in the Common Law and it sets about correcting them !!

 

That's alright then ?

 

Easy, innit ? 'cept that (here's the crunch) most judges take the view that when Parliament undertakes to interfere in the law, it usually does for the worse ! And the Judges, miffed at being 'dissed' set about defeating the Statute to get their own back. Not all Judges play this game - it's mainly the Common Law Courts (that's the High Court and above) ie those judges who are predominantly responsible for creating case law, or Common Law - and they don't like being made redundant where eg the CCA repealed the 'common law' into Consumer Credit, but not so's you'd notice..................

See www.ruinedbynatwest.com

 

for a classic example of just how clever the Judges can be in defeating the Statute, and.......................in maintaining the defeat regardless of the evidence that demonstrates that the Judges are very capable of defying Parliament.

John Story

 

First Defendant Natwest V Story & Pallister (Court of Appeal 14 May 1999)

Edited December 2, 2009 by ruinedbynatwest
typos

[ruinedbynatwest]

What worries me is why the OFT do not follow Bennion he drafted the Act after all?

And Angry Cat, "Previously the OFT has followed Goode's interpretation;

whereas, many Barrister's normally follow Francis Bennion..."

 

Hi Angry Cat and Axion99 !

 

Problem here is that Prof Roy Goode served on the Crowther Committee and he contributed to the White Paper (Crowther Report)

"Consumer Credit - Report of the Committee" Command 4596.

which I heartily recommend as a must read for anyone interested in and/or who contributes to these various threads. It explains so much......

 

For example, Lord Crowther, addressing the exemption the banks had 'enjoyed' from the old Moneylending Acts (at 6.2.32)

 

"We do not consider that exemptions of this kind are in principle desirable. No doubt the standard of business ethics adopted by, say, the clearing banks in the making of consumer loans is high and may be thought to warrant a minimum of interference ....... We do not think it can be assumed that the mere fact that a lender is entitled to call itself a bank is ipso facto justification for removing legislative protection from the borrower. From his point of view, if problems arise of the kind envisaged by protective legislation, it is little solace to know that the other party is a bank"

 

Brilliant stuff !!!

John Story

 

www.ruinedbynatwest.com

Edited December 2, 2009 by ruinedbynatwest
typos

[ruinedbynatwest]

If the guidance hasn't yet been released, where has this info on it come from - and what effect does it have currently on any cases about to be heard before it becomes public domain?

 

BD

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

If the Courts take notice of what the OFT have to say, then we will have passed a milestone ! The Courts were well aware of what the OFT opined in Story (they considered, subject to the ruling of the Court, that the CCA applied) and they ignored it, because a ruling that the CCA applied in Story was needed by both the OFT and the Bank of England who were following my case after Natwest had possibly misled the BOE - both regulators were powerless to investigate the bank without a ruling of the Court. So, ultimate power was with the Court.

 

It will represent a significant and very welcome 'shift' in judicial attitude should the Court show due regard to what the OFT has to say; the OFT fulfills (sort of) the part of the "Credit Commisioner" recommended by Lord Crowther in his white paper "Consumer Credit - Report of the Committee"

Command 4596 - except that the powers advocated by Crowther have been watered down. Let's hope we see advancement toward Crowther.

 

 

John Story

 

www.ruinedbynatwest.com

[ruinedbynatwest]

Governments are the puppets of the bankers in every country

 

This is a reality that can only be be tempered by the rule of law within the acceptable forms of protest that exist within our legal constitution. I have had to place faith in the american constitution where my .com protest site is regulated by international law - ie a .co.uk address would simply not be there.

 

It was brought home to me, brutally, on two accounts - and I shall mention one here - (the other is simply appalling and it involves a mid Atlantic meeting between Churchill and Roosevelt and, essentially two banks [one american, one british] during the second world war - at some point before D-Day - they were discussing Hitler's [continuing] interest payments) - the first, and not that palatable was within conference, by a silk who was brought in as a CCA specialist, Peter Smith QC, (who's now a High Court Judge) when I was approaching the High Court with Natwest V Story & Pallister - "The Judge will Fudge" and "truth and justice will be early casualties in this case" he opined as justification for terminating my legal aid certificate - because the outcome would be "potentially disastrous" for Natwest. We ended up swearing at each other and he terminated my legal aid certificate on the grounds that the judges did not like the CCA - "they are firmly grounded in the tradtion that if you borrow money you pay it back", and that I had shot myself in the foot by involving the Bank of England. I was pretty annoyed because I had been with Natwest for 17 years and repaid every single penny before I fell out with Mr Jackson because his handshake was worthless and because he taunted me "You've nothing in writing", and because, anyone who knows me will tell you that I am NOT a "round dodger" !

 

I keep repeating this woeful tale, and I apologise to those who've heard it before - but there's a critical point here - we have a Rule of Law - that applies to everyone, and we cannot allow resignation, "Oh, well, that's alright, then" simply because a senior judge is miffed that Parliament has been critical of the Common Law. What the hell was he (Peter Smith QC) actually saying to us (my junior barrister and solicitor were present) ? Was he actually saying that it is valid legal argument that a senior judge sets binding legal precedent on the basis that he doesn't 'like' something ?

 

Is he saying (as I strongly suspect) that the law has become sycophantic ?

Who polices primacy ? Where is Parliament's voice in all this ? Is it left to Mr Bennion ?

 

The Judges are not above the law. They swear to uphold Parliamentary Supremacy and the truth in Story is that they are caught red-handed by Section 8 CCA where regulated agreements were refinanced by the multiple agreement Auld LJ held to be unregulated.

 

What we must remember is that the Courts are a social barometer, and at the moment they are chock a block full with CCA cases that will be sending very alarming messages to the authorities.

 

It is no longer a secret that the banks are overstepping the mark !!

 

John Story

 

www.ruinedbynatwest.com

Edited December 3, 2009 by ruinedbynatwest
typos and political correctness

[ruinedbynatwest]

How on earth can any form of reconstitution be accepted when the act requires production of the original for enforcement to be possible.

G

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

 

Exactly, Sir Gallahad !

 

People forget that the CCA was written in Plain English by Francis Bennion, in part because the CCA repealed the common law into consumer credit ! And with the supposed "demise" of the common law into consumer credit went all the common law tests that barristers had previously cleverly employed to establish eg, that it may well be reasonable to presume that "the sun shines in the daytime", as the CCA clearly states in most of its sections, but that that presumption must follow the established doctrine that all presumptions are rebuttable, not least because there are other factors that may well cause difficulty from time to time depending on eg the individual circumstances by which the contract in question came into being, in sustaining the reasonableness of the continuance of that rule in a changing society, etc, etc, etc.......

 

You don't hear much from he whom the common law termed (in the 30's) the "reasonable man" these days, do you ? You know him, that fellah that spent his days riding the Clapham Omnibus waiting to be asked for his opinion as to the merits of a particular fact situation. What happened to his "take" on things, eh ? He suddenly found obscurity, didn't he ? Or was obscurity thrust upon him, eh ?

 

Which links to Mr Bennion - who was careful to use wording in the Act like "it shall be ............" and not "ah, yeah, well, you see, guv'nor, it's not quite as you might care to think, you see, 'cos, that will depend on how the judge feels about it, you know, 'cos, I mean, he knows about these things, you see, er, not, on wot you might think he's gonna think it means."

 

NO. We don't know. But do we do understand "the sun shines in the daytime". Yeah, alright ! alright ! "Wot is sunshine?" "Wot is daytime?"

 

What we do know is that the tests employed by the House of Lords that satisfied Section 127(3) for a reasonable moment in time, (er, whilst that reasonable moment in time existed), appear to have themselves been repealed along with that section when it disappeared from the 2006 CCA, along with that pain in the butt, smartie on the Clapham Omnibus who probably got thrown out of the country for being alien. Alien to what? Has anyone seen him lately ?

Give him my regards !

 

John Story

 

www.ruinedbynatwest.com

Edited December 4, 2009 by ruinedbynatwest
typos

[ruinedbynatwest]

Just serves to emphasise that it's something of a lottery regarding which Judge you end up with and their knowledge of consumer credit law. Some appear to find for the claimant merely on the basis that the defendant admits borrowing the money and/or the claimant provides statements to that effect.

-----------

That's the point Welshmam - the (common law) Judges prefer the (old) common law position of caveat emptor (Here, "You borrow money you pay it back"), where "Acknowledgement of the debt" was all a plaintiff needed to win its common law claim as you say. Natwest tried this in Story and I readily admitted that I'd borrowed the money - but on terms that Mr Jackson had refused (smiling) to write - actually, it was Mary Pallister who asked him to document his "magnanimous" offer of £500,000 IF I accepted his business plan. I was happy with his handshake. Many debtors were simply tricked into admitting that they'd borrowed the money - their being too honest to suggest otherwise.

 

However, the CCA presumes 'mischief' on the part of lenders and it therefore provides that once a CCA defence is lodged, (if the debtor is even aware of the CCA) the Courts are (supposed to be) disallowed to refer to Common [contractual] Law, and the case MUST be subjected solely to CCA tests, starting with Section 8 (Regulated Agreements) and if the original contract passes Section 8 then the CCA applies, including the requirement that if the creditor has commenced the action in a Common Law Court (High Court and above) it MUST BE transferred to the County Court, ONCE a recognisable contract comes into existence, because again, the creditor has access to very clever common law practitioners who will attempt to evade the CCA. I say evade as opposed to avoid, because most solicitors are CCA licenced and they are supposed to respect the law.

 

The 1974 CCA simplified the process of contract recognition where the old common law multi-conditional contract' (offer/acceptance/capacity/consideration, etc) was restricted to sum - ie if the 'loan' was for less than (£2k, then £5k then £15k then £25k) then only the tests in the CCA are to be employed, including of course Section 16 which lists the only exemptions - everything else is regulated until such time as the loan is repaid from the debtors own purse.

 

I've argued this til I'm blue in the face, but the Common Law Courts have simply ignored the point and have engaged in oppressive practices to deter us, and regretably they do so because they know only too well that Section 8 CCA applies in Story; however they can't face that they have created a £300 Billions' plus monster where the ruling is still used, despite their knowledge of the grounds that, together with Francis Bennion's support, I challenge that ruling on the grounds that 3 regulated agreements are ignored by Auld LJ in his determination to benefit the common law.

 

Don't lose faith, the vast majority of District Judges/ County Court Judges are thoroughly decent and, after all, they have Sole Jurisdiction under S 141 CCA 1974 in recognition of their "competence" as opposed to the Common Law Courts which will "Fudge" all day given half a chance !

 

John Story

www.ruinedbynatwest.com

Edited December 4, 2009 by ruinedbynatwest
typos

[ruinedbynatwest]

Perhaps there will be more reporting when the judgements are handed down? I would have though the MBNA capitulation would have had at least some press.

--------

The press are very nervous about preempting the Courts - they've learned to report rulings and that way they don't get accused of taking a political position. Interesting though that they're very happy to take political positions on just about everything else ?

 

 

A friend of my Dad's was features Editor of the Sunday....... - John wrote to Natwest on my behalf in 1990 for their comments - he was tugged by his Editor in Chief who spoke with him very seriously because he (the boss)had just been threatened by Natwest, by telephone, with the withdrawal of its advertising budget. John apologised to me, as a family friend, and that's when my dad (as a serious crime squad copper) advised "They're frightened of something - banks don't threaten people like you, they just crush you - the answer'll be in the paperwork, or the lack of it - that's where you start looking; the paperwork". When I fessed up that there was NO Paperwork, at first he disbelieved my stupidity, "it'll be there, somewhere, ask for copies" - but when he saw that there was NO paperwork, only threats, he said

"It's so bad, there ought to be a law against it". How very right he was.

 

John Story

 

www.ruinedbynatwest.com

Edited December 5, 2009 by ruinedbynatwest
typos

[ruinedbynatwest]

Forgive me if I am wrong , but , did the SUPREME COURT not tell the OFT to butt out of these matters? Is it not out of order for them to be issuing draft guidance to a Manchester High Court Judge ?

May view is that the JUDGE in question will make his own mind up , and if as a result ,it goes against the banks , leave for appeal will be granted . We will end up with a long winded appeal process,even longer than bank charges, but hopefully a clear cut ruling .

Hears my ruling

 

No produced SIGNED CCA, NO ENFORCEABLE DEBT.

Reconstructed CCA, NO ENFORCEABLE DEBT.

Signed application form only, NO ENFORCEABLE DEBT.

That is my understanding of the CC ACT.

 

 

Hi Stapeley !

Following Lord Crowther's scathing criticism of the common law into consumer credit, the common law was repealed with the passing of the CCA - and along with it the Caveat Emptor ("buyer beware") emphasis placed on borrowers under the common law rule "You borrow money you pay it back" - far too much emphasis was (before the CCA) placed on title (who owned what) and banks were notorious for perfecting securities but not for documenting lending terms (as is the driving force behind my actions to get Natwest V Story & Pallister reopened). The CCA reversed the caveat emptor principle to whatever "lender beware" is in latin !

 

The CCA presumes that mischief lies behind what we see as "improperly executed" agreements - and the CCA asks "Why else would a professional moneylender not wish to document terms" ?

 

In other words, the 1974 CCA is a much needed form of "Health and Safety" for debtors, ( for all the right reasons) and it seems that the Courts are finally (after 35 years) getting the message - and especially so where the Courts are chok - a-blok full of angry consumers with "improperly executed" credit agreements where creditors

treat them as a new form of fox-hunting, or other 'blood sport' with harassment being the order of the day./

 

Mr Bennion drafted the CCA upon the recommendations of Lord Crowther, that The credit industry simply must get its act together, just like the rest of us, who run businesses, or are accountable for our actions have to (or in our case who ran businesses until Natwest took it upon themselves to teach us a lesson because we stood up to them) !

 

Why should the credit industry be allowed to run sloppy businesses just because they lend out the judges' money ?

John Story

 

www.ruinedbynatwest.com

Edited December 5, 2009 by ruinedbynatwest
typos and political correctness

[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

[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

[ruinedbynatwest]

“This is not about people trying to evade paying money that is owed, it is about making sure lenders, large, sophisticated financial institutions organisations, comply with legislation laid down by Parliament for the protection of the consumer."

 

This is so very true. We at www.ruinedbynatwest.com are eventually pleased, after 20 years fighting in the wilderness, that more and more people are waking up to the reality that the CCA recognised that dodgy credit traders don't like documenting terms, because they can rely on the common law doctrine of caveat emptor (buyer beware) IF a single consumer enters a dispute over those verbally agreed terms. Parliament rightly presumes that the trader is mischievous and the onus is then on the trader to satisfy the court that he acted in good faith.

 

Natwest found it easy, peasy, to successfully portray us in court as the lowest of the low whereas the truth is the bank defied Parliament when it refused to document the terms of our regulated refinancing agreements that replaced 3 existing regulated agreements. Mr Jackson was, however, very dilligent when he perfected the charges we readily gave our friend against our home. Regretably, he saw fit at one stage to issue a cheque on my business account to redeem our joint £24k building society mortgage and the Yorkshire B.S. sent the deeds to our home straight to Mr Jackson. We knew nothing whatever of it.

 

Caveat Emptor indeed.

 

John Story

First defendant Natwest V Story & Pallister (CA 7 May 1999)

Edited December 11, 2009 by ruinedbynatwest
typos

[ruinedbynatwest]

John

 

Your experience was truly horrendous and I hope justice will eventually prevail!

 

I think I am heading into a similar business situation where the bank claim my (now unaffordable) business debt is secured against my home - but the standard security says Mr AND Mrs Bidgebtor so I think only JOINT debts (e.g. our joint overdraft) are secured. The Bank says "no!" but seems to have lost the loan agreement and facility letter. Given this is a business debt do you think this is unenforceable and unsecured? BD

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

Hi Bigdebtor !

 

Story here. The CCA will apply IF your debt started within the limit specified by Section 8 at the time you started the borrowing. This is an important point that I am arguing as to why the Court must reopen Story (with the support of Mr Bennion, the 1974 CCA draftsman) because the CCA intends to prevent the heartache etc that accompanies unsustainable burdensome debt where eg (as in our case) the bank manager saw the equity in our house and was careful to document the securities that we readily gave him.

 

However and to the point, he refused, smiling, to document the terms of the borrowing/lending agreements - ie why we actually borrowwed the money [or contractual purpose in common law terms] because in reality it was his business plan - he was to lend up to £500,000 IF I gave up my carpentry and joinery business to become a property developer. He was impressed with my carpentry skills and he stated that he wanted to help me.

 

Mary Pallister asked him to document his 'magnanimous' promises. She wasn't impressed with him at all - whereas I was buttered up like a crumpet.

 

Are you saying the business debt "started" at £80k ? Or did it start at a lower fugure ie within the limit that qualifies for the protection under Section 8 - this figure went up over the years, from £2k in 1977, through £5k, £15k, £25k, and was abandoned with the passing of the 2006 CCA.

So, all borrowings are now regulated, in common law terms, to regulate the lender/borrower relationship to ensure that the "informal and friendly"

relationship is not abused by the lender (as it was in our case where Mr Jackson redeemed our B.S. mortgage without our knowledge).

 

So, you may well find that your relationship is regulated, even where the borrowings may migrate to a different lender - abuse can occur anywhere, you see ?

 

So, over to you - at what level did the debt start ?

 

Good luck with it all, BD,

 

John Story

 

www.ruinedbynatwest.com

Edited December 11, 2009 by ruinedbynatwest
typos

[ruinedbynatwest]

"We also had an under £15k joint overdraft and the bank then asked for a Standard Security on our house - which we thought covered only the joint debts."

 

Hiya BD !

 

I know how it is. Incredibly complicated history you start to put there. I had the same situation, insofaras I found it was very easy to lose people in the detail (BUT - that's where the devil lives) whereas you will remember the significance of every single development as the debt grew.

What documents did the bank issue ? There are common law issues here as well as statutory ones. The banks owe a duty of care when one arises on the facts. Was the bank negligent ?

 

"Joint O/D of under £15k" is regulated under Section 8 CCA, but O/D's were exempted from the documentational reqs of the CCA for years and then the requirement to document reemerged in 199..... (shouldn't have ever been exempted from the Documentational reqs, 'cos this is where the dodgy traders were putting their shareholders' and depositors' money), but the charge sounds like an "all monies" affair - which covers global borrowings on any account, ANY ACCOUNT, whether joint & several, sole, ANY - in which case, "Unfair terms in consumer contracts", springs to mind, as does "Undue Influence" , or "inequality of bargaining power" IF you're saying that the bank took advantage in some way, whether it asked for something unfair or placed you at a "manifest disadvantage" by its acts and omissions? Was it negligent ? Did it require you to accept its advice as a condition for the loan, etc ?

 

This is where you can't beat proper "independent legal advice" from a qualified lawyer, which you appear to hint at in the regard of the bank's attitude toward Mrs BD. Did she ever receive independent legal advice ?

 

You may find that she has a claim against you for undue influence - it all gets very complicated.

 

I'm not a lawyer, but I see the arguments, having studied now (and having been subjected to a fair few er, 'surprises' \along my journey these past 20 years. It's all about the facts of your particular situation. Were you placed at a adisadvantage by your bank ? Was there abuse of any kind ?

It's not easy. But only you know the answer to that one.

 

Good luck with it, BD. You now need proper advice from a qualified source.

 

John Story

www.ruinedbynatwest.com

[ruinedbynatwest]

John

 

2. I live in Scotland and have tried to get a good lawyer in Glasgow and Edinburgh well versed in this area - BUT they are all retained by RBS, HBOS etc. - so won't represent Joe Public against any of their clients. What happened to the principle which said something about equal access to the law?

3. I did an SAR and the bank admit the signed paperwork has been lost but the statements "prove" the debt. I am wondering about offering 50% in F&F (family money might be available) on this just to draw a line under it.

 

BD

 

They rely on the common law of precedent in all these cases - it makes me wonder how the Consumer Credit Act ever got on the books in the first place. What you say about lawyers is true - the bright ones, including Judges are snapped up by the powerful institutions - on retainers, not necessarily current. You see, it keeps the money (and the influence) in the hands of the common law - where's the profit (for lawyers) in having disputes settled by Weights and Measures departments ? However, THIS is what Lord Crowther was aiming at - where everyday disputes could be settled cheaply, speedily and satisfactorily according to form - and hence all the overplay on technicalities we see now on this forum - Crowther was simply saying that it's in everyone's interests if a creditor documents properly. Disputes may then be readily settled by eg trading standards officers - with the option, of course, to resort to legal proceedings anyway - at least the Trading Standards would then create a library of cases for the OFT to consider when making recommendations for changes and amendments in the CCA.

 

Your particular situation I believe is a job for a qualified lawyer - the problem is then - Do you qualify for the legal aid scheme ? Let's face it, the other side are praying that you don't qualify, and legal aid has been cut by successive governments to the extent that there is indeed little access to Justice. It's not easy, BD, I know, I had those monthly meetings with the legal aid board\nagging me, keeping me from sleeping for 7 or 8 years !

 

I've represented myself for years now, BD. And I've read law for 14 or 15 years now. However, the Courts don't like litigants in person, no matter what they say.

 

Also, there's little incentive for common law-yers to represent me where I advocate their redundancy and where I take issue with their ultimate paymasters (the senior judiciary).

 

"Whether 'tis nobler in the mind.................." B.S. (Bill Shakespeare !)

 

John Story

 

www.ruinedbynatwest.com

Edited December 12, 2009 by ruinedbynatwest
typos

[ruinedbynatwest]

On Consumer Credit and unenforceable debts,

 

I read Bill Shakespeare's "Merchant of Venice" at school. Incredibly topical today. Bill would not be at all surprised at what he'd see if he were to come back today - people come and go but human nature retains its baffling inconsistencies.

 

I strongly suspect that the bankers allowed public ownership, or even engineered it where their policy to not document potentially troublesome terms is getting them into hot water. This way, the taxpayer gets to pick up the consequentially unenforceable debts.

 

Bill would be surprised ?

 

John Story

 

www.ruinedbynatwest.com

Edited December 12, 2009 by ruinedbynatwest
typos + political correctness

[ruinedbynatwest]

Intree

:-

"What surprises me is that there is no legal basis for constructing a agreement -------- "

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

Hi Intree !

 

There is a basis in the Common Law and it commences the moment you start to use the money you agreed to borrow. It follows the common law doctrine "You borrow money you pay it back" which itself follows Caveat Emptor ("buyer beware") that goes back to the roman occupation.

 

Point to discuss is whether the Romans actually ever left ?

 

That's not as daft as it sounds, an old friend of mine, a theologian who gave up a large diocese to write a book on the origins of british christianity told me that the Romans still very much run this country with the same iron hand as they did back then - they thrive in privileged halls. It is fact that all the roman graffiti that survives around eg Hadrian's Wall, that referred to the native population was always couched in terms, "those wretched, scruffy little Brits" - and which attitude I sincerely believe is still very much alive and kicking in those privileged halls or common law courts - ie High Court and above where they indulge themselves in unfettered judicial activism striking down Acts of Parliament wherever they disagree with Parliament. However, they breach the terms of the judicial oath every time they override the Statute.

 

The privileged halls cannot accept that Parliamentary Law, being democratic (well ! another point to discuss) is supposed to be superior (or so it says here) and we now have a growing body of evidence that demonstrates that the judiciary are engaging in unacceptable activism where they single out debtor protection, and they go far too far in their indulgencies, forgetting that very real damage is done to very real people by very real creditors who use very real threats when they see very real problems with their (very unreal) paperwork.

 

 

Any Consumer who has suffered any abuse of the kind identified by Lord Crowther in his brilliant 1971 White Paper "Consumer Credit - Report of the Committee" (Command 4596) need have no concerns whatever when he/she pleads that fact - in the knowledge that (as a 'consumer') Section 8 (Regulated Agreements) of the 1974 CCA is the starting point to which you refer when you say "What surprises me is that there is no legal basis for constructing a agreement " - the moment Section 8 CCA recognises that a contract is about to come into existance it despatches all of the old Common Law (AND ROMAN) tests and the CREDITOR is properly under a duty to demonstrate that he is not abusing the consumer - and that is why he then needs to document in accord with the CCA BEFORE the money is loaned - it's about timing.

 

As we all plainly see, Consumer Credit Law is very much under attack from the common law - an absolute No. No. in constitutional terms, and we must serve to protect it by raising it continually.

 

John Story

 

www.ruinedbynatwest.com

Edited December 13, 2009 by ruinedbynatwest
typos

[ruinedbynatwest]

I googled mine and found out he sat in the family court and had published information relating to family matters...he was normal, accommodating, helpful and I won...well the claim was stayed but as good as...

 

I just add this because I wouldn't want anyone about to go to a hearing feeling its all doom and gloom.

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

 

Congratulations B3rty !!!

 

They're not all bad and you obviously had a good case.

Well done.

 

John Story

www.ruinedbynatwest.com

[ruinedbynatwest]

 

Re: lost CCAs

 

The regs do however, allow the creditor to supply the current terms and conditions in order to satisfy a CCA 77 78 request if the agreement has been lost, providing the agreement was entered into prior to 1985.

 

There is no mention that a "recreation" would suffice post 1985.

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

 

And there we have it, "in a nutshell" - the CCA came into effect in 1977 but it then took a further 6 years to determine the "prescribed terms" etc which were released in the 1983 documentational requirements and even then they were not implemented until 19 May 1985 - I'm not being pedantic -it was pertinent to Story because we had 1 CCA from May 1985 and 2 from 1986 before the famous multiple agreement of Nov 1986. The Credit Industry delayed these requirements for as long as they possibly could - they can't now turn round and plead ignorance - S 25(2) CCA gives the OFT very wide powers to eg revoke or suspend licences and the OFT requires proper record keeping as part of that "fitness" to hold a licence.

 

SO, there'll be loads of stuff in Hansards - why is nobody asking the OFT, 'cos the guys I knew there worked the CCA from its implementation in 1977 - they are true experts - where the hell are they ?????

 

So, before May 19 1985 there was no requirement to conform (with the doc' reqs because they werten't there to conform with). However, on May 19 1985 there was a much heralded full implementation and hence they can't possibly say they are unaware of the licencing requirement that they should keep true copies of the executed agreement on file - because part of the OFT licencing remit is to ensure that creditors comply - so are we suggesting here that the OFT, as a licence grantor has not itself monitored a creditor's record keeping to ensure compliance ??

 

THE CCA HAS TEETH - but then again, don't expect that pigeon to land on your table all ready and willing for the oven ! You have to get out there, in the cold hunting !!! No. It's not fair.

 

Let's be clear on one thing here - the CCA requires (it doesn't say "we'd prefer it if....") - it requires that (to be legally enforceable) agreements are to be 'properly executed' BEFORE the credit is made available - think about it - that means that true (and not probable) copies of properly executed agreements MUST be available before the agreement becomes 'live', eg should the debtor decide he/she wants to change terms BEFORE the agreement becomes contractually (and hence statutorily) binding,

 

Because the agreement is not binding on the Consumer IF the agreement was not properly executed in the first place, BEFORE the credit was made available -

 

So it is in the CREDITOR's best interest to ensure that that agreement IS PROPERLY EXECUTED before the money goes out.

 

THIS IS IMPORTANT because the OFT will have a very clear mandate on the record keeping requirement of licencees and that mandate will have roots that existed in at least 1977 that will be known to the OFT experts who have worked the CCA since that time. FOI request to the OFT, perhaps ? ?

 

Come on then, Who's up for that ??? I've done my bit, mateys !!!

 

Happy, er, Hunting !!

 

John Story

 

www.ruinedbynatwest.com

Edited December 13, 2009 by ruinedbynatwest
it's the secretary's day off !!!